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.?