The Defense of Identity; A Common Cause

Sneek peek at thoughts from my second paper...

I am going to start off this post with the comments my good friend Matt wrote on my previous post on Identity in India: "Think about your high school football games. It is a rare time when all the students, parents, and teachers come together from their separate cliches and groups to cheer for their collective high school team and against the rival school. The students are part of their individual groups (seniors, juniors, jocks, nerds, etc) primarily but in battle (at the football stadium) the groups are united. This is another situation where Religion parallels sports in the US."

I really liked this comment and between this and the Hindu chapter we read, it got me thinking on identity. How do people of diverse backgrounds come together under a common identity?

Globalization has played a big part in increasing identity awareness. Just has Hindus have been able to rally around a national identity based upon religion, people rally around their own when they feel threatened. As Rithambra said in Kakar, the Hindu's are "fighting for the preservation of a civilization, for his Indianness, for national consciousness, for the recognition of his true nature" (157). A somewhat familiar theme here. The notion of defense has come up with our class before. It is in defense of a religion that people find it easier to validate violent actions.

However, it is also an important  idea to talk about. When people feel threatened by an out-groups entrance into their sphere of power - by a foreign force, foreign ideas, foreign competition, or perhaps a rival high school - the "dimensions of ethnicity stand out in sharp relief and the individual becomes painfully or exhilaratingly aware of certain aspects of one's cultural identity" (150). The defense of one's culture, convictions, and inner-self is certainly enough to encourage community with others who feel the same way. It is the inherent attack on someone's sovereignty as an individual which goes down to the basic level of human survival.

If you are no longer yourself, are you yourself anymore?

Thus to defend against a common enemy helps one keep who they are. Though in sport this individual sovereignty is not under threat as in other cases, it serves to highlight how being in a community can define your identity thus create the conditions for intense communal defense against "the others".

Globalization has been bringing up these intense battles over identity. All around the globe, people fear of their own connection to land, and culture will be diminished by foreign entities. As in the case of Anders Breivik, he identified with a Christian Europe, and to not act, would be failing himself.

...End paper preview

Layers upon Layers of Identity in India

While reading Kaker and about the violence in Pardiwada, I came across this passage:

"It was strikingly apparent that the Pardis' self-identification as Hindus occurs only when the talk of the Muslim; otherwise the conversation is of Pardis, Lodhas, Brahmins, Marwadis, and other castes. It seems a Hindu is bron only when the Muslim enters. Hindus cannot think of themselves as such without a simultaneous awareness of the Muslim's presence." (107)

Now, as a student of history and political science, I found this observation pretty significant. India, since its settlement in the Vedic Age has been cut across different caste lines. There was little sense of an 'ethnic' or 'national' identity that we are familiar with in the West. One was identified, and thus tied to, whatever class they were born in. However when talking about religion, the Pardis felt they were part of a larger, national identity.

I think the Pardis are a microcosm of the bigger effects of religion in relation to ethnic identity. Oftentimes spirituality erases ethnic borders. As shown by this example religion has the power to unite a whole sub-continent of people. For India, that's about 1 billion people are connected by a single similar theme.

This is not a new idea. Religion has been shown to unite many people across the world together. However, my point is that for a deeply stratified society as India, religion has a very powerful role in bonding 1 billion diverse peoples, cultures, and customs under a single banner.

Does this case translate to other religions and cultures in stratified societies, or is this only because of a religious conflict?

My Impressions of Naming 'Earth'

Yesterday, Matt and I finished 'Earth'. Man, I all I can say is what a surprise ending. As an aside, I am not sure why Lenny-baby was allowed to into protests and riots. If I were a parent, my kid would be no where near a city in strife.

Anyway...

Why is the movie called 'Earth'? This is a question that has a good chance being asked by Prof. Staub tomorrow, and I want to have some idea on how to answer it.

For me, there are a few reasons why the movie was named 'Earth'. For one, after going on wikipeida, the movie is part of Deepa Metha's 3-part trilogy. The other two movies are named 'Fire' (1996) and Water (2005). Other than this fact, one of the reasons I think Metha chose earth was because he is portraying the human element. Throughout the movie, we saw a group of friends torn apart by ethnic and religious violence. Communities were shattered.

One quote really stood out for me. When Dil Navaz (Ice Candy Man) was talking to Shanta after witnessing a Muslim literally torn to parts, he said that if she wouldn't be with him, he would turn into a beast the Lenny was so afraid of. In fighting for his religion, his identity, Navaz alludes that humans are capable of very primal things. Men can become animals; breaking friendships and killing others for religious reasons. Evolutionary violence at its finest. These instincts of humanity are part of the human element on Earth. It is coded in our history. By naming the movie 'Earth', Metha is furthering that allusion.

Another reason why I think Metha chose that name, in the three part series, is because she wanted to expose the profound nightmare that splitting India and Pakistan caused. Though Muslims and Hindus lived on one planet, splitting up territory which had been inhabited under one rule (more or less) for centuries made some feel like the very planet was split. Ground that was shared  is now marked up for others. For Lenny and her older friends, the very essence of their lives were in chaos. The old world was ending, and a dangerous new one beginning. This fact highlights the deep religious divisions on Earth itself. To some, it may not even feel like we live on the same planet.

Earth is something tangible and familiar to us; we live on it. Whether Metha was referring to the planet, or the ground itself,  I think she was making a point about the larger human condition due to religion. Though water is indeed a tangible thing too, its always some foreign and mysterious aspect; we can never conquer it. Humans can, and have, conquered land. Metha is, in my view, trying to expose this abstract fact.

Dil Navaz (Aamir Kan) and Carlton Lassiter (Timothy Omundson) of Pysch look awfully similar. Its almost uncanny.

Aamir Khan

Timothy Omundson

The Enemy with No Face

I was reading Juergensmeyer and I came to the bit he was talking about primary and secondary enemies. His portrayal of the secondary and collective enemies is really what caught my attention; maybe because it helped me understand religious violence towards government and innocent people. The concept is that the secondary enemy can be a moderate force, something which disrupts the dichotomy of good an evil in the view of a religious actor. The secondary enemy belittles the notion of cosmic war, in the view of the actor. People whom abide by the system (in the outgroup) are part of the collective identity of the system itself. Willing or unwillingly, they support the system and the immoralities that religious actors disdain.

Juergensmeyer states that "it is relatively easy to kill someone who is unknown" (178). I believe this notion is extremely true. There are no individual faces to these victims; only association that they are the enemy. This factor can, at times, exacerbate violence. If one does not know a person in another group, it is very easy to make judgements and even perform acts of violence. There is no bond or association with these groups of people. Thus if one performs an act of violence, they may feel less regret. They are known as the collective enemy.

Collective enemies are just another aspect of the way actors dehumanize other human beings. Grouping all into the same group as the enemy deprives them of human features. They are not seen as singular beings, but a force of evil that must be destroyed. They lack emotion, passion, intelligence and other human qualities. In essence, one can deem them as not human of non-existent.

This reminds me of the phrase: "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" If another human dies in the opposite side of the world, does it matter to you? An even bigger meta-physical question: how do you know if they even existed? This absolute disconnect provides an easier moral justification for violence. If you didn't know them, how can it affect you? Aren't they all apart of the greater evil?

There are around 7 billion people on this planet. It would be impossible to learn every other human being. However, this is why exchange programs are so crucial. It exposes people to others. If one has a personal connection with someone in another outgroup, it may be harder for one to perform violence against the said group.

Ready for this? Putting a face on a person can make all the difference. Secondary enemies now have an individual quality to them. No longer are they some evil force, but another human being. I am not saying this will stop violence, but increased inter-group interaction forms relationships that can hinder group-on-group violence. If it is how we act and form relationships with other humans that guide all our interactions, I think it would be pretty important to establish the best relationships you can with others.

Put a face to another group, and it may make all the difference in how you view them.

The Rentier State and Religious Extremism

In class the other day, Monday, we talked about Islamic extremism. I brought up a point that I would like to discuss further; that since some secular states of the Islamic world have failed the populace by not providing a better standard of living and quality of society (in their view), the Salafist view of a caliphate becomes appealing to many. Since the modern, inherently Western, world has corrupted their leaders and caused conflict, some Islamic populations want to go back to a time when they were "in charge". The great caliphates of the medieval times produced breakthroughs in every part of society; the Muslim world was prospering. With the advance of globalization and "Western greed", some think that going back to this structure of government will produce prosperity again since the caliph is holy and a descendant of Muhammad.

But what is a rentier state, and what does this have to do with anything? A rentier state is a nation which generates most of its revenue from the rent of a natural resource to an external client. I was first exposed, and enlightened, to this concept by Professor Webb in his International Politics of the Middle East last fall. I subsequently wrote a blog post for his class on how the rentier state makes the Middle East an 'exceptional' region.

But now I am here to write about it again, in a different lens.

Many Islamic states are rentier states: the Gulf states in the Middle East, Iraq (used to be), Egypt, Saudi Arabia to name a few. The elite in these countries generate enormous wealth, and in some cases use this wealth to enhance their countries. In Kuwait, the people there pay very little, if at all, taxes. In response, it is a monarchy with no representation. No representation without taxation. In Egypt, the Suez Canal generates a hefty amount of income. Thus, Egypt has less incentive to diversify its economic portfolio; which translates into less jobs and industry. The same goes for oil producing states. Why diversify if you're making a killing on natural resources? These resources are used to enhance the power of elites, political parties, and autocrats in the region.

What does this have to do with religious violence? I go back to the point I made in my first paragraph. These rentier states, often highly autocratic in some way, often don't provide a better quality of life and security to their citizens. While secular, their populaces view them to be "puppets" of the West; in it for money, not for the population. By the Salafist vision of a pan-Islamic caliphate, it is more likely to focus on Muslim well-being as well as be a religious (thus moral in some's views) state. Some Salafists have chosen to used Jihad in three ways in order to accomplish a pan-Islamic state: increased individual piety, non-violent actions, and violent actions. Obviously, we can see where Al-Queda and religious violence fits in. But it is important to note that to be a Salafist, doesn't make you violent. Neither is it the case where if one is violent, it means that their a Salafist. My bottom line is because rentier states in the region have not provided for their population, Muslims feel like they haven't gotten a "fair shake" from the West or the international system. Thus some turn to violence in order to achieve a pan-religious-state which will not "embarrass" their pride in the international system while being religious in the same context.

What can we do to solve this? It all comes down to good governance. Now, I am not saying that good governance will end religious violence, because it won't. However, with better governance, prosperous people, a system where change can occur, and less corruption; religious violence may be less appealing and even opposed by many because it will disrupt a good status quo. The Arab Spring is a promising start in some cases, but much needs to be changed in the region. If rentier states devoted more resources to helping people, and developing quality governance, we just may see less religious violence with Salafist motives. If we could curb a cause of one motive of religious violence, isn't it all worth it in the end?

Government is a Means to an End for Religious Extremists

After reading the sections on the 3 major monolithic religions in Mark Jurgensmeyer's Terror in the Mind of God and learning about the theological concepts which fuel conflicts, it became very apparent to me that religious extremists (in our view, not theirs) view government as means to their ultimate goal (which varies). Government and politics don't matter; legislative processes, and international affairs can mean very little in some cases. Religious extremists participate in government (at times) to achieve their cosmic goals, which can mean having a messiah come, establishing religious rule in order for a messiah to come, or for the world to get salvation.

What I mean by these statements is that actions such as Goldstein massacring innocent Muslims, McVeigh blowing up a federal building, or young Muslims blowing up bombs in Israel do not regard political repercussions as consequences. Do you think Goldstein cared about the political deterioration between Israel and Palestine? Do you think it mattered to McVeigh how U.S. internal security would react to an act of domestic terrorism? I think not. These extreme ideologies have to deal with government in order to achieve goals, but in the long scheme of things, government is ether an obstacle or inconsequential.

The point I am trying to develop here is that we (by "we" I mean modern society) are ruled by a government, representatives, monarchs etc. In order to accomplish our goals in life, we have to play with the system (and work it if you're good enough) in order to succeed in our aims. Its a paradigm that we're all familiar with. Religious extremist don't have to play with the system to get what they want. Mass cosmic salvation, or the coming of a messiah, isn't something you can get by going through with the system. Extremists can use the system for their advantage, but ultimately it is another thing that is minor in their larger aims.

This was just a thought, maybe controversial. Feel free to disagree with me. My statements don't reflect all extreme parts of religions, but primarily extreme Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Let me know your thoughts!

Ethnic and Religious Identities; Further Separating an Increasingly Connected World

Some people reading this post may get the wrong idea when they first read this title. I would like to preface this post by recognizing that religion has many wonderful and positive qualities which bring people together by extraordinary means. What I plan to talk about is in no way trying to undermine these positive qualities.

After reading Eller and Teehan, and adding some Avalos in there, it has become even more apparent how divisive religion and ethnicity can be. This observation is nothing new and perhaps, too simple. It is human nature to form and be identified with groups, cliques, and organizations. Everyone, including myself, is guilty of this. In our struggle to form an identity, we use groups to define who we are. It comes with our competitive nature; which group is the best? This group mentality is magnified when it comes to ethnicity and religion.

Eller states that ethnicity is a conscious culture which mobilizes itself to compete with others. Ethnic groups afford some of the same benefits as religion; community, practice, institution, group privileges and an identity. It separates humanity into groups, with each coming into competition with others. Ethnic groups, are distinguished from each other by "the ethnic boundary that defines the group, not the cultural stuff that encloses it." (210) These boundaries could vary from geographical to physiological. Ethnicity provide another way for humans to group themselves. The same could be said of religion. Though it gets more complex with the metaphysical and cosmic aspect, humans are further separating, and subsequently defining themselves.

Now where does the conflict come into play? Conflict can start from different ethnic groups, or different religions, fighting over sacred space, resources, or physiological reasons. Teehan goes into detail on how one group can physiologically demonize another group by "characterizing foreign people as "abominations" and as "unclean"" to trigger "our evolved contagion-avoidance systems" (152). The fact that humans can possibly see others as "unclean" is the point I am trying to make. Ethnic and religious differences can separate us to the ends that we see others are things to be exterminated is horrifying. Our perceived differences are so powerful, that we have to the potential to dehumanize other as unfit for life. Our boundaries are stronger than our sense of humanity, at times. Religion and ethnicity are not the only factors to this, but each lie at the core foundation of one's values, perceptions and what one thinks and see's as truth. As a result, it has to be a starting point to see the origins of group-on-group violence.

In an increasingly interconnected world where people from different cultures and views are interacting, these ethnic and religious barriers are simultaneously being knocked down and fortified at the same time. Its part of who we are. We, as humanity, will never give up our groups. Bringing out the inner idealist in me, if we didn't separate ourselves into groups and malign others, would we have so much conflict? Even if we just stopped judging those with different than us (that don't actively harm others), would we have so much conflict? What I am trying to say is, are all political/religious conflicts based on the premise of group competition? (On a side note, another entire argument can be made that groups are the only reason we have politics and the essence of conflict itself)

Groups and identities define who we are and help create who we become. The group mentality fosters competitiveness and conflict. Compounded with different politics, religious views and senses of truths; humans have a lot of differences. Some people in this world fail to remember no matter what defines you, we're all the same in the end.