Sen on Identity and Violence
Now for what I was planning to do this morning before I got all, erm, anxious. I’m reading Amartya Sen’s Identity and Violence – as is Sunny – and I wanted just to quote some.
“Given our inescapably plural identities, we have to decide on the relative importance of our different associations and affiliations in any particular context. Central to leading a human life, therefore, are the responsibilities of choice and reasoning. In contrast, violence is promoted by the cultivation of a sense of inevitability about some allegedly unique – often bellligerent – identity that we are supposed to have and which apparently makes extensive demands of us (sometimes of a most disagreeable kind). The imposition of an allegedly unique identity is often a crucial component of the ‘martial art’ of fomenting sectarian confrontation.” p. xii
“With suitable instigation, a fostered sense of identity with one group of people can be made into a powerful weapon to brutalize another…The art of constructing hatred takes the form of invoking the magical power of some allegedly predominant identity that drowns other affiliations, and in a conveniently bellicose form can also overpower any human sympathy or natural kindness that we may normally have.” p. xv
“What we need, above all, is a clear-headed understanding of the importance of the freedom that we can have in determining our priorities. And, related to that understanding, we need an appropriate recognition of the role and efficacy of reasoned public voice – within nations and across the world.” p. xvii
I think that what Sen says is very well-put, but it is also, as it were, Commonsense Liberal Pluralism 101. We all *ought* to know this, but we don’t — or at least, we don’t act on it. I have only read reviews, not the book, but does Sen actually offer a means to achieve the kind of Rortyan ironic consciousness of chosen identity he seems to advocate?
Hmmm…except that I kind of hate the word commonsense. It makes me twitch. All too often common sense is either unexamined received opinion or some coercive ‘gut instinct’ or other. I’ll go with Liberal Pluralism – except that I think I’m kind of an extremist about it. How about Radical Liberal Pluralism? Or, better, Radical Liberal Pluralist Cosmopolitanism? I’ll be happy to be the coffee shop debating society for that.
The way I see it, it is hard to avoid pluralism if you’ve ever done any genealogical research of your family. (It think it also helps living in the states, with all the mixing that happens as waves of immigrants join the olde family tree.) So, knowing what I know, self-identifying as “Irish-American” would be silly, no matter how much I would enjoy associating myself with them.
Genealogy gives a tremendous insight into how laughable such a choice would be. Sure, there is a predominance in Irish-Catholics in the family tree, but that’s only if one looks on one branch (say to one pair of great-great-great-grandparents.) Research done by elders in my family found French-Canadians, Spaniards, and – GASP – protestants…from England!
Who should I associate with – and why?
I don’t know. But I would be a damned fool to join up with one in a conflict on that association alone. As Sen puts it “…we need…a clear-headed understanding of the importance of the freedom that we can have in determining our priorities.” Is he saying that people who don’t know any better will associate with a group by brute force or personal vanity?
No, more out of herd instinct or conformity. He saw it happen when he was a child, in 1947. He was and still is bewildered at how easy it was to change people’s thinking overnight.
Right, right. I wrote ‘brute force’, but ‘herd instinct or conformity’ is more precise.
What I mean by ‘personal vanity’ may only apply to places like the US where one may be genetically linked to any number of groups. One can choose to ‘be’ Irish or German for any number of reasons. You could call it boutique nationalism. It’s more stupid than destructive.
Yeah…the US is funny that way. It may be partly just ethnic wannabe-ism. Supermarkets (around here anyway) have started this inane habit of labeling one aisle ‘ethnic foods’ – meaning all the food on all the other aisles is non-ethnic? It points up the way in the US some people are ‘ethnic’ and others aren’t. But what can that possibly mean? Pretty much nothing as far as I can ever tell. So the vanity thing kicks in. Ooh, get me, I’m ethnic. I live in an ethnic neighborhood, I eat ethnic food, I wear an ethnic hat.
It depends on where you live. The “Ethnic” aisle is common all over (pretty much means “Everything Else”.) However, here in north-central New Jersey, which has a large immigrant population, what used to be the ‘ethnic’ aisle became “Kosher/Mexican/Asian”. You know, to be specific.
(“Italian” has had it’s own section for a while now. It’s just pasta and sauce, but whatever.)
It’s sad to say, but I may be non-ethnic. But being a white athiest liberal – and at least three generations removed from immigrant ancestors – I can shop the “Natural Foods” aisle. That’s all mine.
Nobody’s non-ethnic — you and me’re just honkies! “Ethnic” is a word that someone should really do a scandalous exposé on some day. Did you know that official terminology in the UK no longer terms people members of ‘ethnic minorities’, but instead calls them ‘minority ethnics’? When I first heard it I thought it was a mistake, or a joke, but no, apparently it’s official. ‘Ethnic’ is a noun.
OB, to return to my starting point, I of course meant ‘commonsense’ in the irenic version, an ideal, perfect, peace-bringing common sense, not the sort we’re actually stuck with. But then, that’s the kind of liberal pluralism I meant too, since we don’t have that either, in practice [outside these pages, and sometimes not here either….] I guess you could call it Cosmopolitan Liberal Pluralism, but pretty soon someone would accuse you of being the J-word….
“Ethnic is a noun”
Then its probably about 5 years from becomming a slur.
Dave, James – Where I live in the Midlands, the perjorative term ‘ethnic’ is already in use – One can hear sentences like “This town’s already overrun with illegals and ethnics” bandied around freely in some pubs and clubs.
Ian B
According to one set of stats I read “athiest liberals” constitute only about 0.4% of the US population so you should be getting some sort of minority rights protection. I’d demand it next time there’s only USA Today available in a waiting room.
Yes, I knew it was a noun for ignorant slingers of insults, but it is also one for PC social workers, which is the bitter irony… Only yesterday I saw in a Guardian article people referred to without hesitation as BMEs: Black Minority Ethnics.
Dave, yeah but don’t knock the social workers; a lot of this cr@p comes from Public Sector Executives & cereer androids eagerly ticking the right boxes for New Labour, the frontliners who I know are aghast at the amount of pc bilge and the beaurocracy it generates stopping them from doing their jobs properly. But point taken. It’s just more amo for the Sun editorials and the thickos. BMEs ? I like “PORG” – Person of Restricted Growth. It’s such a horrible term, much worse than dwarf or midget if you ask me…
It’s always so interesting when the hand-holding term and the mudsling term converge. Which is reminiscent of the line in ‘Lone Star’: ‘It’s heartwarming when one bigotry overrules another.’