Shalom, Professor Staub

As a semester of blogging comes to a close, reflection is necessary in order to mark change and look back over the great amount of information gained over the semester.  Thinking back over the full course, 3 specific things that I will take and apply to real life are an understanding that all religions have the capacity for peace and at the same time, violence, a knowledge that religious discourse can be used to transform a situation from secular to religious in nature, and a recognition that peace making needs to use the same language as the groups in conflict in order to understand the conflict and to make any headway toward peace.  

First, this course has deepened my understanding that religions have the potential for peace and violence at the same time.  Many of the same tenants that make a religion peaceful can also result in violence and these violent actors are not always radicals.  I have always known that all religions have peaceful beliefs at some level, but I previously believed that it was only the radicals that committed the violence as part of religion.  Now, as I look at conflicts in the news or hear about religion from my friends, I can read and discuss knowing that religion at its core has the capacity for both peace and violence.  This understanding can help me to analyze motivations and see why certain groups are not on good terms.

Second, the three papers for this course have allowed me to investigate a religious conflict in which religion transformed a conflict which was previously secular into a conflict with religion as a major mobilizing and driving force.  Especially the second paper forced me to analyze deep motivations for the Chechen-Russian conflict.  I knew that religious language was a powerful tool just as the antagonist from the movie “Book of Eli” (starring Denzel Washington) hoped to use the words of the Bible to control the masses in a post-apocalyptic world, but I did not know that it could transform the very nature of a conflict in the current era.  Now, I will be more aware of the language used concerning conflicts and curious to see how the conflict may change as a result of specific discourse.

Third and most importantly, the last portion of this class talked about peace-making and my favorite criticism of modern peace-makers is that they are not speaking the correct language.  Not language as one thinks of English, Spanish, or French, but language as in the motivations and deeper reasons behind a conflict.  For instance, if a religious conflict occurs and peacemakers use economic and/or political language, it is no surprise that negotiations did not go very well.  This applies directly to my life in that now I know to be very intentional with the language I use when entering or mediating a conflict.  Understanding the conflict and being able to use language to reflect that understanding is crucial in order to make progress in negotiations. 

Chechnya Today

This semester, I focused on the religious conflict between Chechnya and Russia.  To summarize, the main conflict began in the 90's after the fall of the Soviet Union when Chechnya declared itself to be a separate union.  This secular separatist movement changed into a religious conflict as Islamist discourse was used to mobilize the Chechens and create a common identity to unite the country, who at the time was searching for new identity after the loss of Soviet identity.  Fighting ensued and both sides were not especially friendly.  Russians are seen as the oppressive former government who is violating human rights laws and Chechnya is seen as the radical Muslim terrorists.  Fun times.  As I wrap up my semester with a paper discussion possible peacemaking efforts, I came upon a video that talks about the rebuilding process of Grozny (the capital of Chechnya) after more than a decade of fighting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBGDIwOcp5g

An important fact to realize is that Russia is putting money into the Chechen economy in hope that the money will be able to revitalize Chechnya and create jobs and a sustainable future; specifically a future that does not cause the youth to join the Islamist separatist movement.  This money is being spent on skyscrapers and repairs on physical damage.  The money is being well spent in my opinion to give the Chechens a city that they can be proud of but long term efforts may demand more money to actually see change in the economy.  At least, at this point in history the conflict is not in full swing but at a point of "normalization."  This term may not actually be normal but it is much better than the late 1990's and early 2000's.  Only time will tell if these people can reconcile their differences and rebound completely after a time of great physical and emotional destruction. 

Why Dislikes First...

After watching the video about the work of Pastor James and Imam Ashahara and talking critically about their methods in class, I have been really caught up in the idea of presenting the dislikes first, then the likes afterward.  We talked a lot about the confusion that participants would experience when asked to name positive attributes about their enemies.  This would be a very difficult and humbling opportunity for both sides in the conflict.  We didn't talk as much as I thought necessary about what the order allows James and Ashahara to accomplish.

In my opinion, having the dislikes first does give a time to vent about the "other" in the conflict in an organized manner (because let's be serious, the dislikes are coming no matter what the mediator says, so might as well get them out of the way first).  It also wipes the slate clean per say.  Both sides have torn each other apart and exposed their flaws and problems.  Neither side is looking very good, and I think this is a great beginning.  Both sides are at rock bottom and the second part of the exercise (presenting the likes) serves as a method to build each group up from their gloomy state.  Both sides are rising from the ashes as they have just been torn apart by criticism but now are being rebuilt by compliments from their enemy.  This confusing and awkward experience is so powerful because the identities of both groups are being reformed.  Not only is it easier to remember the last thing that someone said to you, but in general people like to be complimented.  Compliments, especially out of the normal realm of behaviors, are humbling.  Humility is at the core of this process.  The willingness to put the desires and goals of the group as a whole over your own individual hopes is a big step.  When the focus is on a bigger scale, the individual interactions can shape the process of rebuilding.

Seinfeld and Conflict Resolution

As long as there has been conflict, there have been people who have attempted to resolve it.  Methods have varied but the concept stays the same.  Resolution can take many forms but the usual preferred end is a compromise, in which both sides give up a little bit in order to gain part of their desired goal.  Some methods of conflict resolution are a bit extreme while others are childish, such as the game "Odds and Evens" in this Seinfeld clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLMoc2WOwTQ&feature=related

By playing "Odds and Evens" for the apartment, Jerry and George over exaggerate the simple methods that some people use to resolve huge conflicts.  Seinfeld pokes fun at the fact that the resolution method needs to match the conflict.  In Blood That Cries Out From The Earth, John Jones discusses the idea that our leaders are not addressing the religious language that the religious jihadists are using and the failure to accomplish this aspect of the conflict is creating a substantial chasm between the sides of the conflict.  He then urges everyone to understand that every religion has capacity for good in its intrinsic nature and each religion also has resources to transcend the religion leading toward violence.  When leaders dehumanize each other and don't use common reference points in their dialogue, the chances for finding a compromise are very unlikely, not to mention that the conflicts in the news are not as simple as who gets the apartment.  Obviously, the leaders of today would not settle a major dispute in the same manner as Jerry and George, but they can use some of the advice from Jones.  Talking at the same level is a huge step in the right direction.  I am not saying that Israel and Palestine are only a discussion away from being resolved but I am saying that discourse between leaders can effect the other individuals involved in the conflict.  Leaders hold a lot of weight as far as political/social/ religious influence.  Humans are not lemmings but they do have lemmish qualities

Islamaphobia

In the world arena, you know that a idea/ concept has reached critical mass in the media when political cartoons run rampant.  I found some interesting cartoons about Islamaphobia that poke fun at a very serious form of discrimination.




This first cartoon pokes fun at the idea of free speech policies that are interpreted to allow certain ideas to be maintained while other ideas are not allowed.  Of course, it is ok to hold anti-Muslim ideas but not ok to deny that the holocaust occurred, and it is the media that decides what is acceptable to believe.  This cartoon raises awareness that Islamaphobic language is being used when it should not be and also puts Islamaphobia on the same level as the Holocaust.  Both were/ are examples of horrific discrimination, but today, the media has presented the public with a view that suggests that Islamaphobia is common place.

 


This cartoon makes a joke out of the definition of a terrorist according to the U.S.  In post 9/11 days, the U.S. was quick to announce that the war was not against Islam, but rather against "Terror."  But the definition of terror was not clear.  It seems that the U.S. used the scapegoat of terrorism in order to search for foreign oil and this cartoon suggests that there were ulterior motives for the involvement in the Middle East.



This last cartoon minimizes the sacred nature of Islam by over-exaggerating the assumed Muslim response to the depiction of Muhammad and under-exaggerating the same response to horrific violence.  This shows that the common view of the Muslim faith is irrational, uncaring, and stubborn.  The cartoon generalizes to all Muslims as it discriminates against those that practice or look like people who practice one religion.  The most important aspect of this cartoon is that it does not explicitly state the political or religious affiliation of the pictured individual, but the reader assumes that he is Muslim.

As seen by these cartoons, Islamaphobia is a very big deal.  It creates unfair stereotypes against an entire religion and also includes those who appear to be of the same religion.  Political cartoons in general make fun of little stereotypes or unjustified views of certain people or groups of people in order to raise awareness of a bigger problem.  These cartoons show that Islamaphobia is a big deal that effects a large portion of our globe.

"Solutions"

As we return to Juergensmeyer, he ends his book with some options for outcomes/ responses to the problem of religious violence.  His "solutions" do not seem to completely capture the essence of the problem or use the same analytic framework that he does earlier in the book.  Regardless, his 5 possible outcomes do show some insight into the mindset of those in power and how/why some responses do not pan out.  The 5 are:  Destroy Violence with Force, Terrify Terrorists, Violence Wins, Separate Religion from Politics, and Heal Politics with religion.  The first 3 options are not good long term options and only result in further conflict with the possibility of a larger conflict.  The last 2 options are not realistic.  Ideally, using politics and religion in their purest forms is a great idea  but not practical in the real world of secular government with inter-meshing religion on the minds of everyone.

Another author attempting to verbalize solutions is one, James Jones, who wrote "Blood That Cries Out From The Earth" and uses a psychological lens.  He begins to discuss that each religion has a capacity for good and each also has the materials and resources to transcend the violence also created by the same religion.  He makes several good points about the nature and understanding of religion.  He includes a section talking about Buddhism that a "common simile in Buddhism that compares the dharma (the Buddha's teaching) to a raft:  you use the raft to cross the stream, but once you arrive on the other side (enlightenment) the raft is discarded.  So the practices and teachings of the religion are to be regarded as tools, means to an end, not as ends in themselves."  Wow.  I love this.  This, in my mind, changes a lot about the conflict.  Some of the major points of conflict in religion have to do with specific differences between religious interpretations.  If religious texts could be used as the "raft" and not the "other side of the stream," I wonder how the direction of religious conflicts would change?

Jones also says that responses to violent terrorism need to use the same language that the terrorists are using.  Instead of only economic and political/ military aspects, Jones says that some form of religious language needs to be used to create a common ground for understanding and hope for compromise.  I think there is something to be gleaned from the possible combination of the change of language used in responding to religious terrorism and finding a way to see religion as the "raft" that teaches and instructs but is not the ultimate end.  By not having an ultimate end, I think that some of the compromises that have not happened because of conflicting ideologies may be possible to bring to the table.

Psychology and Politics

Oh man do I get excited when writers talk about the impact of psychology on a situation.  In this instance Kakar is wondering whether psychology or politics is the true factor in determining identity.  In the past, identity has been explained in terms of "competition between elites for political power and economic resources." (149)  This competition results in a winner and a loser.  Both parties know their place and can carry on their life with an identity of a winner or of a loser.  But cultural identity is not a fixed status as the battle for power and resources, land and community continues to shape the identities of many individuals who are caught in the balance.  But that is not the entire story.  "Cultural identity... is an unconscious human acquirement which becomes consciously salient only when there is a perceived threat to its integrity." (150)  In other words, it is a human need to have a defined identity and that identity, while unconscious before, come to the surface when someone questions whether that identity is who you truly are.  That is the psychology aspect.  Are you defined by whether you are a "winner" or a "loser," or are you defined by how you stand up to perceived threats against your claimed identity?

Sorry to say that this question does not have a kind answer.  Both psychology and politics play a role in determining identity and only using one to describe identity leaves much unexplained.  The only way to understand identity is to combine the two.  "Thus, without the psychological perspective to complement the political-economic one, we will have only a partial and thus dangerously inadequate understanding of the reason for the success of political formations based on religious mobilization." (152)

I think this type of understanding should be accepted more often.  In many cases, its not either/or but rather, it might be both/and.  Sometimes you need both.

Chocolate and Peanut Butter are great separate in satisfying basic needs of hunger but in combination, they provide nourishment and life fulfillment.

In Colors of Violence by Suhir Kakar, the intense conflict in India is portrayed by examining the situation from a psychoanalyst point of view. So far this year, our class has discussed religion, the many groups involved, their different belief systems, many different motivations, and a variety of actions that make up religious violence as we know it today.   As a psychology major, I am very much interested in this paradigm to attempt to understand the conflict more fully by including the individual and community psychology.  There is a lot that goes on in an individual's head when making decisions that may effect, not only one's own life but, the lives of those around you (friend and foe).  In Chapter 3, Kakar uses the Giessen test to compare and contrast 4 leaders within the Muslim-Hindu conflict.  The interesting findings are that these leaders have a lot in common.  They are not insane or out of control, but they like to be dominant and derive satisfaction from having control.  They also have a depressive tendency which they mask through various defensive mechanisms.  This data point suggests a question:  Do specific psychological characteristics direct one to become a "warrior" in a religious conflict?

The answer to that question is fuzzy; possibly, in part.  It would be rash to say that psychology is the direct cause and solution to every question (even though I would love to say that).  It is more accurate to say that psychology plays a critical role in determining who will rise up to lead/ be involved in religious violence.  Environmental factors, religion, and sociology also play vital roles.  Vivid experiences are but one method that provide for inception of revenge and the result of violence.  For instance, seeing your mother or father being murdered by "the other" will leave an emotional scar that could motivate you to become involved and take appropriate revenge.  Religion often provides the language and justification for violent acts.  Sociology, or the community and the ideals and morals of the individuals in your midst, has an impact that can pave an individual's future.

For example, we talked about the wrestlers in India and how the training arena taught the youngsters far more than just wrestling technique.  The gyms were wrought with religious pictures, warriors of years past, religious texts, and other inspiration.  Through training, wrestlers develop their minds according to their society. These wrestlers are chosen from a young age and grow up in a very different world than those outside of the wrestling lifestyle.  Not to say that one life is better than the other, my point is to say that society plays a bigger role on the development of youth than is generally believed.  How your parents discipline you, how often you went to McDonalds, which toys you played with, and what ideologies were present shape who you will become and what your will devote your life to.  Religious violence and the messages from the society through upbringing go hand in hand.

Saudi Arabian Diplomat Saved?

After we discussed the "Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi Arabian Diplomat" in my Middle Eastern Communities class, I looked for a youtube link to see what the popular media was saying about the incident and how the public was responding.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7GD_6_JpKE

While the video itself did not bring up any new information that was not discussed in class, the comments below the video showed how individuals are interpreting the situation. Many people responded angrily and accused the U.S. of being "the pot calling the kettle black." Other people commented that the plot may have been made up because the U.S. needs war to pay off the previous war. It is not explicitly clear but based upon the comments it seems that Americans and non-Americans both believe the same thing in this situation. The United States is often seen as a "secondary enemy" in the fact that the U.S. is the symbol of secular government and international power. The U.S. has its hand in a lot of foreign matters and many people around the world wish that to change. Some of the comments became a little hostile and I think this speaks to the importance of how countries are viewed and what connotations are given to each country or group of people. Iranians may check "white" on the census, and some Iranians attempt to become "whiter" to assimilate into American culture, but the question is, Should they need to?

Relations with Iranians have not been great in recent history so the answer differs depending on who you ask. But isn't that like most of the questions and answers when race or ethnicity is involved? There isn't one answer or understanding. Rather there is a loose framework in which people are supposed to fit or sometimes, the framework is expanded to include more people. Identity should not change between public and private spheres. America was founded as an immigrant nation, and sometimes it doesn't feel like Americans are accommodating to current immigrants

Demonization and How Americans Relate It

Juergensmeyer has done it again.  Yet another chapter in his book that develops great ideas (not all of which I agree with) that turn quickly into discussion.  One of the many topics was the demonization or satanization of the enemy.  What is the first thing that comes to mind when you think of demonizing someone or some group?  Was it religion?  In class, we discussed that many countries first think of religion and how the enemy is dehumanized and/or demonized in some way or another.

"Some enemies have to be manufactured...The demonization of an opponent is easy enough when people feel oppressed or have suffered injuries at the hands of a dominant, unforgiving, and savage power." (174-175)  As religious violence turns into religious war, a certain amount of demonizing is necessary in order to complete the task.  Killing is a sin outside of war, but defending against a "sub-human" or demon collective who, in your frame of mind, has initiated the conflict is a different story.  You do not think of the demon group as individuals.  Rather, you think of them as an Enemy of God as they do not agree with your beliefs.  It is all about point of view and creativity to justify your actions.  The result is a reason for your emotion, a cause for your hatred.  It places all the blame on the "other" as the problem and you come out of the process without fault.  Religious fervor is fueled by competition and camaraderie.  Sound familiar?

Back to my initial question.  You may not have answered "religion" but may have responded "sports."  The first thing I thought of was my experience with sports and the fierce competition against other athletes who desired to win just as much as I did.  The best rivalries in sports are between teams that have a long history of close competition that are wrought with hatred and desire by the athletes and the fans.  One such rivalry is the Yankees, Red Sox in baseball.  Both teams despise the other and would rather lose 10 games to the Cardinals (My team still hanging on in the playoffs) than lose 1 game to the bitter rival.  The demonizing works in exactly the same way.  Hate the other as a collective demon group and place the blame of all the problems on them as the competition ensues.  The funny thing is that many players have played for both the Yankees and the Red Sox (one example is Johnny Damon) and the individual receives some taunts but the overall focus of the emotion is still upon the collective team.
Sports can be a religion for many Americans.  In class, Professor Staub suggested that the human condition needs the competition and rivalry that religion and sports provide.  It is interesting how different parts of the world put their focus in different areas of life to assuage this need.  What does this say about the U.S.?

"My and Yours"

Buddhism is often depicted as a peaceful religion that is on the opposite side of violence in every occasion because of their mindfulness and interconnectedness with nature and other people.  While none of this is incorrect, there is another side to every story.  Mark Juergensmeyer brings up one such exception in his book, Terror in the Mind of God.  He explains a situation where an offshoot of Japanese Buddhism called Aum Shinrikyo, "released poisonous sarin gas in the Tokyo subway, killing a number of commuters and injuring thousands more." (103)  Sure this kind of act happens far too regularly that we are becoming habituated to these types of acts, but I wish to draw your attention elsewhere to the idea of "ingroup" and "outgroup" characterizing.




As we know, there are two sides to every coin.  Buddhism is no different.  To many, Buddhists could do no wrong and are holy saintlike individuals in our eyes, while others (some of which may have witnessed the Buddhist actions on the Tokyo subway) view Buddhists as violent individuals who are not serving the common good, and are a threat to society.  Still others view Buddhists as "those guys who wear those robe things and chant a lot like those guys from Monty Python."



My point is that people view those within their group ("ingroup members") and those outside of their group ("outgroup members") differently and hereby characterize them differently because of that simple fact that they are in a certain group or not. When a member of the "ingroup" acts in a "good" manner, other members of the "ingroup" are quick to make internalizations about that individual to suggest that the act was a good act because the individual is inherently good.  When a member of the "outgroup" acts in a "good" manner, the "ingroup" is equally quick to make externalizations to suggest that the individual is inherently "bad," but this act is out of the ordinary and must be due to some other force to make it seem good.

Take Mark Juergensmeyer's example:

"The public response to the event was one of shock and disbelief.  It seemed inconceivable that innocent people could be assaulted in such a calculated and vicious manner in what most Japanese regard as the most mundane and reliable aspect of public life: the subway transportation system." (104)  The witnesses aka the "outgroup"  saw the public people as innocent and the manner of attack by the "perpetrators" was vicious.  This was a "bad" action, so these people must be bad.  This said, these individuals were later arrested and sentenced to death. On the other hand, one of the members of Aum Shinrikyo was asked if his master was involved and he responded, "if the master was involved...he must have had a religious reason." (106)  The "ingroup" is quick to make an externalization for the vicious act and maintain the good stature of one of their own.  I am not choosing sides as to which group is correct, I am merely pointing out the different points of view on one situation that stem from the idea of "ingroups" and "outgroups."

These ideas are found in your daily life if you only look around for them.  They are present in your sports rivalries and within your cliches, within your family reunions and favorite country singer.  This idea begs the question of what we can do to eliminate the "ingroup" idea so that we judge individuals by their merit and not their group involvement and I do not have an answer.

Pick a Side...

For most conflicts, there are two sides that demonize each other while declaring their way is not only right, but the only option that should be considered.  There are also usually outsiders who are drawn into the conflict and made to pick one side or the other to support.  This is how conflicts can grow exponentially and cause much destruction.  The ethno-religious conflict between Israel and Palestine is no different, in that each side has a unique point of view that reduces the "other" to less than human as one way to justify their violent acts.

Mark Juergensmeyer writes two chapters in his book, Terror in the Mind of God, that allows the reader to see the justification behind the Israeli side but also from the Palestinian side.  To ensure accurate information he interviews several leaders in each camp and also tells a bit of their history.  The reader also learns that the conflict is not as simple as Israeli vs. Palestinian, but within each of these nationalistic groups are subgroups that cause conflict within each country.  The dispute is much more complex than a simple land compromise could solve.  Religion, nationality, politics, and culture are all intertwined and violence is the result.

At this point, I think that Juergensmeyer does a good job portraying both sides to have internal logical rationale that justifies their actions (at least in their mind).  Using examples such as Yoel Lerner, Rabbi Meir Kahane, and Baruch Goldstein to give insight into the Jewish mindset allows the reader to see that "the Jewish faith is inextricably linked with the land, and how the liberation of the land is a prerequisite to spiritual liberation." (53)  On the other side, interviewing Mahmud Abouhalima, Abdul Aziz Rantisi, and Sheik Yassin showed that the Muslim side held their beliefs firmly saying that "acts of self-martyrdom- the suicide bombings- were allowed only in the response to these and other specific acts of violence from the Israeli side, acts that frequently affected innocent civilians." (75)  Neither side is willing to compromise, because at this point, a compromise might as well be a loss; not to mention how much time, energy, and life has already been given to this conflict.

In psychology, a personal investment model might be used to describe why the tensions have not ceased between Israelis and Palestinians.  According to this model, the more that someone has personally invested in a situation or conflict, the less likely they are to back out or settle for less than was originally thought to be possible.  This model applies to gambling, some relationships, and many other situations in our daily lives.  Things might not be going well but we will continue to suffer because we feel that we lose all the we put into the situation by quitting or stopping.  I think this model applies to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because both sides have years and years given to this dispute so each side wishes to see it to the end and make sure that the end result is in their favor

9/11 Poem

Around the time of 9/11's anniversary, there are usually a lot of poems and emails that are sent out to remember the troops and loved ones.  I received an email from my grandparents that included one of these poems, but this one really tied religion into the incident in a way that I had never heard before.

'MEET ME IN THE STAIRWELL'

You say you will never forget where you were when
you heard the news On September 11, 2001.
Neither will I.

I was on the 110th floor in a smoke filled room
with a man who called his wife to say 'Good-Bye.' I
held his fingers steady as he dialed. I gave him the
peace to say, 'Honey, I am not going to make it, but it
is OK..I am ready to go.'

I was with his wife when he called as she fed
breakfast to their children. I held her up as she
tried to understand his words and as she realized
he wasn't coming home that night.

I was in the stairwell of the 23rd floor when a
woman cried out to Me for help. 'I have been
knocking on the door of your heart for 50 years!' I said.
'Of course I will show you the way home - only
believe in Me now.'

I was at the base of the building with the Priest
ministering to the injured and devastated souls.
I took him home to tend to his Flock in Heaven. He
heard my voice and answered.

I was on all four of those planes, in every seat,
with every prayer. I was with the crew as they
were overtaken. I was in the very hearts of the
believers there, comforting and assuring them that their
faith has saved them.

I was in Texas , Virginia , California , Michigan , Afghanistan .
I was standing next to you when you heard the terrible news.
Did you sense Me?

I want you to know that I saw every face. I knew
every name - though not all knew Me. Some met Me
for the first time on the 86th floor.

Some sought Me with their last breath.
Some couldn't hear Me calling to them through the
smoke and flames; 'Come to Me... this way... take
my hand.' Some chose, for the final time, to ignore Me.
But, I was there.

I did not place you in the Tower that day. You
may not know why, but I do. However, if you were
there in that explosive moment in time, would you have
reached for Me?

Sept. 11, 2001, was not the end of the journey
for you. But someday your journey will end. And I
will be there for you as well. Seek Me now while I may
be found. Then, at any moment, you know you are
'ready to go.'

I will be in the stairwell of your final moments. 

Usually, these types of poems focus on the religion of the "terrorist" and how corrupt and evil the individual as well as the religion is for committing such a horrible act against the US.  I like how this poem strips down the stories of several people involved in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and shows the tender side.  Whether you sympathize with Christian ideals or not, this poem speaks to the religious side of emotional events and how people search for something of meaning in their final moments.  I am aware that this poem is strongly protestant, but it is also a unifying portrayal that emphasizes the individual experiences rather than stigmatizing the world into the "good" and the "bad."

MH

In the Beginning...

Coming into a class that is designated as sociology and religion, I had my reservations about the ability of these separate disciplines to interact with each other.  I know that religion is a powerful social construction but what else can sociology tell us about a topic characterized by violence in the news and passionate radicals?

Peter Berger illuminates some of that interaction between sociology and religion in The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion.  Religion, similar to gender and race by being a social construction, was created by man to assuage his need for an explanation.  Berger explains three steps of this construction:  externalization, objectivation, and internalization.  At first, I was confused as to how this makes sense for religion.  I first understood the steps as they relate to another social construction, gender.  A long long time ago, some human must have seen another human and saw many similarities but also differences.  What we now know as men and women were originally externalized at some point in history to account for human differences.  These differences were accepted in that time and repeated over and over by other humans, objectifying what was originally just an "outpouring of human being into the world." (Berger, 4).  As time goes on eventually the humans were very familiar with the concept of gender and internalized it, and reproduced it back into society.  In this way, society is effected by human activity but also the inverse, human activity is shaped by the society.

Similarly, religion as we know it today started as an externalization.  We know this to be true because of the fact that any religion is only one generation away from extinction.  Think about it, if the older generation does not pass down their beliefs (allowing society to pour back into humans), the belief does not survive.  This is the power of society that religions have lasted for thousands of years and will last far into the future.  I am not here to debate the legitimacy of any religion. I am simply speaking to the beginnings of a source of much conflict in our world today.

Berger ends his intro with a very insightful idea:  "Religion implies the farthest reach of man's self-externalization, of his infusion of reality with his own meanings... religion is the audacious attempt to conceive of the entire universe as being humanly significant."  Humans are always searching for meaning and explanation, and religion is one answer that has the potential to answer many of those questions.  Whether is accomplishes human significance is the universal sense is a debate for another day.

MH