Customer Reviews

Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny (Issues of Our Time)

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Amartya Sen, Harvard professor and winner of the 1998 Nobel Prize in Economics, still remembers the day sixty-three years ago when a Muslim day laborer named Kader Mia stumbled through the gate into his family's yard in Dhaka, bleeding from knife wounds and begging for help. His father rushed him to the hospital where he eventually died. Kader was a Muslim who was murdered by a Hindu thug, and was but one of the thousands of people who died in Muslim-Hindu riots that erupted in British India in the 1940's. Although most of the rioters shared an economic class identity as poor people, partisans demonized each other with a lethal, singularist "identity of violence," in this instance a diminution of their humanity to religious ethnicity: "The illusion of a uniquely confrontational reality had thoroughly reduced human beings and eclipsed the protagonists' freedom to think." Sen's book is an exploration of this memory of his as a bewildered eleven-year-old boy.

Far too much violence in the world today is fomented by the illusion that people are destined to a "sectarian singularity." Stereotyping people with a singular identity leads to fatalism, resignation, and a sense of inevitability about violence. It partitions people and civilizations into binary oppositions, it ignores the plural ways that people understand themselves, and obscures what Sen calls our "diverse diversities." In particular, he objects to the "clash of civilizations" thesis made popular by Samuel Huntington. Along the way he explores the implications of his thesis for multiculturalism, public policy, globalization, terrorism, anti-Western rage, democracy, and theories of culture.

Sen argues against identity violence caused by the illusion of destiny in three ways. First, he appeals to our common humanity; everyone laughs at weddings, cries at funerals, and worries about their children. More important than any of our external differences, even though these are powerful and important, is our shared humanity. Second, he makes the obvious point that all people enjoy plural identities. To understand a person one must consider factors of civilization, religion, nationality, class, community, culture, gender, profession, language, politics, morals, family of origin, skin color, and a multitude of other markers. Plus, these diverse differences within a single individual depend on one's social context, whether the trait is durable over time, relevant, a factor of constraint or free choice, and so on. Finally, Sen urges us to transcend the illusion of destiny and identity violence by what he calls "reasoned choice." Instead of living as if some irrational fate destines people to confrontation with others who are different, a person needs to make a rational choice about what relative importance to attach to any single trait. Although Sen never explains why rational people succumb to the irrational violence of identity instead of choosing enlightened self-interest, economic incentives, and geo-political peace, this readable book by one of our most brilliant thinkers conveys an important reminder: "We can do better."

Amartya Sen's "Identity and Violence" is an excellent, perceptive and penetrating book. The reviews by the Washington Post and Publishers Weekly are rather obtuse. There is nit-picking to avoid the reality that Sen has shown Huntington's clashes of civilisations thesis to be fatally flawed, for example, and the reality of Maimonides' flight from Spain to refuge in Islamic lands rather than to jew-hating Christian Europe, and the reality of others of Sen's examples. Saying that his writing style is dry (I didn't find it so) simply suggests the level of literacy of the reviewer and perhaps most of the reviewer's audience. Some of the negative reviews by individuals are obviously written by people pre-determined to not like what this author says. Saying that Sen's thesis about multiple identities is no good because the Islamic terrorists don't think that way rather neatly avoids his point that far too many in "the West" think the same way as the Islamic terrorists in this regard. The attitude of many of the reviewers simply illuminates Sen's point that too many people on both of the artificial "sides" actually WANT to scream at each other across their imagined single-criterion divide. I urge everyone to bypass the more negative of the reviews posted here, and to go read this book and judge for themselves. I was certainly enriched by reading it. Perfect? No, but immensely worth reading. I wish it was required reading in schools around the world.

This is a work that is at once literate, insightful, and witty. Dr. Sen discusses how the narrowness of self-definition has and does lead to violence among groups who, if they but thought more critically about it, have far more that binds them in common concern than that divides them into antagonistic camps. He also discusses how over generalizing can also dismiss the legitimate concerns especially of minorities. He does this in language that is a pleasure to read and with a mind that is at once incisive and also compassionate. The humor comes from recognition of how easily humans are led away from finding common ground by those who benefit most from keeping peoples divided.

This book is a necessary read for anyone who still prizes the ability to think critically and broadly.

I am compelled to write a review of this book for one reason - much of the harshest criticism of the book appears to me to miss its fundamental aim. The criticism of Mr Sen seems to be reduced to two issues the first being that he is a relativist and the second being that he is somehow an apologist.

This criticism of the book is entirely based on the false premise that Mr Sen in some way is arguing that we should somehow learn to love the extremist. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Mr Sen's basic argument in this book is not about how we should learn to accomodate extremism but rather how we should learn to defuse extremist tendencies arising from religious identity or cultural identity.

Perhaps the most telling section of the book and to my mind the core argument is that in dealing with the rise of islamic fundamentalism western governments should address their islamic citizens as citizens of the state and members of the civic community rather than as members of a religious community. He argues that Britain in particular is mistaken in reacting to terrorism in particular or cultural isolationism in particular in seeking to use the moderate religious leadership as allies within the community to the exclusion of all other forms of engagement . The argument is that if the state uses the moderate religious leadership as its principal path of discourse with the community then the state is giving credibility to the extremist religious leadership if only by making it the obvious haven for those who feel themselves most disenfranchised and separate from the state in which they live. Simply put, if the government that you hate is being helped and assisted by the moderate leadership then you will cease to engage with that moderate leadership and find yourself more definitely and irrevocably aligned with the extremist fundamentalist leadership.

Mr Sen's argument is that rather than seeking to interact with the islamic community through the medium of their faith one should seek to interact and engage with them through the medium of their civic life thereby engaging them and empowering them in the process of the state itself.

The flip side of this argument, the one which most of the negative reviews here appear to concentrate on is that we must not see people simply as stereotypes of their religious or cultural identities. This argument may be relativist but it is also true. Mr Sen's argument is that if we reduce the individual to a single all encompassing identity based on religion or race then we lose the ability to engage with them on a civic basis.

Mr Sen's book is compelling and important one that should be read more widely to show us how we have erred and given credence to the extremists by failing to realise that a man with a grievance should be seen first and foremost as a man and should be dealt with, addressed and engaged on that basis. How anyone can have a difficulty with this is beyond me.

Sen is so eloquent it's overkill. To a global but divided world he speaks of identity as a multi-layered matter of personal choice: "The same person can, for example, be a British citizen, of Malaysian origen, with Chinese racial characteristics, a stock broker, a non-vegitarian, an asthmatic, a linguist, a bodybuilder, a poet, an opponent of abortion, a bird-watcher, an astrologer, and one who believes that God invented Darwin to test the gullible." (p. 24)

Sen notes several popular ways of dealing with identity. One he calls "identity disregard", and another is "singular affiliation".

In "identity disregard" we dismiss all shared identity, and treat each person as an economic self-interest group of one. As some proponents of this view argue, "If it's not in your interest, why have you chosen to do as you did?". Sen notes that this assumption, "makes huge idiots out of Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela, and rather smaller idiots out of the rest of us." (p. 21)

"Singular affiliation" on the other hand, defines people by their membership in one (only one) of their many social circles. This can be an externally imposed label, as in stereotypes of what Westerners are, or in can be self-imposed general conformity -- as when Oscar Wilde said, "Most people are other people. ... Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation".

Feeling both social and an individual, Sen launches his excellent exporation of identity in the modern world. He visits the great "West VS Non-West" divide, where he dispenses with the usual hoopla:

"... in disputing the gross and natsy generalization that members of the Islamic civilization have a belligerant culture, it is common enough to argue that they actually share a culture of peace and goodwill. But this simply replaces one stereotype with another, and furthermore, it involves accepting an implicit presumption that people who happen to be Muslim by religion would be similar in other ways as well." (p. 42)

In many corners of the world Sen shows the subtle handicaps which delimited identy can impose. He mentions South African doctor and anti-apartheid activist Mamphela Ramphele, who describes the impact of polarized identity on the AIDS crisis: The "mistrust of science that has traditionally been controlled by white people" hampers medical efforts; open discussion of the problem is often suppressed by "the fear of acknowledging an epidemic that could easily be used to fan the worst racial stereotyping". (p. 92)

Always sounding magisterial, Sen wades into the home-town issues of British multiculturalism, political correctitude, and the struggles of "globalism vs anti-globalism". He distinguishes between the desire for ethnic groups to leave one another alone, and the desire for a freedom to choose among many cultural options. To those who urge funding schools for each religion he is blunt: "It is unfair to children who have not yet had much opportunity of reasoning and choice to be put into rigid boxes guided by one specific criterion of categorization, and to be told: 'That is your identity and this is all you are going to get'." (p. 118)

To people who believe their identity is more a fate than a choice, Sen affirms we can do better: "We have to make sure, above all, that our mind is not halved by a horizon". The book's opening dedication sounds almost like a Buddhist vow to seek enlightenment: "To Antara, Nandana, Indrani, and Kabir with the hope of a world less imprisoned by illusion".

We see a lot of violence on a daily basis (all we need to do is tune in to the news.) Most of this violence is by extremist groups; groups especially associated with religions, followed closely by ethnicity. There is a lot of reconciling that needs to be done between the "official" projection of these religions by our respective (and respectful) governments as 'peaceful' and the apparent violence with which these terrorist acts are inflicted on the general public by these "religious" groups.

The solutions to these problems are neither simplistic nor easy, as our governments, in all their simplemindedness, assume. It seems they are clueless at times. Sen, who resides in a land not of his ancestors, must be acutely aware of the role of identity in shaping individuals and their allegiances. And as an economist he knows the 'choices' that people take through out a typical day even while not aware of the constraints in which they are operating. An ideal confluence which benefits the reader's anxiousness for understanding.

The proposal that individuals have different identities -- act and shaped by them -- is fairly easy to convince (because in retrospect it seems obvious. Although a lot of us don't know what we are missing.) It does seem like he belabors this point repeatedly; but that isn't tedious and is excusable.

Sen's proposals as to how the governments (specifically, the British) can deal with ethnic and religious 'hot potato issues' are worth taking a look at. (It seems like some govts. are doing the exact opposite of what needs to be done. Hence, inadvertently exacerbating the issues.) We get a revealing sense into how people tick and sometimes are ticked-off. Those lessons can be used in finding solutions to our own problems in which ever part on this earth we are. To me this looks like a global epidemic and rarely do seemingly disparate problems have a common method as solutions.

My disappointment with this book is that Sen doesn't go too deeply into some issues he mentions in passing. However, that might be of relief to people only interested in the overarching phenomenon and not, for example, interested too much about British policies.

Thankfully this book is not very long, so my disappointed is only so deep. It must be said that if Samuel Huntington did not write his "Clash of Civilizations", then this book would not have written or published. This is an attempt to argue Huntington's theory, which is fine, but in the wrong method.
Entitled "Identity and Violence", Sen covers very little on Identity and even less on violence. Sen states that we all have multiple IDs. He then restates it. And then again. And then again with the added ideal that focusing on one ID is dangerous. He repeats this too many times.
What Sen fails to address, recognize or grasp is the concept of an Identity. What is it? Why do we have them? What influences IDs? What are the connections between ID and violence. What is violence? Why is it used? Why is it bad? Is violence bad? Just way too many questions about Identity and Violence are left unanswered, unaddressed, and avoided in a book called "Identity and Violence".

The book makes two main arguments. First it argues that identities are rational constructions where group allegiances of all sorts play a part. Second it argues that globalization, though an unqualified good in principle, is in practice often merely a way for some group in a globablizing nation to reap most of the benefits while others suffer most of ill consdquences. Both arguments work together in Sen's view of how one might best understand the phenomena of *opposition to the west*. We (G8 nations) have fallen into the habit of seeing nations as wholes characterized by specific identities. Sen suggests that we'd understand phenomena like saudi-born terror groups or mass disaffection with the G8 by the citizens of latin america, by learning to see the world in a less reductionist fashion: namely intersections of various groups overlapping in persons and populations.
Sen's prose is quite clear, and I find his claims rather convincing. The books style is a bit grating though. It's very repetitive. The same ideas resurface again and again along with the same examples. I suspect the book is really a compilation of speeches Sen has given. Repetition is necessary in speaking because the audience doesn't have time to step back and make the connections themselves. But in a book like this, already quite short, it's a waste of the reader's time.
Also Sen is not very careful with his historical examples. One recurring story he cites is how my Maimonides fled Christian Europe for Saladin's Egypt. Not true. Maimonides fled Almohad (and thus islamic) Andaluz for Saladin's Egypt. This was an easy fact to check, and you'd think an author of Sen's stature whould take the time to make sure an example he will use four or five times is correct.
The book is definitely worth reading. I only wish the author had spent just a bit more time tightening it up and doing a bit more fact checking.

Sen concentrates on attacking the theoretical framework presented by Samuel Huntington (ex-Dean of Harvard Kennedy's School of Government) in his book "The Clash of Civilizations". In that book Huntington posits that the world is partitioned into five "civilizations" - Western, Muslim, Eastern Orthodox (i.e. Russia and the Eastern Orthodox nations of Eastern Europe such as Rumania), Confucian and Hindu. He postulates that the differences between the nations in these "civilizations" will result in intra-civilization conflict in the future. This hypothesis has many weaknesses, the most important being that world conflict in the recent past few centuries has been much more intra-civilization (i.e., European powers amongst themselves, Japan and China, etc.) than inter-civilization. Why would Huntington expect this to change in the future, especially given current world tensions? Many of the worlds hot spots involve stresses between nations in the same Huntingtonian "civilization" (i.e., witness the tensions between China and its neighbors regarding mineral rights in the South China Sea). Or, for that matter, why does Huntington believe that conflict will become inter-culturally based, as opposed to being based on a more "realist" based theory of international relations (i.e., a la the "realist" frameworks hypothesized by Kissinger or Hans Morgenthau)?

Sen does not engage on these or any other critiques of Huntington's theory despite the fact that there are many legitimate criticisms (for a more detailed set of critiques see this reviewer's detailed review of Huntington's book - these can be found under his book under the one star reviews) but instead concentrates on another important, but self-evident, weakness. That is that these areas that Huntington aggregates under different cultural identities really are not as homogeneous as Huntington's framework implies. Sen argues that differences within these cultural areas are considerable. For example, in the Western world, there are considerable differences between the cultural identities of, say, France and the U.S. or Denmark and Spain. Thus the cultural "civilizations" so important to Hungtington's theory are much more amorphous in reality than in his book. For this reason, Sen posits, Huntington's conflict theory based on cultural differences is fatally flawed.

Sen's view that cultural differences between these regions that Huntington posits are, in reality, very weak, is in this reviewer's opinion, more or less correct. The important point that Huntington misses, however, is that there are even more basic disparities in these cultural "identities" that further undermine their homogeneity and hence the basis of their use for conflict based theory. That is that these five major cultural regions are converging closer to each other over time. In China and even very "conservative" Islamic cultures, we are definitely seeing a progressive convergence in terms of consumerism and materialism, views of the place of the individual in society (relative to family and the society as a whole), views toward pre-marital sex, etc. The progression of these views in the non-Western cultures very much mirrors how these attributes changed in the developed world (i.e., the Western nations). It should be remembered that, at one time, nihilism, conspicuous consumption and views towards pre-marital sex in the Western World, for example, were also viewed quite negatively. And that was not that long ago. As late as the 1950s and 1960s, for example, pre-marital sex was frowned upon in "Western" cultures. How long will it take for these "Western" social views to take hold and become accepted in the non-Western nations? Twenty years? Thirty? Forty? It is difficult to believe that it will take longer, especially given modern media and communications technology. When that time comes cultural differences will become more than amorphous - they will practically disappear. When that day comes the very basis of Huntington's cause of tension - differences in cultural identity - will become so marginal as to become meaningless.

I like Sen's idea of focusing on more then one identity but that's about it. Every chapter is the same he just rewords it, I read the same thing over and over again. I am a second year college student and it was very hard to read at times. Didn't get more that my first sentence out of this book. If it wouldn't have been required reading I doubt that I ever would have bought it.