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
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, October 14, 2011
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
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
Thursday, October 6, 2011
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.?
"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.?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)