- Series: Issues of Our Time
- Paperback: 240 pages
- Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company; Reprint edition (February 17, 2007)
- Language: English
- ISBN-10: 0393329291
- ISBN-13: 978-0393329292
- Product Dimensions: 5.5 x 0.6 x 8.3 inches
- Shipping Weight: 7.8 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
- Average Customer Review: 34 customer reviews
- Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #173,961 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Other Sellers on Amazon
+ Free Shipping
+ Free Shipping
+ Free Shipping
Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny (Issues of Our Time) Paperback – Abridged, February 17, 2007
Frequently bought together
Customers who bought this item also bought
“Sen is now Asia’s preeminent philosopher of freedom. . . . This is an indispensable book.”
- Anwar Ibrahim, former deputy prime minister of Malaysia
“Amartya Sen brings to our generation a new and modern vision of how to obtain peace.”
- George Akerlof, Nobel Laureate in Economics
“Amartya Sen, one of the world’s great thinkers, tells us how to go about building a more peaceful world. I hope the book will be read by all.”
- Ted Turner
About the Author
Amartya Sen has written many books, including Development as Freedom and The Argumentative Indian. He won the 1998 Nobel Prize in Economics. A professor at Harvard University, he lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Cambridge, England.
Try the Kindle edition and experience these great reading features:
Read reviews that mention
Showing 1-5 of 34 reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
So far, so good. I think where Sen's book runs into trouble is his critique of Sam Huntington's seminal book - The Clash of Civilizations. Huntington's thesis is that the world is no longer driven by ideological struggle (communism vs. free capitalism) but now by civilizational struggle (the prime example being Islamic vs. Western). Sen objects to this civilizational paradigm as being too reductionistic and instead advocates seeing people as belonging to a complex web of associations, with civilizational/religious ties being one of many. As Sen puts it, a Christian and a Muslim will be less at odds with each other if they realize that they share other identities, like gender, class, profession, interests, etc.
There are several problems with Sen's argument. (1) Huntington's thesis does have its flaws, as all meta-theories invariably do (for instance, India, as Sen points out, is not singularly an Hindu civilization), but I think it's pretty much on the mark with Islamists and many others. So Huntington's book is descriptive, not prescriptive. Sen's book is prescriptive, but tries to come off as descriptive. (2) Sen is convinced, wrongly, that it is only a small cadre of self-appointed leaders who have whipped up the general population and imposed, quite artificially, these civilizational/religious identities for their own power-hungry reasons. No doubt there are people who cynically use identity for their own gain (the Chinese Politburo immediately comes to mind). But I think it is Sen who is now reductionistic, kinda insulting to non-elites, and frankly conspiratorial. (3) Sen seems to think religious identity should have the same force, no more and no less, than any of several identities. But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of religion. Religion, by definition, demands ultimate allegiance. I think this is difficult for Sen as a self-confessed secularist to understand. (4) Sen is absolutely wrong in his insistence that singular identities cause violence while multi-form identities lend themselves to peace. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of violence. Strong, singular identities may be the avenue through which violence is exercised, but there is something twisted and evil in the heart of man that will use any platform, any paradigm to destroy and kill. The real question should be: what kind of exclusive identity will nevertheless embrace the alien `other'? (Aside: as a Christian, may I say that if the core of your identity is a man who died for his enemies, that will lend itself to the most embracing kind of strong identity.)
This is unrelated to Sen's argument, but may I grip about his prose a bit? First, I found Sen's syntax to be unnecessarily complicated. Second, Sen is incredibly repetitive. He basically says that same thing over and over and over again. How many ways can you extol the benefits of complex identities? Pluriform, variegated, sundry, multitudinous identities? If you find yourself looking at the same entry in your thesaurus over and over again, maybe it's time to find something new to say...
I want to conclude by saying that I really enjoyed Sen's book overall. He made many incisive points, such as arguing against the idea that democracy is the province of 'Western' thinking. Sen rightly rejects that kind of misguided and patronizing cultural relativism. I thought his foray into Muslim history was really interesting and informative. And here, Sen made a very interesting point that one cannot condemn violence or even terrorism as being strictly anti-Muslim, as Islamic thought is not, nor cannot be, settled on the subject. As for Sen's earnest plea for a civil society in which religion has a diminished role, I think Sen betrays too much his own narrow secularist vision. I don't think an enlarged role of religion in the public sphere necessarily means a less rational world. Prof Sen, why should they have to be at cross purposes?
A thought-provoking read throughout!
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.