Zeva's Globalism, Modernity, and Nation-State Class Quotes Assignment. Lecturer: Roy Voragen
My Comments:
In Amartya Sen's chapter: The Violence of Illusion, he questions and explains back the sense of the term identity in his point of view. How a sense of identity can firmly exclude many people and at the same time can embrace others warmly as well. He also mentioned how a particular self-identity forms by seeing ourselves as members of a variety of social-interests groups. Our interests have formed ourselves the selves we have become. We then learn about the importance of choice in becoming parts of groups that has an impact towards identity itself and that choice also needs reasoning behind it on why that choice is made. Sen mentioned as well the fact that self-perception can bring misinterpretations towards others on their identity because the insistence of human commonality and the illusion of a singular identity. He then explained his views on civilizational imprisonment that then leads to his views on divisive categorization which leads to the increasing reliance on religious-based classification. Sen also noted a bit about how the religion Islam is stamped a cliche image by the West.
Interpretations of identity are subjective. Different experiences affect the prototypes that populate one person's cognitive map in their brains of the social world that makes it different from another's. The more people share a common culture, the more likely that their social prototypes will be similar. What is needed is common cultural background. Without it, interpretating identity signals will vary.
From what I see, out of all the explanations given on the chapter, I see that there lies a complex paradox on this illusion called identity. From the start the paradox first appears on how in one hand identity gives a sort of pride until warmth to a community, but on the other hand it shows the existence of strong solidarity that could lead to the producing of social gaps, exclusivity, until violence. This second view that leads to disintegration is where problems lie ahead. There are two main problems that I would like to try to explain, which is about the paradox between the defining process of identity and human rights of identity, and the second is about how identity could lead to the emergence of extremism.
Paradox between the definition process of identity and human rights of identity
Saying that identity is something unimportant and bias, we face the facts that identity is a core part of human's life. Identity -how we perceive and make sense of each other- is fundamental to all social interaction and to the construction of our society and culture. Identity is an illusion made by as simple as a person's own self, to give a certain statement on all the things he/she is, until ones made by a large group. This identity-making process includes the defining of one's self according to groups that are joined, for example, or of a community. From political views until simple evryday thinga of social interests groups that has a connection with hobbies we like.
At certain points, after finishing on defining by making choices in life (what we like, what we want to do and be), making others accept our definition of identity can be some what complicated and limited. We are made as individuals with its ow characteristics, interests, and perception. This creates diversity of the human kind. In a way identity shows that we are uniquely different from one another because we are not robots. It is a classification and categorization. We have the right to define ourselves and develop ourselves in our own way according to our identity. But we are also a part of a community, as small as the district you live in until being a part of the largest race, the human species. Being a part of a community / group develops an internal connection that produces a feeling of solidarity and social-togetherness that sometimes we have to let go of some things that we feel are a part of ourselves in order to fit in and become accepted to this illusion of identity.
For example, in Australia, lies an old problem of "The Lost Generation". Although Kevin Rudd has "apologized" to the aborigine community, it is only solved at the surface (though still, his administration is making good progress on ethnicity cases of aborigines). This "Lost Generation" is a term for the aborigines that live in Australia. They have been alienated because of the categorization that has happened in Australia, directly and indirectly towards their race. These aborigines have self-definition, strong cultural identities, but they have to face the paradox of staying with their own traditions (self-identity), or making revolutions in life so that they can live like the rest of the Australian communities (defined identity that have modern-west views). Young aborigines were taken from their families (even in a forceful manner) and placed in orphanages or foster homes to be taught how to live in modern ways, so that they can recieve the identity of what they suppose to be as Australians. It is for a good cause, but the way it is done is wrong (taking away the children from their parents forcefully or un-forcefully).
Does identity ciolate human rights if seen in a constraining manner? Because it is stated that priorities are supposed to be given and in these priorities lie freedom to determine them (recognize, value, defend).
There is a concept of social identity in guaranteeing the right to equality, freedom, justice, and socio-political developments. The evidence of recognizing the concept of social identity could be traceable, in the customary international law. Australia, in this case as discussed above, has signed a resolution on human rights for indigenous people in 1995, but has not maximized it.
Identity could lead to the emergence of etremism
After the disaster of 9/11, the problem of extremism has become the subject of many discussions, articles in academic literature, and endless debates. Some say that extremism is rooted in historical, cultural, or religious factors, whilst other say that the focus should be on the "root causes", whereas a third approach views extremism as a strategic tool in politics and conflicts.
However, there are two factors that cause extremism because of identity in my opinion. The first is strong solidarity and the second is categorization that leads to unsatisfaction and revenge.
One of the major flaws that identity has developed is the sense of upholding supra-solidarity in a community, organization, political view, etc. Because of the strong bond an identity makes, if there are things that does not suit the likings of a group which has the same identity, arguments until violence can erupt in order to protect the dignity of the group. This leads to extremism.
Example is the Al-Qaeda. They became extreme, created terrorist networks, and harrassed certain parts of the world. They are an example of a group of people that are dissatisfied by capitalism and the disjunction of political and social gap between the East and the West. This dissatisfaction is then developed by the minds of extremists to create actions of extreme.
Amartya Sen mentions how recognition of competing affiliations can challenge the power of competing identities. In my opinion, this can only be tried to apply to individuals, because individuals have a more free opportunity to do the "rule of choice". To top it off, it does not guarantee it will work even in the individual level because a powerful affiliation might dominate out of the rest of the affiliations in an individual but does not guarantee it will take over another identity. Then again, if we come in to problems that are more intangible, for example, in levels of between organizations or states, it is complicated to do. They have different affiliations from one another, and even though if there is a strengthening of an affiliation on one side by this "rule of choice", it does not guarantee it willl have any significant effect on the other, that the problem between them will still exist anyway. So, there are no guarantees of competition.
Example for the individual level: Raul Castro is a strong, assertive, and influencing socialist. He dislikes America for its capitalism, but he approves of the telecommunication technology (a part of capitalism). Even though now his country at last has access to telecommunication (handphone), it does not decrease Castro's dislike towards America.
Example for the state level: In Myanmar, the respects of the Junta towards the monks. The Junta is an authoritarian bunch. They are stiff, dislike the media, but still have respect on the Buddhist religion because it is a strong part of their country. But still, their respect on the Buddhist religion has no effect whatsoever on their violent actions towards the monks. About the monks, they are a pleasant bunch and follow their belief which upholds peaceful actions, but in the end they fought against the Junta anyway by hand and stones to defend the people.
Through all of my arguments elaborated above, it shows that we cannot simplify problems and competing affiliations are not a way out.