Christmas tree hugging at the HHS

Greek police defending the christmas tree during the riots last year

The Dutch higher vocational school ‘Haagse Hogeschool (HHS)‘ (calling itself The Hague University – but don’t be fooled, it’s not a university), has banned the christmas tree from its school. Well, contrary to many reports, not every where, but in in the main entrance hall. According to HHS they wanted a more international approach for the coming holidays so they choose ‘light’ as a broad and positive theme expressed in light curtains, new years card and a charity action that fits more with the diverse character of its population. In other parts of its building there are christmas trees.

The main problem however seems to be the absence of a christmas tree in the main hall. The issue has been picked up by the Christian Democrats in The Hague claiming that the christmas tree belongs to Dutch tradition that is framed as a judeo-christian tradition. According to the reports in newspaper AD students protest against the school’s action by for example stating that because a number of religious fanatics are offended by a tree with balls and lights, the rest of the school has to suffer (note to my knowledge their are no complaints from religious groups and/or individuals) or stating that foreign students come to the Netherlands to get to know Dutch culture; with decisions such as these they better stay home. A Facebook group called We want a christmas tree in the HHS has been opened. According to orthodox christian newspaper the HHS considers a christmas tree ‘too much christianity‘ while rightwing opinion magazine Elsever has the headline that HHS thinks a christmas tree is ‘not multicultural enough‘ (in a derogatory sense); both showing their pre-occupations in this case. An atheist weblog God voor Dommen applauds the action of HHS because of its removal of religious symbols from public space (an argument made by several Muslims in personal conversations with me as well by the way) although they also criticize that the basis assumption for this action has to be (according to the blog) preventing complaints about religious insult (and if it does done for that reason we could also say it is patronizing). To add to this an interesting observation can be made. In order to maintain and defend the existence of Christian symbols in public space they are re-casted as cultural-christian or pre-christian (and therefore not religious). Is this secularism as a defense for christian-secular hegemony? What could be seen as a secularization of the public space by HHS, then becomes an attack on the christian-secular hegemony or (see below) an example of (self-)islamization (even though Muslims did not complain about the tree or the christian outlook of public space).

Outside the Netherlands there were already several debates about similar issues. In particular in the US where in some cases public schools are forced to make sure that no particular religion is endorsed or favored resulting in allowing the christmas tree (since it has become such a ‘secular’ symbol of the winter holiday) but banning a christmas creche. In another case where there has been complaints however the christmas tree has been banned.

The notions of culture, religion and identity are interesting in these cases. It seems that both the HHS and some of its opponents in this case view culture as a static, monolithic bloc whereby making room for others (non religious or other religious) involves taking something away from one’s own culture. A syncretic approach seems to be no option to consider albeit that some argue the christmas is itself a perfect symbol for multiculturalism (not by definition mistaken). Note that christmas itself is a syncretic tradition merging several pre-christian traditions with christians teachings and various symbolic features. The essentialist idea that christmas is an essential part of ‘our culture’ is not that strange however. Christmas organizes social relationships, part of the calendar and the consumerism that is part of the whole ritual is vital for the economy. It is the self-evident, taken-for-granted hegemonic status of christmas in which many Dutch people are brought up in from early years on, that creates the idea of christmas and the christmas tree with its lights and presents are also vital for us. Publicly rejecting or changing this tradition is labeled as wrong or giving in to the Other; it’s a win or loose mentality that has become stronger due the politicization of culture and religion since 9/11. This is even more so when it is suspected that Islam plays a role such as is clearly the assumption among opponents of the HHS).  Christmas and its symbols have become the norm, anything else is at least remarkable or a(worse) as conservative weblog De Standaard states an example of ‘Self-Islamization‘ or according to other weblogs bowing for intolerance,  (again, no complaint has been filed against the tree by any religious group). Now I could be mistaken, but most subordinate groups in the Netherlands (whatever religion, worldview or ethnicity) do not claim anything special and do not contest the religious outlook of christmas and its celebration. Most groups respond to such hegemony by adjusting particular rituals into a celebration that follows some of the logic of christmas. Hanukkah is often cited as an example but we can find such an appropriation also among Muslims who have transformed the iftar (closing the day of fasting during Ramadan) into public events much alike the christmas and new years events in the Netherlands (as Sunier has explained) but also by using a typically Dutch (?) feature of Christmas and Sinterklaas during the celebration of Eid. Usually for Sinterklaas but also for christmas people in a circle of family or friends draw names and buy and/or create a gift disguised in a creative way (suprise) accompanied by a humorous poem. The same ritual of drawing names (I’m not sure about the disguising of gifts) is done among some Muslims for Eid as well. As the Wayward Anthropologist has pointed out hanukkah but also Eid in such a case remain rituals marking membership of particular group but also connecting to and inserting oneself in the larger national ritual of consumerism.

Whether it is gift-giving, rituals of light and dark, the tree, they are all meaningful practices that are syncretic but experienced in an essentialist way. They become the subject of tensions and conflicts as a result of consumerism and the transformation from a pre-dominantly christian society to a pluralistic one (including those defending a particular secular outlook of society). Doing away with the christmas tree by HHS (note again, not completely!) maybe an attempt to avoid conflicts and to create a more international outlook as they say. It however neglects the meaningfulness of a tree for many people: it is not ‘just a tree’. Furthermore replacing the tree with the idea of light is interesting. Almost all cultures and religions have something with light and darkness and light is therefore a very strong symbol from which people are able to generate a variety of meanings. I do wonder however, since a symbol also has to have the ability to be signify difference (instead of similarity alone) if it is a viable idea. A symbol the whole world can adhere too does that mean anything or do people also need symbols to distinghuish themselves from those perceived as Others?