AmartyaSen

IDENTITY AND VIOLENCE

TheIllusionofDestiny

Contents

Prologue

Preface

CHAPTER1:TheViolenceofIllusion

CHAPTER2:MakingSenseofIdentity

CHAPTER3:CivilizationalConfinement

CHAPTER4:ReligiousAffiliationsandMuslimHistory

CHAPTER5:WestandAnti-West

CHAPTER6:CultureandCaptivity

CHAPTER7:GlobalizationandVoice

CHAPTER8:MulticulturalismandFreedom

CHAPTER9:FreedomtoThink

Notes

FollowPenguin

ABOUTTHEAUTHOR

AmartyaSen’sbooksincludeOnEconomicInequality,DevelopmentasFreedomandTheArgumentativeIndian.Hewonthe1998NobelPrizeineconomics.HeisLamontUniversityProfessoratHarvardandformerlyMasterofTrinityCollege,Cambridge.HelivesinCambridge,MassachusettsandCambridge,England.Hisbookshavebeentranslatedintomorethanthirtylanguages.

ToAntara,Nandana,Indrani,andKabirwiththehopeofaworldlessimprisonedbyillusion

PENGUINBOOKS

IDENTITYANDVIOLENCE

‘Closelyargued,extremelywellwrittenandclearlytheworkofahighlycivilized,cultivatedanddecentman…amodelofitskind’Spectator

‘Asuperbbook–agreatvision,deepunderstanding,muscularproseanddazzlingrelevance’AsianAge

‘Lucidandconvincing’FrancisFukuyama

‘Oneofthefewworldintellectualsonwhomwemayrelytomakesenseoutofourexistentialconfusion’NadineGordimer

‘Theworld’spooranddispossessedcouldhavenomorearticulateorinsightfulachampion’KofiAnnan

‘AnimportantbookwhoselessonsallthinkingBritishAsiansshouldabsorb…oneoftheleadingmoralphilosophersofourtime’EasternEye

‘Explainsandencouragestheneedfortolerance,honestandconstantself-questioninginthestrangeandanxiousperiodwe’vefoundourselveslivingin’NewStatesman

Prologue

SomeyearsagowhenIwasreturningtoEnglandfromashorttripabroad(IwasthenMasterofTrinityCollegeinCambridge),theimmigrationofficeratHeathrow,whoscrutinizedmyIndianpassportratherthoroughly,posedaphilosophicalquestionofsomeintricacy.Lookingatmyhomeaddressontheimmigrationform(Master’sLodge,TrinityCollege,Cambridge),heaskedmewhethertheMaster,whosehospitalityIevidentlyenjoyed,wasaclosefriendofmine.ThisgavemepausesinceitwasnotaltogethercleartomewhetherIcouldclaimtobeafriendofmyself.Onsomereflection,Icametotheconclusionthattheanswermustbeyes,sinceIoftentreatmyselfinafairlyfriendlyway,andfurthermore,whenIsaysillythings,Icanimmediatelyseethatwithfriendslikeme,Idonotneedanyenemies.Sinceallthistooksometimetoworkout,theimmigrationofficerwantedtoknowwhyexactlydidIhesitate,andinparticularwhethertherewassomeirregularityinmybeinginBritain.Well,thatpracticalissuewaseventuallyresolved,buttheconversationwasareminder,ifonewere

needed,thatidentitycanbeacomplicatedmatter.Thereis,ofcourse,nogreatdifficultyinpersuadingourselvesthatanobjectisidenticaltoitself.Wittgenstein,thegreatphilosopher,onceremarkedthat“thereisnofinerexampleofauselessproposition”thansayingthatsomethingisidenticaltoitself,buthewentontoarguethattheproposition,thoughcompletelyuseless,isnevertheless“connectedwithacertainplayoftheimagination.”Whenweshiftourattentionfromthenotionofbeingidenticaltooneselftothatofsharinganidentity

withothersofaparticulargroup(whichistheformtheideaofsocialidentityveryoftentakes),thecomplexityincreasesfurther.Indeed,manycontemporarypoliticalandsocialissuesrevolvearoundconflictingclaimsofdisparateidentitiesinvolvingdifferentgroups,sincetheconceptionofidentityinfluences,inmanydifferentways,ourthoughtsandactions.Theviolenteventsandatrocitiesofthelastfewyearshaveusheredinaperiodofterribleconfusionas

wellasdreadfulconflicts.Thepoliticsofglobalconfrontationisfrequentlyseenasacorollaryofreligiousorculturaldivisionsintheworld.Indeed,theworldisincreasinglyseen,ifonlyimplicitly,asafederationofreligionsorofcivilizations,therebyignoringalltheotherwaysinwhichpeopleseethemselves.Underlyingthislineofthinkingistheoddpresumptionthatthepeopleoftheworldcanbeuniquelycategorizedaccordingtosomesingularandoverarchingsystemofpartitioning.Civilizationalorreligiouspartitioningoftheworldpopulationyieldsa“solitarist”approachtohumanidentity,whichseeshumanbeingsasmembersofexactlyonegroup(inthiscasedefinedbycivilizationorreligion,incontrastwithearlierrelianceonnationalitiesandclasses).Asolitaristapproachcanbeagoodwayofmisunderstandingnearlyeveryoneintheworld.Inour

normallives,weseeourselvesasmembersofavarietyofgroups—webelongtoallofthem.Thesamepersoncanbe,withoutanycontradiction,anAmericancitizen,ofCaribbeanorigin,withAfricanancestry,

aChristian,aliberal,awoman,avegetarian,along-distancerunner,ahistorian,aschoolteacher,anovelist,afeminist,aheterosexual,abelieveringayandlesbianrights,atheaterlover,anenvironmentalactivist,atennisfan,ajazzmusician,andsomeonewhoisdeeplycommittedtotheviewthatthereareintelligentbeingsinouterspacewithwhomitisextremelyurgenttotalk(preferablyinEnglish).Eachofthesecollectivities,toallofwhichthispersonsimultaneouslybelongs,givesheraparticularidentity.Noneofthemcanbetakentobetheperson’sonlyidentityorsingularmembershipcategory.Givenourinescapablypluralidentities,wehavetodecideontherelativeimportanceofourdifferentassociationsandaffiliationsinanyparticularcontext.Centraltoleadingahumanlife,therefore,aretheresponsibilitiesofchoiceandreasoning.Incontrast,

violenceispromotedbythecultivationofasenseofinevitabilityaboutsomeallegedlyunique—oftenbelligerent—identitythatwearesupposedtohaveandwhichapparentlymakesextensivedemandsonus(sometimesofamostdisagreeablekind).Theimpositionofanallegedlyuniqueidentityisoftenacrucialcomponentofthe“martialart”offomentingsectarianconfrontation.Unfortunately,manywell-intentionedattemptstostopsuchviolencearealsohandicappedbythe

perceivedabsenceofchoiceaboutouridentities,andthiscanseriouslydamageourabilitytodefeatviolence.Whentheprospectsofgoodrelationsamongdifferenthumanbeingsareseen(astheyincreasinglyare)primarilyintermsof“amityamongcivilizations,”or“dialoguebetweenreligiousgroups,”or“friendlyrelationsbetweendifferentcommunities”(ignoringthegreatmanydifferentwaysinwhichpeoplerelatetoeachother),aseriousminiaturizationofhumanbeingsprecedesthedevisedprogramsforpeace.Oursharedhumanitygetssavagelychallengedwhenthemanifolddivisionsintheworldareunifiedinto

oneallegedlydominantsystemofclassification—intermsofreligion,orcommunity,orculture,ornation,orcivilization(treatingeachasuniquelypowerfulinthecontextofthatparticularapproachtowarandpeace).Theuniquelypartitionedworldismuchmoredivisivethantheuniverseofpluralanddiversecategoriesthatshapetheworldinwhichwelive.Itgoesnotonlyagainsttheold-fashionedbeliefthat“wehumanbeingsareallmuchthesame”(whichtendstoberidiculedthesedays—notentirelywithoutreason—asmuchtoosoftheaded),butalsoagainstthelessdiscussedbutmuchmoreplausibleunderstandingthatwearediverselydifferent.Thehopeofharmonyinthecontemporaryworldliestoagreatextentinaclearerunderstandingofthepluralitiesofhumanidentity,andintheappreciationthattheycutacrosseachotherandworkagainstasharpseparationalongonesinglehardenedlineofimpenetrabledivision.Indeed,conceptualdisarray,andnotjustnastyintentions,significantlycontributetotheturmoiland

barbarityweseearoundus.Theillusionofdestiny,particularlyaboutsomesingularidentityorother(andtheirallegedimplications),nurturesviolenceintheworldthroughomissionsaswellascommissions.Wehavetoseeclearlythatwehavemanydistinctaffiliationsandcaninteractwitheachotherinagreatmanydifferentways(nomatterwhattheinstigatorsandtheirflusteredopponentstellus).Thereisroomforustodecideonourpriorities.Theneglectofthepluralityofouraffiliationsandoftheneedforchoiceandreasoningobscuresthe

worldinwhichwelive.ItpushesusinthedirectionoftheterrifyingprospectsportrayedbyMatthewArnoldin“DoverBeach”:

Andwearehereasonadarklingplain

Sweptwithconfusedalarmsofstruggleandflight,Whereignorantarmiesclashbynight.

Wecandobetterthanthat.

Preface

OscarWildemadetheenigmaticclaim,“Mostpeopleareotherpeople.”Thismaysoundlikeofoneofhismoreoutrageousconundrums,butinthiscaseWildedefendedhisviewwithconsiderablecogency:“Theirthoughtsaresomeoneelse’sopinions,theirlivesamimicry,theirpassionsaquotation.”Weareindeedinfluencedtoanamazingextentbypeoplewithwhomweidentify.Activelypromotedsectarianhatredscanspreadlikewild-fire,aswehaveseenrecentlyinKosovo,Bosnia,Rwanda,Timor,Israel,Palestine,Sudan,andmanyotherplacesintheworld.Withsuitableinstigation,afosteredsenseofidentitywithonegroupofpeoplecanbemadeintoapowerfulweapontobrutalizeanother.Indeed,manyoftheconflictsandbarbaritiesintheworldaresustainedthroughtheillusionofaunique

andchoicelessidentity.Theartofconstructinghatredtakestheformofinvokingthemagicalpowerofsomeallegedlypredominantidentitythatdrownsotheraffiliations,andinaconvenientlybellicoseformcanalsooverpoweranyhumansympathyornaturalkindnessthatwemaynormallyhave.Theresultcanbehomespunelementalviolence,orgloballyartfulviolenceandterrorism.Infact,amajorsourceofpotentialconflictinthecontemporaryworldisthepresumptionthatpeople

canbeuniquelycategorizedbasedonreligionorculture.Theimplicitbeliefintheoverarchingpowerofasingularclassificationcanmaketheworldthoroughlyinflammable.Auniquelydivisiveviewgoesnotonlyagainsttheold-fashionedbeliefthatallhumanbeingsaremuchthesamebutalsoagainstthelessdiscussedbutmuchmoreplausibleunderstandingthatwearediverselydifferent.Theworldisfrequentlytakentobeacollectionofreligions(orof“civilizations”or“cultures”),ignoringtheotheridentitiesthatpeoplehaveandvalue,involvingclass,gender,profession,language,science,morals,andpolitics.Thisuniquedivisivenessismuchmoreconfrontationalthantheuniverseofpluralanddiverseclassificationsthatshapetheworldinwhichweactuallylive.Thereductionismofhightheorycanmakeamajorcontribution,ofteninadvertently,totheviolenceoflowpolitics.Also,globalattemptstoovercomesuchviolenceareoftenhandicappedbyasimilarconceptual

disarray,withtheacceptance—explicitlyorbyimplication—ofauniqueidentityforestallingmanyoftheobviousavenuesofresistance.Asaconsequence,religion-basedviolencemightendupbeingchallengednotthroughthestrengtheningofcivilsociety(obviousasthatcourseis),butthroughthedeploymentofdifferentreligiousleadersofapparently“moderate”persuasionwhoarechargedwithvanquishingtheextremistsinanintrareligiousbattle,possiblythroughsuitablyredefiningthedemandsofthereligioninvolved.Wheninterpersonalrelationsareseeninsingularintergroupterms,as“amity”or“dialogue”amongcivilizationsorreligiousethnicities,payingnoattentiontoothergroupstowhichthesamepersonsalsobelong(involvingeconomic,social,political,orotherculturalconnections),thenmuchofimportanceinhumanlifeisaltogetherlost,andindividualsareputintolittleboxes.

Theappallingeffectsoftheminiaturizationofpeopleisthesubjectmatterofthisbook.Theycallforareexaminationandreassessmentofsomewell-establishedsubjects,suchaseconomicglobalization,politicalmulticulturalism,historicalpostcolonialism,socialethnicity,religiousfundamentalism,andglobalterrorism.Theprospectsofpeaceinthecontemporaryworldmaywelllieintherecognitionofthepluralityofouraffiliationsandintheuseofreasoningascommoninhabitantsofawideworld,ratherthanmakingusintoinmatesrigidlyincarceratedinlittlecontainers.Whatweneed,aboveall,isaclear-headedunderstandingoftheimportanceofthefreedomthatwecanhaveindeterminingourpriorities.And,relatedtothatunderstanding,weneedanappropriaterecognitionoftheroleandefficacyofreasonedpublicvoice—withinnationsandacrosstheworld.ThebookbeganwithsixlecturesIgaveonidentityatBostonUniversitybetweenNovember2001and

April2002,inresponsetoakindinvitationfromProfessorDavidFromkinofthePardeeCenter.Thecenterisdedicatedtothestudyofthefuture,andthechosentitleoftheseriesoflectureswas“TheFutureofIdentity.”However,withalittlehelpfromT.S.Eliot,Iwasabletoconvincemyselfthat“Timepresentandtimepast,/Arebothperhapspresentintimefuture.”Bythetimethebookwasdone,itwasasmuchconcernedwiththeroleofidentityinhistoricalandcontemporarysituationsaswithprognosticationsofhereafter.Infact,twoyearsbeforethoseBostontalks,inNovember1998,IhadgivenapubliclectureatOxford

Universityontheroleofreasoninginthechoiceofidentity,underthetitle“ReasonbeforeIdentity.”Althoughtheorganizationofthethoroughlyformal“RomanesLecture,”deliveredregularlyatOxfordUniversity(WilliamGladstonehadgiventhefirstonein1892;TonyBlairdeliveredtheonein1999),resultedinmybeingmarchedoutofthehall(inaprocessionledbyuniversityauthoritiesinfancydress)assoonasthelastsentenceofthelecturehadbeenaired(beforeanylistenercouldaskanyquestion),Idideventuallygetsomehelpfulcommentslateronbecauseofalittlepamphletthatwasmadeoutofthelecture.IhaveusedtheRomanesLectureinwritingthisbookandhavedrawnonmyoldtextandalsoontheinsightsfromthecommentsIreceived.Indeed,IhavebenefitedgreatlyfromcommentsandsuggestionsafterseveralotherpubliclecturesI

gaveonanarrayofrelatedsubjects(withsomeconnectionwithidentity)including,amongothers,the2000AnnualLectureattheBritishAcademy,aspeciallectureattheCollegedeFrance(hostedbyPierreBourdieu),theIshizakaLecturesinTokyo,apubliclectureatSt.Paul’sCathedral,thePhyaPrichanusatMemorialLectureatVajiravudhCollegeinBangkok,theDorabTataLecturesinBombayandDelhi,theEricWilliamsLectureattheCentralBankofTrinidadandTobago,theGilbertMurrayLectureofOXFAM,theHitchcockLecturesattheUniversityofCaliforniaatBerkeley,thePenroseLectureattheAmericanPhilosophicalSociety,andthe2005B.P.LectureattheBritishMuseum.IhavealsohadhelpfuldiscussionsfollowingthepresentationsIhavetriedoutoverthelastsevenyears,indifferentpartsoftheworld:atAmherstCollege,theChineseUniversityofHongKong,ColumbiaUniversityinNewYork,DhakaUniversity,HitotsubashiUniversityinTokyo,KocUniversityinIstanbul,Mt.HolyokeCollege,NewYorkUniversity,PaviaUniversity,PierreMendèsFranceUniversityinGrenoble,RhodesUniversityinGrahamstown,SouthAfrica,RitsumeikanUniversityinKyoto,RoviraVirgiliUniversityinTarragona,SantaClaraUniversity,ScrippsCollegeatClaremont,St.Paul’sUniversity,TechnicalUniversityofLisbon,TokyoUniversity,TorontoUniversity,UniversityofCaliforniaatSantaCruz,andVillanova

University,inaddition,ofcourse,toHarvardUniversity.Thesediscussionshavegreatlyhelpedmetoworktowardabetterunderstandingoftheproblemsinvolved.ForveryusefulcommentsandsuggestionsIamindebtedtoBinaAgarwal,GeorgeAkerlof,Sabina

Alkire,SudhirAnand,AnthonyAppiah,HomiBhabha,AkeelBilgrami,SugataBose,LincolnChen,MarthaChen,MeghnadDesai,AntaraDevSen,HenryFinder,DavidFromkin,SakikoFukuda-Parr,FrancisFukuyama,HenryLouisGatesJr.,RounaqJahan,AsmaJahangir,DevakiJain,AyeshaJalal,AnanyaKabir,PratikKanjilal,SunilKhilnani,AlanKirman,SeiichiKondo,SebastianoMaffetone,JugnuMohsin,MarthaNussbaum,KenzaburoOe,SiddiqOsmani,RobertPutnam,MozaffarQizilbash,RichardParker,KumarRana,IngridRobeyns,EmmaRothschild,CarolRovane,ZainabSalbi,MichaelSandel,IndraniSen,NajamSethi,RehmanSobhan,AlfredStepan,KotaroSuzumura,MiriamTeschl,ShashiTharoor,andLeonWieseltier.MyunderstandingofMahatmaGandhi’sideasonidentityhasbeenimmenselyhelpedbymydiscussionswithhisgrandson,GopalGandhi,writerandnowthegovernorofWestBengal.RobertWeilandRobyHarrington,myeditorsatNorton,havebeenimmenselyhelpfulwithmany

importantsuggestions,andIhavealsobenefitedfromdiscussionswithLynnNesbit.AmyRobbinshasdoneasuperbjobofcopyeditingmyless-than-neatmanuscript,andTomMayerhasbeenwonderfulincoordinatingeverything.AsidefromthesupportiveacademicatmosphereatHarvardUniversitywhereIteach,Ihavealso

benefitedfromthefacilitiesatTrinityCollege,Cambridge,particularlyduringthesummermonths.TheCentreforHistoryandEconomicsatKing’sCollege,Cambridge,hashelpedmebyprovidingaremarkablyefficientresearchbase;andIammostgratefultoIngaHuldMarkanfortakingcareofmanyresearch-relatedproblems.AnanyaKabir’sworkatthecenteronrelatedthemeshasalsobeenofgreatusetome.Forexcellentresearchassistance,IamgratefultoDavidMericleandRosieVaughan.Formeetingthematerialcostsofmyresearchactivities,IamverygratefulforjointsupportfromtheFordFoundation,theRockefellerFoundation,andtheMellonFoundation.Finally,ImustalsoacknowledgethebenefitIhavereceivedfromwide-rangingdiscussions,involving

participantsfrommanydifferentcountries,attheWorldCivilizationForum,arrangedbytheJapaneseGovernmentinTokyoinJuly2005,whichIwasprivilegedtochair.Ihavealsobenefitedfromthe2004discussionsofGlobusetLocusinTurin,ledbyPieroBassetti,andthe2005SymiSymposiumheldinJulyinHeraklion,Crete,ontherelatedthemeofglobaldemocracy,ledbyGeorgePapandreou.Eventhoughthecurrentpublicinterestandengagementinissuesofglobalviolencearetheresultsof

terriblytragicanddisturbingevents,itisgoodthatthesemattersarereceivingwidespreadattention.SinceItrytoargueasstronglyasIcanforawideruseofourvoiceintheworkingoftheglobalcivilsociety(tobedistinguishedfrommilitaryinitiativesandstrategicactivitiesofgovernmentsandtheiralliances),Iamencouragedbytheseinteractivedevelopments.Isupposethatmakesmeanoptimist,butmuchwilldependonhowwerisetothechallengethatweface.

AmartyaSenCambridge,Massachusetts

October2005

CHAPTER 1

TheViolenceofIllusion

LangstonHughes,theAfrican-Americanwriter,describesinhis1940autobiography,TheBigSea,theexhilarationthatseizedhimasheleftNewYorkforAfrica.HethrewhisAmericanbooksintothesea:“[I]twaslikethrowingamillionbricksoutofmyheart.”Hewasonhiswaytohis“Africa,Motherlandofthenegropeople!”Soonhewouldexperience“therealthing,tobetouchedandseen,notmerelyreadaboutinabook.”1Asenseofidentitycanbeasourcenotmerelyofprideandjoy,butalsoofstrengthandconfidence.Itisnotsurprisingthattheideaofidentityreceivessuchwidespreadadmiration,frompopularadvocacyoflovingyourneighbortohightheoriesofsocialcapitalandofcommunitarianself-definition.Andyetidentitycanalsokill—andkillwithabandon.Astrong—andexclusive—senseofbelongingto

onegroupcaninmanycasescarrywithittheperceptionofdistanceanddivergencefromothergroups.Within-groupsolidaritycanhelptofeedbetween-groupdiscord.WemaysuddenlybeinformedthatwearenotjustRwandansbutspecificallyHutus(“wehateTutsis”),orthatwearenotreallymereYugoslavsbutactuallySerbs(“weabsolutelydon’tlikeMuslims”).FrommyownchildhoodmemoryofHindu-Muslimriotsinthe1940s,linkedwiththepoliticsofpartition,IrecollectthespeedwithwhichthebroadhumanbeingsofJanuaryweresuddenlytransformedintotheruthlessHindusandfierceMuslimsofJuly.Hundredsofthousandsperishedatthehandsofpeoplewho,ledbythecommandersofcarnage,killedothersonbehalfoftheir“ownpeople.”Violenceisfomentedbytheimpositionofsingularandbelligerentidentitiesongulliblepeople,championedbyproficientartisansofterror.Thesenseofidentitycanmakeanimportantcontributiontothestrengthandthewarmthofourrelations

withothers,suchasneighbors,ormembersofthesamecommunity,orfellowcitizens,orfollowersofthesamereligion.Ourfocusonparticularidentitiescanenrichourbondsandmakeusdomanythingsforeachotherandcanhelptotakeusbeyondourself-centeredlives.Therecentliteratureon“socialcapital,”powerfullyexploredbyRobertPutnamandothers,hasbroughtoutclearlyenoughhowanidentitywithothersinthesamesocialcommunitycanmakethelivesofallgomuchbetterinthatcommunity;asenseofbelongingtoacommunityisthusseenasaresource—likecapital.2Thatunderstandingisimportant,butithastobesupplementedbyafurtherrecognitionthatasenseofidentitycanfirmlyexcludemanypeopleevenasitwarmlyembracesothers.Thewell-integratedcommunityinwhichresidentsinstinctivelydoabsolutelywonderfulthingsforeachotherwithgreatimmediacyandsolidaritycanbetheverysamecommunityinwhichbricksarethrownthroughthewindowsofimmigrantswhomoveintotheregionfromelsewhere.Theadversityofexclusioncanbemadetogohandinhandwiththegiftsofinclusion.Thecultivatedviolenceassociatedwithidentityconflictsseemstorepeatitselfaroundtheworldwith

increasingpersistence.3EventhoughthebalanceofpowerinRwandaandCongomayhavechanged,thetargetingofonegroupbyanothercontinueswithmuchforce.ThemarshalingofanaggressiveSudanese

Islamicidentityalongwithexploitationofracialdivisionshasledtotherapingandkillingofoverpoweredvictimsinthesouthofthatappallinglymilitarizedpolity.IsraelandPalestinecontinuetoexperiencethefuryofdichotomizedidentitiesreadytoinflicthatefulpenaltiesontheotherside.AlQaedareliesheavilyoncultivatingandexploitingamilitantIslamicidentityspecificallyaimedagainstWesternpeople.Andreportskeepcomingin,fromAbuGhraibandelsewhere,thattheactivitiesofsomeAmericanor

Britishsoldierssentouttofightforthecauseoffreedomanddemocracyincludedwhatiscalleda“softening-up”ofprisonersinutterlyinhumanways.Unrestrainedpoweroverthelivesofsuspectedenemycombatants,orpresumedmiscreants,sharplybifurcatestheprisonersandthecustodiansacrossahardenedlineofdivisiveidentities(“theyareaseparatebreedfromus”).Itseemstocrowdout,oftenenough,anyconsiderationofother,lessconfrontationalfeaturesofthepeopleontheoppositesideofthebreach,including,amongotherthings,theirsharedmembershipofthehumanrace.

RecognitionofCompetingAffiliations

Ifidentity-basedthinkingcanbeamenabletosuchbrutalmanipulation,wherecantheremedybefound?Itcanhardlybesoughtintryingtosuppressorstifletheinvokingofidentityingeneral.Foronething,identitycanbeasourceofrichnessandwarmthaswellasofviolenceandterror,anditwouldmakelittlesensetotreatidentityasageneralevil.Rather,wehavetodrawontheunderstandingthattheforceofabellicoseidentitycanbechallengedbythepowerofcompetingidentities.Thesecan,ofcourse,includethebroadcommonalityofoursharedhumanity,butalsomanyotheridentitiesthateveryonesimultaneouslyhas.Thisleadstootherwaysofclassifyingpeople,whichcanrestraintheexploitationofaspecificallyaggressiveuseofoneparticularcategorization.AHutulaborerfromKigalimaybepressuredtoseehimselfonlyasaHutuandincitedtokillTutsis,

andyetheisnotonlyaHutu,butalsoaKigalian,aRwandan,anAfrican,alaborer,andahumanbeing.Alongwiththerecognitionofthepluralityofouridentitiesandtheirdiverseimplications,thereisacriticallyimportantneedtoseetheroleofchoiceindeterminingthecogencyandrelevanceofparticularidentitieswhichareinescapablydiverse.Thatmaybeplainenough,butitisimportanttoseethatthisillusionreceiveswell-intentionedbut

ratherdisastroussupportfrompractitionersofavarietyofrespected—andindeedhighlyrespectable—schoolsofintellectualthought.Theyinclude,amongothers,dedicatedcommunitarianswhotakethecommunityidentitytobepeerlessandparamountinapredeterminedway,asifbynature,withoutanyneedforhumanvolition(just“recognition”—touseamuch-lovedconcept),andalsounswervingculturaltheoristswhopartitionthepeopleoftheworldintolittleboxesofdisparatecivilizations.Inournormallives,weseeourselvesasmembersofavarietyofgroups—webelongtoallofthem.A

person’scitizenship,residence,geographicorigin,gender,class,politics,profession,employment,foodhabits,sportsinterests,tasteinmusic,socialcommitments,etc.,makeusmembersofavarietyofgroups.Eachofthesecollectivities,toallofwhichthispersonsimultaneouslybelongs,givesheraparticularidentity.Noneofthemcanbetakentobetheperson’sonlyidentityorsingularmembershipcategory.

ConstraintsandFreedoms

Manycommunitarianthinkerstendtoarguethatadominantcommunalidentityisonlyamatterofself-realization,notofchoice.Itis,however,hardtobelievethatapersonreallyhasnochoiceindecidingwhatrelativeimportancetoattachtothevariousgroupstowhichheorshebelongs,andthatshemustjust“discover”heridentities,asifitwereapurelynaturalphenomenon(likedeterminingwhetheritisdayornight).Infact,weareallconstantlymakingchoices,ifonlyimplicitly,abouttheprioritiestobeattachedtoourdifferentaffiliationsandassociations.Thefreedomtodetermineourloyaltiesandprioritiesbetweenthedifferentgroupstoallofwhichwemaybelongisapeculiarlyimportantlibertywhichwehavereasontorecognize,value,anddefend.Theexistenceofchoicedoesnot,ofcourse,indicatethattherearenoconstraintsrestrictingchoice.

Indeed,choicesarealwaysmadewithinthelimitsofwhatareseenasfeasible.Thefeasibilitiesinthecaseofidentitieswilldependonindividualcharacteristicsandcircumstancesthatdeterminethealternativepossibilitiesopentous.This,however,isnotaremarkablefact.Itisjustthewayeverychoiceinanyfieldisactuallyfaced.Indeed,nothingcanbemoreelementaryanduniversalthanthefactthatchoicesofallkindsineveryareaarealwaysmadewithinparticularlimits.Forexample,whenwedecidewhattobuyatthemarket,wecanhardlyignorethefactthattherearelimitsonhowmuchwecanspend.The“budgetconstraint,”aseconomistscallit,isomnipresent.Thefactthateverybuyerhastomakechoicesdoesnotindicatethatthereisnobudgetconstraint,butonlythatchoiceshavetobemadewithinthebudgetconstraintthepersonfaces.Whatistrueinelementaryeconomicsisalsotrueincomplexpoliticalandsocialdecisions.Evenwhen

oneisinescapablyseen—byoneselfaswellasbyothers—asFrench,orJewish,orBrazilian,orAfrican-American,or(particularlyinthecontextofthepresent-dayturmoil)asanAraborasaMuslim,onestillhastodecidewhatexactimportancetoattachtothatidentityovertherelevanceofothercategoriestowhichonealsobelongs.

ConvincingOthers

However,evenwhenweareclearabouthowwewanttoseeourselves,wemaystillhavedifficultyinbeingabletopersuadeotherstoseeusinjustthatway.Anonwhitepersoninapartheid-dominatedSouthAfricacouldnotinsistthatshebetreatedjustasahumanbeing,irrespectiveofherracialcharacteristics.Shewouldtypicallyhavebeenplacedinthecategorythatthestateandthedominantmembersofthesocietyreservedforher.Ourfreedomtoassertourpersonalidentitiescansometimesbeextraordinarilylimitedintheeyesofothers,nomatterhowweseeourselves.Indeed,sometimeswemaynotevenbefullyawarehowothersidentifyus,whichmaydifferfromself-

perception.ThereisaninterestinglessoninanoldItalianstory—fromthe1920swhensupportforfascistpoliticswasspreadingrapidlyacrossItaly—concerningapoliticalrecruiterfromtheFascistPartyarguingwitharuralsocialistthatheshouldjointheFascistPartyinstead.“HowcanI,”saidthepotentialrecruit,“joinyourparty?Myfatherwasasocialist.Mygrandfatherwasasocialist.IcannotreallyjointheFascistParty.”“Whatkindofanargumentisthis?”saidtheFascistrecruiter,reasonablyenough.“Whatwouldyouhavedone,”heaskedtheruralsocialist,“ifyourfatherhadbeenamurdererandyourgrandfatherhadalsobeenamurderer?Whatwouldyouhavedonethen?”“Ah,then,”saidthepotentialrecruit,“then,ofcourse,IwouldhavejoinedtheFascistParty.”

Thismaybeacaseoffairlyreasonable,evenbenign,attribution,butquiteoftenascriptiongoeswithdenigration,whichisusedtoinciteviolenceagainstthevilifiedperson.“TheJewisaman,”Jean-PaulSartrearguedinPortraitoftheAnti-Semite,“whomothermenlookuponasaJew;…itistheanti-SemitewhomakestheJew.”Chargedattributionscanincorporatetwodistinctbutinterrelateddistortions:misdescriptionofpeoplebelongingtoatargetedcategory,andaninsistencethatthemisdescribedcharacteristicsaretheonlyrelevantfeaturesofthetargetedperson’sidentity.Inopposingexternalimposition,apersoncanbothtrytoresisttheascriptionofparticularcharacteristicsandpointtootheridentitiesapersonhas,muchasShylockattemptedtodoinShakespeare’sbrilliantlyclutteredstory:“HathnotaJeweyes?hathnotaJewhands,organs,dimensions,senses,affections,passions?fedwiththesamefood,hurtwiththesameweapons,subjecttothesamediseases,healedbythesamemeans,warmedandcooledbythesamewinterandsummer,asaChristianis?”5

Theassertionofhumancommonalityhasbeenapartofresistancetodegradingattributionsindifferentculturesatdifferentpointsintime.IntheIndianepicMahabharata,datingfromaroundtwothousandyearsago,Bharadvaja,anargumentativeinterlocutor,respondstothedefenseofthecastesystembyBhrigu(apillaroftheestablishment)byasking:“Weallseemtobeaffectedbydesire,anger,fear,sorrow,worry,hunger,andlabor;howdowehavecastedifferencesthen?”Thefoundationsofdegradationincludenotonlydescriptivemisrepresentation,butalsotheillusionofa

singularidentitythatothersmustattributetothepersontobedemeaned.“Thereusedtobeame,”PeterSellers,theEnglishactor,saidinafamousinterview,“butIhaditsurgicallyremoved.”Thatremovalischallengingenough,butnolessradicalisthesurgicalimplantationofa“realme”byotherswhoaredeterminedtomakeusdifferentfromwhatwethinkweare.Organizedattributioncanpreparethegroundforpersecutionandburial.Furthermore,evenifinparticularcircumstancespeoplehavedifficultyinconvincingothersto

acknowledgetherelevanceofidentitiesotherthanwhatismarshaledforthepurposeofdenigration(alongwithdescriptivedistortionsoftheascribedidentity),thatisnotreasonenoughtoignorethoseotheridentitieswhencircumstancesaredifferent.Thisapplies,forexample,toJewishpeopleinIsraeltoday,ratherthaninGermanyinthe1930s.Itwouldbealong-runvictoryofNazismifthebarbaritiesofthe1930seliminatedforeveraJewishperson’sfreedomandabilitytoinvokeanyidentityotherthanhisorherJewishness.Similarly,theroleofreasonedchoiceneedsemphasisinresistingtheascriptionofsingularidentities

andtherecruitmentoffootsoldiersinthebloodycampaigntoterrorizetargetedvictims.Campaignstoswitchperceivedself-identitieshavebeenresponsibleformanyatrocitiesintheworld,makingoldfriendsintonewenemiesandodioussectariansintosuddenlypowerfulpoliticalleaders.Theneedtorecognizetheroleofreasoningandchoiceinidentity-basedthinkingisthusbothexactingandextremelyimportant.

DenialofChoiceandResponsibility

Ifchoicesdoexistandyetitisassumedthattheyarenotthere,theuseofreasoningmaywellbereplacedbyuncriticalacceptanceofconformistbehavior,nomatterhowrejectableitmaybe.Typically,suchconformismtendstohaveconservativeimplications,andworksinthedirectionofshieldingoldcustomsandpracticesfromintelligentscrutiny.Indeed,traditionalinequalities,suchasunequaltreatmentof

womeninsexistsocieties(andevenviolenceagainstthem),ordiscriminationagainstmembersofotherracialgroups,survivebytheunquestioningacceptanceofreceivedbeliefs(includingthesubservientrolesofthetraditionalunderdog).Manypastpracticesandassumedidentitieshavecrumbledinresponsetoquestioningandscrutiny.Traditionscanshiftevenwithinaparticularcountryandculture.ItisperhapsworthrecollectingthatJohnStuartMill’sTheSubjectionofWomen,publishedin1874,wastakenbymanyofhisBritishreaderstobetheultimateproofofhiseccentricity,andasamatteroffact,interestinthesubjectwassominimalthatthisistheonlybookofMill’sonwhichhispublisherlostmoney.6

However,theunquestioningacceptanceofasocialidentitymaynotalwayshavetraditionalistimplications.Itcanalsoinvolvearadicalreorientationinidentitywhichcouldthenbesoldasapieceofalleged“discovery”withoutreasonedchoice.Thiscanplayanawesomeroleinthefomentingofviolence.MydisturbingmemoriesofHindu-MuslimriotsinIndiainthe1940s,towhichIreferredearlier,includeseeing—withthebewilderedeyesofachild—themassiveidentityshiftsthatfolloweddivisivepolitics.Agreatmanypersons’identitiesasIndians,assubcontinentals,asAsians,orasmembersofthehumanrace,seemedtogiveway—quitesuddenly—tosectarianidentificationwithHindu,Muslim,orSikhcommunities.Thecarnagethatfollowedhadmuchtodowithelementaryherdbehaviorbywhichpeopleweremadeto“discover”theirnewlydetectedbelligerentidentities,withoutsubjectingtheprocesstocriticalexamination.Thesamepeopleweresuddenlydifferent.

CivilizationalIncarceration

Aremarkableuseofimaginedsingularitycanbefoundinthebasicclassificatoryideathatservesastheintellectualbackgroundtothemuch-discussedthesisof“theclashofcivilizations,”whichhasbeenchampionedrecently,particularlyfollowingthepublicationofSamuelHuntington’sinfluentialbook,TheClashofCivilizationsandtheRemakingoftheWorldOrder.7Thedifficultywiththisapproachbeginswithuniquecategorization,wellbeforetheissueofaclash—ornot—isevenraised.Indeed,thethesisofacivilizationalclashisconceptuallyparasiticonthecommandingpowerofauniquecategorizationalongso-calledcivilizationallines,whichasithappenscloselyfollowsreligiousdivisionstowhichsingularattentionispaid.HuntingtoncontrastsWesterncivilizationwith“Islamiccivilization,”“Hinducivilization,”“Buddhistcivilization,”andsoon.Theallegedconfrontationsofreligiousdifferencesareincorporatedintoasharplycarpenteredvisionofonedominantandhardeneddivisiveness.Infact,ofcourse,thepeopleoftheworldcanbeclassifiedaccordingtomanyothersystemsof

partitioning,eachofwhichhassome—oftenfar-reaching—relevanceinourlives:suchasnationalities,locations,classes,occupations,socialstatus,languages,politics,andmanyothers.Whilereligiouscategorieshavereceivedmuchairinginrecentyears,theycannotbepresumedtoobliterateotherdistinctions,andevenlesscantheybeseenastheonlyrelevantsystemofclassifyingpeopleacrosstheglobe.Inpartitioningthepopulationoftheworldintothosebelongingto“theIslamicworld,”“theWesternworld,”“theHinduworld,”“theBuddhistworld,”thedivisivepowerofclassificatorypriorityisimplicitlyusedtoplacepeoplefirmlyinsideauniquesetofrigidboxes.Otherdivisions(say,betweentherichandthepoor,betweenmembersofdifferentclassesandoccupations,betweenpeopleofdifferentpolitics,betweendistinctnationalitiesandresidentiallocations,betweenlanguagegroups,etc.)areallsubmergedbythisallegedlyprimalwayofseeingthedifferencesbetweenpeople.

Thedifficultywiththethesisoftheclashofcivilizationsbeginswellbeforewecometotheissueofaninevitableclash;itbeginswiththepresumptionoftheuniquerelevanceofasingularclassification.Indeed,thequestion“docivilizationsclash?”isfoundedonthepresumptionthathumanitycanbepreeminentlyclassifiedintodistinctanddiscretecivilizations,andthattherelationsbetweendifferenthumanbeingscansomehowbeseen,withoutseriouslossofunderstanding,intermsofrelationsbetweendifferentcivilizations.Thebasicflawofthethesismuchprecedesthepointwhereitisaskedwhethercivilizationsmustclash.Thisreductionistviewistypicallycombined,Iamafraid,witharatherfoggyperceptionofworld

historywhichoverlooks,first,theextentofinternaldiversitieswithinthesecivilizationalcategories,andsecond,thereachandinfluenceofinteractions—intellectualaswellasmaterial—thatgorightacrosstheregionalbordersofso-calledcivilizations(moreonthisinchapter3).Anditspowertobefuddlecantrapnotonlythosewhowouldliketosupportthethesisofaclash(varyingfromWesternchauviniststoIslamicfundamentalists),butalsothosewhowouldliketodisputeitandyettrytorespondwithinthestraitjacketofitsprespecifiedtermsofreference.Thelimitationsofsuchcivilization-basedthinkingcanprovetobejustastreacherousforprogramsof

“dialogueamongcivilizations”(somethingthatseemstobemuchsoughtafterthesedays)astheyarefortheoriesofaclashofcivilizations.Thenobleandelevatingsearchforamityamongpeopleseenasamitybetweencivilizationsspeedilyreducesmany-sidedhumanbeingsintoonedimensioneachandmuzzlesthevarietyofinvolvementsthathaveprovidedrichanddiversegroundsforcross-borderinteractionsovermanycenturies,includingthearts,literature,science,mathematics,games,trade,politics,andotherarenasofsharedhumaninterest.Well-meaningattemptsatpursuingglobalpeacecanhaveverycounterproductiveconsequenceswhentheseattemptsarefoundedonafundamentallyillusoryunderstandingoftheworldofhumanbeings.

MorethanaFederationofReligions

Increasingrelianceonreligion-basedclassificationofthepeopleoftheworldalsotendstomaketheWesternresponsetoglobalterrorismandconflictpeculiarlyham-handed.Respectfor“otherpeople”isshownbypraisingtheirreligiousbooks,ratherthanbytakingnoteofthemany-sidedinvolvementsandachievements,innonreligiousaswellasreligiousfields,ofdifferentpeopleinagloballyinteractiveworld.Inconfrontingwhatiscalled“Islamicterrorism,”inthemuddledvocabularyofcontemporaryglobalpolitics,theintellectualforceofWesternpolicyisaimedquitesubstantiallyattryingtodefine—orredefine—Islam.However,tofocusjustonthegrandreligiousclassificationisnotonlytomissothersignificant

concernsandideasthatmovepeople,italsohastheeffectofgenerallymagnifyingthevoiceofreligiousauthority.TheMuslimclerics,forexample,arethentreatedastheexofficiospokesmenfortheso-calledIslamicworld,eventhoughagreatmanypeoplewhohappentobeMuslimbyreligionhaveprofounddifferenceswithwhatisproposedbyonemullahoranother.Despiteourdiversediversities,theworldissuddenlyseennotasacollectionofpeople,butasafederationofreligionsandcivilizations.InBritainaconfoundedviewofwhatamultiethnicsocietymustdohasledtoencouragingthedevelopmentofstate-financedMuslimschools,Hinduschools,Sikhschools,etc.,tosupplementpreexistingstate-supportedChristianschools,andyoungchildrenarepowerfullyplacedinthedomainofsingularaffiliationswell

beforetheyhavetheabilitytoreasonaboutdifferentsystemsofidentificationthatmaycompetefortheirattention.Earlieron,state-rundenominationalschoolsinNorthernIrelandhadfedthepoliticaldistancingofCatholicsandProtestantsalongonelineofdivisivecategorizationassignedatinfancy,andthesamepredeterminationof“discovered”identitiesisnowbeingallowedand,ineffect,encouragedtosowevenmorealienationamongadifferentpartoftheBritishpopulation.Religiousorcivilizationalclassificationcan,ofcourse,beasourceofbelligerentdistortionaswell.It

can,forexample,taketheformofcrudebeliefswellexemplifiedbyU.S.LieutenantGeneralWilliamBoykin’sblaring—andbynowwell-known—remarkdescribinghisbattleagainstMuslimswithdisarmingcoarseness:“IknewthatmyGodwasbiggerthanhis,”andthattheChristianGod“wasarealGod,and[theMuslim’s]wasanidol.”8Theidiocyofsuchdensebigotryis,ofcourse,easytodiagnose,andforthisreasonthereis,Ibelieve,comparativelylimiteddangerintheuncouthhurlingofsuchunguidedmissiles.Thereis,incontrast,amuchmoreseriousproblemintheuseinWesternpublicpolicyofintellectual“guidedmissiles”thatpresentasuperficiallynoblervisiontowooMuslimactivistsawayfromoppositionthroughtheapparentlybenignstrategyofdefiningIslamappropriately.TheytrytowrenchIslamicterroristsfromviolencebyinsistingthatIslamisareligionofpeace,andthata“trueMuslim”mustbeatolerantindividual(“socomeoffitandbepeaceful”).TherejectionofaconfrontationalviewofIslamiscertainlyappropriateandextremelyimportantatthistime,butwemustalsoaskwhetheritisatallnecessaryoruseful,orevenpossible,totrytodefineinlargelypoliticaltermswhata“trueMuslim”mustbelike.9

MuslimsandIntellectualDiversity

Aperson’sreligionneednotbehisorherall-encompassingandexclusiveidentity.Inparticular,Islam,asareligion,doesnotobliterateresponsiblechoiceforMuslimsinmanyspheresoflife.Indeed,itispossibleforoneMuslimtotakeaconfrontationalviewandanothertobethoroughlytolerantofheterodoxywithouteitherofthemceasingtobeaMuslimforthatreasonalone.TheresponsetoIslamicfundamentalismandtotheterrorismlinkedwithitalsobecomesparticularly

confusedwhenthereisageneralfailuretodistinguishbetweenIslamichistoryandthehistoryofMuslimpeople.Muslims,likeallotherpeopleintheworld,havemanydifferentpursuits,andnotalloftheirprioritiesandvaluesneedbeplacedwithintheirsingularidentityofbeingIslamic(Ishallgomoreintothisissueinchapter4).Itis,ofcourse,notsurprisingatallthatthechampionsofIslamicfundamentalismwouldliketosuppressallotheridentitiesofMuslimsinfavorofbeingonlyIslamic.ButitisextremelyoddthatthosewhowanttoovercomethetensionsandconflictslinkedwithIslamicfundamentalismalsoseemunabletoseeMuslimpeopleinanyformotherthantheirbeingjustIslamic,whichiscombinedwithattemptstoredefineIslam,ratherthanseeingthemany-dimensionalnatureofdiversehumanbeingswhohappentobeMuslim.Peopleseethemselves—andhavereasontoseethemselves—inmanydifferentways.Forexample,a

BangladeshiMuslimisnotonlyaMuslimbutalsoaBengaliandaBangladeshi,typicallyquiteproudoftheBengalilanguage,literature,andmusic,nottomentiontheotheridentitiesheorshemayhaveconnectedwithclass,gender,occupation,politics,aesthetictaste,andsoon.Bangladesh’sseparationfromPakistanwasnotbasedonreligionatall,sinceaMuslimidentitywassharedbythebulkofthe

populationinthetwowingsofundividedPakistan.Theseparatistissuesrelatedtolanguage,literature,andpolitics.Similarly,thereisnoempiricalreasonatallwhychampionsoftheMuslimpast,orforthatmatterof

theArabheritage,havetoconcentratespecificallyonreligiousbeliefsonly,andnotalsoonscienceandmathematics,towhichArabandMuslimsocietieshavecontributedsomuch,andwhichcanalsobepartofaMuslimoranArabidentity.Despitetheimportanceofthisheritage,crudeclassificationshavetendedtoputscienceandmathematicsinthebasketof“Westernscience,”leavingotherpeopletominetheirprideinreligiousdepths.IfthedisaffectedArabactivisttodaycantakeprideonlyinthepurityofIslam,ratherthaninthemany-sidedrichnessofArabhistory,theuniqueprioritizationofreligion,sharedbywarriorsonbothsides,playsamajorpartinincarceratingpeoplewithintheenclosureofasingularidentity.EventhefranticWesternsearchfor“themoderateMuslim”confoundsmoderationinpoliticalbeliefs

withmoderatenessofreligiousfaith.Apersoncanhavestrongreligiousfaith—Islamicoranyother—alongwithtolerantpolitics.EmperorSaladin,whofoughtvaliantlyforIslamintheCrusadesinthetwelfthcentury,couldoffer,withoutanycontradiction,anhonoredplaceinhisEgyptianroyalcourttoMaimonidesasthatdistinguishedJewishphilosopherfledanintolerantEurope.When,attheturnofthesixteenthcentury,thehereticGiordanoBrunowasburnedatthestakeinCampodeiFioriinRome,theGreatMughalemperorAkbar(whowasbornaMuslimanddiedaMuslim)hadjustfinished,inAgra,hislargeprojectoflegallycodifyingminorityrights,includingreligiousfreedomforall.ThepointthatneedsparticularattentionisthatwhileAkbarwasfreetopursuehisliberalpolitics

withoutceasingtobeaMuslim,thatliberalitywasinnowayordained—norofcourseprohibited—byIslam.AnotherMughalemperor,Aurangzeb,coulddenyminorityrightsandpersecutenon-Muslimswithout,forthatreason,failingtobeaMuslim,inexactlythesamewaythatAkbardidnotterminatebeingaMuslimbecauseofhistolerantlypluralistpolitics.

TheFlamesofConfusion

Theinsistence,ifonlyimplicitly,onachoicelesssingularityofhumanidentitynotonlydiminishesusall,italsomakestheworldmuchmoreflammable.Thealternativetothedivisivenessofonepreeminentcategorizationisnotanyunrealclaimthatweareallmuchthesame.Thatwearenot.Rather,themainhopeofharmonyinourtroubledworldliesinthepluralityofouridentities,whichcutacrosseachotherandworkagainstsharpdivisionsaroundonesinglehardenedlineofvehementdivisionthatallegedlycannotberesisted.Oursharedhumanitygetssavagelychallengedwhenourdifferencesarenarrowedintoonedevisedsystemofuniquelypowerfulcategorization.Perhapstheworstimpairmentcomesfromtheneglect—anddenial—oftheroleofreasoningand

choice,whichfollowsfromtherecognitionofourpluralidentities.Theillusionofuniqueidentityismuchmoredivisivethantheuniverseofpluralanddiverseclassificationsthatcharacterizetheworldinwhichweactuallylive.Thedescriptiveweaknessofchoicelesssingularityhastheeffectofmomentouslyimpoverishingthepowerandreachofoursocialandpoliticalreasoning.Theillusionofdestinyexactsaremarkablyheavyprice.

CHAPTER 2

MakingSenseofIdentity

InanarrestingpassageinATurnintheSouth,V.S.Naipaulexpressesaworryaboutlosingone’spastandone’shistoricalidentityinthemeltingpotofthepresent.

In1961,whenIwastravellingintheCaribbeanformyfirsttravelbook,Iremembermyshock,myfeelingoftaintandspiritualannihilation,whenIsawsomeoftheIndiansofMartinique,andbegantounderstandthattheyhavebeenswampedbyMartinique,thatIhadnomeansofsharingtheworldviewofthesepeoplewhosehistoryatsomestagehadbeenlikemine,butwhonow,

raciallyandinotherways,hadbecomesomethingother.1

Concernsofthiskindnotonlyindicateananxietyandadisquiet,butalsopointilluminatinglytothepositiveandconstructiveimportancepeopletendtoattachtoasharedhistoryandasenseofaffiliationbasedonthishistory.Andyethistoryandbackgroundarenottheonlywayofseeingourselvesandthegroupstowhichwe

belong.Thereareagreatvarietyofcategoriestowhichwesimultaneouslybelong.Icanbe,atthesametime,anAsian,anIndiancitizen,aBengaliwithBangladeshiancestry,anAmericanorBritishresident,aneconomist,adabblerinphilosophy,anauthor,aSanskritist,astrongbelieverinsecularismanddemocracy,aman,afeminist,aheterosexual,adefenderofgayandlesbianrights,withanonreligiouslifestyle,fromaHindubackground,anon-Brahmin,andanonbelieverinanafterlife(andalso,incasethequestionisasked,anonbelieverina“before-life”aswell).ThisisjustasmallsampleofdiversecategoriestoeachofwhichImaysimultaneouslybelong—thereareofcourseagreatmanyothermembershipcategoriestoowhich,dependingoncircumstances,canmoveandengageme.Belongingtoeachoneofthemembershipgroupscanbequiteimportant,dependingontheparticular

context.Whentheycompeteforattentionandpriorityovereachother(theyneednotalways,sincetheremaybenoconflictbetweenthedemandsofdifferentloyalties),thepersonhastodecideontherelativeimportancetoattachtotherespectiveidentities,whichwill,again,dependontheexactcontext.Therearetwodistinctissueshere.First,therecognitionthatidentitiesarerobustlyplural,andthattheimportanceofoneidentityneednotobliteratetheimportanceofothers.Second,apersonhastomakechoices—explicitlyorbyimplication—aboutwhatrelativeimportancetoattach,inaparticularcontext,tothedivergentloyaltiesandprioritiesthatmaycompeteforprecedence.Identifyingwithothers,invariousdifferentways,canbeextremelyimportantforlivinginasociety.It

hasnot,however,alwaysbeeneasytopersuadesocialanalyststoaccommodateidentityinasatisfactoryway.Inparticular,twodifferenttypesofreductionismseemtoaboundintheformalliteratureofsocialandeconomicanalysis.Onemaybecalled“identitydisregard,”andittakestheformofignoring,orneglectingaltogether,theinfluenceofanysenseofidentitywithothers,onwhatwevalueandhowwebehave.Forexample,agooddealofcontemporaryeconomictheoryproceedsasif,inchoosingtheiraims,objectives,andpriorities,peopledonothave—orpayattentionto—anysenseofidentitywithanyoneotherthanthemselves.JohnDonnemayhavewarned,“Nomanisanislandentireofitself,”butthepostulatedhumanbeingsofpureeconomictheoryareoftenmadetoseethemselvesaspretty“entire.”

Incontrastwith“identitydisregard,”thereisadifferentkindofreductionism,whichwemaycall“singularaffiliation,”whichtakestheformofassumingthatanypersonpreeminentlybelongs,forallpracticalpurposes,toonecollectivityonly—nomoreandnoless.Ofcourse,wedoknowinfactthatanyrealhumanbeingbelongstomanydifferentgroups,throughbirth,associations,andalliances.Eachofthesegroupidentitiescan—andsometimesdoes—givethepersonasenseofaffiliationandloyalty.Despitethat,theassumptionofsingularaffiliationisamazinglypopular,ifonlyimplicitly,amongseveralgroupsofsocialtheorists.Itseemstoappealoftenenoughtocommunitarianthinkersaswellastothosetheoristsofculturalpoliticswholiketodivideuptheworldpopulationintocivilizationalcategories.Theintricaciesofpluralgroupsandmultipleloyaltiesareobliteratedbyseeingeachpersonasfirmlyembeddedinexactlyoneaffiliation,replacingtherichnessofleadinganabundanthumanlifewiththeformulaicnarrownessofinsistingthatanypersonis“situated”injustoneorganicpack.Tobesure,theassumptionofsingularityisnotonlythestaplenourishmentofmanytheoriesofidentity,

itisalso,asIdiscussedinthefirstchapter,afrequentlyusedweaponofsectarianactivistswhowantthetargetedpeopletoignorealtogetherallotherlinkagesthatcouldmoderatetheirloyaltytothespeciallymarkedherd.Theincitementtoignoreallaffiliationandloyaltiesotherthanthoseemanatingfromonerestrictiveidentitycanbedeeplydelusiveandalsocontributetosocialtensionandviolence.2

Giventhepowerfulpresenceofthesetwotypesofreductionismincontemporarysocialandeconomicthinking,bothdeserveseriousattention.

IdentityDisregardandtheRationalFool

Ibeginwithidentitydisregard.Theassumptionofnarrowlyself-interestedindividualshasevidentlyappearedtobe“natural”tomanymoderneconomists,andtheoddityofthatpresumptionhasbeenmademoreextremebythefurtherinsistence,whichtooisrathercommon,thatthisiswhat“rationality”—noless—invariablydemands.Thereisanargument—anallegedlyknockoutargument—thatweencountertoofrequently.Ittakestheformofasking:“ifitisnotinyourinterest,whywouldyouhavechosentodowhatyoudid?”Thiswise-guyskepticismmakeshugeidiotsoutofMohandasGandhi,MartinLutherKingJr.,MotherTeresa,andNelsonMandela,andrathersmalleridiotsoutoftherestofus,bythoroughlyignoringthevarietyofmotivationsthatmovehumanbeingslivinginasociety,withvariousaffiliationsandcommitments.Thesingle-mindedself-lovinghumanbeing,whoprovidesthebehavioralfoundationsofagreatmanyeconomictheories,hasbeenadornedoftenenoughbyelevatingnomenclature,suchasbeingcalled“theeconomicman,”or“therationalagent.”Therehave,ofcourse,beencritiquesofthepresumptionofsingle-mindedlyself-seekingeconomic

behavior(evenAdamSmith,whoisfrequentlytakentobethefoundingfatherof“theeconomicman,”hadexpressedprofoundskepticismofsuchanassumption),butmuchofmoderneconomictheorytendedtoproceedasifthesedoubtswereofmarginalconcernandcouldbeeasilybrushedoff.3Inrecentyearsthesegeneralcritiqueshave,however,beensupplementedbycriticismscomingfromresultsofexperimentalgamesandotherbehavioraltests,whichhavebroughtoutserioustensionsbetweentheassumptionofpureself-seekingwithsingularaffiliationandhowpeopleareactuallyobservedtobehave.Theseobservationshaveempiricallyreinforcedconceptualdoubtsaboutthecoherenceandsustainabilityofthepresumedmentalmakeupofsuchsingle-focuspeoplebecauseofthephilosophicalandpsychologicallimitationinvolvedinnotbeingabletomakeanyeffectivedifferencebetweenentirely

distinguishablequestions:“whatshallIdo?”“whatservesmyinterestbest?”“whatchoiceswillbestpromotemyobjectives?”“whatshouldIrationallychoose?”Apersonwhoactswithimpeccableconsistencyandpredictabilitybutcannevergivedifferentanswerstothesedisparatequestionscanbetakentobesomethingofa“rationalfool.”4

Itis,inthiscontext,particularlyimportanttotrytoincorporatetheperceptionandunderstandingofidentityintothecharacterizationofpreferenceandbehaviorineconomics.5Thishashappenedinmanydifferentwaysintherecentliterature.Theinclusionofconsiderationsofidentitywithothersinasharedgroup—andtheworkingofwhatGeorgeAkerlof,theeconomist,calls“loyaltyfilters”—canpowerfullyinfluenceindividualconductaswellastheirinteractions,whichcantakerichlydivergentforms.6

Itmust,ofcourse,berecognizedthattherejectionofpurelyself-interestedbehaviordoesnotindicatethatone’sactionsarenecessarilyinfluencedbyasenseofidentitywithothers.Itisquitepossiblethataperson’sbehaviormaybeswayedbyothertypesofconsiderations,suchasheradherencetosomenormsofacceptableconduct(suchasfinancialhonestyorasenseoffairness),orbyhersenseofduty—orfiduciaryresponsibility—towardotherswithwhomonedoesnotidentifyinanyobvioussense.Nevertheless,asenseofidentitywithotherscanbeaveryimportant—andrathercomplex—influenceonone’sbehaviorwhichcaneasilygoagainstnarrowlyself-interestedconduct.Thatbroadquestionalsorelatestoanother,towit,theroleofevolutionaryselectionofbehavioral

normswhichcanplayaninstrumentallyimportantpart.7Ifasenseofidentityleadstogroupsuccess,andthroughthattoindividualbetterment,thenthoseidentity-sensitivebehavioralmodesmayendupbeingmultipliedandpromoted.Indeed,bothinreflectivechoiceandinevolutionaryselection,ideasofidentitycanbeimportant,andmixturesofthetwo—combiningcriticalreflectionandselectiveevolution—canalso,obviously,leadtotheprevalenceofidentity-influencedbehavior.Thetimehascertainlycometodisplacethepresumptionof“identitydisregard”fromtheexaltedpositionithastendedtooccupyinasubstantialpartofeconomictheorywovenaroundtheconceptof“theeconomicman,”andalsoinpolitical,legal,andsocialtheory(usedinimitativeadmiration—asincereformofflattery—ofso-calledrational-choiceeconomics).

PluralAffiliationsandSocialContexts

Iturnnowtothesecondtypeofreductionism:theassumptionofsingularaffiliation.Weareallindividuallyinvolvedinidentitiesofvariouskindsindisparatecontexts,inourownrespectivelives,arisingfromourbackground,orassociations,orsocialactivities.Thiswasdiscussedinthefirstchapter,butitisperhapsworthreemphasizingthepointhere.Thesamepersoncan,forexample,beaBritishcitizen,ofMalaysianorigin,withChineseracialcharacteristics,astockbroker,anonvegetarian,anasthmatic,alinguist,abodybuilder,apoet,anopponentofabortion,abird-watcher,anastrologer,andonewhobelievesthatGodcreatedDarwintotestthegullible.Wedobelongtomanydifferentgroups,inonewayoranother,andeachofthesecollectivitiescangive

apersonapotentiallyimportantidentity.Wemayhavetodecidewhetheraparticulargrouptowhichwebelongis—orisnot—importantforus.Twodifferent,thoughinterrelated,exercisesareinvolvedhere:(1)decidingonwhatourrelevantidentitiesare,and(2)weighingtherelativeimportanceofthesedifferentidentities.Bothtasksdemandreasoningandchoice.

Thesearchforauniquewayofclassifyingpeopleforsocialanalysisisnot,ofcourse,new.Eventhepoliticalgroupingofpeopleintoworkersandnonworkers,muchusedinclassicalsocialistliterature,hadthissimplefeature.Thatsuchatwo-classpartitioncouldbeverydeceptiveforsocialandeconomicanalysis(evenforthosewithacommitmenttotheunderdogsofsociety)isnowwidelyacknowledged,anditisperhapsworthrecollecting,inthiscontext,thatKarlMarxhimselfsubjectedthisuniqueidentificationtoseverecriticisminhisCritiqueoftheGothaProgramme,in1875(aquartercenturyafterTheCommunistManifesto).Marx’scritiqueoftheGermanWorkersParty’sproposedplanofaction(the“GothaProgramme”)includedanargument,amongothers,againstseeingworkers“only”asworkers,ignoringtheirdiversitiesashumanbeings:

[U]nequalindividuals(andtheywouldnotbedifferentindividualsiftheywerenotunequal)aremeasurableonlybyanequalstandardinsofarastheyarebroughtunderanequalpointofview,aretakenfromonedefinitesideonly,e.g.,inthepresentcase

areregardedonlyasworkers,andnothingmoreisseeninthem,everythingelsebeingignored.8

Thesingular-affiliationviewwouldbehardtojustifybythecrudepresumptionthatanypersonbelongstoonegroupandonegrouponly.Eachofuspatentlybelongstomany.Butnorcanthatviewbeeasilyvindicatedbyclaimingthatdespitethepluralityofgroupstowhichanypersonbelongs,thereis,ineverysituation,someonegroupthatisnaturallythepreeminentcollectivityforher,andshecanhavenochoiceindecidingontherelativeimportanceofherdifferentmembershipcategories.Ishallhavetocomebacktothequestionofmultiplemembershipsandtheroleofchoiceintheideaof

identity,butbeforethatitisworthnotingthatinthevariationoftherelativeimportanceofidentities,theremaybesignificantexternalinfluencesaswell:noteverythingturnsspecificallyonthenatureofreasoningandchoice.Thisclarificationisneededsincetheroleofchoicehastobeunderstoodaftertakingnoteoftheotherinfluencesthatrestrictorrestrainthechoicesonecanmake.Foronething,theimportanceofaparticularidentitywilldependonthesocialcontext.Forexample,

whengoingtoadinner,one’sidentityasavegetarianmayberathermorecrucialthanone’sidentityasalinguist,whereasthelattermaybeparticularlyimportantifoneconsidersgoingtoalectureonlinguisticstudies.Thisvariabilitydoesnothingtorehabilitatetheassumptionofsingularaffiliation,butitillustratestheneedtoseetheroleofchoiceinacontext-specificway.Also,notallidentitiesneedhavedurableimportance.Indeed,sometimesanidentitygroupmayhavea

veryfleetingandhighlycontingentexistence.MortSahl,theAmericancomedian,issupposedtohaverespondedtotheintensetediumofafour-hour-longfilm,directedbyOttoPreminger,calledExodus(thenamewasinspiredbytheancientJewishmigrationoutofEgypt,ledbyMoses),bydemandingonbehalfofhisfellowsufferers:“Otto,letmypeoplego!”Thatgroupoftormentedfilmgoersdidhavereasonforfellowfeeling,butonecanseethemassivecontrastbetweensuchanephemeralgroupof“mypeople”andthewell-knitandseriouslytyrannizedcommunityofpeopleledbyMoses—theoriginalsubjectofthatfamousentreaty.Toconsidertheacceptanceissuefirst,classificationscantakemanydifferentforms,andnotallofthe

categoriesthatcanbeconsistentlygeneratedwouldserveasaplausiblebasisforanimportantidentity.Considerthesetofpeopleintheworldwhowerebornbetweennineandteninthemorning,localtime.Thisisadistinctandquitewell-definedgroup,butitishardtoimaginethatmanypeoplewouldgetexcitedaboutsustainingthesolidarityofsuchagroupandtheidentityitcouldpotentiallyproduce.Similarly,peoplewhowearsize8shoesaretypicallynotlinkedwitheachotherwithastrongsenseof

identityonthatshoe-sizeground(ratherimportantasthatdescriptivespecificityis,whenitcomestobuyingshoesand,moreimportantly,tryingcheerfullytowalkaroundinthem).Classificationiscertainlycheap,butidentityisnot.Moreinterestingly,whetheraparticular

classificationcanplausiblygenerateasenseofidentityornotmustdependonsocialcircumstances.Forexample,ifsize8shoesbecomeextremelydifficulttofindforsomecomplicatedbureaucraticreason(tograsptheintelligibilityofsuchasupplyshortage,onemighthavetoplaceoneselfsomewhereinMinskorPinskatthehighnoonofSovietcivilization),thentheneedforshoesofthatsizemayindeedbecomeasharedpredicamentandcangivereasonenoughforsolidarityandidentity.Socialclubsmightevenbesetup(preferablywithaliquorlicense)toexchangeinformationabouttheavailabilityofsize8shoes.Similarly,ifitweretoemergethatpeoplebornbetween9and10A.M.are,forreasonswedonotyet

understand,particularlyvulnerabletosomespecificailment(HarvardMedicalSchoolmightbemarshaledtolookintothis),thenagainthereisasharedquandarywhichcanprovideareasonforasenseofidentity.Toconsideradifferentvariantofthisexample,ifsomeauthoritarianrulerwantstocurbthefreedomofpeopleborninthatparticularhourbecauseoftheruler’ssupernaturalbeliefintheperfidyofpeoplebornthen(perhapssomeMacbethianwitcheshavetoldhimthathewillbekilledbysomeonebornbetween9and10A.M.),thenagainacaseforsolidarityandidentitybasedonthatclassificatoryunityandpersecutionmayindeedemergehere.Sometimesaclassificationthatishardtojustifyintellectuallymayneverthelessbemadeimportant

throughsocialarrangements.PierreBourdieu,theFrenchphilosopherandsociologist,haspointedouthowasocialactioncanendup“producingadifferencewhennoneexisted,”and“socialmagiccantransformpeoplebytellingthemthattheyaredifferent.”Thatiswhatcompetitiveexaminationsdo(the300thcandidateisstillsomething,the301stisnothing).Inotherwords,thesocialworldconstitutesdifferencesbythemerefactofdesigningthem.9

Evenwhenacategorizationisarbitraryorcapricious,oncetheyarearticulatedandrecognizedintermsofdividinglines,thegroupsthusclassifiedacquirederivativerelevance(inthecaseofthecivilserviceexamination,itmayinvolvethedifferencebetweenhavingafinejobandhavingnone),andthiscanbeaplausibleenoughbasisforidentitiesonbothsidesoftheseparatingline.Thereasoninginthechoiceofrelevantidentitiesmust,therefore,gowellbeyondthepurelyintellectual

intocontingentsocialsignificance.Notonlyisreasoninvolvedinthechoiceofidentity,butthereasoningmayhavetotakenoteofthesocialcontextandcontingentrelevanceofbeinginonecategoryoranother.

ContrastingandNoncontrastingIdentities

Wecanalsodistinguishbetween“contrasting”and“noncontrasting”identities.Thedifferentgroupsmaybelongtothesamecategory,dealingwiththesamekindofmembership(suchascitizenship),ortodifferentcategories(suchascitizenship,profession,class,orgender).Intheformercase,thereissomecontrastbetweendifferentgroupswithinthesamecategory,andthusbetweenthedifferentidentitieswithwhichtheyareassociated.Butwhenwedealwithgroupsclassifiedondifferentbases(suchasprofessionandcitizenship,respectively),theremaybenorealcontrastbetweenthemasfaras“belonging”isconcerned.However,eventhoughthesenoncontrastingidentitiesarenotinvolvedinanyterritorialdisputeasfaras“belonging”isconcerned,theycancompetewitheachotherforourattention

andpriorities.Whenonehastodoonethingoranother,theloyaltiescanconflictbetweengivingpriorityto,say,race,orreligion,orpoliticalcommitments,orprofessionalobligations,orcitizenship.Infact,wecanhavepluralidentitiesevenwithincontrastingcategories.Onecitizenshipdoes,inan

elementarysense,contrastwithanotherinaperson’sidentity.Butasthisexampleitselfindicates,evencontrastingidentitiesneednotdemandthatoneandoneonlyoftheuniquespecificationscansurvive,overthrowingalltheotheralternatives.Apersoncanbeadualcitizenof,say,bothFranceandtheUnitedStates.Citizenshipcan,ofcourse,bemadeexclusive,asisthecasewith,say,ChinaorJapan(thiswas,infact,thecaseevenwiththeUnitedStatesuntilquiterecently).Butevenwhenexclusivityisinsistedon,theconflictofdualloyaltyneednotdisappear.Forexample,ifaJapanesecitizenresidentinBritainisunwillingtotakeBritishcitizenshipbecauseshedoesnotwanttoloseherJapanesenationalidentity,shemaystillhavequiteasubstantialloyaltytoherBritishattachmentsandtootherfeaturesofherBritishidentitywhichnoJapanesecourtcanoutlaw.Similarly,anerstwhileJapanesecitizenwhohasgivenupthatcitizenshiptobecomeaUKcitizenmaystillretainconsiderableloyaltiestohersenseofJapaneseidentity.Theconflictbetweentheprioritiesanddemandsofdifferentidentitiescanbesignificantbothfor

contrastingandfornoncontrastingcategories.Itisnotsomuchthatapersonhastodenyoneidentitytogiveprioritytoanother,butratherthatapersonwithpluralidentitieshastodecide,incaseofaconflict,ontherelativeimportanceofthedifferentidentitiesfortheparticulardecisioninquestion.Reasoningandscrutinycanthusplayamajorrolebothinthespecificationofidentitiesandinthinkingthroughtherelativestrengthsoftheirrespectiveclaims.

ChoiceandConstraints

Ineachsocialcontext,therewouldbeanumberofpotentiallyviableandrelevantidentitieswhichonecouldassessintermsoftheiracceptabilityandtheirrelativeimportance.Inmanysituations,thepluralitymaybecomecentralbecauseofthewidespreadrelevanceofdurableandfrequentlyinvokedcharacteristics,suchasnationality,language,ethnicity,politics,orprofession.Thepersonmayhavetodecideontherelativesignificanceofthedifferentaffiliations,whichcouldvarydependingonthecontext.Itisquitehardtoimaginethatapersoncanreallybebereftofthepossibilityofconsideringalternativeidentifications,andthatshemustjust“discover”heridentities,asifitwereapurelynaturalphenomenon.Infact,weareallconstantlymakingchoices,ifonlyimplicitly,aboutprioritiestobeattachedtoourdifferentaffiliationsandassociations.Oftensuchchoicesarequiteexplicitandcarefullyargued,aswhenMohandasGandhideliberatelydecidedtogiveprioritytohisidentificationwithIndiansseekingindependencefromtheBritishruleoverhisidentityasatrainedbarristerpursuingEnglishlegaljustice,orwhenE.M.Forsterfamouslyconcluded,“[I]fIhadtochoosebetweenbetrayingmycountyandbetrayingmyfriend,IhopeIshouldhavethegutstobetraymycountry.”10

Itseemsunlikelythatthethesisofsingularaffiliationcanhaveanykindofplausibilitygiventheconstantpresenceofdifferentcategoriesandgroupstowhichanyhumanbeingbelongs.Itispossiblethattheoftenrepeatedbelief,commonamongadvocatesofsingularaffiliation,thatidentityisamatterof“discovery”isencouragedbythefactthatthechoiceswecanmakeareconstrainedbyfeasibility(Icannotreadilychoosetheidentityofablue-eyedteenagegirlfromLaplandwhoisentirelycomfortablewithsix-month-longnights),andtheseconstraintswouldruleoutallkindsofalternativesasbeing

nonfeasible.Andyetevenafterthat,therewillremainchoicestomake,forexample,betweenprioritiesofnationality,religion,language,politicalbeliefs,orprofessionalcommitments.Andthedecisionscanbemomentous:forexample,thefather,EugenioColorni,ofmylatewifeEvahadtoweighthedivergentdemandsofbeinganItalian,aphilosopher,anacademic,ademocrat,andasocialist,inMussolini’sfascistItalyinthe1930s,andchosetoabandontheacademicpursuitofphilosophytojointheItalianresistance(hewaskilledbythefascistsinRometwodaysbeforeAmericansoldiersarrivedthere).Theconstraintsmaybeespeciallystrictindefiningtheextenttowhichwecanpersuadeothers,in

particular,totakeustobedifferentfrom(ormorethan)whattheyinsistontakingustobe.AJewishpersoninNaziGermany,oranAfrican-AmericanwhenfacedwithalynchmobintheAmericanSouth,orarebellious,landlessagriculturallaborerthreatenedbyagunmanhiredbyupper-castelandownersinNorthBiharmaynotbeabletoalterhisorheridentityintheeyesoftheaggressors.Thefreedominchoosingouridentityintheeyesofotherscansometimesbeextraordinarilylimited.Thispointisnotindispute.Manyyearsago,whenIwasanundergraduateatCambridge,oneofmyteachers,JoanRobinson,a

superbprofessorofeconomics,toldme(duringaparticularlyargumentativetutorial—weusedtohavemanyofthose):“TheJapanesearetoopolite;youIndiansaretoorude;theChinesearejustright.”Iacceptedthisgeneralizationimmediately:thealternativewouldhavebeen,ofcourse,togivefurtherevidenceoftheIndianpropensitytowardrudeness.ButIalsorealizedthatnomatterwhatIsaidordid,theimagingwouldnotquicklychangeinmyteacher’smind(JoanRobinson,bytheway,wasveryfondofIndians:shethoughtthattheywereabsolutelyfineinarudekindofway).Moregenerally,whetherweareconsideringouridentitiesasweourselvesseethemorasotherssee

us,wechoosewithinparticularconstraints.Butthisisnotintheleastasurprisingfact—itisratherjustthewaychoicesarefacedinanysituation.Choicesofallkindsarealwaysmadewithinparticularconstraints,andthisisperhapsthemostelementaryaspectofanychoice.Aswasdiscussedinthefirstchapter,anystudentofeconomicsknowsthatconsumersalwayschoosewithinabudgetconstraint,butthatdoesnotindicatethattheyhavenochoice,butonlythattheyhavetochoosewithintheirbudgets.Thereisalsoaneedforreasoningindeterminingthedemandsandimplicationsofidentity-based

thinking.Itisclearenoughthatthewayweseeourselvesmaywellinfluenceourpracticalreason,butitisbynomeansimmediatehow—indeedinwhichdirection—thatinfluencemaywork.Apersonmaydecide,onreflection,notonlythatsheisamemberofaparticularethnicgroup(forexample,aKurd),butalsothatthisisanextremelyimportantidentityforher.Thisdecisioncaneasilyinfluencethepersoninthedirectionoftakinggreaterresponsibilityforthewell-beingandfreedomsofthatethnicgroup—itcanbecomeforheranextensionoftheobligationtobeself-reliant(theselfnowbeingextendedtocoverothersinthegroupwithwhichthispersonidentifies).However,thisdoesnotyettelluswhetherthepersonshouldorshouldnotfavormembersofthisgroup

inthechoicesshehastomake.If,forexample,sheweretofavorherownethnicgroupinmakingpublicdecisions,thiscouldrightlybeseenasacaseofshadynepotismratherthananexampleofshiningexcellenceofmoralityandethics.Indeed,justasself-denialmaybeapartofpublicmorality,itcanevenbearguedthatapersonmayhavetobeparticularlydiffidentinfavoringmembersofagroupwithwhichsheidentifies.Thereisnopresumptionthattherecognitionorassertionofanidentitymustnecessarilybeagroundforsolidarityinpracticaldecisions;thishastobeamatterforfurtherreasoningandscrutiny.

Indeed,theneedforreasoningisthoroughlypervasiveateverystageofidentity-basedthoughtsanddecisions.

CommunitarianIdentityandthePossibilityofChoice

Iturnnowtosomespecificargumentsandclaims,beginningwiththeallegedpriorityofone’scommunity-basedidentitywhichhasbeenforcefullyadvocatedincommunitarianphilosophy.Thatlineofthoughtnotonlyprioritizestheimportanceofbelongingtooneparticularcommunitygroupratherthananother,butoftentendstoseecommunitymembershipasakindofextensionofone’sownself.11Communitarianthinkinghasbeenintheascendancyoverthelastfewdecadesincontemporarysocial,political,andmoraltheorizing,andthedominantandcompellingroleofsocialidentityingoverningbehavioraswellasknowledgehasbeenwidelyinvestigatedandchampioned.12

Insomeversionsofcommunitarianthinking,itispresumed—explicitlyorbyimplication—thatone’sidentitywithone’scommunitymustbetheprincipalordominant(perhapseventheonlysignificant)identityapersonhas.Thisconclusioncanbelinkedtotwoalternative—relatedbutdistinct—linesofreasoning.Onelinearguesthatapersondoesnothaveaccesstoothercommunity-independentconceptionsofidentityandtootherwaysofthinkingaboutidentity.Hersocialbackground,firmlybasedon“communityandculture,”determinesthefeasiblepatternsofreasoningandethicsthatareavailabletoher.Thesecondlineofargumentdoesnotanchortheconclusiontoperceptualconstraints,buttotheclaimthatidentityisamatterofdiscoveryanyway,andthecommunitarianidentitywillinvariablyberecognizedtobeofparamountimportance,ifanycomparisonsweretobemade.Tolook,first,atthethesisofsevereperceptuallimitation,itoftentakestheformofanamazinglystrong

assertion.Insomeofthemoreferventversionsofthethesis,wearetoldthatwecannotinvokeanycriterionofrationalbehaviorotherthanthosethatobtaininthecommunitytowhichthepersoninvolvedbelongs.Anyreferencetorationalityyieldstheretort,“whichrationality?”or“whoserationality?”Itisalsoarguednotonlythattheexplanationofaperson’smoraljudgmentsmustbebasedonthevaluesandnormsofthecommunitytowhichthepersonbelongs,butalsothatthesejudgmentscanbeethicallyassessedonlywithinthosevaluesandnorms,whichentailsadenialoftheclaimsofcompetingnormsontheperson’sattention.Variousversionsofthesefar-reachingclaimshavebeenforcefullyairedandpowerfullyadvocated.Thisapproachhashadtheeffectofrejectingthefeasibilityofassessing—perhapsevencomprehending

—normativejudgmentsaboutbehaviorandinstitutionsacrossculturesandsocieties,andithassometimesbeenusedtounderminethepossibilityofseriouscross-culturalexchangeandunderstanding.Thisdistancingsometimesservesapoliticalpurpose,forexample,inthedefenseofparticularcustomsandtraditionsonsuchmattersaswomen’sunequalsocialpositionortheuseofparticularmodesofconventionalpunishment,varyingfromamputationtothestoningofallegedlyadulterouswomen.Thereisaninsistencehereonsplittingupthelargeworldintolittleislandsthatarenotwithinintellectualreachofeachother.Theseperceptualclaimsarecertainlyworthscrutinizing.Therecanbelittledoubtthatthecommunity

orculturetowhichapersonbelongscanhaveamajorinfluenceonthewayheorsheseesasituationorviewsadecision.Inanyexplanatoryexercise,notehastobetakenoflocalknowledge,regionalnorms,andparticularperceptionsandvaluesthatarecommoninaspecificcommunity.13Theempiricalcasefor

thisrecognitioniscertainlystrong.Butthisdoesnot,inanyplausibleway,undermineoreliminatethepossibilityandroleofchoiceandreasoningaboutidentity.Thisissoforatleasttwospecificreasons.First,eventhoughcertainbasicculturalattitudesandbeliefsmayinfluencethenatureofourreasoning,

theycannotinvariablydetermineitfully.Therearevariousinfluencesonourreasoning,andweneednotloseourabilitytoconsiderotherwaysofreasoningjustbecauseweidentifywith,andhavebeeninfluencedbymembershipin,aparticulargroup.Influenceisnotthesamethingascompletedetermination,andchoicesdoremaindespitetheexistence—andimportance—ofculturalinfluences.Second,theso-calledculturesneednotinvolveanyuniquelydefinedsetofattitudesandbeliefsthat

canshapeourreasoning.Indeed,manyofthese“cultures”containconsiderableinternalvariations,anddifferentattitudesandbeliefsmaybeentertainedwithinthesamebroadlydefinedculture.Forexample,Indiantraditionsareoftentakentobeintimatelyassociatedwithreligion,andindeedinmanywaystheyare,andyetSanskritandPalihavealargeratheisticandagnosticliteraturethananyotherclassicallanguage:GreekorRomanorHebreworArabic.Whenadoctrinalanthologysuchasthefourteenth-centurySanskritbookSarvadarshanasamgraha(literallytranslatedas“collectionofallphilosophies”)presentssixteenchaptersrespectivelysympathetictosixteendifferentpositionsonreligiousissues(beginningwithatheism),theaimistocatertoinformedanddiscerningchoice,ratherthantoindicateincomprehensionofeachother’spositions.14

Ourabilitytothinkclearlymay,ofcourse,varywithtrainingandtalent,butwecan,asadultandcompetenthumanbeings,questionandbegintochallengewhathasbeentaughttousifwearegiventheopportunitytodoso.Whileparticularcircumstancesmaynotsometimesencourageapersontoengageinsuchquestioning,theabilitytodoubtandtoquestionisnotbeyondourreach.Thepointisoftenmade,plausiblyenough,thatonecannotreasonfromnowhere.Butthisdoesnot

implythatnomatterwhattheantecedentassociationsofapersonare,thoseassociationsmustremainunchallenged,unrejectable,andpermanent.Thealternativetothe“discovery”viewisnotchoicefrompositions“unencumbered”withanyidentity(assomecommunitarianpolemicistsseemtoimply),butchoicesthatcontinuetoexisteveninanyencumberedpositiononehappenstooccupy.Choicedoesnotrequirejumpingoutofnowhereintosomewhere,butitcanleadtoamovefromoneplacetoanother.

PrioritiesandReason

Iturnnowfromtheargumentbasedonperceptuallimitationtotheotherpossiblegroundforrelyingonchoicelessidentities,towit,theallegedcentralityofdiscoveryin“knowingwhoyouare.”AsMichaelSandel,thepoliticaltheorist,hasilluminatinglyexplainedthisclaim(amongothercommunitarianclaims),“[C]ommunitydescribesnotjustwhattheyhaveasfellowcitizensbutalsowhattheyare,notarelationshiptheychoose(asinavoluntaryassociation)butanattachmenttheydiscover,notmerelyanattributebutaconstituentoftheiridentity.”15

However,anenrichingidentityneednot,infact,beobtainedonlythroughdiscoveringwherewefindourselves.Itcanalsobeacquiredandearned.WhenLordByronconsideredleavingGreeceandpartingfromthepeoplewithwhomthisquintessentialEnglishmanhadcometoidentifysoclosely,hehadreasontolament:

MaidofAthens,erewepart,

Give,oh,givemebackmyheart!

Byron’sacquiredidentitywiththeGreeksvastlyenrichedhisownlifewhilealsoaddingsomestrengthtotheGreekstruggleforindependence.Wearenotasimprisonedinourinstalledlocationsandaffiliationsastheadvocatesofthediscoveryviewofidentityseemtopresume.Perhaps,however,thestrongestreasonforbeingskepticalofthediscoveryviewisthatwehave

differentwaysofidentifyingourselveseveninourgivenlocations.Thesenseofbelongingtoacommunity,whilestrongenoughinmanycases,neednotobliterate—oroverwhelm—otherassociationsandaffiliations.Thesechoicesareconstantlyfaced(eventhoughwemaynotspendallourtimearticulatingthechoicesweareactuallymaking).Consider,forexample,theCaribbeanpoetDerekWalcott’spoem“AFarCryfromAfrica,”which

capturesthedivergentpullsofhishistoricalAfricanbackgroundandhisloyaltytotheEnglishlanguageandtheliteraryculturethatgoeswithit(averystrongaffiliationforWalcott):

WhereshallIturn,dividedtothevein?IwhohavecursedThedrunkenofficerofBritishrule,howchooseBetweenthisAfricaandtheEnglishtongueIlove?Betraythemboth,orgivebackwhattheygive?HowcanIfacesuchslaughterandbecool?HowcanIturnfromAfricaandlive?

Walcottcannotsimply“discover”whatishistrueidentity;hehastodecidewhatheshoulddo,andhow—andtowhatextent—tomakeroomforthedifferentloyaltiesinhislife.Wehavetoaddresstheissueofconflict,realorimagined,andaskabouttheimplicationsofourloyaltytodivergentprioritiesanddifferentiatedaffinities.IfWalcottwonderswhatconflictthereisbetweenhisinseparableattachmenttoAfricaandhisloveoftheEnglishlanguageandhisuseofthatlanguage(indeedhisastonishinglybeautifuluseofthatlanguage),thatpointstobroaderquestionsofdisparatepullsonone’slife.ThepresenceofconflictingpullsisasrealinFrance,orAmerica,orSouthAfrica,orIndia,oranywhereelse,asitclearlyisinWalcott’sCaribbean.Thebasicseriousnessofthedisparatepulls—ofhistory,culture,language,politics,profession,family,comradeship,andsoon—havetobeadequatelyrecognized,andtheycannotallbedrownedinasingle-mindedcelebrationonlyofcommunity.Thepointatissueisnotwhetheranyidentitywhatevercanbechosen(thatwouldbeanabsurdclaim),

butwhetherwedoindeedhavechoicesoveralternativeidentitiesorcombinationsofidentities,andperhapsmoreimportantly,substantialfreedomregardingwhatprioritytogivetothevariousidentitieswemaysimultaneouslyhave.16Toconsideranillustrationthatwasdiscussedinthelastchapter,aperson’schoicemaybeconstrainedbytherecognitionthatsheis,say,Jewish,butshestillhasadecisiontomakeregardingwhatimportancetogivetothatparticularidentityoverothersthatshemayalsohave(relatedforexample,toherpoliticalbeliefs,senseofnationality,humanitariancommitments,orprofessionalattachments).IntheBengalinovelGorabyRabindranathTagorepublishedacenturyago,theproblematichero,also

calledGora,differsfrommostofhisfriendsandfamilyinurbanBengalbystronglychampioningold-fashionedHinducustomsandtraditionsandisastaunchreligiousconservative.However,Tagoreplaces

GorainabigconfusiontowardtheendofthenovelwhenhissupposedmothertellshimthathewasadoptedasaninfantorphanbytheIndianfamilyafterhisIrishparentshadbeenkilledbytherebellioussepoysintheferociousanti-Britishmutinyof1857(thenameGorameans“fair,”andpresumablyhisunusuallookshadreceivedattentionbutnocleardiagnosis).Atonestroke,Gora’smilitantconservatismisunderminedbyTagoresinceGorafindsallthedoorsoftraditionalisttemplesclosedtohim—asa“foreign-born”—thankstothenarrowlyconservativecausewhichhehimselfhadbeenchampioning.Wedodiscovermanythingsaboutourselvesevenwhentheymaynotbeasfoundationalastheone

Gorahadtoface.Buttorecognizethisisnotthesameasmakingidentityjustamatterofdiscovery.Evenwhenthepersondiscoverssomethingveryimportantabouthimselforherself,therearestillissuesofchoicetobefaced.GorahadtoaskwhetherheshouldcontinuehischampioningofHinduconservatism(thoughnowfromaninescapabledistance)orseehimselfassomethingelse.Gorachoosesultimately,helpedbyhisgirlfriend,toseehimselfjustasahumanbeingwhoisathomeinIndia,notdelineatedbyreligionorcasteorclassorcomplexion.Importantchoiceshavetobemadeevenwhencrucialdiscoveriesoccur.Lifeisnotmeredestiny.

CHAPTER 3

CivilizationalConfinement

The“clashofcivilizations”wasalreadyapopulartopicwellbeforethehorrifyingeventsofSeptember11sharplyaddedtotheconflictsanddistrustintheworld.Buttheseterriblehappeningshavehadtheeffectofvastlymagnifyingtheongoinginterestintheso-calledclashofcivilizations.Indeed,manyinfluentialcommentatorshavebeentemptedtoseeanimmediatelinkagebetweenobservationsofglobalconflictsandtheoriesofcivilizationalconfrontations.TherehasbeenmuchinterestinthetheoryofcivilizationalclashforcefullypresentedinSamuelHuntington’sfamousbook.1Inparticular,thetheoryofaclashbetween“Western”and“Islamic”civilizationshasfrequentlybeeninvoked.Therearetwodistinctdifficultieswiththetheoryofcivilizationalclash.Thefirst,whichisperhaps

morefundamental,relatestotheviabilityandsignificanceofclassifyingpeopleaccordingtothecivilizationstowhichtheyallegedly“belong.”Thisquestionariseswellbeforeproblemswiththeviewthatpeoplethusclassifiedintocartonsofcivilizationsmustbesomehowantagonistic—thecivilizationstowhichtheybelongarehostiletoeachother.Underlyingthethesisofacivilizationalclashliesamuchmoregeneralideaofthepossibilityofseeingpeopleprimarilyasbelongingtoonecivilizationoranother.Therelationsbetweendifferentpersonsintheworldcanbeseen,inthisreductionistapproach,asrelationsbetweentherespectivecivilizationstowhichtheyallegedlybelong.Aswasdiscussedinchapter1,toseeanypersonpreeminentlyasamemberofacivilization(for

example,inHuntington’scategorization,asamemberof“theWesternworld,”“theIslamicworld,”“theHinduworld,”or“theBuddhistworld”)isalreadytoreducepeopletothisonedimension.Thus,thedeficiencyoftheclashthesisbeginswellbeforewegettothepointofaskingwhetherthedisparatecivilizations(amongwhichthepopulationoftheworldisneatlypartitionedout)mustnecessarily—oreventypically—clash.Nomatterwhatanswerwegivetothatquestion,evenbypursuingthequestioninthisrestrictiveform,weimplicitlygivecredibilitytotheallegedlyuniqueimportanceofthatonecategorizationoveralltheotherwaysinwhichpeopleoftheworldcanbeclassified.Indeed,eventheopponentsofthetheoryofa“civilizationalclash”can,ineffect,contributeto

proppingupitsintellectualfoundationiftheybeginbyacceptingthesamesingularclassificationoftheworldpopulation.Theheartwarmingbeliefinanunderlyinggoodwillamongpeoplebelongingtodiscretecivilizationsis,ofcourse,verydifferentfromthecoldpessimismofseeingonlyconflictandstrifebetweenthem.Butthetwoapproachessharethesamereductionistconvictionthathumanbeingsaroundtheworldcanbeunderstoodandpreeminentlycharacterizedintermsofthedistinctcivilizationstowhichtheybelong.Thesamepallidviewoftheworlddividedintoboxesofcivilizationsissharedbybothgroups—warmandcold—oftheorists.Forexample,indisputingthegrossandnastygeneralizationthatmembersoftheIslamiccivilization

haveabelligerentculture,itiscommonenoughtoarguethattheyactuallyshareacultureofpeaceandgoodwill.Butthissimplyreplacesonestereotypewithanother,andfurthermore,itinvolvesacceptinganimplicitpresumptionthatpeoplewhohappentobeMuslimbyreligionwouldbasicallybesimilarin

otherwaysaswell.Asidefromallthedifficultiesindefiningcivilizationalcategoriesasdisparateanddisjunctiveunits(onwhichmorepresently),theargumentsonbothsidessuffer,inthiscase,fromasharedfaithinthepresumptionthatseeingpeopleexclusively,orprimarily,intermsofthereligion-basedcivilizationstowhichtheyaretakentobelongisagoodwayofunderstandinghumanbeings.Civilizationalpartitioningisapervasivelyintrusivephenomenoninsocialanalysis,stiflingother—richer—waysofseeingpeople.Itlaysthefoundationsformisunderstandingnearlyeveryoneintheworld,evenbeforegoingontothedrumbeatsofacivilizationalclash.

SingularVisionsandtheAppearanceofDepth

Ifclashingcivilizationsisaremarkablygrandthesisaboutconflicts,therearelesser,butalsoinfluential,claimsthatrelatecontrastsofculturesandidentitiestotheconflictsandtheprofusionofatrocitiesweseeindifferentpartsoftheworldtoday.Insteadofonemajesticallymomentouspartitionthatsplitstheworldpopulationintocontendingcivilizations,asinHuntington’simagineduniverse,thelesservariantsoftheapproachseelocalpopulationsasbeingsplitintoclashinggroupswithdivergentculturesanddisparatehistoriesthattend,inanalmost“natural”way,tobreedenmitytowardeachother.Conflictsinvolving,say,HutusandTutsis,SerbsandAlbanians,TamilsandSinhalese,arethenreinterpretedinloftyhistoricalterms,seeinginthemsomethingthatismuchgranderthantheshabbinessofcontemporarypolitics.Modernconflicts,whichcannotbeadequatelyanalyzedwithoutgoingintocontemporaryeventsand

machinations,aretheninterpretedasancientfeudswhichallegedlyplacetoday’splayersinpreordainedrolesinanallegedlyancestralplay.Asaresult,the“civilizational”approachtocontemporaryconflicts(ingranderorlesserversions)servesasamajorintellectualbarriertofocusingmorefullyonprevailingpoliticsandtoinvestigatingtheprocessesanddynamicsofcontemporaryincitementstoviolence.Itisnothardtounderstandwhytheimposingcivilizationalapproachappealssomuch.Itinvokesthe

richnessofhistoryandtheapparentdepthandgravityofculturalanalysis,anditseeksprofundityinawaythatanimmediatepoliticalanalysisofthe“hereandnow”—seenasordinaryandmundane—wouldseemtolack.IfIamdisputingthecivilizationalapproach,itisnotbecauseIdon’tseeitsintellectualtemptations.Iam,infact,remindedofaneventfiftyyearsago,shortlyafterIfirstarrivedinEnglandfromIndia,as

astudentatCambridgeUniversity.Akindlyfellowstudent,whohadalreadyacquiredareputationforinsightfulpoliticalanalysis,tookmetoseetherecentlyreleasedfilmRearWindow,whereIencounteredacannybutcrippledphotographer,playedbyJamesStewart,observingsomeverysuspiciouseventsinthehouseopposite.LikeJamesStewart,Itoo,inmynaivekindofway,becameconvincedthatagruesomemurdermayhavebeencommittedintheapartmentthatcouldbeseenfromtherearwindow.However,mytheoristcompanionexplainedtome(amidwhisperedprotestsfromneighborsurginghim

toshutup)thattherewas,hewascertain,nomurderatall,andthatthewholefilm,Iwouldsoondiscover,wasaseriousindictmentofMcCarthyisminAmerica,whichencouragedeveryonetowatchtheactivitiesofotherpeoplewithgreatsuspicion.“Thisisarobustcritique,”heinformedthisnovicefromthethirdworld,“ofthegrowingAmericancultureofsnooping.”Suchacritique,Icouldreadilysee,couldhaveyieldedquiteaprofoundfilm,butIkeptwonderingwhetheritwas,infact,thefilmwewerewatching.Lateron,Iremember,IhadtomakeastrongcupofcoffeeformydisappointedguidetoWesternculturetoreconcilehimtotheshallowandtrivialworldinwhichthemurderergothismundanecomeuppance.What

mustbesimilarlyaskediswhetherintheworldinwhichweliveweareactuallywatchingagrandclashofcivilizationsorsomethingmuchmoreordinarywhichmerelylookslikeacivilizationalclashtodeterminedseekersofdepthandprofundity.Thedepththatcivilizationalanalysisseeksisnot,however,exclusivetothehighroadofintellectual

analysis.Insomeways,civilizationalanalysismirrorsandmagnifiescommonbeliefsthatflourishinnotparticularlyintellectualcircles.Theinvokingof,say,“Western”valuesagainstwhat“thoseothers”believeisrathercommonplaceinpublicdiscussions,anditmakesregularheadlinesintabloidsaswellasfiguringinpoliticalrhetoricandanti-immigrantoratory.IntheaftermathofSeptember11,thestereotypingofMuslimscameoftenenoughfrompeoplewhoarenogreatspecialists,ifIamanyjudge,onthesubject.Buttheoriesofcivilizationalclashhaveoftenprovidedallegedlysophisticatedfoundationsofcrudeandcoarsepopularbeliefs.Cultivatedtheorycanbolsteruncomplicatedbigotry.

TwoDifficultiesofCivilizationalExplanations

What,then,arethedifficultiesofexplainingcontemporaryworldeventsbyinvokingcivilizationalcategories?Perhapsitsmostbasicweaknesslies,aswassuggestedinchapter1,initsuseofaparticularlyambitiousversionoftheillusionofsingularity.Tothishastobeaddedasecondproblem:thecrudenesswithwhichtheworldcivilizationsarecharacterized,takingthemtobemorehomogeneousandfarmoreinsularthantendstoemergefromempiricalanalysesofthepastandthepresent.Theillusionofsingularitydrawsonthepresumptionthatapersonnotbeseenasanindividualwith

manyaffiliations,norassomeonewhobelongstomanydifferentgroups,butjustasamemberofoneparticularcollectivity,whichgiveshimorherauniquelyimportantidentity.Theimplicitbeliefintheoverarchingpowerofasingularclassificationisnotjustcrudeasanapproachtodescriptionandprediction,itisalsogrosslyconfrontationalinformandimplication.Auniquelydivisiveviewoftheworldpopulationgoesnotonlyagainsttheold-fashionedbeliefthat“peoplearemuchthesametheworldover,”butalsoagainsttheimportantandinformedunderstandingthatwearedifferentinmanydiverseways.Ourdifferencesdonotlieononedimensiononly.Therealizationthateachofuscananddohavemanydifferentidentitiesrelatedtodifferentsignificant

groupstowhichwesimultaneouslybelongappearstosomeasarathercomplicatedidea.But,aswasdiscussedinthelastchapter,itisanextremelyordinaryandelementaryrecognition.Inournormallives,weseeourselvesasmembersofavarietyofgroups:webelongtoallofthem.Thefactthatapersonisawomandoesnotconflictwithherbeingavegetarian,whichdoesnotmilitateagainstherbeingalawyer,whichdoesnotpreventherfrombeingaloverofjazz,oraheterosexual,orasupporterofgayandlesbianrights.Anypersonisamemberofmanydifferentgroups(withoutthisbeinginanywayacontradiction),andeachofthesecollectivities,toallofwhichthispersonbelongs,giveshimorherapotentialidentitywhich—dependingonthecontext—canbequiteimportant.Theincendiaryimplicationsofcrudeandsingularclassificationswerediscussedearlier,andwillbe

pursuedfurtherinthesubsequentchapters.Theconceptualweaknessoftheattempttoachieveasingularunderstandingofthepeopleoftheworldthroughcivilizationalpartitioningnotonlyworksagainstoursharedhumanity,butalsounderminesthediverseidentitiesweallhavewhichdonotplaceusagainsteachotheralongoneuniquelyrigidlineofsegregation.Misdescriptionandmisconceptioncanmaketheworldmorefragilethanitneedbe.

Inadditiontotheunsustainablerelianceonthepresumptionofasingularcategorization,thecivilizationalapproachhastendedtosufferalsofromignoringthediversitieswithineachidentifiedcivilizationandalsofromoverlookingtheextensiveinterrelationsbetweendistinctcivilizations.Thedescriptivepovertyoftheapproachgoesbeyonditsflawedrelianceonsingularity.

OnSeeingIndiaasaHinduCivilization

Letmeillustratetheissuebyconsideringthewaymyowncountry,India,istreatedinthisclassificatorysystem.2IndescribingIndiaasa“Hinducivilization,”Huntington’sexpositionofthealleged“clashofcivilizations”hastodownplaythefactthatIndiahasmanymoreMuslimsthananyothercountryintheworldwiththeexceptionofIndonesiaandverymarginallyPakistan.Indiamaynotbeplacedwithinthearbitrarydefinitionof“theMuslimworld,”butitisstillthecasethatIndia(withits145millionMuslims—morethanthewholeBritishpopulationandtheentireFrenchpopulationputtogether)hasagreatmanymoreMuslimsthannearlyeverycountryinHuntington’sdefinitionof“theMuslimworld.”Also,itisimpossibletothinkofthecivilizationofcontemporaryIndiawithouttakingnoteofthemajorrolesofMuslimsinthehistoryofthecountry.Itwouldbe,infact,quitefutiletotrytohaveanunderstandingofthenatureandrangeofIndianart,

literature,music,films,orfoodwithoutseeingtherangeofcontributionscomingfrombothHindusandMuslimsinathoroughlyintermingledway.3Also,theinteractionsineverydayliving,orinculturalactivities,arenotseparatedalongcommunallines.Whilewecan,forexample,contrastthestyleofRaviShankar,themagnificentsitarist,withAliAkbarKhan,thegreatsarodplayer,onthebasisoftheirparticularmasteryoverdifferentformsofIndianclassicalmusic,theywouldneverbeseenspecificallyasa“Hindumusician”ora“Muslimmusician”respectively(eventhoughShankardoeshappentobeaHinduandKhanaMuslim).Thesameappliestootherfieldsofculturalcreativity,includingBollywood—thatgreatfieldofIndianmassculture—wheremanyoftheleadingactorsandactresses,aswellasdirectors,comefromaMuslimbackground(alongwithotherswithnon-Muslimancestry),andtheyaremuchadoredbyapopulationofwhichmorethan80percenthappentobeHindu.Further,Muslimsarenottheonlynon-HindugroupintheIndianpopulation.TheSikhshaveamajor

presence,asdotheJains.IndiaisnotonlythecountryoforiginofBuddhism;thedominantreligionofIndiawasBuddhismforoveramillennium,andtheChineseoftenreferredtoIndiaas“theBuddhistkingdom.”Agnosticandatheisticschoolsofthought—theCarvakaandtheLokayata—haveflourishedinIndiafromatleastthesixthcenturyB.C.tothepresentday.TherehavebeenlargeChristiancommunitiesinIndiafromthefourthcentury—twohundredyearsbeforethereweresubstantialChristiancommunitiesinBritain.JewscametoIndiashortlyafterthefallofJerusalem;Parseesfromtheeighthcentury.ItisobviousthatHuntington’scharacterizationofIndiaasa“Hinducivilization”hasmanydescriptive

difficulties.Itisalsopoliticallycombustible.IttendstoaddsomehighlydeceptivecredibilitytotheextraordinarydistortionofhistoryandmanipulationofthepresentrealitiesthatHindusectarianpoliticianshavetriedtochampionintryingtopromotea“Hinducivilization”viewofIndia.Huntingtonisindeedfrequentlyquotedbymanyleadersofthepoliticallyactive“Hindutva”movement,andthisishardlysurprisinggiventhesimilaritybetweenhisseeingIndiaasa“Hinducivilization”andthepromotionofa“Hinduview”ofIndiathatissodeartothepoliticalgurusofHindutva.

Asithappens,inthegeneralelectionsheldinIndiainthespringof2004,thecoalitionledbytheHinduactivistpartysufferedaseveredefeat,withfairlycomprehensivereversalsacrosstheboard.InadditiontobeingheadedbyaMuslimpresident,thesecularRepublicofIndianowhasaSikhprimeministerandaChristianpresidentoftherulingparty(notbadforthelargestdemocraticelectorateintheworldwithmorethan80percentHinduvoters).However,thethreatofarenewedpromotionoftheHindusectarianconceptionofIndiaiseverpresent.EventhoughthepoliticalpartiescommittedtoaHinduviewofIndiahavereceivedconsiderablylessthanaquarterofthevotes(asmallishfractionoftheHindupopulation),politicalattemptsatseeingIndiaasa“Hinducivilization”willnoteasilydieaway.AsimplisticcharacterizationofIndiaalonganartificiallysingularreligiouslineremainspoliticallyexplosive,inadditiontobeingdescriptivelyflawed.

OntheAllegedUniquenessofWesternValues

TheportrayalofIndiaasaHinducivilizationmaybeacrudemistake,butcoarsenessofonekindoranotherispresentinthecharacterizationsofothercivilizationsaswell.Considerwhatiscalled“theWesterncivilization.”Indeed,thechampionsof“theclashofcivilizations,”inlinewiththebeliefintheuniqueprofundityofthissingularlineofdivision,tendtoseetoleranceasaspecialandenduringfeatureofWesterncivilization,extendingwaybackintohistory.Indeed,thisisseenasoneoftheimportantaspectsoftheclashofvaluesthatunderpinsthesupposedclashofcivilizations.Huntingtoninsiststhatthe“WestwasWestlongbeforeitwasmodern.”4Hecites(amongotherallegedlyspecialfeaturessuchas“socialpluralism”)“asenseofindividualismandatraditionofindividualrightsandlibertiesuniqueamongcivilizedsocieties.”Thisincreasinglycommonwayoflookingatcivilizationaldivisionsisnotreallyasrootedin

traditionalculturalanalysisintheWestasitissometimessupposed.Forexample,thecharacterizationofWesterncultureinaworldofother—verydifferent—culturesthatwaspresentedbyOswaldSpenglerinhiswidelyinfluentialbookTheDeclineoftheWestdidmakeexplicitroomforheterogeneitieswithineachcultureandforthecross-culturalsimilaritiesthatcanbeclearlyobserved.Infact,Spenglerargued,“thereisnothingpreposterousintheideaofSocrates,Epicurus,andespeciallyDiogenes,sittingbytheGanges,whereasDiogenesinaWesternmegalopoliswouldbeanunimportantfool.”5

Huntington’sthesisis,infact,veryhardtosustainempirically.ToleranceandlibertyarecertainlyamongtheimportantachievementsofmodernEurope(leavingoutsomeaberrationslikeNaziGermany,ortheintolerantgovernanceoftheBritishorFrenchorPortugueseempiresinAsiaandAfrica).Buttoseeauniquelineofhistoricaldivisionthere—goingbackoverthemillennia—isquitefanciful.Thechampioningofpoliticallibertyandofreligioustolerance,intheirfullcontemporaryforms,isnotanoldhistoricalfeatureofanycountryorcivilizationintheworld.PlatoandAquinaswerenolessauthoritarianintheirthinkingthanwasConfucius.ThisisnottodenythattherewerechampionsoftoleranceinclassicalEuropeanthought,butevenifthisistakentogivecredittothewholeWesternworld(fromtheancientGreeksandRomanstotheVikingsandtheOstrogoths),therearesimilarexamplesinotherculturesaswell.Forexample,theIndianemperorAshoka’sdedicatedchampioningofreligiousandotherkindsof

toleranceinthethirdcenturyB.C.(arguingthat“thesectsofotherpeoplealldeservereverenceforonereasonoranother”)iscertainlyamongtheearliestpoliticaldefensesoftoleranceanywhere.Therecent

BollywoodmovieAshoka(made,asithappens,byaMuslimdirector)mayormaynotbeaccurateinallitsdetails(thereis,foronething,fulsomeuseofBollywood’sfascinationwithsinging,romancing,andeconomicallydresseddancing),butitrightlyemphasizestheimportanceofAshoka’sideasonsecularismandtolerance2,300yearsagoandtheircontinuingrelevanceintheIndiaoftoday.WhenalaterIndianemperor,Akbar,theGreatMughal,wasmakingsimilarpronouncementsonreligioustoleranceinAgrafromthe1590sonward(suchas,“[N]ooneshouldbeinterferedwithonaccountofreligion,andanyoneistobeallowedtogoovertoareligionthatpleaseshim”),theInquisitionswerequiteextensiveinEurope,andhereticswerestillbeingburnedatthestake.

GlobalRootsofDemocracy

Similarly,democracyisoftenseenasaquintessentiallyWesternideawhichisalientothenon-Westernworld.ThatcivilizationalsimplificationhasreceivedsomeencouragementrecentlyfromthedifficultythatisbeingexperiencedbytheU.S.-ledcoalitioninestablishingademocraticsystemofgovernmentinIraq.However,thereisareallossofclaritywhentheblameforthedifficultiesinpostinterventionIraqisnotputonthepeculiarnatureoftheunderinformedandunderreflectedmilitaryinterventionthatwasprecipitatelychosen,butplacedinsteadonsomeimaginedviewthatdemocracydoesnotsuitIraqi,orMiddleEastern,ornon-Westerncultures.That,Iwouldargue,isacompletelywrongwaytotrytounderstandtheproblemswefacetoday—intheMiddleEastoranywhereelse.DoubtsareoftenexpressedthattheWesterncountriescan“impose”democracyonIraq,oronanyother

country.However,toposethequestioninthatform—centeringontheideaof“imposition”—impliesaproprietarybeliefthatdemocracybelongstotheWest,takingittobeaquintessentially“Western”ideawhichhasoriginatedandflourishedonlyintheWest.Thisisathoroughlymisleadingwayofunderstandingthehistoryandthecontemporaryprospectsofdemocracy.Therecan,ofcourse,benodoubtatallthatthemodernconceptsofdemocracyandpublicreasoning

havebeendeeplyinfluencedbyEuropeanandAmericananalysesandexperiencesoverthelastfewcenturies,particularlybytheintellectualforceoftheEuropeanEnlightenment(includingthecontributionsofsuchtheoristsofdemocracyastheMarquisdeCondorcet,JamesMadison,AlexisdeTocqueville,andJohnStuartMill).Buttoextrapolatebackwardfromthesecomparativelyrecentexperiencestoconstructaquintessentialandlong-rundichotomybetweentheWestandnon-Westwouldbeveryoddhistory.Incontrastwiththespecioushistoryofredefiningthelong-runpastonthebasisofshort-run

experiences,thereisanalternative—historicallymoreambitious—lineofreasoningthatfocusesspecificallyonancientGreece.Thebeliefintheallegedly“Western”natureofdemocracyisoftenlinkedtotheearlypracticeofvotingandelectionsinGreece,especiallyinAthens.ThepioneeringdepartureinancientGreecewasindeedmomentous,butthejumpfromancientGreecetothethesisoftheallegedly“Western”—or“European”—natureofdemocracyisconfusingandconfoundedforatleastthreedistinctreasons.First,thereistheclassificatoryarbitrarinessofdefiningcivilizationsinlargelyracialterms.Inthis

wayoflookingatcivilizationalcategories,nogreatdifficultyisseeninconsideringthedescendantsof,say,GothsandVisigothsasproperinheritorsoftheGreektradition(“theyareallEuropeans,”wearetold).ButthereisgreatreluctanceintakingnoteoftheGreekintellectuallinkswithotherancientcivilizationstotheeastorsouthofGreece,despitethegreaterinteresttheancientGreeksthemselves

showedintalkingtoancientIranians,orIndians,orEgyptians(ratherthaninchattinguptheancientOstrogoths).Thesecondissueconcernsthefollow-upoftheearlyGreekexperience.WhileAthenscertainlywasthe

pioneeringettingballotingstarted,thereweremanyregionalgovernmentswhichwentthatwayinthecenturiestofollow.ThereisnothingtoindicatethattheGreekexperienceinelectoralgovernancehadmuchimmediateimpactinthecountriestothewestofGreeceandRome,in,say,whatisnowFranceorGermanyorBritain.Incontrast,someofthecontemporarycitiesinAsia—inIran,Bactria,andIndia—incorporatedelementsofdemocracyinmunicipalgovernanceinthecenturiesfollowingthefloweringofAtheniandemocracy.Forexample,forseveralcenturiesthecityofSusa(orShushan)insouthwestIranhadanelectedcouncil,apopularassembly,andmagistrateswhowereproposedbythecouncilandelectedbytheassembly.Third,democracyisnotjustaboutballotsandvotes,butalsoaboutpublicdeliberationandreasoning,

what—touseanoldphrase—isoftencalled“governmentbydiscussion.”WhilepublicreasoningdidflourishinancientGreece,itdidsoalsoinseveralotherancientcivilizations—sometimesspectacularlyso.Forexample,someoftheearliestopengeneralmeetingsaimedspecificallyatsettlingdisputesbetweendifferentpointsofviewtookplaceinIndiaintheso-calledBuddhistcouncils,whereadherentsofdifferentpointsofviewgottogethertoargueouttheirdifferences.EmperorAshoka,referredtoearlier,whohostedthethird—andlargest—BuddhistcouncilinthethirdcenturyB.C.inthethencapitalofIndia,viz.Pataliputra(whatisnowPatna),alsotriedtocodifyandpropagatewhatwereamongtheearliestformulationsofrulesforpublicdiscussion(somekindofanearlyversionofthenineteenth-century“Robert’srulesoforder”).Thetraditionofpublicdiscussioncanbefoundacrosstheworld.Tochooseanotherhistorical

example,inearlyseventh-centuryJapan,theBuddhistprinceShotoku,whowasregenttohismother,EmpressSuiko,insistedin“theconstitutionofseventeenarticles,”promulgatedinA.D.604:“Decisionsonimportantmattersshouldnotbemadebyonepersonalone.Theyshouldbediscussedwithmany.”This,asithappens,issixhundredyearsearlierthantheMagnaCartasignedinthethirteenthcentury.TheJapaneseconstitutionofseventeenarticleswentontoexplainthereasonwhypluralreasoningwassoimportant:“Norletusberesentfulwhenothersdifferfromus.Forallmenhavehearts,andeachhearthasitsownleanings.Theirrightisourwrong,andourrightistheirwrong.”6Notsurprisingly,somecommentatorshaveseeninthisseventh-centuryconstitutionJapan’s“firststepofgradualdevelopmenttowarddemocracy.”7

Thereisalonghistoryofpublicdiscussionacrosstheworld.Eventheall-conqueringAlexanderwastreatedtoagoodexampleofpubliccriticismasheroamedaroundinnorthwestIndiaaround325B.C.WhenAlexanderaskedagroupofJainphilosopherswhytheywereneglectingtopayanyattentiontothegreatconqueror(AlexanderwasclearlydisappointedbytheseIndianphilosophers’lackofinterestinhim),hereceivedthefollowingforcefulreply:

KingAlexander,everymancanpossessonlysomuchoftheearth’ssurfaceasthiswearestandingon.Youarebuthumanliketherestofus,savethatyouarealwaysbusyanduptonogood,travellingsomanymilesfromyourhome,anuisancetoyourself

andtoothers!…Youwillsoonbedead,andthenyouwillownjustasmuchoftheearthaswillsufficetoburyyou.8

MiddleEasternhistoryandthehistoryofMuslimpeoplealsoincludeagreatmanyaccountsofpublicdiscussionandpoliticalparticipationthroughdialogues.InMuslimkingdomscenteredaroundCairo,

Baghdad,andIstanbul,orinIran,India,orforthatmatterSpain,thereweremanychampionsofpublicdiscussion(suchasCaliphAbdal-RahmanIIIofCórdobainthetenthcentury,orEmperorAkbarofIndiainthesixteenth).IshallcomebacktothisissueinthenextchapterwhendiscussingthesystematicmisinterpretationofMuslimhistorythatcanbefoundinthepronouncementsbothofreligiousfundamentalistsandofWesternculturalsimplifiers.TheWesternworldhasnoproprietaryrightoverdemocraticideas.Whilemoderninstitutionalformsof

democracyarerelativelyneweverywhere,thehistoryofdemocracyintheformofpublicparticipationandreasoningisspreadacrosstheworld.AsAlexisdeTocquevillenotedin1835inhisclassicbookondemocracy,whilethe“greatdemocraticrevolution”whichheobservedtakingplaceinAmericacouldbeseen,fromonepointofview,as“anewthing,”itcouldalsobeseen,fromabroaderperspective,asapartof“themostcontinuous,ancient,andpermanenttendencyknowntohistory.”9AlthoughTocquevilleconfinedhishistoricalexamplestoEurope’spast(pointing,forinstance,tothepowerfulcontributiontowarddemocratizationmadebytheadmissionofcommonpeopletotheranksoftheclergyin“thestateofFrancesevenhundredyearsago”),hisgeneralargumenthasimmenselybroaderrelevance.InhisautobiographyLongWalktoFreedom,NelsonMandeladescribeshowinfluencedhewas,asa

youngboy,byseeingthedemocraticnatureoftheproceedingsofthelocalmeetingsheldinhisAfricanhometown:

Everyonewhowantedtospeakdidso.Itwasdemocracyinitspurestform.Theremayhavebeenahierarchyofimportanceamongthespeakers,buteveryonewasheard,chiefandsubject,warriorandmedicineman,shopkeeperandfarmer,landownerand

laborer.10

Mandela’squestfordemocracydidnotemergefromanyWestern“imposition.”ItbegandistinctlyathisAfricanhome,thoughhedidfightto“impose”iton“theEuropeans”(asthewhiterulersinapartheid-basedSouthAfrica,itmayberecollected,usedtocallthemselves).Mandela’sultimatevictorywasatriumphofhumanity—notofaspecificallyEuropeanidea.

WesternScienceandGlobalHistory

Itissimilarlyimportanttoseehowso-calledWesternsciencedrawsonaworldheritage.ThereisachainofintellectualrelationsthatlinkWesternmathematicsandsciencetoacollectionofdistinctlynon-Westernpractitioners.Forexample,thedecimalsystem,whichevolvedinIndiaintheearlycenturiesofthefirstmillennium,wenttoEuropeattheendofthatmillenniumviatheArabs.Alargegroupofcontributorsfromdifferentnon-Westernsocieties—Chinese,Arab,Iranian,Indian,andothers—influencedthescience,mathematics,andphilosophythatplayedamajorpartintheEuropeanRenaissanceand,later,theEnlightenment.NotonlyisthefloweringofglobalscienceandtechnologynotanexclusivelyWestern-ledphenomenon,

thereweremajorglobaladvancesintheworldthatinvolvedextensiveinternationalencountersfarawayfromEurope.Considerprinting,whichFrancisBaconputamongthedevelopmentsthat“havechangedthewholefaceandstateofthingsthroughouttheworld.”EveryoneoftheearlyattemptsatdevelopingtheartofprintinginthefirstmillenniumoccurredfarawayfromEurope.Theywerealso,toaconsiderableextent,linkedwiththedeepcommitmentofBuddhistintellectualstopublicreadingandthepropagationofideas,andindeedalltheattemptsatearlyprintinginChina,Korea,andJapanwereundertakenbyBuddhisttechnologists.IndianBuddhists,whotriedtodevelopprinting,intheseventhcentury,wereless

successfulinthis,buttheydidcontributethematerialthatconstitutedthefirstdatedprintedbookintheworld,aBuddhistSanskritclassic(Vajracchedikaprajnaparamita)popularlyknownastheDiamondSutra,whichwastranslatedbyahalf-Indian,half-TurkishscholarfromSanskritintoChineseinA.D.402.WhenthebookwasprintedinChineseinA.D.868,itcarriedamotivationalprefacetotheeffectthatitwasbeingprinted“foruniversalfreedistribution.”11

ItisrightthatthereshouldbeadequateacknowledgmentofthetremendousprogressofideasandknowledgeinEuropeandAmericaoverthelastfewcenturies.TheOccidentmustgetfullcreditforthemajorachievementsthatoccurredintheWesternworldduringtheRenaissance,theEnlightenment,andtheIndustrialRevolution,whichhavetransformedthenatureofhumancivilization.Butthepresumptionthatallthisistheresultofthefloweringofanentirelysequestered“Westerncivilization,”developinginsplendidisolation,wouldbeaseriousillusion.Praisinganimaginedinsularitydoeslittlejusticetothewaylearningandthinkingtendtoprogressin

theworld,drawingondevelopmentsindifferentregions.IdeasandknowledgecultivatedintheWesthave,inrecentcenturies,dramaticallychangedthecontemporaryworld,butitwouldbehardtoseeitasanimmaculateWesternconception.

BotchedAbstractionsandFoggyHistory

Relianceoncivilizationalpartitioningisthoroughlyflawedforatleasttwodistinctreasons.First,thereisabasicmethodologicalprobleminvolvedintheimplicitpresumptionthatacivilizationalpartitioningisuniquelyrelevantandmustdrown—orswamp—otherwaysofidentifyingpeople.Itisbadenough,thoughscarcelysurprising,thatthosewhofomentglobalconfrontationsorlocalsectarianviolencetrytoimposeaprechosensingleanddivisiveidentityonpeoplewhoaretoberecruitedasthe“footsoldiers”ofpoliticalbrutality,butitisreallysadtoseethatthisblinkeredvisiongetssignificantlyreinforcedbytheimplicitsupporttheanti-WesternfundamentalistwarriorsgetfromtheoriesbredintheWesterncountriesofsingularcategorizationofpeopleoftheworld.Theseconddifficultywithcivilizationalpartitioningusedinthisapproachisthatitisbasedon

extraordinarydescriptivecrudenessandhistoricalinnocence.Manyofthesignificantdiversitieswithineachcivilizationareeffectivelyignored,andinteractionsbetweenthemaresubstantiallyoverlooked.Thesetwinfailuresproducearemarkablyimpoverishedunderstandingofdifferentcivilizationsand

theirsimilarities,connections,andinterdependenceinscience,technology,mathematics,literature,trade,commerce,andpolitical,economic,andsocialideas.Thefoggyperceptionofglobalhistoryyieldsanastonishinglylimitedviewofeachculture,includinganoddlyparochialreadingofWesterncivilization.

CHAPTER 4

ReligiousAffiliationsandMuslimHistory

Recentthesesaboutclashingcivilizationshavetendedtodrawmuchonreligiousdifferenceasacentralcharacteristicofdifferingcultures.However,asidefromtheconceptualflawinseeinghumanbeingsintermsofonlyoneaffiliationandthehistoricalmistakeofoverlookingthecriticallyimportantinterrelationsbetweenwhatareassumedtobelargelydetachedanddiscretecivilizations(bothproblemswerediscussedinthelastchapter),thesecivilizationaltheoriesalsosufferfromhavingtooverlooktheheterogeneityofreligiousaffiliationsthatcharacterizemostcountriesand,evenmore,mostcivilizations.Thelastproblemcanbequiteabigone,too,sincepeopleofthesamereligionarefrequentlyspreadovermanydifferentcountriesandseveraldistinctcontinents.Forexample,aswasmentionedearlier,IndiamaybeseenbySamuelHuntingtonasa“Hinducivilization,”butwithnearly150millionMuslimcitizens,IndiaisalsoamongthethreelargestMuslimcountriesintheworld.Religiouscategorizationcannotbeeasilyfittedintoclassificationsofcountriesandcivilizations.Thislastproblemcanbeovercomebyclassifyingpeoplenotintolumpycivilizationalunitswith

religiouscorrelates(like“Islamiccivilization,”“Hinducivilization,”andsuchasinHuntington’scategorization),butdirectlyintermsofthereligiousgroupingsofpeople.Thiswouldleadtoaneaterandlessdefectiveclassification,andithas,notsurprisingly,appealedtomany.Viewingindividualsintermsoftheirreligiousaffiliationshascertainlybecomequitecommoninculturalanalysisinrecentyears.Doesthismakethereligion-centeredanalysisofthepeopleoftheworldahelpfulwayofunderstandinghumanity?Ihavetoarguethatitdoesnot.Thismaybeamorecoherentclassificationofthepeopleoftheworld

thancivilizedcategorization,butitmakesthesamemistakeofattemptingtoseehumanbeingsintermsofonlyoneaffiliation,viz.religion.Inmanycontexts,suchaclassificationcanberatherhelpful(forexample,indeterminingthechoiceofreligiousholidays,orensuringthesafetyofplacesofworship),buttotakethattobetheoverarchingbasisofsocial,political,andculturalanalysisingeneralwouldamounttooverlookingalltheotherassociationsandloyaltiesanyindividualmayhave,andwhichcouldbesignificantintheperson’sbehavior,identity,andself-understanding.Thecrucialneedtotakenoteofthepluralidentitiesofpeopleandtheirchoiceofprioritiessurvivesthereplacementofcivilizationalclassificationswithadirectlyreligiouscategorization.Indeed,theincreasinglycommonuseofreligiousidentitiesastheleading—orsole—principleof

classificationofthepeopleoftheworldhasledtomuchgrossnessofsocialanalysis.Therehasbeen,inparticular,amajorlossofunderstandinginthefailuretodistinguishbetween(1)thevariousaffiliationsandloyaltiesapersonwhohappenstobeaMuslimhas,and(2)hisorherIslamicidentityinparticular.TheIslamicidentitycanbeoneoftheidentitiesthepersonregardsasimportant(perhapsevencrucial),butwithouttherebydenyingthatthereareotheridentitiesthatmayalsobesignificant.Whatisoftencalled“theIslamicworld”does,ofcourse,haveapreponderanceofMuslims,butdifferentpersonswhoareallMuslimscananddovarygreatlyinotherrespects,suchaspoliticalandsocialvalues,economicand

literarypursuits,professionalandphilosophicalinvolvements,attitudetotheWest,andsoon.Thegloballinesofdivisioncanbeverydifferentlydrawnforthese“otheraffiliations.”Tofocusjustonthesimplereligiousclassificationistomissthenumerous—andvarying—concernsthatpeoplewhohappentobeMuslimbyreligiontendtohave.Thedistinctioncanbeextremelyimportant,notleastinaworldinwhichIslamicfundamentalismand

militancyhavebeenpowerfulandinwhichWesternoppositiontothemisoftencombinedwithasignificant,ifvaguelyformulated,suspicionofMuslimpeopleingeneral.Asidefromtheconceptualcrudityreflectedinthatgeneralattitude,italsooverlooksthemoreobviousfactthatMuslimsdiffersharplyintheirpoliticalandsocialbeliefs.Theyalsodifferintheirliteraryandartistictastes,intheirinterestinscienceandmathematics,andevenintheformandextentoftheirreligiosity.WhiletheurgencyofimmediatepoliticshasledtoasomewhatbetterunderstandingintheWestofreligioussubcategorieswithinIslam(suchasthedistinctionbetweenaperson’sbeingaShiaoraSunni),thereisagrowingreluctancetogobeyondthemtotakeadequatenoteofthemanynonreligiousidentitiesMuslimpeople,likeotherpeopleintheworld,have.ButtheideasandprioritiesofMuslimsonpolitical,cultural,andsocialmatterscandivergegreatly.

ReligiousIdentityandCulturalVariations

Therecanalsobevastdifferencesinthesocialbehaviorofdifferentpersonsbelongingtothesamereligion,eveninfieldsoftenthoughttobecloselylinkedwithreligion.Thisiseasytoillustrateinthecontemporaryworld,forexample,incontrastingthetypicalpracticesoftraditionalistruralwomenin,say,SaudiArabiaandthoseofMuslimwomeninurbanTurkey(whereheadscarvesarerare,withdresscodesthatareoftensimilartothoseofEuropeanwomen).ItcanalsobeillustratedbynotingthevastdifferencesinthehabitsofsociallyactivewomeninBangladeshandthelessoutgoingwomeninmoreconservativecirclesintheverysamecountry,eventhoughthepersonsinvolvedmayallbeMuslimbyreligion.Thesedifferencesmustnot,however,beseensimplyasaspectsofanewphenomenonthatmodernity

hasbroughttoMuslimpeople.Theinfluenceofotherconcerns,otheridentities,canbeseenthroughoutthehistoryofMuslimpeople.ConsideradebatebetweentwoMuslimsinthefourteenthcentury.IbnBattuta,whowasborninTangierin1304andspentthirtyyearsinvarioustravelsinAfricaandAsia,wasshockedbysomeofthethingshesawinapartoftheworldthatnowliesbetweenMaliandGhana.InIwaltan,notfarfromTimbuktu,IbnBattutabefriendedtheMuslimqadi,whoheldanimportantcivicofficethere.IbnBattutarecordshisdisgustwiththesocialbehaviorintheqadi’sfamily:OnedayIwentintothepresenceoftheqadiofIwaltan,afteraskinghispermissiontoenter,andfoundwithhimayoungandaremarkablybeautifulwoman.WhenIsawherIhesitatedandwishedtowithdraw,butshelaughedatmeandexperiencedno

shyness.Theqadisaidtome:“Whyareyouturningback?Sheismyfriend.”Iwasamazedattheirbehaviour.1

ButtheqadiwasnottheonlyonewhoshockedIbnBattuta,andhewasparticularlycensoriousofAbuMuhammadYandakanal-Musufi,whowasagoodMuslimandhadearlieronactuallyvisitedMoroccohimself.WhenIbnBattutavisitedhimathishouse,hefoundawomanconversingwithamanseatedonacouch.IbnBattutareports:

Isaidtohim:“Whoisthiswoman?”Hesaid:“Sheismywife.”Isaid:“Whatconnectionhasthemanwithher?”Hereplied:“He

isherfriend.”Isaidtohim:“DoyouacquiesceinthiswhenyouhavelivedinourcountryandbecomeacquaintedwiththepreceptsoftheShariah?”Hereplied:“Theassociationofwomenwithmenisagreeabletousandapartofgoodconduct,towhichnosuspicionattaches.Theyarenotlikethewomenofyourcountry.”Iwasastonishedathislaxity.Ilefthimanddidnotreturn

thereafter.Heinvitedmeseveraltimes,butIdidnotaccept.2

NotethatAbuMuhammad’sdifferencefromIbnBattutadoesnotlieinreligion—theywerebothMuslim—butintheirdecisionaboutrightlifestyles.

MuslimToleranceandDiversity

Iturnnowtoamorepoliticalissue.Varyingattitudestoreligioustolerancehaveoftenbeensociallyimportantinthehistoryoftheworld,andmuchvariationcanbefoundinthisrespectamongdifferentpersonsallofwhomareMuslimbyreligion.Forexample,EmperorAurangzeb,whoascendedtotheMughalthroneinIndiainthelateseventeenthcentury,isgenerallyregardedasbeingratherintolerant;heevenimposedspecialtaxesonhisnon-Muslimsubjects.AndyetaverydifferentattitudecanbeseeninthelifeandbehaviorofhiselderbrotherDaraShikoh,theeldestson(andlegitimateheir)ofEmperorShahJahan,andofMumtazMahal,inwhosememorytheTajMahalwouldbebuilt.AurangzebkilledDaratograbthethrone.DarawasnotonlyastudentofSanskritandseriousscholarinthestudyofHinduism,itishisPersiantranslation,fromSanskrit,oftheHinduUpanishadswhichwasforacenturyormoreoneofthemainfoundationsofEuropeaninterestinHindureligiousphilosophy.DaraandAurangzeb’sgreat-grandfather,Akbar,wasextremelysupportiveofreligioustolerance(as

wasdiscussedearlier),andhemadeitarecognizeddutyofthestatetomakesurethat“nomanshouldbeinterferedwithonaccountofreligion,andanyoneistobeallowedtogoovertoareligionthatpleaseshim.”Inlinewithhispursuitofwhathecalled“thepathofreason”(rahiaql),Akbarinsistedinthe1590sontheneedforopendialogueandfreechoice,andalsoarrangedrecurrentdiscussionsinvolvingnotonlymainstreamMuslimandHinduthinkers,butalsoChristians,Jews,Parsees,Jains,andevenatheists.3AsidefromDara,Aurangzeb’sownson,alsocalledAkbar,rebelledagainsthisfather,andjoinedhandsinthisenterprisewiththeHindukingdomsinRajasthanandlatertheHinduMarathas(thoughAkbar’srebellionwasultimatelycrushedbyAurangzeb).WhilefightingfromRajasthan,AkbarwrotetohisfatherprotestingathisintoleranceandvilificationofhisHindufriends.4

FacedwithsuchdiversityamongMuslims,thosewhocanseenodistinctionbetweenbeingaMuslimandhavinganIslamicidentitywouldbetemptedtoask:“WhichisthecorrectviewaccordingtoIslam?IsIslaminfavorofsuchtolerance,orisitnot?Whichisitreally?”Thepriorissuetobefacedhereisnotwhattherightanswertothisquestionis,butwhetherthequestionitselfistherightonetoask.BeingaMuslimisnotanoverarchingidentitythatdetermineseverythinginwhichapersonbelieves.Forexample,EmperorAkbar’stoleranceandheterodoxyhadsupportersaswellasdetractorsamongtheinfluentialMuslimgroupsinAgraandDelhiinsixteenth-centuryIndia.Indeed,hefacedconsiderableoppositionfromMuslimclerics.YetwhenAkbardiedin1605,theIslamictheologianAbdulHaq,whowassharplycriticalofmanyofAkbar’stolerantbeliefs,hadtoconcludethatdespitehis“innovations,”AkbarhadremainedagoodMuslim.5

Thepointtorecognizeisthatindealingwiththisdiscrepancy,itisnotnecessarytoestablishthateitherAkbarorAurangzebwasnotaproperMuslim.TheycouldbothhavebeenfineMuslimswithoutsharingthesamepoliticalattitudesorsocialandculturalidentities.ItispossibleforoneMuslimtotakean

intolerantviewandanothertobeverytolerantofheterodoxywithouteitherofthemceasingtobeaMuslimforthatreason.Thisisnotonlybecausetheideaofijtehad,orreligiousinterpretation,allowsconsiderablelatitudewithinIslamitself,butalsobecauseanindividualMuslimhasmuchfreedomtodeterminewhatothervaluesandprioritiesheorshewouldchoosewithoutcompromisingabasicIslamicfaith.

NonreligiousConcernsandDiversePriorities

GiventhepresentdisaffectionbetweenArabandJewishpolitics,itisalsoworthrememberingthatthereisalonghistoryofmutualrespectbetweenthetwogroups.ItwasmentionedinthefirstchapterthatwhentheJewishphilosopherMaimonideswasforcedtoemigratefromanintolerantEuropeinthetwelfthcentury,hefoundatolerantrefugeintheArabworld.Hishost,whogavehimanhonoredandinfluentialpositioninhiscourtinCairo,wasnoneotherthanEmperorSaladin,whoseMuslimcredentialscanhardlybedoubted,givenhisvaliantroleintheCrusadesinfightingforIslam(RichardtheLionheartwasoneofhisdistinguishedopponents).Maimonides’experiencewasnot,infact,exceptional.Indeed,eventhoughthecontemporaryworldis

fullofexamplesofconflictsbetweenMuslimsandJews,MuslimrulersintheArabworldandinmedievalSpainhadalonghistoryoftryingtointegrateJewsassecuremembersofthesocialcommunitywhoseliberties—andsometimesleadershiproles—wererespected.Forinstance,asMaríaRosaMenocalhasnotedinherbookTheOrnamentoftheWorld,bythetenthcenturytheachievementofCórdobainMuslim-ruledSpaininbeing“asseriousacontenderasBaghdad,perhapsmoreso,forthetitleofmostcivilizedplaceonearth”wasduetotheconstructiveinfluenceofthejointworkofCaliphAbdal-RahmanIIIandhisJewishvizier,HasdaiibnShaprut.6Indeed,thereisconsiderableevidence,asMenocalargues,thatthepositionofJewsaftertheMuslimconquest“wasineveryrespectanimprovement,astheywentfrompersecutedtoprotectedminority.”7

Ourreligiousorcivilizationalidentitymaywellbeveryimportant,butitisonemembershipamongmany.ThequestionwehavetoaskisnotwhetherIslam(orHinduismorChristianity)isapeace-lovingreligionoracombativeone(“telluswhichitisreally?”),buthowareligiousMuslim(orHinduorChristian)maycombinehisorherreligiousbeliefsorpracticeswithotherfeaturesofpersonalidentityandothercommitmentsandvalues(suchasattitudestopeaceandwar).Toseeone’sreligious—or“civilizational”—affiliationasanall-engulfingidentitywouldbeadeeplyproblematicdiagnosis.Therehavebeenfiercewarriorsaswellasgreatchampionsofpeaceamongdevotedmembersofeach

religion,andratherthanaskingwhichoneisthe“truebeliever”andwhichonea“mereimpostor,”weshouldacceptthatone’sreligiousfaithdoesnotinitselfresolveallthedecisionswehavetomakeinourlives,includingthoseconcerningourpoliticalandsocialprioritiesandthecorrespondingissuesofconductandaction.Boththeproponentsofpeaceandtoleranceandthepatronsofwarandintolerancecanbelongtothesamereligion,andmaybe(intheirownways)truebelievers,withoutthisbeingseenasacontradiction.Thedomainofone’sreligiousidentitydoesnotvanquishallotheraspectsofone’sunderstandingandaffiliation.IfbeingaMuslimweretheonlyidentityofanyonewhohappenstobeMuslim,thenofcoursethat

religiousidentificationwouldhavetocarrythehugeburdenofresolvingagreatmanyotherchoicesapersonfacesinotherpartsofhisorherlife.ButbeingIslamiccanhardlybetheonlyidentityaMuslim

has.Indeed,thedenialofpluralityaswellastherejectionofchoiceinmattersofidentitycanproduceanastonishinglynarrowandmisdirectedview.EventhecurrentdivisionsaroundtheeventsofSeptember11haveplacedMuslimsonallsidesofthedividinglines,andinsteadofaskingwhichistherightIslamicposition,wehavetorecognizethataMuslimcanchooseamongseveraldifferentpositionsonmattersinvolvingpolitical,moral,andsocialjudgmentswithoutceasingtobe,forthatreason,aMuslim.

Mathematics,Science,andIntellectualHistory

TherehavebeenmanydiscussionsofthefactthatagreatmanyMuslimsdiedintheWorldTradeCenteron9/11.Aspersonsworkingthere,theydidnotevidentlyregardthattobeanevilexpressionofWesterncivilization.TheWorldTradeCenterdid,ofcourse,havesymbolicsignificance,withitsmassiveheightandadvancedtechnology(usingthenewtubularconceptofstructuralengineering),andcouldbeseen—inpoliticallybellicoseeyes—asanexpressionofWesternaudacity.Itisinteresting,inthiscontext,torecallthattheprincipalengineerbehindthetubularconceptwasFazlurRahmanKhan,theChicago-basedengineerfromBangladesh,whodidthebasicworkunderlyingtheinnovationandlateronalsodesignedseveralothertallbuildings,suchasthe110-storySearsTowerandthe100-storyJohnHancockCenterinChicago,andalsotheHajjTerminalinJeddahinSaudiArabia.Asithappens,healsofoughtforBangladesh’sindependencefromPakistanin1971andwroteaveryreadableBengalibookonthatwar.ThefactthatMuslimsareondifferentsidesofmanyculturalandpoliticaldividesshouldnotbeatallsurprisingifitisrecognizedthatbeingaMuslimisnotanall-engulfingidentity.ItisalsoimportanttorecognizethatmanyintellectualcontributionsofMuslimswhichmadeamajor

differencetoglobalknowledgewerenotinanysensepurelyIslamiccontributions.Eventoday,whenamodernmathematicianatMITorPrincetonorStanfordinvokesan“algorithm”tosolveadifficultcomputationalproblem,shehelpstocommemoratethecontributionsoftheninth-centuryArabmathematicianal-Khwarizmi,fromwhosenametheterm“algorithm”isderived(theterm“algebra”comesfromhisbookAl-Jabrwaal-Muqabalah).Manyothermajordevelopmentsinthehistoryofmathematics,science,andtechnologywerecarriedoutbytheMuslimintelligentsia.ManyofthesedevelopmentsreachedEuropeonlyatthebeginningofthesecondmillennium,when

translationsfromArabictoLatinbecamequitecommon.However,someinfluencesonEuropecameearlierthroughtheMuslimrulersofSpain.Toconsideroneexampleoftechnologicaladvance,Muslimengineers,bothArabandBerber,wereresponsibleforthedevelopmentanduseofthetechnologyofirrigationintheformofacequiasinSpain,drawingontheinnovationstheyhadintroducedearlierinthedrylandsintheMiddleEast.Thisallowed,morethanathousandyearsago,thecultivationofcrops,fruitsandvegetables,andthepasturingofanimalsonwhathadearlierbeencompletelydryEuropeanland.Indeed,Muslimtechnologistswereinchargeofthisadmirabletechnicaljobovermanycenturies.8

Furthermore,MuslimmathematiciansandscientistshadasignificantroleintheglobalizationoftechnicalknowledgethroughthemovementofideasacrosstheOldWorld.Forexample,thedecimalsystemandsomeearlyresultsintrigonometrywentfromIndiatoEuropeintheearlyyearsofthesecondmillennium,transmittedthroughtheworksofArabandIranianmathematicians.Also,theLatinversionsofthemathematicalresultsofIndianmathematiciansAryabhata,Varahamihira,andBrahmagupta,fromtheirSanskrittreatisesproducedbetweenthefifthandseventhcenturies,appearedinEuropethroughtwodistinctsteps,goingfirstfromSanskrittoArabicandthentoLatin(Ishallreturntosuchmulticultural

transmissionsinchapter7).Asleadersofinnovativethoughtinthatperiodinhistory,Muslimintellectualswereamongthemostcommittedglobalizersofscienceandmathematics.Thereligionofthepeopleinvolved,whetherMuslimorHinduorChristian,madelittledifferencetothescholarlycommitmentsoftheseMuslimleadersofmathematicsorscience.Similarly,manyoftheWesternclassics,particularlyfromancientGreece,survivedonlythroughtheir

Arabictranslations,toberetranslated,mostlyintoLatin,intheearlycenturiesofthesecondmillennium,precedingtheEuropeanRenaissance.TheArabictranslationswereoriginallymadenot,obviously,forpreservation,butforcontemporaryuseintheArabic-speakingworld—aworldofsomeconsiderableexpanseattheturnofthefirstmillennium.Buttheglobalaswellasdomesticconsequencesthatultimatelyresultedfromthisprocessareentirelyinlinewithwhatcouldbeexpectedfromthereachandcatholicityofthescholarshipofthosewhowereleadersofworldthoughtoverthosedecisivecenturies.

PluralIdentitiesandContemporaryPolitics

Thereareseveralreasonsforwhichitiscriticallyimportanttodaytopayattentiontothedistinctionbetween(1)seeingMuslimpeopleexclusively—orpredominantly—intermsoftheirIslamicreligionand(2)understandingthemmorebroadlyintermsoftheirmanyaffiliations,whichwouldcertainlyincludetheirIslamicidentity,butwhichneednotcrowdoutthecommitmentsthatfollowfromtheirscientificinterests,professionalobligations,literaryinvolvements,orpoliticalaffiliations.Thefirstreason,ofcourse,isthevalueofknowledge—theimportanceofknowingwhatishappening.

Clarityofunderstandinghassignificanceonitsown,andcanalsohavefar-reachingconsequencesforthoughtsandactions.Forexample,evenwhenagangofactivistsclaimthattheirterroristpursuitsareparticularlyordainedbyIslamicinjunctions,therebytryingtoextendradicallythereachofreligiouscommands,wecancertainlyquestionwhetherthatisindeedthecase.ItwouldbeanobviousandgrossmistaketogoalongwiththeirfailuretoseethedistinctionbetweenanIslamicidentityandtheidentityofbeingadedicatedterroristinwhattheyseeasthecauseofIslam.Toseethisdistinctiondoesnot,ofcourse,foreclosetheintellectualpossibilityofdebatingwhetherIslamicinjunctionscanbeinterpretedinthisway,butthedebatecannotevenbeginiftheverydistinctionbetweenanIslamicidentityandaMuslimperson’smanyidentitieswereentirelymissed.Asithappens,mostMuslimscholarswouldentirelyrejecttheclaimthatIslamicinjunctionscan

requireorsanctionoreventolerateterrorism,eventhoughmanyofthemwouldalsoargue,aswillbediscussedpresently,thatapersonwouldnotceasetobeaMuslimevenifheweretointerprethisdutiesdifferently(intheviewoftheircritics,mistakenly)solongasheadheredtothecoreIslamicbeliefsandpractices.Thefirstissue,however,isnottoconfusetheroleofaparticularreligiousidentityandthevariousprioritiesapersonofthatparticularreligionmaychoosetohave(foravarietyofotherreasons).Second,thedistinctionisofsignificanceinthebattleagainstthepoliticizationofreligion,exemplified

notonlybytherapidgrowthofpoliticalIslam,butalsobythevigorwithwhichthepoliticizationofotherreligionshaveproceeded(exemplifiedbythepoliticalreachof“born-again”Christianity,orofJewishextremism,oroftheHindutvamovement).Theworldofpractice—indeedsometimesverynastyandbrutallysectarianpractice—issystematicallyfedbytheconfusionbetweenhavingareligionandignoringtheneedforreasoning—andforfreedomofthought—indecidingonmattersthatneednotbe“lockedup”byreligiousfaith.Theprocessofmisbegottenpoliticizationcanbeseen,tovaryingextents,inthe

increasinglypolarizedworld,anditcanvaryfromcontributingdirectlytorecruitmentforactiveterrorismtoenhancingvulnerabilitytosuchrecruitmentorencouragingtoleranceofviolenceinthenameofreligion.Forexample,the“creepingShariah-izationofIndonesia,”whichtheIndonesianMuslimscholarSyafi’i

Anwarhasdescribedwithmuchalarm,notonlyisadevelopmentofreligiouspractice,butinvolvesthespreadofaparticularlypugnacioussocialandpoliticalperspectiveinatraditionallytolerant—andrichlymulticultural—country.9Asimilarthingcanbesaidaboutanumberofothercountries,includingMalaysia,whichhaveexperiencedarapidpromotionofaconfrontationalcultureinthenameofIslam,despitetheirhistoryofculturaldiversityandpoliticalbreadth.Toresistpoliticalpolarization,thisfoundationaldistinctionhastobepressed,sincetheexploitationofareligious(inthiscase,Islamic)identityissuchabigpartofthecultivationoforganizedconflictsofthiskind.10

Third,thedistinctionallowsustounderstandmorefullywhatisgoingoninternallyincountriesthatareplacedbyoutsidersinsomereligiousbox,suchastheso-calledIslamicworld,asifthatidentificationcouldcomprehensivelyexplaincurrentintellectualdevelopmentsthere.ItisimportanttorecognizethatmanycountriesthatareformallyIslamicstateshaveongoingpoliticalstrugglesinwhichmanyoftheprotagonists,evenwhentheyaredevoutMuslimsbyreligion,donotdrawtheirargumentsonlyfromtheirIslamicidentity.ConsiderPakistan,whichiscertainlyanIslamicstate,andhasIslamasitsstatereligionwithvarious

politicalimplications(forexample,anon-Muslimcouldnotbeelectedpresidentofthecountrynomatterhowmanyvotesheorshecouldget).Andyetthecivilsocietyinthatintellectuallyactivecountrymakesroomformanycommitmentsandpursuitsthatarenotderivedprimarily—oratall—fromreligion.Forexample,Pakistanhasadedicated,andinmanywayshighlysuccessful,HumanRightsCommission,whichappealsnotjusttoIslamicentitlementsbutalsotomorebroadlydefinedhumanrights.Eventhough,unliketheHumanRightsCommissionofIndiaorSouthAfrica,whicharerecognizedbodieswithlegalpower,thecommissioninPakistanhasnolegalorconstitutionalstanding(indeeditisformallynomorethananNGO),yetunderthestewardshipofvisionaryleadersofcivilsocietysuchasAsmaJahangirandI.A.Rehman,ithasdonemuchtofightforthefreedomsofwomen,minorities,andotherthreatenedpeople.ItsqualifiedsuccesshasbeenbasedontheuseofPakistan’scivillaws(totheextentthattheyhavenotbeenmaimedbyextremistreform),thecourageandcommitmentofcivildissidents,thefair-mindednessofmanyuprightmembersofthejudiciary,thepresenceofalargebodyofsociallyprogressivepublicopinion,and,lastbutnotleast,theeffectivenessofthemediaindrawingattentiontoinhumanityandviolationofcivildecency.Infact,Pakistan’smedia,liketheBangladeshipress,hasalsobeenveryactiveindirectlyinvestigatingandprominentlyreportingcasesofabuseandinraisinghumane—andoftensecular—issuesfortheattentionofareflectivepublic.11

Theserecognitionsdonotreduceinanywaytheneedtodealwith“thedepthsofPakistan’sproblemwithIslamicextremism,”asHusainHaqqani,aformerPakistaniambassadortoSriLanka,hasputit.ItiscriticallyimportanttopayattentiontothediagnosisHaqqanihaspresentedpersuasivelythat“thedisproportionateinfluencewieldedbyfundamentalistgroupsinPakistanistheresultofstatesponsorshipofsuchgroups,”andtohiswarningthat“anenvironmentdominatedbyIslamistandmilitaristideologiesistheidealbreedinggroundforradicalsandexportableradicalism.”12Theseissueshavetobeaddressedatdifferentlevels,andcallforthereformingofgovernanceandthemilitary,thepressingfordemocratic

rights,givingmorefreedomofoperationtothenonreligiousandnonextremistpoliticalparties,anddealingwithtraininggroundsandfundamentalistschoolsthatinclinestudentstowardconfrontationandmilitancy.ButattentionmustalsobepaidtotheongoingstrugglewithinPakistaninwhichitsstrongintellectualcommunityhasbeenplayingavaluable,oftenvisionary,role.Indeed,HusainHaqqani’sownpenetratinganalysisispartofthisrichlyconstructivemovement.TheAmerican-led“waronterror”hasbeensopreoccupiedwithmilitarymoves,interstatediplomacy,intergovernmentdialogues,andworkingwithrulersingeneral(acrosstheworld,notjustinPakistan)thattherehastendedtobeaseriousneglectoftheimportanceofcivilsociety,despitethecriticallyimportantworkthatitdoesinverydifficultcircumstances.Indeed,humanistpursuitsofbroadreachhavearichhistoryinPakistan,andthistraditiondeserves

celebrationandsupport.Ithasalreadyproducedmuch-admiredresultsthathavereceivedglobalattentioninothercontexts.Forexample,thehumandevelopmentapproachtounderstandingeconomicandsocialprogress(judgingprogressnotmerelybythegrowthofgrossnationalproductbutbytheenhancementofpeople’slivingconditions)hasbeenpioneeredintheworldbyaPakistanieconomistandformerfinanceminister,MahbubulHaq.13Theapproachhasbeenwidelyusedinternationally,includinginPakistan,toassessthedeficienciesofpublicpolicies(thecritiquehasoftenbeenblistering),anditstillremainsoneofthemainstaysoftheUnitedNations’constructiveeffortsineconomicandsocialdevelopment.ItisimportanttorecognizethatA.Q.Khan’sclandestinenuclearwaresarenottheonlythingsPakistanhasexportedabroad.Momentousnondenominationalcontributionsofthiskinddrawonthebroadvisionsofthepersons

involved,notspecificallyontheirreligiosity.AndyetthisfactdidnotmakeMahbubulHaqanylessofaMuslim.Hisfaithinreligioninitsproperdomainwasstrong,asIcanconfirm,havinghadtheprivilegeofknowinghimasaclosefriend(fromourdaystogetherasundergraduatesatCambridgeintheearly1950stohissuddendeathin1998).ThedistinctionbetweenthebroadvarietyofcommitmentsofMuslimsandtheirnarrowlydefinedIslamicidentityinparticularisextraordinarilyimportanttounderstand.Thefourthreasonforemphasizingtheimportanceofthisdistinctionisthatitissignificantly—and

sometimesentirely—missedinsomeofthe“battlesagainstterrorism”thatarecurrentlybeingwaged.Thiscan,andIbelievealreadydoes,haveverycounterproductiveeffects.Forexample,attemptstofightterrorismthroughrecruitingreligion“onone’sside”hasnotonlybeenquiteineffective,theyalsosuffer,Iwouldargue,fromaseriousconceptualdisorientation.Thissubjectclearlydeservesafullerdiscussion.

FightingTerrorismandUnderstandingIdentities

TheconfusionbetweenthepluralidentitiesofMuslimsandtheirIslamicidentityinparticularisnotonlyadescriptivemistake,ithasseriousimplicationsforpoliciesforpeaceintheprecariousworldinwhichwelive.Thereisagreatdealofanxietyinthecontemporaryworldaboutglobalconflictsandterrorism.Thisisasitshouldbe,sincethethreatsarerealandtheneedtodosomethingtoovercomeandsubduethesedangersisurgent.TheactionstakeninrecentyearshaveincludedmilitaryinterventionsinAfghanistanandIraq.Theseareimportantsubjectsforpublicdebate(ImustconfessthatIhavebeentotallyskepticalofthepolicieschosenbythecoalitionpartnersfortheIraqoperationinparticular),butmyfocusherewillbeonanotherpartoftheglobalapproachtoconflictsandterrorism,involvingpublicpoliciesrelatedtoculturalrelationsandcivilsociety.

Aswasdiscussedinthefirstchapter,thisbookisespeciallyconcernedwiththeconceptualframeworkwithinwhichtheseconfrontationsareseenandunderstood,andhowthedemandsofpublicactionareinterpreted.Aconfusingroleisplayedherebytherelianceonasinglecategorizationofthepeopleoftheworld.Theconfusionaddstotheflammabilityoftheworldinwhichwelive.TheproblemIamreferringtoismuchmoresubtlethanthecrudeandabusiveviewsthathavebeenexpressedaboutotherculturesbypeopleintheWest,liketheirrepressibleLieutenantGeneralWilliamBoykinoftheU.S.Army(whoseclaimthattheChristianGodwas“biggerthan”theIslamicGodwasdiscussedinthefirstchapter).Itiseasytoseetheobtusenessandinanityofviewsofthiskind.What,however,canbeseenasabiggerandmoregeneralproblem(despitetheabsenceofthe

grossnessofvilification)arethepossiblyterribleconsequencesofclassifyingpeopleintermsofsingularaffiliationswovenaroundexclusivelyreligiousidentities.Thisisespeciallycriticalforunderstandingthenatureanddynamicsofglobalviolenceandterrorisminthecontemporaryworld.Thereligiouspartitioningoftheworldproducesadeeplymisleadingunderstandingofthepeopleacrosstheworldandthediverserelationsbetweenthem,anditalsohastheeffectofmagnifyingoneparticulardistinctionbetweenonepersonandanothertotheexclusionofallotherimportantconcerns.Indealingwithwhatiscalled“Islamicterrorism,”therehavebeendebatesonwhetherbeingaMuslim

demandssomekindofstronglyconfrontationalmilitancy,orwhether,asmanyworldleadershavearguedinawarm—andeveninspiring—way,a“trueMuslim”mustbeatolerantindividual.ThedenialofthenecessityofaconfrontationalreadingofIslamiscertainlyappropriateandextremelyimportanttoday,andTonyBlairinparticulardeservesmuchapplauseforwhathehasdoneinthisrespect.ButinthecontextofBlair’sfrequentinvokingof“themoderateandtruevoiceofIslam,”wehavetoaskwhetheritisatallpossible—ornecessary—todefinea“trueMuslim”intermsofpoliticalandsocialbeliefsaboutconfrontationandtolerance,onwhichdifferentMuslimshavehistoricallytaken,aswasdiscussedearlier,verydifferentpositions.Theeffectofthisreligion-centeredpoliticalapproach,andoftheinstitutionalpoliciesithasgenerated(withfrequentannouncementsofthekind,tociteoneexample,“thegovernmentismeetingMuslimleadersinthenextvitalstagedesignedtocementaunitedfront”),hasbeentobolsterandstrengthenthevoiceofreligiousauthoritieswhiledowngradingtheimportanceofnonreligiousinstitutionsandmovements.Thedifficultywithactingonthepresumptionofasingularidentity—thatofreligion—isnot,ofcourse,

aspecialproblemapplyingonlytoMuslims.ItwouldalsoapplytoanyattempttounderstandthepoliticalviewsandsocialjudgmentsofpeoplewhohappentobeChristian,orJewish,orHindu,orSikh,byrelyingmainly—oronly—onwhattheirallegedreligiousleadersdeclareasspokesmenfortheir“flocks.”Thesingularclassificationgivesacommandingvoicetothe“establishment”figuresintherespectivereligioushierarchywhileotherperspectivesarerelativelydowngradedandeclipsed.Thereisconcern—andsomeastonishment—todaythatdespiteattemptstobringinthereligious

establishmentofMuslimsandothernon-Christiangroupsintodialoguesaboutglobalpeaceandlocalcalm,religiousfundamentalismandmilitantrecruitmenthavecontinuedtoflourisheveninWesterncountries.Andyetthisshouldnothavecomeasasurprise.Tryingtorecruitreligiousleadersandclericsinsupportofpoliticalcauses,alongwithtryingtoredefinethereligionsinvolvedintermsofpoliticalandsocialattitudes,downplaysthesignificanceofnonreligiousvaluespeoplecananddohaveintheirappropriatedomain,whetherornottheyarereligious.

Theeffortstorecruitthemullahsandtheclergytoplayaroleoutsidetheimmediateprovinceofreligioncould,ofcourse,makesomedifferenceinwhatispreachedinmosquesortemples.ButitalsodowngradesthecivicinitiativespeoplewhohappentobeMuslimbyreligioncananddoundertake(alongwithothers)todealwithwhatareessentiallypoliticalandsocialproblems.Further,italsoheightensthesenseofdistancebetweenmembersofdifferentreligiouscommunitiesbyplayinguptheirreligiousdifferencesinparticular,oftenatthecostofotheridentities(includingthatofbeingacitizenofthecountryinquestion),whichcouldhavehadamoreunitingrole.ShouldaBritishcitizenwhohappenstobeMuslimhavetorelyonclericsorotherleadersofthereligiouscommunitytocommunicatewiththeprimeministerofhiscountry,whohasbeenparticularlykeentospeakthroughthereligiousleaders?Itshouldnotbesosurprisingthattheoverlookingofalltheidentitiesofpeopleotherthanthose

connectedwithreligioncanprovetobeaproblematicwayoftryingtoreducetheholdofreligioussectarianism.Thisproblemalsoarisessharplyindealingwiththemoredifficult—andmoreturbulent—politicalsituationinbattle-tornIraqandAfghanistan.TheelectionsandreferenduminIraqin2005canbeseenasaconsiderablesuccesswithintheirowncriteriaofassessment:theelectionsdidoccur,afairlyhighproportionoftheelectoratedidvote,andviolentinterruptionsdidnotmartheentireeffort.Andyetintheabsenceofopportunitiesforopenandparticipatorydialoguebeyondwhatwasprovidedbyreligiousinstitutions,thevotingprocesswaspredictablysectarian,linkedwithreligiousandethnicdenominations.Theparticipationofpeoplefromdifferentdenominations(Shia,Sunni,Kurd)seemedtoberigidlyintermediatedbythespokesmenfortherespectivedenominations,withthegeneralcitizenshiprolesofthosepeoplebeinggivenlittleopportunitytodevelopandflourish.DespitemanyachievementsoftheKarzaigovernmentinKabul(certainlymuchhasbeen

accomplished),thereisasomewhatsimilar,iflessintense,probleminAfghanistanaswell,withtheattemptedrelianceinofficialpolicyongatheringsoftriballeadersandcouncilsofclerics,ratherthanonthemoreexacting,butcriticallyimportant,cultivationofopengeneraldialoguesandinteractionsthatcouldgobeyondreligiouspolitics.Toseereligiousaffiliationasanall-engulfingidentitycantakeaconsiderablepoliticaltoll.GiventhetremendouschallengestheAfghanleadershipfaces,itisnecessarytobepatientwiththeapproachesitistryingout,butthelikelylong-rundifficultiesoftakingthisnarrowroutehavetobearticulatedwithoutcompromisingtheadmirationforwhattheKarzaigovernmenthasachieved.Asfortheglobalchallengeofterrorism,wehavereasontoexpect,fromtheworldleadersworking

againstit,rathergreaterclarityofthoughtthanwearecurrentlygetting.Theconfusiongeneratedbyanimplicitbeliefinthesolitaristunderstandingofidentityposesseriousbarrierstoovercomingglobalterrorismandcreatingaworldwithoutideologicallyorganizedlarge-scaleviolence.Therecognitionofmultipleidentitiesandoftheworldbeyondreligiousaffiliations,evenforveryreligiouspeople,canpossiblymakesomedifferenceinthetroubledworldinwhichwelive.

TerrorismandReligion

IwasprivilegedtoknowDanielPearlalittle.HecametoatalkofmineinParisinthesummerof2000,andwehadalongishconversationafterward.HeknewthenthathewassoongoingtobebasedinBombay(orMumbai,asitisnowcalled),reportingfortheWallStreetJournalonthesubcontinent.Later,earlyinFebruary2001,IsawhimagaininBombay,andIhadtheopportunityofcontinuingour

conversation.IwasstrucknotonlybyPearl’sremarkableintelligence,butalsobyhiscommitmenttopursuethetruthand,throughthatmeans,tohelpcreateabetter—andlessunjust—world.Wealsodiscussed,particularlyduringourfirstmeeting,howviolenceintheworldisoftensownbyignoranceandconfusion,aswellasbyinjusticesthatreceivelittleattention.Iwasmoved,intellectuallyaswellasemotionally,byDanielPearl’sdedicationtofightforpeaceandjusticethroughtheadvancementofunderstandingandenlightenment.Itwasthatdedicationtoinvestigateandexplorethatwouldultimatelycosthimhislife,whentheterroristswouldcaptureandexecutehiminPakistantheyearafterIlastmethim.Daniel’sfather,JudeaPearl,whoisthepresidentoftheDanielPearlFoundation,whichisdedicatedto

interculturalunderstanding,recentlyexpressedhisfrustrationinamoving—andalsoenlightening—articleabouttheoutcomeofanimportantmeetingofMuslimscholarsinAmmaninJordan.Theconference,towhich170Islamicclericsandexpertshadcomefromfortycountries,triedtodefine“therealityofIslamanditsroleinthecontemporarysociety.”ThefinalcommuniquéoftheAmmanconference,issuedonJuly6,2005,statedcategorically:“ItisnotpossibletodeclareasapostatesanygroupofMuslimswhobelievesinAllahtheMightyandSublimeandHisMessenger(mayPeaceandBlessingsbeuponhim)andthepillarsoffaith,andrespectsthepillarsofIslamanddoesnotdenyanynecessaryarticleofreligion.”14JudeaPearlfeltdisappointed,thoughheistoogentleandtoleranttoexpressanger,withtheconclusionthat“beliefinbasictenetsoffaithprovidesanimmutableprotectionfromchargesofapostasy.”Hepointsoutthatthisimpliesthat“binLaden,AbuMusabal-ZarqawiandthemurderersofDanielPearlandNickBergwillremainbonafidemembersoftheMuslimfaith,aslongastheydonotexplicitlyrenounceit.”JudeaPearl’sdisappointmentreflectedahopehehadclearlyentertainedthatthehorribleactsofterror

wouldnotonlyreceivedenunciationfromMuslimscholars(whichthey,infact,did,innouncertainterms),butwouldalsobeasufficientgroundforreligiousexcommunication.Butnoexcommunicationoccurred,andgiventhewaythedemandsofbeingaMuslimarefoundationallydefinedinIslam,itcouldnothave.InJudeaPearl’scase,thepersonaldisappointmentisentirelynatural,butwhenthesameexpectationisusedinthestrategyoffightingterrorismatthegloballevel,itcanlegitimatelybeaskedwhetherWesternstrategistshavegoodreasontoexpectthatareligionitselfcanberecruitedtofightterrorismthroughdeclaringtheterroriststobeapostates.ThatexpectationwasdashedinAmman,butwasitareasonableexpectationforstrategiststoentertain?Aswasdiscussedearlier,wehavetoaskwhetheritisatallpossibletodefinea“trueMuslim”in

termsofbeliefsaboutconfrontationandtolerance,onwhichIslamdoesnotdictateandonwhichdifferentMuslimshavetakenwidelydifferentpositionsovermanycenturies.Thisfreedomallowed,ofcourse,KingAbdullahIIofJordantofirmlyassert,ashedidduringtheverysameconference,that“theactsofviolenceandterrorismcarriedoutbycertainextremistgroupsinthenameofIslamareutterlycontradictorytotheprinciplesandideologyofIslam.”Butthatdiagnosis—andindeedreprimand—stilldoesnottakeustoapositionbywhichthepersonsthuscriticizedmustbeseenas“apostate,”anditisthatcentralpointthattheAmmandeclarationbyMuslimscholarsaffirmed.Apostasyisamatterofbasicreligiousbeliefandspecifiedpractice;itisnotamatterofthecorrectnessininterpretingsocialorpoliticalprinciples,oroftherightnessofcivilsociety,orevenofidentifyingwhatmostMuslimswouldseeasterriblecivilconductorabominablepoliticalbehavior.

RichnessofMuslimIdentities

IfaMuslimperson’sonlyidentitywerethatofbeingIslamic,thenofcourseallmoralandpoliticaljudgmentsofthepersonwouldhavetobespecificallylinkedwithreligiousassessment.ItisthatsolitaristillusionthatunderliestheWestern—particularlyAnglo-American—attempttorecruitIslamintheso-calledwaragainstterrorism.15Theunwillingnesstodistinguishbetween(1)aMuslimperson’svarietyofassociationsandaffiliations(thesecanvarywidelyfrompersontoperson)and(2)hisorherIslamicidentityinparticularhastendedtotemptWesternleaderstofightpoliticalbattlesagainstterrorismthroughtheexoticrouteofdefining—orredefining—Islam.Whatneedstoberecognizedisnotonlythatthissolitaristapproachhasaccomplishedlittlesofar,butalsothatitcannotreallybeexpectedtoachievemuchgiventhedistinctionbetweenreligiousissues,ontheonehand,andothermattersonwhichMuslims,nomatterhowreligious,havetotaketheirowndecisions.Eventhoughtheborderlinebetweenthetwodomainsmaybehardtodelineate,thedomainofreligiousexcommunicationandapostasycannotbeextendedmuchbeyondthewell-establishedcentraltenetsofIslamiccanonsandidentifiedpractice.Religionisnot,andcannotbe,aperson’sall-encompassingidentity.16

Itis,ofcourse,truethattheso-calledIslamicterroristshaverepeatedlytriedtoextendtheroleofreligionveryfarintootherspheres,contrary(asKingAbdullahrightlynoted)tothegenerallyacceptedprinciplesanddomainofIslam.ItisalsotruethattherecruitersforterrorismwouldlikeMuslimstoforgetthattheyhaveotheridentitiestooandthattheyhavetodecideonmanyimportantpoliticalandmoralmattersandtakeresponsibilityfortheirdecisions,ratherthanbeingledbytherecruiters’advocacybasedontheiruncommonreadingofIslam.Themistakenpresumptionsinvolvedinsucheffortscancertainlybescrutinizedandcriticized.Butthestrategyoftryingtostopsuchrecruitmentbydeclaringtherecruiterstobe“apostate”wouldalso—Ifearinasomewhatsingularistway—extendthereachofreligionbeyonditsestablisheddomain.Thebasicrecognitionofthemultiplicityofidentitieswouldmilitateagainsttryingtoseepeoplein

exclusivelyreligiousterms,nomatterhowreligioustheyarewithinthedomainofreligion.AttemptstotackleterrorismthroughtheaidofreligionhashadtheeffectofmagnifyinginBritainandAmericathevoiceofIslamicclericsandothermembersofthereligiousestablishmentonmattersthatarenotinthedomainofreligion,atatimewhenthepoliticalandsocialrolesofMuslimsincivilsociety,includinginthepracticeofdemocracy,needemphasisandmuchgreatersupport.Whatreligiousextremismhasdonetodemoteanddowngradetheresponsiblepoliticalactionofcitizens(irrespectiveofreligiousethnicity)hasbeen,tosomeextent,reinforced,ratherthaneradicated,bytheattempttofightterrorismbytryingtorecruitthereligiousestablishmenton“therightside.”Inthedownplayingofpoliticalandsocialidentitiesasopposedtoreligiousidentity,itiscivilsocietythathasbeentheloser,preciselyatatimewhenthereisagreatneedtostrengthenit.

CHAPTER 5

WestandAnti-West

Resistanceto“Westernization”hasastrongpresenceintheworldtoday.Itcantaketheformofshunningideasthatareseenas“Western,”evenwhentheseideashaveoccurredandflourishedhistoricallyinmanynon-Westernsocietiesandhavebeenapartofourglobalpast.Thereis,forexample,nothingexclusively“Western”aboutvaluinglibertyordefendingpublicreasoning.Andyettheirbeinglabeledas“Western”canproduceanegativeattitudetowardtheminothersocieties.Indeed,thiscanbeseenindifferentformsofanti-Westernrhetoric,varyingfromthechampioningof“Asianvalues”(thisflourishedparticularlyinEastAsiainthe1990s)toinsistingthat“Islamicideals”mustbedeeplyhostiletoeverythingtheWeststandsfor(anattitudethathasgainedconsiderablegroundinrecentyears).PartofthereasonforthisfixationwiththeWest,ortheallegedWest,liesinthehistoryofcolonialism.

Westernimperialismoverthelastfewcenturiesnotonlysubvertedthepoliticalindependenceofthecountriesthatwereruledordominatedbythecolonialpowers,italsocreatedanattitudinalclimatethatisobsessedwiththeWest,eventhoughtheformofthatobsessionmayvarywidely—fromslavishimitation,ononeside,toresolutehostilityontheother.Thedialecticsofthecolonizedmindincludesbothadmirationanddisaffection.ItwouldbeamistaketotrytoseepostcolonialdisaffectiontowardtheWestasjustareactiontoactual

colonialmaltreatment,exploitation,andhumiliation.Thereismoretopostcolonialalienationthanareactiontotherealhistoryofabuse.Wehavetogodeeperthanseekinganinstantexplanationthroughinvokinga“titfortat”reaction—moreonthispresently.Andyetitisalsoimportanttorecognizeandrememberthatseriousabusesdidoccur,andsometimes

thesocialmemory—preservedinproseorinpoetry—ofthoseactualtransgressionsstillanimatesanti-Westernattitudestoday.Nowthatawarmnostalgiafortheempiresofyesterday—fortheBritishinparticular—seemstobemakingsomethingofacomebackinEurope(andoddlyenough,eveninAmerica),itisworthrememberingthattheperceivedsenseofcolonialiniquitywasnotentirelybaseless.Inadditiontotheinfringementsandatrocitiescommittedbythecolonialmasters(wellillustratedbythe

notoriousAmritsarmassacreinIndiaonthethirteenthofApril1919when379unarmedpeopleweregunneddownatapeacefulmeeting),theirgeneralpsychologicalattitudetowardthesubjectpeopleoftengeneratedastrongsenseofhumiliationandanimpositionofperceivedinferiority.Theroleofcolonialhumiliationinthedialecticsofdominatedpeopledeservesatleastasmuchattentionastheinfluenceofeconomicandpoliticalasymmetryimposedbytheimperialauthorities.InPilgrim’sProgress,JohnBunyantalksabout“thevalleyofhumiliation.”Bunyanknewhumiliation

well,havingspentmanyyearsinprison.Infact,hebeganwritingPilgrim’sProgressduringhissecondboutinjailinthe1670s(thebookwaspublishedin1678).Butharrowingastheimageofthatimaginedvalleyis,itcannotbegintomatchtheworldofindignityanddegradationthat,say,AfricawasalreadyexperiencinginBunyan’sseventeenth-centuryworld.Africa,whichgavebirthtothehumanraceandwasresponsibleformanyofthepioneeringdevelopmentsinthegrowthofworldcivilization,wasbeginning

tobeturnedintoacontinentofEuropeandominationandthehuntinggroundforslavestobetransportedlikeanimalstotheNewWorld.Thedevastatingeffectsofhumiliationonhumanlivescanhardlybeexaggerated.Thehistoricalillsof

theslavetradeandcolonization(andtheracialinsultsthatwereaddedtophysicalandsocialinjury)havebeenseenas“thewaragainstAfrica”bytheIndependentCommissiononAfrica,chairedbyAlbertTevoedjre,whichidentifiesAfrica’sprincipaltasktodayas“winningthewaragainsthumiliation”(thechosentitleofthereport).1Asthecommissionargues,thesubjugationanddenigrationofAfricaoverthelastfewcenturieshaveleftamassivelynegativelegacyagainstwhichthepeopleofthecontinenthavetobattle.Thatlegacyincludesnotonlythedevastationofoldinstitutionsandthefor-goneopportunitytobuildnewones,butalsothedestructionofsocialconfidence,onwhichsomuchelsedepends.Similarunderminingalsooccurredelsewhere.NowthattheactualmemoryoftheBritishRajhas

largelyfadedinBritainandthenostalgiaforit(alongwithatasteforcurry)isquitestrong,itisworthrecollectingthatthecomplexattitudeofSouthAsianstoBritainincludereactionstosomeparticularlyunattractivecomponents,whichcoexistedwithotherelements,oftheimperialmind.TherewasneveranydearthofIndophilesintheimperialhierarchyandtheywereparticularlyimportantintheeighteenthcentury.Butoncetheempiresettleddown,theneedtokeepsomedistancebecameacrucialpartoftheeducationoftheBritishofficerfromearlyoninthenineteenthcentury.2OneoftherationalesforthiswasbestexplainedinJamesMill’sfamoushistoryofIndia,whichwasastandardreadingoftheimperialcadresabouttoundertakethevoyagetothatcountry,towit:while“ourancestors,thoughrough,weresincere,”incontrast,“undertheglosingexterioroftheHindu,liesageneraldispositiontodeceitandperfidy.”3Thebook,whichMillhadwrittenwithoutvisitingIndiaevenonceandwithoutbeingabletoreadanyIndianlanguage,wasregardedasaltogetherauthoritativebytheBritishadministration,andwasdescribedbyLordMacaulay,whowouldsoonbethemostpowerfulBritishadministratorinIndia,as“onthewholethegreatesthistoricalworkwhichhasappearedinourlanguagesincethatofGibbon.”4

Inthis“biblefortheBritishIndianofficer,”MillalsomadeclearthatwhilesomehadtakentheIndiansandtheHindustobe“apeopleofhighcivilization,”hehaddeterminedthat“theyhaveinrealitymadebutafewoftheearlieststepsintheprogresstocivilization.”5Toillustrate,letmebrieflydiscussoneofthevariousdenunciationsthatfillupMill’spages,relatedtohisassessmentofclassicalIndianastronomy.ItspecificallyconcernstheargumentsforarotatingearthandamodelofgravitationalattractionproposedbyAryabhata,whowasborninA.D.476—argumentsthatwerealsoinvestigatedbylaterIndianastronomersVarahamihiraandBrahmaguptainthesixthandseventhcenturiesrespectively.TheseworkswerewellknownintheArabworldandgeneratedmuchdiscussionthere.Infact,Brahmagupta’sbookwastranslatedintoArabicintheeighthcenturyandretranslatedbytheIranianmathematicianAlberuniintheeleventh(sinceAlberunithoughtthatthepreviousArabicrenderingwassomewhatdefective).Inthelateeighteenthcentury,WilliamJones,servingintheEastIndiaCompanyinCalcutta,cameto

knowabouttheseoldSanskritdocuments,andheexpressedadmirationfortheseearlyIndianastronomicalworks.6Commentingonthis,MillexpressedtotalastonishmentatJones’sgullibility.7Afterridiculingtheabsurdityofthisattributionandcommentingonthe“pretensionsandinterests”ofJones’sIndianinformants,Millconcludedthatitwas“extremelynaturalthatSirWilliamJones,whosepunditshadbecomeacquaintedwiththeideasofEuropeanphilosophersrespectingthesystemoftheuniverse,shouldhearfromthemthatthoseideaswerecontainedintheirownbooks.”8Thus,Mill’sbeliefinthe

“generaldispositiontodeceitandperfidy”ofIndiansendeduphavinganexplanatoryfunctioninhishistoryofIndiaaswell.AttheendofacomprehensiveattackonsupposedIndianachievementsparticularlyinmathematicsand

science,MillcametotheconclusionthattheIndiancivilizationwasonaparwith“otherinferiorones”knowntoMill:“verynearlythesamewiththatoftheChinese,thePersians,andtheArabians,”andjustasinferiorasthoseofother“subordinatenations,theJapanese,Cochin-chinese,Siamese,Burmans,andevenMalaysandTibetans.”9Afterthatcomprehensiveassessment,ifthese“subordinatenations”fellpreytosomedisaffectiontowardthecolonizingWest,itmaybealittleunfairtoattributeitsimplytoself-generatedparanoia.

DialecticsoftheColonizedMind

AndyetthelimitedhorizonsofthecolonizedmindanditsfixationwiththeWest—whetherinresentmentorinadmiration—hastobeovercome.Itcannotmakesensetoseeoneselfprimarilyassomeonewho(orwhoseancestors)havebeenmisrepresented,ortreatedbadly,bycolonialists,nomatterhowtruethatidentificationmaybe.Thereareundoubtedlyoccasionswhenthatdiagnosiswouldbequiterelevant.Giventhecontinuation

ofsomecolonialasymmetriesindifferentforms—theterm“neocolonialism”isoftenusedtorefertothem—andthepowerfulnewtemptationtoseegreatmeritinpastimperialarrangements,thoseoccasionsmaywellarisewithsomefrequency.Buttoleadalifeinwhichresentmentagainstanimposedinferiorityfrompasthistorycomestodominateone’sprioritiestodaycannotbutbeunfairtooneself.Itcanalsovastlydeflectattentionfromotherobjectivesthatthoseemergingfrompastcolonieshavereasontovalueandpursueinthecontemporaryworld.Indeed,thecolonizedmindisparasiticallyobsessedwiththeextraneousrelationwiththecolonial

powers.Whiletheimpactofsuchanobsessioncantakemanydifferentforms,thatgeneraldependencycanhardlybeagoodbasisforself-understanding.AsIshallpresentlydiscuss,thenatureofthis“reactiveself-perception”hashadfar-reachingeffectsoncontemporaryaffairs.Thisincludes(1)theencouragementithasgiventoneedlesshostilitytomanyglobalideas(suchasdemocracyandpersonalliberty)underthemistakenimpressionthattheseare“Western”ideas,(2)thecontributionithasmadetoadistortedreadingoftheintellectualandscientifichistoryoftheworld(includingwhatisquintessentially“Western”andwhathasmixedheritage),and(3)thesupportithastendedtogivetothegrowthofreligiousfundamentalismandeventointernationalterrorism.This,Iappreciate,isquitealistofdirectandindirectcontributions,butbeforeIgointothemmore

fully,letmeillustratethenatureofthisreactiveself-perceptionwithahistoricalexampleinvolvingintellectualidentity.ItconcernstheinterpretationofIndia’spastandtheself-perceptionofIndianidentity.10Thecolonialundermining—likethatbyJamesMill—ofIndia’sachievementsinscienceandmathematicscontributedtoan“adapted”self-perceptionthatchose“itsownground”forcompetitionwiththeWest,emphasizingIndia’scomparativeadvantagein“spiritual”matters.ParthaChatterjeehasdiscussedtheemergenceofthisattitude:

[A]nticolonialnationalismcreatesitsowndomainofsovereigntywithincolonialsocietywellbeforeitspoliticalbattlewiththeimperialpower.Itdoesthisbydividingtheworldofsocialinstitutionsandpracticesintotwodomains—thematerialandthespiritual.Thematerialisthedomainofthe“outside,”oftheeconomyandofstatecraft,ofscienceandtechnology,adomainwhere

theWesthadproveditssuperiorityandtheEasthadsuccumbed.Inthisdomain,then,Westernsuperiorityhadtobeacknowledgedanditsaccomplishmentscarefullystudiedandreplicated.Thespiritual,ontheotherhand,isan“inner”domainbearingthe“essential”marksofculturalidentity.Thegreaterone’ssuccessinimitatingWesternskillsinthematerialdomain,therefore,thegreatertheneedtopreservethedistinctivenessofone’sspiritualculture.Thisformulais,Ithink,afundamentalfeatureof

anticolonialnationalismsinAsiaandAfrica.11

ItispossiblethatChatterjee’sinsightfuldiagnosisisperhapsalittletoo“India-centered,”andhisgeographicallyinclusiveconclusion—covering“AsiaandAfrica”—maybetoomuchofageneralizationbasedonthenineteenth-centuryexperienceoftheIndiansubcontinentinparticular.Reactiveself-identitiescanindeedoperateinmanydifferentwaysindifferentregionsandtimes.Nevertheless,itwouldbe,Ithink,correcttoacceptthatChatterjeerightlyidentifiesanimportantaspectofthepropensitythatdevelopedinmanypartsofEuropeanempiresinAsiaandAfrica,includingtheIndiansubcontinentduringtheBritishrule.ItcertainlyencouragedIndianstoputtheir“spiritualfoot”forward.Thiswas,toaconsiderableextent,areactiontoaratherdismissiveimperialreadingofIndia’sanalyticalandscientificpasthistory.12Thisselectivefocus,whilecombativeagainsttheimperialclaimsofoverallsuperiority(thespiritualgroundwas“ours,”itwasclaimed),hadtheeffectofneglecting—anddownplaying—ahugepartofIndia’sscientificandmathematicalheritage.Indeed,inthisrespect,itconsolidatedJamesMill’smisreadingofIndia’sintellectualpast,ratherthanresistingit.Thereisalsoanexampleofamoregeneralpatternofdevelopmentofreactiveidentity.Oneofthe

odditiesofthepostcolonialworldisthewaymanynon-Westernpeopletodaytendtothinkofthemselvesasquintessentially“theother,”asAkeelBilgrami,thephilosopher,hasbeautifullydiscussedinapapercalled“WhatIsaMuslim?”13TheyareledtodefinetheiridentityprimarilyintermsofbeingdifferentfromWesternpeople.Somethingofthis“otherness”canbeseenintheemergenceofvariousself-definitionsthatcharacterizeculturalorpoliticalnationalism,andeveninthecontributionthisreactiveviewmakestofundamentalism.Whilethese“non-Western”—andsometimes“anti-Western”—viewsinvolveanemphaticseekingof

independencefromcolonialdominance,theyare,infact,thoroughlyforeign-dependent—inanegativeandcontraryform.Thedialecticsofthecaptivatedmindcanleadtoadeeplybiasedandparasiticallyreactiveself-perception.Also,thissingularmodeofthinkingcantaketheformoftryingto“geteven”withtheWest(asmanyterroristsseethemselvesasdoing,withexplicitorimplicitreferencestoatrocitiesfromthecolonialperiod),andofseekingjusticeinthecontemporaryworldbyinvokingthepastandpresentoffensesoftheWesternworld.Itcanalsotakethemorepositiveformofwantingto“catchupwiththeWest,”tryingto“beatitatitsowngame,”orattemptingtobuildasocietythat“eventheWesternersmustadmire.”Thesepositiveprogramsmaynothavethecontrarinessandimprovidentangerofthecorrectiveorretributiveagenda,buttheytoomakeone’sidentitydeeplysubservienttorelationswithothers.Thecolonialmastersofyesterdaycontinuetoexertanenormousinfluenceonthepostcolonialmindtoday.Anotherunfortunateconsequenceofviewingoneselfas“theother”isthatittendstomaketheWestern

expropriationoftheglobalheritageofuniversalistpoliticalideas(suchastheimportanceoflibertyorofdemocraticreasoning)muchmoredamaging.Misdiagnosisofwhatis“Western”(verycommonasitis,aswasdiscussedinchapter3)cantakeaheavytollbyunderminingthesupportfordemocracyorlibertyinthenon-Westernworld.Itcan,inaddition,helptounderminetheunderstandingofobjectivityinscienceandknowledge,onsomeallegedgroundoftheneedtobeadequatelyskepticalof“Westernscience.”

TherolecolonizeddialecticsplaysinmakinglivesharderinAsiaandAfricacanbeillustratedwithdifferenttypesofexamples.Toconsideraparticularlyfar-reachingillustration,MamphelaRamphele,whoisaremarkablecombinationofdistinguisheddoctor,leadingantiapartheidactivist,andglobalpolicymaker,hasinsightfullydiscussedhow,intheinadequateprotectionagainsttheemergenceoftheAIDSepidemicinSouthAfrica,thenatureofpublicpolicyinpostapartheidSouthAfricahasbeeninfluencedby“themistrustofsciencethathastraditionallybeencontrolledbywhitepeople.”Itaddedforcetoanotherdialecticalinfluenceinthedirectionofinactionarisingfrom“thefearofacknowledginganepidemicthatcouldeasilybeusedtofantheworstracialstereotyping.”14

ThedialecticsofthecolonizedmindcanimposeaheavypenaltyonthelivesandfreedomsofpeoplewhoarereactivelyobsessedwiththeWest.Itcanwreakhavoconlivesinothercountriesaswell,whenthereactiontakestheviolentformofseekingconfrontation,includingwhatisseenasretribution.Ishallreturntothisdistressingissuelateroninthischapter.

AsianValuesandSmallerThemes

Oneoftheremarkablearticulationsofareactivenon-Westernidentitycanbefoundinthechampioningof“Asianvalues”whichhavecomefrommanyEastAsianexponents.Thisisinreaction,toagreatextent,totheWesternclaimtobethehistoricaldepositoryofideasonlibertyandrights(SamuelHuntington’sclaimsinthatlinewerediscussedearlier).Proponentsoftheexcellenceof“Asianvalues”donotdisputethisclaim,indeedquitethecontrary.InsteaditisarguedthatwhileEuropemayhavebeenthehomegroundoflibertyandindividualrights,“Asianvalues”cherishdisciplineandorder,andthis,itisalleged,isamarvelouspriority.IttellstheWestthatitcankeepitsindividuallibertiesandrightsbutAsiawilldobetterwithitsadherencetoorderlyconductanddisciplinedbehavior.TheWest-obsessedformofthisgrand“Asian”claimishardtomiss.Theglorificationof“Asianvalues”hastypicallyflourishedbestincountriestotheeastofThailand

(particularlyamongpoliticalleadersandgovernmentspokesmen),eventhoughthereisastillmoreambitiousclaimthattherestofAsiaisalsorather“similar.”Forexample,theformidableseniorminister(andformerprimeminister)ofSingapore,LeeKuanYew,whoisoneofthegreatarchitectsofEastAsianresurgenceandavisionarypoliticalleaderinhisownright,outlined“thefundamentaldifferencebetweenWesternconceptsofsocietyandgovernmentandEastAsianconcepts”byexplaining,“[W]henIsayEastAsians,ImeanKorea,Japan,China,Vietnam,asdistinctfromSoutheastAsia,whichisamixbetweentheSinicandtheIndian,thoughIndiancultureitselfemphasizessimilarvalues.”15LeeKuanYewwentontolinktheemphasisonAsianvaluestotheneedtoresistthehegemonyoftheWest,inparticularthepoliticaldominanceoftheUnitedStates,pointingoutthatSingaporeis“notaclientstateofAmerica.”16

CulturalandvaluedifferencesbetweenAsiaandtheWestwerestressedbyseveralofficialdelegationsattheWorldConferenceonHumanRightsinViennain1993.TheforeignministerofSingaporewarnedthat“universalrecognitionoftheidealofhumanrightscanbeharmfulifuniversalismisusedtodenyormasktherealityofdiversity.”17TheChinesedelegationplayedaleadingroleinemphasizingregionaldifferences,andinmakingsurethattheprescriptiveframeworkadoptedinthedeclarationsmaderoomfor“regionaldiversity.”TheChineseforeignministerevenputonrecordthepropositionthattheAsianprioritiesdemandthat“individualsmustputthestates’rightsbeforetheirown.”18

Ihavealreadydiscussed,inchapter3,whythisculturaldiagnosisissodifficulttosustain.Supportforideasoflibertyandpublicdiscussion,andwhatmaybecalledbasichumanrights,havebeenarticulatednolessofteninAsia—inIndia,China,Japan,andinvariousothercountriesinEast,Southeast,South,andWestAsia—thaninEurope.19Thepointtonotehereisnotjustthedebatablenatureofthediagnosisof“Asianvalues”andthefactthatitseriouslyunderestimatestherangeandreachoftheintellectualheritageofAsia.Itisalsoimportant,inthecontextofthepresentanalysis,toseethethoroughlyreactivenatureofthegenesisofthisview.TheneedtodifferentiatefromtheWestisclearlyvisibleinthispostcolonialdialectic,anditisalsoeasytoseetheattractionformanyAsiansoftheclaimthatAsiahassomethingmuchbetterthanEurope.Asithappens,LeeKuanYew’sownclaimstospecialdistinctionwouldbehardtodeny.Eventhough

Asianadvocatesofpoliticallibertyanddemocracy,whichincludethepresentauthor,cannotbutbefrustratedthatLee’swordsanddeedshaverunintheoppositedirectiontoours,itwouldbewrongtowithholdcreditwhereitisdue.Thereis,inparticular,theneedtorecognizethatLeeKuanYew’sSingaporenotonlyhasbeeneconomicallyverysuccessful,buthasalsobeenabletogiveitsminoritycommunitiesastrongsenseofbelonging,security,andasharednationalidentityinawaythatmostEuropeancountrieswithsizableminoritieshavenotbeenabletoprovidefortheirownminoritycommunities.Onecouldnothelpthinkingaboutthecontrastastheurbanriots,linkedwithraceandethnicity,eruptedinFranceinthefallof2005.AndyetthefactremainsthatLee’sgeneralizationaboutvaluesinAsiaishardtovindicateonthebasis

ofanunbiasedreadingofAsianhistoricalclassicsaswellascontemporaryexperiencesandwritingsinAsia.ThediagnosisofAsianvaluesinthethesisofLeeandothersisclearlyinfluencedbyareactivemodeofrespondingtoWesternclaimsofbeingthenaturalhomeoflibertyandrights.Ratherthanchallengingthatclaim,LeeproposestoturnthetablesontheWestbyarguing:Yes,wedon’tdomuchforWesternideasoflibertyandrights,forwehavesomethingbetter.Thisversionofanti-Westernrhetoricisalso,inadialecticalsense,obsessedwiththeWest.

ColonialismandAfrica

Perhapsthemosttroubledcontinentinthelastcentury,particularlyinthesecondhalfofit,hasbeenAfrica.Towardthemiddleofthecenturytheformalendingofempires—British,French,Portuguese,andBelgian—camewithastrongpromiseofdemocraticdevelopmentsinAfrica.Insteadthebulkoftheregionsoonfellpreytoauthoritarianismandmilitarism,abreakdownofcivilorderandeducationalandhealthservices,andaveritableexplosionoflocalconflicts,intercommunitystrife,andcivilwars.Thisisnottheoccasiontogointoaninvestigationofthecausalstorybehindthesediscouraging

developments,fromwhichAfricaisonlynowbeginningtopullaway,eventhoughthetaskismadeharderbythemassiveproblemofepidemics,new(suchasAIDS)andold(suchasmalaria),whichisblightingmanypartsofthecontinent.Ihavetriedtocommentonthesecomplexdevelopmentselsewhere(particularlyinmybookDevelopmentasFreedom),20andwillconfinemyselfhereonlytoacoupleofcommentsthatrelateinparticulartothecontinuedroleofcolonialismandthefunctioningofthecaptivatedmind.First,eventhoughmuchhasbeenwrittenaboutthepossibleeffectsofWesterndominationintheworld

inhinderinggrowthanddevelopmentoftheAfricaneconomies(forexample,throughartificiallyimposed

limitsonexportmarketsinEuropeandAmerica,ofagriculturalproducts,textilesandothercommodities,andtheunbearableburdenofdebts,whichisonlynowbeginningtogetrelieved),itisalsoimportanttoseetheroleofWesternpowersintherecenthistoryofpoliticalandmilitarydevelopmentsinthecontinent.Africa’smisfortunesintheperiodofclassicimperialismwasfollowed,asithappens,byanother

periodofinstitutionalhandicapduringthecoldwarinthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcentury.Thecoldwar,whichwassubstantiallyfoughtonAfricansoil(thoughthisisrarelyacknowledged),madeeachofthesuper-powerscultivatemilitaryrulersfriendlytoitselfand,perhapsmoreimportantly,hostiletotheenemy.WhenmilitaryoverlordssuchasMobutoSeseSekoofCongo,orJonasSavimbiofAngola,orwhoever,bustedsocialandpoliticalorders(andultimatelyeconomicordertoo)inAfrica,theycouldrelyonsupporteitherfromtheSovietUnionorfromtheUnitedStatesanditsallies,dependingontheirmilitaryalliances.Amilitaryusurperofcivilianauthorityneverlackedasuperpowerfriend,linkedthroughamilitaryalliance.Acontinentthatseemedinthe1950stobepoisedtodevelopactivedemocraticpoliticswassoonbeingrunbyanassortmentofdictatorialstrongmenwhowerelinkedtoonesideortheotherinthemilitancyofthecoldwar.Theycompetedindespotismwithapartheid-basedSouthAfrica.Thatpictureisslowlychangingnow,withpostapartheidSouthAfricaplayingaleadingpartinthe

constructivechange.However,theWest’smilitarypresencein—andincitementto—Africahasincreasinglytakenadifferentform,towit,thatofbeingtheprincipalsupplierofthearmssoldglobally,whicharefrequentlyusedtosustainlocalwarsandmilitaryconflicts,andwhichhaveverydestructiveconsequences,notleastontheeconomicprospectsofpoorcountries.Eventhoughtheselling—and“pushing”—ofarmsisobviouslynottheonlyissuetobeaddressedinreducingthemilitaryconflictsinthecontinent(thedemandsideofthearmsmarketreflects,ofcourse,problemswithintheregion),theneedforcurbingthemassiveinternationaltradeinarmsisextremelystrongrightnow.Armamentisabusinessforwhichthesellingofarmshastypicallybeenquiteclosetothepushingofthehardware.TheprincipalsuppliersofarmamentintheworldmarkettodayaretheG8countries,whichwere

responsiblefor84percentofthearmssoldintheperiodbetween1998and2003.21Japan,theonlynon-WesterncountryamongtheG8,isalsotheonlyoneamongthemthatabstainsfromthistrade.TheUnitedStatesalonewasresponsibleforabouthalfofthearmssoldintheworldmarket,withtwo-thirdsofitsexportsgoingtodevelopingcountries,includingAfrica.Thearmsareusednotonlywithbloodyresults,butalsowithdevastatingeffectsontheeconomy,thepolity,andthesociety.Insomerespects,thisisacontinuationoftheunhelpfulroleofworldpowersinthedevelopmentofpoliticalmilitarisminAfricaduringthesixtiesthroughtheeighties,whenthecoldwarwasfoughtoutoverAfrica.Theworldpowersbearanawesomeresponsibilityforcontributing,inthecold-waryears,tothesubversionofdemocracyinAfrica.Thesellingandpushingofarmsgivesthemacontinuingroleintheescalationofmilitaryconflictstoday—inAfricaandelsewhere.TheU.S.refusaltoagreetoajointcrackdownevenonillicitexportsofsmallarms(averymodestproposalputforwardbyKofiAnnanafewyearsago)illustratesthedifficultiesinvolved.AmongtheadversitiesAfricafacestodayintryingtomoveawayfromitscolonialhistoryandthecold-

warsuppressionofdemocracyisthecontinuationofthesuccessorphenomenonintheformofmilitarismandcontinuedwarfare,inwhichtheWesthasafacilitatingrole.Inthecivilizationalcategorization,much

usedthesedays,theWestmayfrequentlybeglorifiedashaving“atraditionofindividualrightsandlibertiesuniqueamongcivilizedsocieties”(toinvokeHuntington’sphrase),butasidefromseeingthehistoricallimitationsofthatthesis(discussedearlier),itisalsoimportanttotakenoteoftheroleoftheWestintheunderminingof“individualrightsandliberties”inothercountries,includingthoseinAfrica.Westerngovernmentsneedtoundertakepolicychangesthatwouldrestrictorhaltthemerchantsofdeathfromwithintheirborders.DecolonizingthecolonizedmindmustbesupplementedbychangesinWesterninternationalpolicy.Second,thereare,ofcourse,alotofproblemsinthemindtoo.AsKwameAnthonyAppiahhasargued,

“[I]deologicaldecolonisationisboundtofailifitneglectseitherendogenous‘tradition’orexogenous‘Western’ideas.”22Inparticular,theoftenrepeatedargumentthatdemocracydoesnotsuitAfrica—itisa“veryWesternthing”—hashadanenormouslynegativeeffectinweakeningthedefenseofdemocracyinAfricafromthe1960stothe1980s.AsidefromtheneedtoseetheconstructiveroleofdemocracyinAfrica(asinotherpartsoftheworld),theculturalargumentisdoublydefectivebothbecauseaWesterninventioncouldstillbeveryusefulinotherpartsoftheworld(penicillinisanobviousexample)andbecausethereis,infact,alongtradition,discussedearlier,ofparticipatorygovernanceinAfricaaswell.MeyerFortesandEdwardEvans-Pritchard,thegreatanthropologistsofAfrica,arguedintheirclassic

bookAfricanPoliticalSystems,publishedmorethansixtyyearsago,that“thestructureofanAfricanstateimpliesthatkingsandchiefsrulebyconsent.”23Theremayhavebeensomeovergeneralizationinthis,ascriticshaveargued,buttherecanbelittledoubtabouttheimportantroleandcontinuingrelevanceofaccountabilityandparticipationintheAfricanpoliticalheritage.TooverlookallthatintryingtoseethefightfordemocracyinAfricaonlyasanattempttoimportthe“Westernidea”ofdemocracyfromabroadwouldbe(aswasdiscussedearlier)aprofoundmisdescription.Hereagaintheunderstandingofapluralityofcommitmentsandappreciationofthecoexistenceof

multipleidentitiesareextremelyimportant,anditisespeciallysointhedecolonizationofAfrica.Appiahexplainshowinfluencedhewasbyhisownfather’s“multipleattachmenttohisidentities:aboveallasanAsante,asaGhanian,asanAfrican,andasaChristianandaMethodist.”24Aproperunderstandingoftheworldofpluralidentitiesrequiresclarityofthinkingabouttherecognitionofourmultiplecommitmentsandaffiliations,eventhoughthismaytendtobedrownedbythefloodofunifocaladvocacyofjustoneperspectiveoranother.Decolonizationoftheminddemandsafirmdeparturefromthetemptationofsolitaryidentitiesandpriorities.

FundamentalismandtheCentralityoftheWest

Iturnnowtofundamentalism,whichhasaremarkablepresenceinthecontemporaryworld,andwhichplaysasignificantroleingeneratingbothloyaltyandsocialdisaffection.Fundamentalism,itmustofcoursebenoted,flourishesintheWestaswellasoutsideit.Infact,DarwinandevolutionaryscienceseemtofacebiggerandmoreorganizedoppositiontodayfromtheeducatedpublicinpartsofAmericathanalmostanywhereelseintheworld.However,Ishallconcentrateherespecificallyonnon-Christianfundamentalism,theconnectionofwhichwiththecolonialhistoryoftheworldisimportanttounderstand.Theintenselyanti-Westernnatureofsomeofthenon-Christianfundamentalistmovementsintheworld

maymakeitimplausibletosuggestthattheyare,infact,deeplydependentontheWest.Buttheyclearlyhavethisdependency,especiallytotheextentthattheyfocusonadvancingvaluesandprioritiesthatare

aimedexplicitlyandsingle-mindedlyagainstWesternconceptionsandinterests.Seeingoneselfas“theother”(toinvokeatellingconceptwelldiscussedbyAkeelBilgrami),incontrastwithsomeexternal—inthiscasecolonial—powerstructure,ispartoftheunderlyingbeliefsystemofsomeofthemostsharplyanti-Westernfundamentalistmovements,includingthemoreferventversionsofIslamicfundamentalism.InthedayswhenMuslimrulerscontrolledthecentralterrainoftheOldWorldandhadmassive

commandoverit(betweentheseventhandseventeenthcenturies),Muslimsdidnotdefinetheirculturesandprioritiesinprincipallyreactiveterms.EventhoughthespreadofIslaminvolvedovercomingtheholdofotherreligions—Christianity,Hinduism,Buddhism,andothers—therewasnoneedforMuslimstodefinethemselvesas“theother,”incontrastwithsomedominantpowerintheworld.Thereissomethingofadeparturefromthatself-reliantperspectivewhentheinsistenceonaunifiedanti-WesternstandandtheoverwhelmingcommitmenttofighttheWest—astheembodimentofthe“GreatSatan”orwhatever—placestheWestatthecenterofthepoliticalstageofafundamentalistviewpoint.Therewasnoneedforsuchareactiveself-definitioninthegranddaysofMuslimpreeminence.Tobesure,thereisnotmuch“need”forittodayeither.BeingaMusliminvolvespositivereligious

beliefs(inparticular,acceptingthat“thereisnoGodbutGod”andthat“MuhammadistheMessengerofGod”)andsomedutiesofperformance(likeprayers).Butwithinthebroadrequirementsofthesereligiousbeliefsandperformances,differentMuslimscanchoosedifferentviewsonsecularsubjectsanddecideonhowtoconducttheirlives.AndthevastmajorityofMuslimsacrosstheworlddojustthateventoday.Incontrast,someoftheIslamicfundamentalistmovementscarveoutforthemselvesaparticularterritorywhichinvolvesasocialvisionandapoliticaloutlookinwhichtheWesthasapowerfullynegativebutcentralrole.25

IfcontemporaryIslamicfundamentalismis,inthissense,parasiticontheWest,theterrorismaimedatAmericaorEuropethatsometimesgoeswithitisevenmoreso.Todedicateone’slifetounderminingtheWestandtoblowingupprominentedificesthathavepracticalorsymbolicimportanceintheWestreflectsanobsessionwiththeWestthatoverwhelmsallotherprioritiesandvalues.Itisoneofthepreoccupationsthatcanbemuchencouragedbythedialecticsofthecolonizedmind.Incrudecivilizationalclassifications,oneofthedistinctionsthatisgreatlyblurred,aswasdiscussedin

chapter4,isthatbetween(1)aperson’sbeingaMuslim,whichisanimportantidentitybutnotnecessarilyhisorheronlyidentity,and(2)aperson’sbeingwhollyorprimarilydefinedbyhisorherIslamicidentity.Theblurring,whichiswidelyseenindiscussionsofcontemporarypolitics,ofthedistinctionbetweenbeingaMuslimandhavingasingularIslamicidentityisdrivenbyanumberofconfusingconcerns,ofwhichanexclusiverelianceoncrudecivilizationalcategoriesiscertainlyone.However,theemergenceofreactiveself-conceptionsinanti-Westernthoughtandrhetoricalsocontributestothisconceptualclouding.Culture,literature,science,andmathematicsaremoreeasilysharedthanreligion.Thetendencytoseethemselvesas“theother,”sharplydistinguishedfromtheWest,hastheeffectofmakingmanypeopleinAsiaandAfricaplacemuchgreateremphasisontheirdedicatednon-Westernidentities—distancedfromtheJudeo-ChristianheritageoftheWest—thanonotherpartsoftheirself-understanding.Ishallhavetocomebacktothisgeneralclassificatoryquestionforfurtherconsideration,includingits

roleindisorientingsomeoftheresponsestofundamentalismandterrorismthathavebeenundertakeninAmericaandEurope.

CHAPTER 6

CultureandCaptivity

Theworldhascometotheconclusion—moredefiantlythanshouldhavebeenneeded—thatculturematters.Theworldisobviouslyright—culturedoesmatter.However,therealquestionis:“Howdoesculturematter?”1Theconfiningofcultureintostarkandseparatedboxesofcivilizationsorofreligiousidentities,discussedinthelasttwochapters,takestoonarrowaviewofculturalattributes.Otherculturalgeneralizations,forexample,aboutnational,ethnic,orracialgroups,canalsopresentastonishinglylimitedandbleakunderstandingsofthecharacteristicsofthehumanbeingsinvolved.Whenahazyperceptionofcultureiscombinedwithfatalismaboutthedominatingpowerofculture,weare,ineffect,askedtobeimaginaryslavesofanillusoryforce.Andyetsimpleculturalgeneralizationshavegreateffectivenessinfixingourwayofthinking.Thefact

thatsuchgeneralizationsaboundinpopularconvictionsandininformalcommunicationiseasilyrecognized.Notonlyaretheimplicitandtwistedbeliefsfrequentlythesubjectmatterofracistjokesandethnicslurs,theysometimessurfaceasgrandtheories.Whenthereisanaccidentalcorrelationbetweenculturalprejudiceandsocialobservation(nomatterhowcasual),atheoryisborn,anditmayrefusetodieevenafterthechancecorrelationhasvanishedwithoutatrace.ConsiderthelaboredjokesagainsttheIrish(suchcruditiesas“HowmanyIrishmendoyouneedto

changealightbulb?”),whichhavehadsomecurrencyinEnglandforalongtime,andwhicharesimilartoequallysillyjokesaboutthePolesinAmerica.ThesecruditieshadthesuperficialappearanceoffittingwellwiththedepressingpredicamentoftheIrisheconomy,whentheIrisheconomywasdoingquitebadly.ButwhentheIrisheconomystartedgrowingastonishinglyrapidly—indeedinrecentyearsfasterthananyotherEuropeaneconomy(IrelandisnowricherinpercapitaincomethannearlyeverycountryinEurope)—theculturalstereotypinganditsallegedlyprofoundeconomicandsocialrelevancewerenotjunkedassheerandunmitigatedrubbish.Theorieshavelivesoftheirown,quitedefiantlyofthephenomenalworldthatcanactuallybeobserved.

ImaginedTruthsandRealPolicies

Suchtheoriesare,oftenenough,notjustharmlessfun.Forexample,culturalprejudicedidplayaroleinthetreatmentIrelandreceivedfromtheBritishgovernment,andhadaparteveninthenonpreventionofthefaminesofthe1840s.AmongtheinfluencesthathadaneffectonLondon’streatmentofIrisheconomicproblems,culturalalienationdidcount.WhilepovertyinBritainwastypicallyattributedtoeconomicchangeandfluctuations,IrishpovertywaswidelyviewedinEngland(asRichardNedLebow,thepoliticalanalyst,hasargued)asbeingcausedbylaziness,indifference,andineptitude,sothat“Britain’smission”wasnotseenasone“toalleviateIrishdistressbuttocivilizeherpeopleandtoleadthemtofeelandactlikehumanbeings.”2

ThesearchforculturalcausesofIreland’seconomicpredicamentextendsfarback,atleasttothesixteenthcentury,wellreflectedinEdmundSpenser’sTheFaerieQueene,publishedin1590.Theartofblamingthevictims,plentifullypresentinTheFaerieQueeneitself,wasputtoeffectiveuseduringthefaminesofthe1840s,andnewelementswereaddedtotheoldnarrative.Forexample,theIrishtasteforpotatoeswasaddedtothelistofcalamitieswhichthenativeshad,intheEnglishview,broughtonthemselves.CharlesEdwardTrevelyan,theheadoftheTreasuryduringthefamines,expressedhisbeliefthatLondonhaddoneallthatcouldbedoneforIreland,eventhoughthefaminekilledrampantly(infact,themortalityratewashigherintheIrishfaminesthaninanyotherrecordedfamineanywhereintheworld).TrevelyanalsoproposedaratherremarkableculturalexegesisofIreland’smanifesthungerbylinkingit

withtheallegedlylimitedhorizonsofIrishculture(incontrastwithputtinganyblameonBritishgovernance):“ThereisscarcelyawomanofthepeasantclassintheWestofIrelandwhoseculinaryartexceedstheboilingofapotato.”3TheremarkcanbeseenasanencouragingdeparturefromtheEnglishhesitationaboutmakinginternationalcriticismofculinaryartelsewhere(theFrench,theItalian,andtheChinesemaybenext).ButtheoddityofthatculturalexplanationofIrishhungercertainlymeritsaplaceintheannalsofeccentricanthropology.Theconnectionbetweenculturalbigotryandpoliticaltyrannycanbeveryclose.Theasymmetryof

powerbetweentherulerandtheruled,whichgeneratesaheightenedsenseofidentitycontrast,canbecombinedwithculturalprejudiceinexplainingawayfailuresofgovernanceandpublicpolicy.WinstonChurchillmadethefamousremarkthattheBengalfamineof1943,whichoccurredjustbeforeIndia’sindependencefromBritainin1947(itwouldalsoprovetobethelastfamineinIndiainthecentury,sincefaminesdisappearedwiththeRaj),wascausedbythetendencyofpeoplethereto“breedlikerabbits.”Theexplicationbelongstothegeneraltraditionoffindingexplanationsofdisastersnotinbadadministration,butinthecultureofthesubjects,andthishabitofthoughthadsomerealinfluenceincruciallydelayingfaminereliefintheBengalfamine,whichkilledbetweentwoandthreemillionpeople.ChurchillroundedthingsupbyexpressinghisfrustrationthatthejobofgoverningIndiawasmadesodifficultbythefactthattheIndianswere“thebeastliestpeopleintheworld,nexttotheGermans.”4

Culturaltheoriesevidentlyhavetheiruses.

KoreaandGhana

Culturalexplanationsofeconomicunderdevelopmenthaverecentlybeengivenmuchground.Consider,forexample,thefollowingargumentfromtheinfluentialandengagingbookjointlyeditedbyLawrenceHarrisonandSamuelHuntingtoncalledCultureMatters;itoccursinHuntington’sintroductoryessay,called“CulturesCount,”inthatvolume:

Intheearly1990s,IhappenedtocomeacrosseconomicdataonGhanaandSouthKoreaintheearly1960s,andIwasastonishedtoseehowsimilartheireconomieswerethen….Thirtyyearslater,SouthKoreahadbecomeanindustrialgiantwiththefourteenthlargesteconomyintheworld,multinationalcorporations,majorexportsofautomobiles,electronicequipment,andothersophisticatedmanufactures,andpercapitaincomeapproximatelythatofGreece.Moreoveritwasonitswaytotheconsolidationofdemocraticinstitutions.NosuchchangeshadoccurredinGhana,whosepercapitaincomewasnowaboutone-fifteenththatofSouthKorea’s.Howcouldthisextraordinarydifferenceindevelopmentbeexplained?Undoubtedly,manyfactorsplayedarole,butitseemedtomethatculturehadtobealargepartoftheexplanation.SouthKoreansvaluedthrift,investment,hardwork,

education,organization,anddiscipline.Ghanianshaddifferentvalues.Inshort,culturescount.5

Theremaywellbesomethingofinterestinthisway-outcomparison(perhapsevenaquarter-truthtornoutofcontext),butthecontrastdoescallforprobingexamination.Asusedintheexplanationjustcited,thecausalstoryisextremelydeceptive.Thereweremanyimportantdifferences—otherthantheirculturalpredispositions—betweenGhanaandKoreainthe1960s.First,theclassstructuresinthetwocountrieswerequitedifferent,withamuchbigger—andproactive

—roleforthebusinessclassesinSouthKorea.Second,thepoliticswereverydifferenttoo,withthegovernmentinSouthKoreawillingandeagertoplayaprime-movingroleininitiatingbusiness-centeredeconomicdevelopmentinawaythatwasnottrueinGhana.Third,thecloserelationshipbetweentheKoreaneconomyandJapan,ontheonehand,andtheUnitedStates,ontheother,madeabigdifference,atleastintheearlystagesofKoreaneconomicexpansion.Fourth—andperhapsmostimportant—bythe1960sSouthKoreahadacquiredamuchhigherliteracy

rateandamuchmoreexpandedschoolsystemthanGhanahad.Koreanprogressinschooleducationhadbeenlargelybroughtaboutinthepost-SecondWorldWarperiod,mainlythroughresolutepublicpolicy,anditcouldnotbeseenjustasareflectionofculture(exceptinthegeneralsenseinwhichcultureisseentoincludeeverythinghappeninginacountry).6OnthebasisoftheslenderscrutinythatbackedHuntington’sconclusion,itishardtojustifyeithertheculturaltriumphalisminfavorofKoreancultureortheradicalpessimismaboutGhana’sfuturetowhichHuntingtonisledthroughhisrelianceonculturaldeterminism.Thisisnottosuggestthatculturalfactorsareirrelevanttotheprocessofdevelopment.Buttheydonot

workinisolationfromsocial,political,andeconomicinfluences.Noraretheyimmutable.Ifculturalissuesaretakenintoaccount,amongothers,inafulleraccountingofsocietalchange,theycangreatlyhelptobroadenourunderstandingoftheworld,includingtheprocessofdevelopmentandthenatureofouridentity.Whileitisnotparticularlyilluminating,norespeciallyhelpful,tothrowupone’shandsindisapprovalwhenfacedwithallegedlyfixedculturalpriorities(“Ghanianshaddifferentvalues,”asHuntingtonputsit),itisusefultoexaminehowvaluesandbehaviorcanrespondtosocialchange,forexample,throughtheinfluenceofschoolsandcolleges.LetmereferagaintoSouthKorea,whichwasamuchmoreliterateandmoreeducatedsocietythanGhanainthe1960s(whenthetwoeconomiesappearedrathersimilartoHuntington).Thecontrast,ashasalreadybeenmentioned,wassubstantiallytheresultofpublicpoliciespursuedinSouthKoreainthepost–SecondWorldWarperiod.Butthepostwarpublicpoliciesoneducationwerealsoinfluencedbyantecedentculturalfeatures.Oncewedissociateculturefromtheillusionofdestiny,itcanhelptoprovideabetterunderstandingofsocialchangewhenplacedtogetherwithotherinfluencesandinteractivesocialprocesses.Inatwo-wayrelationship,justaseducationinfluencesculture,socanantecedentculturehaveaneffect

oneducationalpolicies.Itis,forexample,remarkablethatnearlyeverycountryintheworldwithapowerfulpresenceofBuddhisttraditionhastendedtoembracewidespreadschoolingandliteracywithsomeeagerness.ThisappliesnotonlytoJapanandKorea,butalsotoChina,Thailand,SriLanka,andeventotheotherwiseretrogradeBurma(Myanmar).ThefocusonenlightenmentinBuddhism(theword“Buddha”itselfmeans“enlightened”)andtheprioritygiventoreadingtexts,ratherthanleavingittothepriests,canhelptoencourageeducationalexpansion.Seeninabroaderframework,thereisprobablysomethingheretoinvestigateandlearnfrom.

Itis,however,importantalsotoseetheinteractivenatureoftheprocessinwhichcontactwithothercountriesandtheknowledgeoftheirexperiencescanmakeabigpracticaldifference.ThereiseveryevidencethatwhenKoreadecidedtomovebrisklyforwardinexpandingschooleducationattheendoftheSecondWorldWar,itwasinfluencednotjustbyitsculturalinterestineducation,butalsobyanewunderstandingoftheroleandsignificanceofeducation,basedontheexperiencesofJapanandtheWest,includingtheUnitedStates.

JapaneseExperienceandPublicPolicy

Thereisasimilarstory,earlieron,ofinternationalinteractionandnationalresponseinJapan’sownhistoryofeducationaldevelopment.WhenJapanemergedfromitsself-imposedisolationfromtheworld(lastingsincetheseventeenthcentury,undertheTokugawaregime),italreadyhadarelativelywell-developedschoolsystem,andinthisachievementJapan’straditionalinterestineducationhadplayedasignificantpart.Indeed,atthetimeoftheMeijirestorationin1868,JapanhadahigherrateofliteracythanEurope.AndyettherateofliteracyinJapanwasstilllow(asitobviouslywasinEuropetoo),andperhapsmostimportantly,theJapaneseeducationsystemwasquiteoutoftouchwithadvancesinscienceandtechnicalknowledgeintheindustrializingWest.When,in1852,CommodoreMatthewPerrychuggedintoEdoBay,puffingblacksmokefromthenewly

designedsteamship,theJapanesewerenotonlyimpressed—andsomewhatterrified—anddriventoacceptdiplomaticandtraderelationswiththeUnitedStates,buttheyalsohadtoreexamineandreassesstheirintellectualisolationfromtheworld.ThiscontributedtothepoliticalprocessthatledtotheMeijirestoration,andalongwiththatcameadeterminationtochangethefaceofJapaneseeducation.Intheso-calledCharterOath,proclaimedin1868,thereisafirmdeclarationontheneedto“seekknowledgewidelythroughouttheworld.”7

TheFundamentalCodeofEducationissuedthreeyearslater,in1872,puttheneweducationaldeterminationinunequivocalterms:

Thereshall,inthefuture,benocommunitywithanilliteratefamily,norafamilywithanilliterateperson.8

KidoTakayoshi,oneofthemostinfluentialleadersofthatperiod,putthebasicissuewithgreatclarity:

OurpeoplearenodifferentfromtheAmericansorEuropeansoftoday;itisallamatterofeducationorlackofeducation.9

ThatwasthechallengeJapantookonwithdeterminationinthelatenineteenthcentury.Between1906and1911,educationconsumedasmuchas43percentofthebudgetsofthetownsand

villagesforJapanasawhole.10By1906,therecruitingarmyofficersfoundthat,incontrastwiththelatenineteenthcentury,therewashardlyanynewrecruitwhowasnotalreadyliterate.By1910,Japanhad,itisgenerallyacknowledged,universalattendanceinprimaryschools.By1913,eventhoughJapanwasstilleconomicallyverypoorandunderdeveloped,ithadbecomeoneofthelargestproducersofbooksintheworld,publishingmorebooksthanBritainandindeedmorethantwiceasmanyastheUnitedStates.Indeed,Japan’sentireexperienceofeconomicdevelopmentwas,toagreatextent,drivenbyhuman-capabilityformation,whichincludedtheroleofeducationandtraining,andthiswaspromotedbothbypublicpolicyandbyasupportiveculturalclimate(interactingwitheachother).Thedynamicsof

associativerelationsareextraordinarilyimportantinunderstandinghowJapanlaidthefoundationsofitsspectaculareconomicandsocialdevelopment.Tocarrythestoryfurther,Japanwasnotonlyalearnerbutalsoagreatteacher.Developmenteffortsof

countriesinEastandSoutheastAsiawereprofoundlyinfluencedbyJapan’sexperienceinexpandingeducationanditsmanifestsuccessintransformingsocietyandtheeconomy.Theso-calledEastAsianmiraclewas,tonosmallextent,anachievementinspiredbytheJapaneseexperience.Payingattentiontoculturalinterrelations,withinabroadframework,canbeausefulwayofadvancing

ourunderstandingofdevelopmentandchange.Itwoulddifferbothfromneglectingculturealtogether(assomenarrowlyeconomicmodelsdo)andfromtheprivilegingofcultureasanindependentandstationaryforce,withanimmutablepresenceandirresistibleimpact(assomeculturaltheoristsseemtoprefer).Theillusionofculturaldestinyisnotonlymisleading,itcanalsobesignificantlydebilitating,sinceitcangenerateasenseoffatalismandresignationamongpeoplewhoareunfavorablyplaced.

CultureinaBroadFramework

Therecanbelittledoubtthatourculturalbackgroundcanhavequiteamajorinfluenceonourbehaviorandthinking.Also,thequalityoflifeweenjoycannotbutbeinfluencedbyourculturalbackground.Itcertainlycanalsoinfluenceoursenseofidentityandourperceptionofaffiliationwithgroupsofwhichweseeourselvesasmembers.TheskepticismIhavebeenexpressinghereisnotabouttherecognitionofthebasicimportanceofcultureinhumanperceptionandbehavior.Itisaboutthewaycultureissometimesseen,ratherarbitrarily,asthecentral,inexorable,andentirelyindependentdeterminantofsocietalpredicaments.Ourculturalidentitiescanbeextremelyimportant,buttheydonotstandstarklyaloneandalooffrom

otherinfluencesonourunderstandingandpriorities.Thereareanumberofqualificationsthathavetobemadewhileacknowledgingtheinfluenceofcultureonhumanlivesandactions.First,importantascultureis,itisnotuniquelysignificantindeterminingourlivesandidentities.Otherthings,suchasclass,race,gender,profession,politics,alsomatter,andcanmatterpowerfully.Second,cultureisnotahomogeneousattribute—therecanbegreatvariationsevenwithinthesame

generalculturalmilieu.Forexample,contemporaryIranhasbothconservativeayatollahsandradicaldissidents,justasAmericahasroombothforborn-againChristiansandforardentnonbelievers(amongagreatmanyotherschoolsofthoughtandbehavior).Culturaldeterministsoftenunderestimatetheextentofheterogeneitywithinwhatistakentobe“one”culture.Discordantvoicesareoften“internal,”ratherthancomingfromtheoutside.Also,dependingontheparticularaspectofculturewedecidetoconcentrateon(forexample,whetherwefocusonreligion,oronliterature,oronmusic),wecangetquiteavaryingpictureoftheinternalandexternalrelationsinvolved.Third,culturedoesnotsitstill.ThebriefrecollectionoftheeducationaltransformationofJapanand

Korea,withprofoundculturalimplications,illustratedtheimportanceofchange,linked—asitoftenis—withpublicdiscussionandpolicy.Anypresumptionofstationariness—explicitorimplicit—canbedisastrouslydeceptive.Thetemptationtowardusingculturaldeterminismoftentakesthehopelessformoftryingtomoortheculturalanchoronarapidlymovingboat.Fourth,cultureinteractswithotherdeterminantsofsocialperceptionandaction.Forexample,

economicglobalizationbringsinnotonlymoretrade,butalsomoreglobalmusicandcinema.Culture

cannotbeseenasanisolatedforceindependentofotherinfluences.Thepresumptionofinsularity—oftenimplicitlyinvoked—canbedeeplydelusive.Finally,wehavetodistinguishbetweentheideaofculturalliberty,whichfocusesonourfreedom

eithertopreserveortochangeourpriorities(onthebasisofgreaterknowledgeorfurtherreflection,or,forthatmatter,onthebasisofourassessmentofchangingcustomsandfashions),andthatofvaluingculturalconservation,whichhasbecomeabigissueintherhetoricofmulticulturalism(oftenprovidingsupportforthecontinuationoftraditionallifestylesbynewimmigrantsintheWest).Thereisundoubtedlyastrongcaseforincludingculturalfreedomamongthehumancapabilitiespeoplehavereasontovalue,butthereisaneedalsoforaprobingexaminationoftheexactrelationbetweenculturallibertyandtheprioritiesofmulticulturalism.11

MulticulturalismandCulturalFreedom

Inrecentyears,multiculturalismhasgainedmuchgroundasanimportantvalue,ormoreaccuratelyasapowerfulslogan(sinceitsunderlyingvaluesarenotaltogetherclear).Thesimultaneousflourishingofdifferentcultureswithinthesamecountryorregioncanbeseentobeofimportanceonitsown,butveryoftenmulticulturalismisadvocatedonthegroundthatthisiswhatculturalfreedomdemands.Thatclaimhastobescrutinizedfurther.Theimportanceofculturalfreedomhastobedistinguishedfromthecelebrationofeveryformof

culturalinheritance,irrespectiveofwhetherthepersonsinvolvedwouldchoosethoseparticularpracticesgiventheopportunityofcriticalscrutinyandanadequateknowledgeofotheroptionsandofthechoicesthatactuallyexist.Eventhoughtherehasbeenmuchdiscussioninrecentyearsabouttheimportantandextensiveroleofculturalfactorsinsociallivingandhumandevelopment,thefocushasoftentendedtobe,explicitlyorbyimplication,ontheneedforculturalconservation(forexample,continuedadherencetotheconservativelifestylesofpeoplewhosegeographicalmovetoEuropeorAmericaisnotalwaysmatchedbyculturaladaptation).Culturalfreedommayinclude,amongotherpriorities,thelibertytoquestiontheautomaticendorsementofpasttraditions,whenpeople—particularlyyoungpeople—seeareasonforchangingtheirwaysofliving.Iffreedomofhumandecisionisimportant,thentheresultsofareasonedexerciseofthatfreedomhave

tobevalued,ratherthanbeingnegatedbyanimposedprecedenceofunquestionedconservation.Thecriticallinkincludesourabilitytoconsideralternativeoptions,tounderstandwhatchoicesareinvolved,andthentodecidewhatwehavereasontowant.Itmust,ofcourse,berecognizedthatculturallibertycouldbehamperedwhenasocietydoesnotallow

aparticularcommunitytopursuesometraditionallifestylethatmembersofthatcommunitywouldfreelychoosetofollow.Indeed,socialsuppressionofparticularlifestyles—ofgays,ofimmigrants,ofspecificreligiousgroups—iscommoninmanycountriesintheworld.Theinsistencethatgaysorlesbianslivelikeheterosexuals,orstayinsideclosets,isnotonlyademandforuniformity,itisalsoadenialofthefreedomofchoice.Ifdiversityisnotallowed,thenmanychoiceswouldberenderedunviable.Theallowingofdiversitycanindeedbeimportantforculturalfreedom.Culturaldiversitymaybeenhancedifindividualsareallowedandencouragedtoliveastheywould

valueliving(insteadofbeingrestrainedbyongoingtradition).Forexample,thefreedomtopursueethnicallydiverselifestyles,forexample,infoodhabitsorinmusic,canmakeasocietymoreculturally

diversepreciselyasaresultoftheexerciseofculturalliberty.Inthiscase,theimportanceofculturaldiversity—instrumentalasitis—willfollowdirectlyfromthevalueofculturalliberty,sincetheformerwillbeaconsequenceofthelatter.Diversitycanalsoplayapositiveroleinenhancingthefreedomevenofthosewhoarenotdirectly

involved.Forexample,aculturallydiversesocietycanbringbenefitstoothersintheformoftheamplevarietyofexperienceswhichtheyare,asaconsequence,inapositiontoenjoy.Toillustrate,itcanplausiblybearguedthattherichtraditionofAfrican-Americanmusic—withitsAfricanlineageandAmericanevolution—hasnotonlyhelpedtoenhancetheculturalfreedomandself-respectofAfrican-Americans,ithasalsoexpandedtheculturaloptionsofallpeople(African-Americanornot)andenrichedtheculturallandscapeofAmerica,andindeedtheworld.Nevertheless,ifourfocusisonfreedom(includingculturalfreedom),thesignificanceofcultural

diversitycannotbeunconditionalandmustvarycontingentlywithitscausalconnectionswithhumanfreedomanditsroleinhelpingpeopletotaketheirowndecisions.Infact,therelationbetweenculturallibertyandculturaldiversityneednotbeuniformlypositive.Forexample,thesimplestwayofhavingculturaldiversitymay,insomecircumstances,beatotalcontinuationofallthepreexistingculturepracticesthathappentobepresentatapointintime(forexample,newimmigrantsmaybeinducedtocontinuetheirold,fixedwaysandmores,anddiscouraged—directlyorindirectly—fromchangingtheirbehaviorpatternatall).Doesthissuggestthatforthesakeofculturaldiversityweshouldsupportculturalconservatismandaskpeopletosticktotheirownculturalbackgroundandnottrytoconsidermovingtootherlifestyleseveniftheyfindgoodreasonstodoso?Theunderminingofchoicethatthiswouldinvolvewouldimmediatelydeliverustoanantifreedomposition,whichwouldlookforwaysandmeansofblockingthechoiceofachangedlivingmodethatmanypeoplemaywishtohave.Forexample,youngwomenfromconservativeimmigrantfamiliesintheWestmightbekeptonashort

leashbytheeldersforfearthattheywouldemulatethefreerlifestyleofthemajoritycommunity.Diversitywillthenbeachievedatthecostofculturalliberty.Ifwhatisultimatelyimportantisculturalfreedom,thenthevaluingofculturaldiversitymusttakeacontingentandconditionalform.Themeritofdiversitymustthusdependonpreciselyhowthatdiversityisbroughtaboutandsustained.Indeed,topleadforculturaldiversityonthegroundthatthisiswhatthedifferentgroupsofpeoplehave

inheritedisclearlynotanargumentbasedonculturalliberty(eventhoughthecaseissometimespresentedasifitwerea“profreedom”argument).Beingborninaparticularcultureisobviouslynotanexerciseofculturalliberty,andthepreservationofsomethingwithwhichapersonisstamped,simplybecauseofbirth,canhardlybe,initself,anexerciseoffreedom.Nothingcanbejustifiedinthenameoffreedomwithoutactuallygivingpeopleanopportunityfortheexerciseofthatfreedom,oratleastwithoutcarefullyassessinghowanopportunityofchoicewouldbeexercisedifitwereavailable.Justassocialsuppressioncanbeadenialofculturalfreedom,theviolationoffreedomcanalsocomefromthetyrannyofconformismthatmaymakeitdifficultformembersofacommunitytooptforotherstylesofliving.

Schools,Reasoning,andFaith

Unfreedomcanresultalsofromalackofknowledgeandunderstandingofotherculturesandofalternativelifestyles.Toillustratethemainissuethatisinvolvedhere,evenanadmirer(asthiswriteris)oftheculturalfreedomsthatmodernBritainhas,byandlarge,succeededingivingtopeopleofdifferent

backgroundsandoriginswhoareresidentinthatcountrycanwellhaveconsiderablemisgivingsabouttheofficialmoveintheUnitedKingdomtowardextensionofstate-supportedfaith-basedschools(aswasbrieflymentionedinthefirstchapter).Ratherthanreducingexistingstate-financedfaith-basedschools,actuallyaddingotherstothem—

Muslimschools,Hinduschools,andSikhschoolstopreexistingChristianones—canhavetheeffectofreducingtheroleofreasoningwhichthechildrenmayhavetheopportunitytocultivateanduse.Andthisishappeningatatimewhenthereisagreatneedforbroadeningthehorizonofunderstandingofotherpeopleandothergroups,andwhentheabilitytoundertakereasoneddecision-makingisofparticularimportance.Thelimitationsimposedonthechildrenareespeciallyacutewhenthenewreligiousschoolsgivechildrenratherlittleopportunitytocultivatereasonedchoiceindeterminingtheprioritiesoftheirlives.Also,theyoftenfailtoalertstudentstotheneedtodecideforthemselveshowthevariouscomponentsoftheiridentities(relatedrespectivelytonationality,language,literature,religion,ethnicity,culturalhistory,scientificinterests,etc.)shouldreceiveattention.Thisisnottosuggestthattheproblemsofbias(andthedeliberatefosteringofablinkeredvision)in

thesenewfaith-basedBritishschoolsareanythingasextremeasin,say,thefundamentalistmadrasasinPakistan,whichhavebecomeapartofthebreedinggroundforintoleranceandviolence—andoftenforterrorism—inthatstrainedpartoftheworld.Buttheopportunityofcultivatingreasonandtherecognitionoftheneedforscrutinizedchoicecanstillbefarlessinthesenewfaith-basedschools,eveninBritain,thaninthemoremixedandlesssequesteredplacesoflearninginthatcountry.Theactualopportunitiesareoftenratherlessthanevenintraditionalreligiousschools—particularlyinthoseChristianschoolswhichhavehadalongtraditionofhavingabroadcurriculum,alongwithtoleratingconsiderableskepticismaboutreligiouseducationitself(thoughtheseolderschoolstoocanbemadeconsiderablylessrestrictivethantheyalreadyare).Themovetowardfaith-basedschoolsinBritainreflectsalsoaparticularvisionofBritainas“a

federationofcommunities,”ratherthanasacollectivityofhumanbeingslivinginBritain,withdiversedifferences,ofwhichreligiousandcommunity-baseddistinctionsconstituteonlyonepart(alongwithdifferencesinlanguage,literature,politics,class,gender,location,andothercharacteristics).Itisunfairtochildrenwhohavenotyethadmuchopportunityofreasoningandchoicetobeputintorigidboxesguidedbyonespecificcriterionofcategorization,andtobetold:“Thatisyouridentityandthisisallyouaregoingtoget.”Intheannuallecturefor2001attheBritishAcademywhichIhadtheprivilegeofgiving(itwascalled

“OtherPeople”),Ipresentedtheargumentthatthis“federational”approachhasagreatmanyproblems,andinparticulartendstoreducethedevelopmentofhumancapabilitiesofBritishchildrenfromimmigrantfamiliesinasignificantway.12SincethentheincidentsofsuicidebombinginLondon(inJuly2005),carriedoutbyBritish-bornbutdeeplyalienatedyoungmen,haveaddedanotherdimensiontothequestionofself-perceptionanditscultivationinBritain.However,Iwouldarguethatthebasiclimitationofthefederationistapproachgoeswellbeyondanypossibleconnectionwithterrorism.Thereisanimportantneednotonlytodiscusstherelevanceofourcommonhumanity—asubjectonwhichschoolscanplay(andhaveoftenplayedinthepast)acriticalrole.Thereis,inaddition,theimportantrecognitionthathumanidentitiescantakemanydistinctformsandthatpeoplehavetousereasoningtodecideonhow

toseethemselves,andwhatsignificancetheyshouldattachtohavingbeenbornamemberofaparticularcommunity.Ishallhavetheopportunitytoreturntothisissueinthelasttwochaptersofthebook.Theimportanceofnonsectarianandnonparochialschooleducationthatexpands,ratherthanreduces,

thereachofreasoning(includingcriticalscrutiny)wouldbehardtoexaggerate.Shakespearegavevoicetotheconcernthat“someareborngreat,someachievegreatness,andsomehavegreatnessthrustuponthem.”Intheschoolingofchildren,itisnecessarytomakesurethatsmallnessisnot“thrustupon”theyoung,whoseliveslieaheadofthem.Muchisatstakehere.

CHAPTER 7

GlobalizationandVoice

Theworldisbothspectacularlyrichanddistressinglyimpoverished.Thereisunprecedentedopulenceincontemporaryliving,andthemassivecommandoverresources,knowledge,andtechnologythatwenowtakeforgrantedwouldhavebeenhardforourancestorstoimagine.Butoursisalsoaworldofdreadfulpovertyandappallingdeprivation.Anastoundingnumberofchildrenareillfed,illclad,illtreated,andalsoilliterateandneedlesslyill.Millionsperisheveryweekfromdiseasesthatcouldbecompletelyeliminated,oratleastpreventedfromkillingwithabandon.Dependingonwheretheyareborn,childrencanhavethemeansandfacilitiesforgreatprosperityorfacethelikelihoodofdesperatelydeprivedlives.Massiveinequalitiesintheopportunitiesdifferentpeoplehaveencouragesskepticismabouttheability

ofglobalizationtoservetheinterestsoftheunderdogs.Indeed,ahardenedsenseoffrustrationiswellreflectedintheslogansofprotestmovementsofso-calledantiglobalizationactivists.Movedbythethesisthatglobalrelationsareprimarilyantagonisticandadversarial,ratherthanmutuallysupportive,theprotesterswanttorescuetheunderdogsoftheworldfromwhattheyseeasthepenaltiesofglobalization.Criticismsofglobalismhavenotonlybeenthunderouslyexpressedinthedemonstrationsthatcontinuetotakeplacearoundtheworld,inSeattle,Washington,Quebec,Madrid,London,Melbourne,Genoa,Edinburgh,andelsewhere.Theseconcernsalsogetsympatheticattentionfromamuchlargernumberofpeoplewhomaynotwanttojointhevehementdemonstrations,buttowhomtootheasymmetriesofsharplydistancedfortunesappearquiteunfairandreprehensible.Someseeintheseinequalitiesatotalfailurealsoofanymoralforceaglobalidentitymaybeexpectedtoinduce.

Voice,Veracity,andPublicReasoning

Iwillarguepresentlythatitisamistaketoseethedeprivationsanddividedlivesaspenaltiesofglobalization,ratherthanasfailuresofsocial,political,andeconomicarrangements,whichareentirelycontingentandnotinescapablecompanionsofglobalcloseness.Nevertheless,Iwouldalsoarguethattheso-calledantiglobalizationcritiquescan—andoftendo—makeapositiveandimportantcontributioninhelpingtoraiseanumberofseriousquestionsforpublicdiscussionwhichhavetobeconsideredandappraised.Aseriousdiagnosisofcausescanbesomewhatmisplacedandyethelptoinitiateanenlighteninginquiryintowhatneedstobedonetoovercometheseriousproblemsthatundoubtedlyexist.AsFrancisBaconnotedfourhundredyearsago(in1605),inhistreatiseTheAdvancementof

Learning:“Theregisteringandproposingofdoubtshaveadoubleuse.”Oneuseisstraightforward:itguardsus“againsterrors.”Theseconduse,Baconargued,involvedtheroleofdoubtsininitiatingandfurtheringaprocessofinquiry,whichcanhavetheeffectofenrichingourunderstanding.Issuesthat“wouldhavebeenpassedbylightlywithoutintervention,”Baconnoted,endupbeing“attentivelyandcarefullyobserved”preciselybecauseofthe“interventionofdoubts.”1

Raisingseriousquestionsaboutglobalizationandthenatureoftheglobaleconomycanmakeaconstructivedialecticalcontributionevenwhenthereisroomformuchskepticismabouttheparticularslogansthatareused,especiallybyyouthfulandboisterousprotesters.Theremaybefinereasonstobedoubtfulabouttheallegedlyevilconsequencesofglobaleconomicrelations,whichmakearrestingheadlinesassummariesoftheantiglobalizationperspective.Itisnecessarytoscrutinizecloselythemomentousissuesthattheprotesterscan—andoftendo—bringtothefore,andthisisitselfacontributionofconsiderableimportance.Indeed,thedebatesthatarethusinitiatedcanserveasthebasisofglobalpublicreasoningonsignificantissues.Sincedemocracyisprimarilyaboutpublicreasoning(aswasdiscussedinchapter3),thedebatesgeneratedbythese“globaldoubts”canbeseenaselementarybutpossiblyimportantcontributionstowardpracticingsomeformof(necessarilyprimitive)globaldemocracy.2

Critique,Voice,andGlobalSolidarity

Iwillpresentlygointothesubstantivequestionsraisedbytheprotesters,andbyothersskepticalofglobalization,andIshallalsohavetoexaminethecounterargumentspresentedbythedefendersofglobalization.Butbeforethat,Iwanttocommentbrieflyonthenatureofglobalidentityinvolved—explicitlyorbyimplication—inthesedebates.Someoverarchingcriticsofglobalizationseethemselvesasforcefullypointingtothedeplorableabsence,inaheartlessworld,ofaneffectivesenseofglobalsolidarity.Certainly,thereismuchtobedepressedaboutinthemanifestlackofaneffectiveglobalmoralityindealingwithdeeplydistressinginternationalissues.Butdowereallyliveinamorallysequesteredworld?Ifasenseofaglobalsolidarityisreallyso

nonsensical,whyshouldsomanypeoplearoundtheworld(includingthe“antiglobalization”protestersandindeedagreatmanyothers)besoupsetaboutthestateoftheworldandarguepassionately—ifnoisily—forabetterdealforthedisadvantagedanddeprived?Theprotestersthemselvescomefromallovertheworld—theyarenotjustlocalinhabitantsofSeattleorMelbourneorGenoaorEdinburgh.Thedissidentstrytoworktogethertoprotestaboutwhattheyseeasseriousiniquityorinjusticethatplaguesthepeopleoftheworld.Whyshouldwomenandmenfromonepartoftheworldworryaboutthefactthatpeopleinotherparts

oftheworldaregettingarawdealifthereisnosenseofglobalbelongingandnoconcernaboutglobalunfairness?Globaldiscontent,towhichtheprotestmovementsgivevoice(sometimes,admittedly,averyroughvoice),canbeseenasevidenceoftheexistenceofasenseofglobalidentityandsomeconcernaboutglobalethics.Imustpresentlydiscusswhytheterm“antiglobalization”isnotagooddescriptionofthenatureofthe

discontentthatgoesunderthatname.Butnomatterwhatwecallit,thatborderlessdiscontentisitselfamajorglobalphenomenon,bothintermsofthesubjectofitsconcern(includingitsimplicitlyhumanitarianethicsandinclusivepolitics)andintheformofthewideinterestandinvolvementitgeneratesacrosstheworld.Thesenseofextensiveidentityunderlyingtheseconcernsgoeswellbeyondthebordersofnationality,

culture,community,orreligion.Itishardtomissthepowerfullyinclusiveideaofbelongingthatmovessomanypeopletochallengewhattheyseeasunfairnessthatdividestheworldpopulation.Indeed,theso-calledantiglobalizationcritiqueisperhapsthemostglobalizedmoralmovementintheworldtoday.

IntellectualSolidarity

Allofthisaddstotheimportanceofpayingseriousattentiontothesubjectmatteroftheantiglobalizationcritique.Eventhoughglobalizationisoneofthemostdiscussedtopicsinthecontemporaryworld,itisnotaltogetherawell-definedconcept.Amultitudeofglobalinteractionsareputunderthebroadheadingofglobalization,varyingfromtheexpansionofculturalandscientificinfluencesacrossborderstotheenlargementofeconomicandbusinessrelationsthroughouttheworld.Awholesalerejectionofglobalizationwouldnotonlygoagainstglobalbusiness,itwouldalsocutoutmovementsofideas,understanding,andknowledgethatcanhelpallthepeopleoftheworld,includingthemostdisadvantagedmembersoftheworldpopulation.Acomprehensiverejectionofglobalizationcanthusbepowerfullycounterproductive.Thereisastrongneedtoseparateoutthedifferentquestionsthatappearmergedtogetherintherhetoricoftheantiglobalizationprotests.Theglobalizationofknowledgedeservesaparticularlyhigh-profilerecognition,despiteallthegoodthingsthatcanberightlysaidabouttheimportanceof“localknowledge.”Globalizationisoftenseen,bothinjournalisticdiscussionsandinremarkablymanyacademicwritings,

asaprocessofWesternization.Indeed,somewhotakeanupbeat—indeedcelebratory—viewofthephenomenonevenseeitasacontributionofWesterncivilizationtotheworld.Infact,thereisanicelystylizedhistorythatgoeswiththisallegedlyno-nonsensereading.ItallhappenedinEurope:firstcametheRenaissance,thentheEnlightenmentandtheIndustrialRevolution,andthisledtoamassiveriseinlivingstandardsintheWest.AndnowthosegreatachievementsoftheWestarespreadingtotheworld.Globalization,inthisview,isnotonlygood,itisalsoagiftoftheWesttotheworld.Thechampionsofthisreadingofhistorytendtofeelupsetnotonlybythewaythisgreatbenefactionistakenbymanypeopletobeacurse,butalsobythewaytheWest’shighlybeneficialbestowaltotheworldisspurnedandcastigatedbyanungratefulnon-Westernworld.Likemanygoodstylizedstories,thisonetoohasagrainoftruthinit,butthereismuchfantasytoo,which,asithappens,feedsanartificialglobaldivide.Thereisanother—insomerespectsan“opposite”—story,whichalsoreceivesattentionandplaysa

seriouslydivertingrole.ThisacceptsWesterndominanceascentraltoglobalization,butattributestoitthenastyfeaturesassociatedwithglobalization.Inthesecriticisms,theallegedly“Western”characterofglobalizationisoftengivenaprominentanddamagingrole(thisiseasilyseenintherhetoricoftheongoingprotestmovements).Indeed,globalizationissometimesseenasacorrelateofWesterndominance—indeedacontinuationofWesternimperialism.Whiledifferentpartsoftheantiglobalizationmovementshavedifferentconcernsandpriorities,theresentmentofWesterndominancecertainlyplaysasignificantroleinmanyoftheseprotests.Thereisclearlyan“anti-Western”elementinpartsoftheantiglobalizationmovement.Thecelebrationofnon-Westernidentitiesofvarioustypes(discussedinchapters4through6),relatedtoreligion(suchasIslamicfundamentalism),orregion(suchasAsianvalues),orculture(suchasConfucianethics),canaddfueltothefireofglobalseparatism.Tostartoffourcriticalinquiry,itcanbeasked:“IsglobalizationreallyanewWesterncurse?”Iwould

arguethatitis,ingeneral,neithernew,nornecessarilyWestern,noracurse.Indeed,globalizationhas,overthousandsofyears,contributedtotheprogressoftheworld,throughtravel,trade,migration,thespreadofculturalinfluences,andthedisseminationofknowledgeandunderstanding(includingthatofscienceandtechnology).Theseglobalinterrelationshaveoftenbeenveryproductiveintheadvancement

ofdifferentcountriesintheworld.AndtheactiveagentsofglobalizationhavesometimesbeenlocatedquitefarfromtheWest.Toillustrate,letmelookbackatthebeginningofthelastmillenniumratherthanatitsend.AroundA.D.

1000,theglobalspreadofscience,technology,andmathematicswaschangingthenatureoftheoldworld,butthedisseminationthenwas,toagreatextent,intheoppositedirectiontowhatweseetoday.Forexample,thehightechnologyintheworldofA.D.1000includedtheclockandtheiron-chainsuspensionbridge,thekiteandthemagneticcompass,paperandprinting,thecrossbowandgunpowder,thewheelbarrowandtherotaryfan.EachoneoftheseexamplesofhightechnologyoftheworldamillenniumagowaswellestablishedandextensivelyusedinChina,andwaspracticallyunknownelsewhere.Globalizationspreadthemacrosstheworld,includingEurope.InhisCriticalandMiscellaneousEssays,ThomasCarlyleclaimsthat“thethreegreatelementsof

moderncivilization”are“Gunpowder,Printing,andtheProtestantReligion.”WhiletheChinesecannotbepraised—orblamed—fortheoriginofProtestantism,theChinesecontributiontoCarlyle’slistofcivilizationalingredientscoverstwoofthethreeitems,namelygunpowderandprinting.Thisis,however,lesscomprehensivethantheChinesebestowal,intheformofacleansweep,inFrancisBacon’slistofingredientsofcivilizationinNovumOrganum,publishedin1620,“printing,gunpowder,andthemagnet.”Asimilarmovementoccurred,aswasdiscussedinchapter3,intheEasterninfluenceonWestern

mathematics.ThedecimalsystememergedandbecamewelldevelopedinIndiabetweenthesecondandsixthcenturies,andwasusedextensivelyalsobyArabmathematicianssoonthereafter.MathematicalandscientificinnovationsinSouthandWestAsiawerepioneeredbyagalaxyofintellectuals,suchasAryabhata,Brahmagupta,andal-Khwarizmi.TheseworksreachedEuropemainlyinthelastquarterofthetenthcentury,andbeganhavingamajorimpactintheearlyyearsofthelastmillennium,playingasignificantpartinthescientificrevolutionthathelpedtotransformEurope.Insofarasanythingcanbesaidabouttheidentityoftheagentsofglobalization,thatidentityisneitherexclusivelyWestern,norregionallyEuropean,nornecessarilylinkedtoWesterndominance.

TheParochialversustheGlobal

Themisdiagnosisthatglobalizationofideasandpracticesmustberesistedbecausetheyentail“Westernization”hasplayedquitearegressivepartalreadyinthecolonialandpostcolonialworld(aswasbrieflydiscussedinchapter5).Itincitesaregionallynarrowoutlookandalsounderminestheadvancementofscienceandknowledge,cuttingacrossborders.Indeed,itisnotonlycounterproductiveinitself,itcanalsoendupbeingagoodwayfornon-Westernsocietiestoshootthemselvesinthefoot—evenintheirpreciousculturalfoot.Letmeillustratethepeculiarlyreactionarynatureofthis“localist”outlook.Considertheresistancein

IndiatotheuseofWesternideasandconceptsinscienceandmathematicsinthenineteenthcentury.ThisdebateinBritishIndiafitintothebroadercontroversyaboutfocusingeitheronWesterneducationor(asifthiswouldbeanexclusivealternative)onindigenousIndianeducation;thiswasseenasanunbridgeabledichotomy.The“Westernizers,”suchastheredoubtableT.B.Macaulay—thepowerfulBritishadministratorwhowrote,in1835,thetremendouslyinfluential“Minute”onIndianeducation—sawnomeritinIndiantraditionwhatever.Asheexplained,“Ihaveneverfoundoneamongthem[advocatesofIndianlanguagesandtradition]whocoulddenythatasingleshelfofagoodEuropeanlibrarywasworth

thewholenativeliteratureofIndiaandArabia.”3Partlyinretaliation,theadvocatesofnativeeducationresistedWesternimportsaltogether,preferringtraditionalscholarshipandclassicalIndianeducation.Butbothsidesseemedtoacceptthattheremustbe,toagreatextent,anecessaryexclusivenessineachapproach.However,giventheinterrelationbetweenculturesandcivilizations,thispresumptionwasboundto

producesomeveryawkwardclassificatoryproblems.AsharpillustrationofthenatureofextensiveinternationalrelationsisprovidedbythearrivalinIndiaofthetrigonometricterm“sine”directlyfromWesterntrigonometry.Thatmodernterm(thatis,“sine”)camestraightfromtheBritishinthemid-nineteenthcentury,whichtooktheplaceoftheoldSanskritconcepts,andthiswasseenasjustanotherexampleoftheAnglo-SaxoninvasionofIndianculture.Andyet,amusinglyenough,“sine”actuallycamefromIndiaitself,throughvarioustransformations,

fromagoodSanskritnameforthatcriticallyimportanttrigonometricconcept.Indeed,themigrationoftheconceptandtheterminologygivesomeideaofthenatureofthehistorical—anddistinctly“premodern”—globalizationofideas.Thefifth-centuryIndianmathematicianAryabhatahaddevelopedandmadeextensiveuseoftheconceptof“sine”:hecalleditjya-ardha,whichliterallymeans“chord-half”inSanskrit.Fromtherethetermmovedoninaninterestingmigratoryway,asHowardEvesdescribesinhisHistoryofMathematics:

Aryabhatacalleditardha-jya(“half-chord”)andjya-ardha(“chord-half”),andthenabbreviatedthetermbysimplyusingjya(“chord”).FromjyatheArabsphoneticallyderivedjiba,which,followingArabicpracticeofomittingvowels,waswrittenasjb.Nowjiba,asidefromitstechnicalsignificance,isameaninglesswordinArabic.Laterwriterswhocameacrossjbasanabbreviationforthemeaninglesswordjibasubstitutedjaibinstead,whichcontainsthesameletters,andisagoodArabicwordmeaning“cove”or“bay.”Stilllater,GherardoofCremona(ca.1150),whenhemadehistranslationsfromtheArabic,replacedthe

ArabianjaibbyitsLatinequivalent,sinus[meaningacoveorabay],fromwhencecameourpresentwordsine.4

Giventheculturalandintellectualinterconnectionsinworldhistory,thequestionofwhatis“Western”andwhatisnotwouldbehardtodecide.Infact,Aryabhata’sjyawastranslatedintoChineseasmingandwasusedinsuchwidelyusedtablesasyuejianliangming,literally“sineoflunarintervals.”IfMacaulayhadunderstoodtheworld’sintellectualhistorysomewhatbetter,hewouldhavehadtobroadenhisgazefromthe“singleshelf”ofEuropeanbookswhichheadmiredsomuch.HisIndianistopponentstoowouldhavetobelessdistrustfuloftheWesternshelves.Indeed,Europewouldhavebeenalotpoorer—economically,culturally,andscientifically—hadit

resistedtheglobalizationofmathematics,science,andtechnologycomingfromChina,India,Iran,andtheArabworld,atthebeginningofthesecondmillennium.Andthesameapplies,thoughinthereversedirection,today.TorejecttheglobalizationofscienceandtechnologyonthegroundthatthisisWesternimperialism(assomeprotesterssuggest)wouldnotonlyamounttooverlookingglobalcontributions—drawnfrommanydifferentpartsoftheworld—thatliesolidlybehindso-calledWesternscienceandtechnology,butwouldalsobequiteadaftpracticaldecisiongiventheextenttowhichthewholeworldcanbenefitfromtheprocessofintellectualgive-and-take.ToequatethisphenomenonwithimperialismorwithEuropeancolonialismofideasandbeliefs(astherhetoricoftensuggests)wouldbeaseriousandcostlyerror,inthesamewaythataEuropeanrejectionofEasterninfluenceonscienceandmathematicswouldhavebeenatthebeginningofthelastmillennium.Wemustnot,ofcourse,overlookthefactthatthereareissuesrelatedtoglobalizationthatactuallydo

connectwithimperialism.Thehistoryofconquests,colonialdominance,alienrule,andthehumiliationof

conqueredpeopleremainsrelevanttodayinmanydifferentways(aswasdiscussedearlier,particularlyinchapter5).Butitwouldbeagreatmistaketoseeglobalizationprimarilyasafeatureofimperialism.Itisamuchbigger—andimmenselygreater—processthanthat.

EconomicGlobalizationandInequality

Antiglobalizationprotestersbelong,however,toseveraldifferentcamps,andsomeopponentsof“economicglobalization”havenoproblemwhateverwiththeglobalizationofideas(includingthatofscienceandliterature).Theirviews,whichneedcarefulattention,arecertainlynotdismissableonthegroundthattheglobalizationofscience,technology,andunderstandinghasmadeverypositivecontributionstotheworld—somethingthattheseparticularcriticsofeconomicglobalizationwouldnotatalldeny.However,asithappens,manypositiveachievementsspecificallyofeconomicglobalizationarealso

visibleindifferentpartsoftheworld.Wecanhardlyfailtoseethattheglobaleconomyhasbroughtmuchgreatermaterialprosperitytoquiteafewdifferentareasontheglobe,suchasJapan,China,andSouthKorea,andtovaryingextentselsewhereaswell,fromBraziltoBotswana.Pervasivepovertydominatedtheworldafewcenturiesago,withonlyafewpocketsofrareaffluence.Liveswerefairlyuniformly“nasty,brutishandshort,”asThomasHobbesputitinhisclassicbookLeviathan,publishedin1651.Inovercomingthatpenury,extensiveeconomicinterrelationsbetweennationsaswellaseconomicincentivesforthedevelopmentanduseofmodernmethodsofproductionhavebeenenormouslyinfluentialandhelpful.Itwouldbehardtobelievethattheprogressofthelivingconditionsofthepooracrosstheworldcan

bemadefasterbywithholdingfromthemthegreatadvantagesofcontemporarytechnology,thevaluableopportunitytotradeandexchange,andthesocialaswellaseconomicmeritsoflivinginopen,ratherthanclosed,societies.Peoplefromverydeprivedcountriesclamorforthefruitsofmoderntechnology(suchastheuseofnewlyinventedmedicines,particularlyinthetreatmentofAIDS—thesenewdrugshavetransformedthelivesofAIDSpatientsinAmericaandEurope);theyseekgreateraccesstothemarketsintherichercountriesforawidevarietyofcommodities,fromsugartotextiles;andtheywantmorevoiceandattentionintheaffairsoftheworld.Ifthereisskepticismoftheresultsofglobalization,itisnotbecausesufferinghumanitywantstowithdrawintoitsshell.Infact,thepreeminentpracticalchallengestodayincludethepossibilityofmakinggooduseofthe

remarkablebenefitsofeconomicconnections,technologicalprogress,andpoliticalopportunityinawaythatpaysadequateattentiontotheinterestsofthedeprivedandtheunderdog.Thisisnot,infact,aquestionofrubbishingglobaleconomicrelations,butofmakingtheimmensebenefitsofglobalizationmorefairlyshared.Despitetheterminologychosenbythe“antiglobalization”movements,thecentralissueinthereproachhastorelate,inonewayoranother,totherealexistenceandresilienceofmassiveglobalinequalityandpoverty,ratherthantotheallegedfruitfulnessofdoingwithoutglobaleconomicrelations.

GlobalPovertyandGlobalFairness

Sowhataboutglobalinequalityandpoverty?Thedistributionalquestionsthatfigure—inanexplicitorimplicitform—intherhetoricbothoftheso-calledantiglobalizationprotestersandoftheno-nonsense“proglobalization”defendersneedsomecriticalscrutiny.Indeed,thisissuehassuffered,Iwouldargue,fromthepopularityofsomeoddlyunfocusedquestions.Itisarguedbysome“antiglobalization”resistersthatthecentralproblemisthattherichintheworld

aregettingricher,andthepoorpoorer.Thisisbynomeansuniformlyso(eventhoughthereareanumberofcases,particularlyinLatinAmericaandAfrica,inwhichthishasactuallyhappened),butthecrucialissueiswhetherthisistherightwaytounderstandthecentralissuesoffairnessandequityintheglobaleconomytoday.Ontheotherside,theenthusiastsforno-nonsenseglobalizationofteninvoke—anddrawgreatlyon—

theirunderstandingthatthepoorintheworldaretypicallygettinglesspoor,not(asoftenalleged)moreimpoverished.Theyreferinparticulartotheevidencethatthoseamongthepoorwhoparticipateintradeandexchangearenotgettinganypoorer—quitethecontrary.Sincetheyaregettingricherthroughbeinginvolvedintheglobaleconomy,ergo(theargumentruns)globalizationisnotunjusttothepoor:“Thepoorbenefittoo—sowhat’sthegripe?”Ifthecentralityofthisquestionwereaccepted,thenthewholedebatewouldturnondeterminingwhichsideisrightinthismainlyempiricaldispute:“Arethegloballyengagedpoorgettingpoorerorricher(tellus,tellus,whichitis)?”Butisthisreallytherightquestiontoask?Iwouldarguethatitabsolutelyisnot.Therearetwo

problemsinthiswayofseeingtheunfairnessissue.Thefirstistheneedtorecognizethatgiventheglobalfacilitiesthatexisttoday,includingproblemsofomissionaswellascommission(tobediscussedpresently),manypeoplefindithardtoentertheglobaleconomyatall.Theconcentrationonthosewhoaregainfullyengagedintradeleavesoutmillionswhoremainexcluded—andeffectivelyunwelcome—fromtheactivitiesoftheprivileged.Exclusionisasimportantaproblemhereasunequalinclusion.Theremedyingofsuchexclusionwoulddemandradicaldeparturesindomesticeconomicpolicies(suchasgreaterfacilitiesforbasiceducation,healthcare,andmicrocreditathome),buttheyalsocallforchangedinternationalpoliciesofother,particularlyricher,countries.Foronething,economicallymoreadvancedcountriescanmakeabigdifferencebybeingmorewelcomingtocommodities—agriculturalgoodsaswellastextilesandotherproductsofindustries—exportedfromthedevelopingworld.Thereareissuesalsoofhumane—andrealistic—treatmentofpastdebtsthatlimitthefreedomofthepoorercountriessomuch(itismostwelcomethatsomeinitialstepshavebeentakeninthatdirectioninrecentyears).5Thereisalsothebigissueofaidanddevelopmentassistance,onwhichpoliticalopinionsdiffer,butwhichisbynomeansanirrelevantfocusofattention.6Therearemanyotherissuestobetackledaswell,includingtheneedtorethinktheongoinglegalprovisions,suchasthepresentsystemofpatentrights(Ishallreturntothesequestionspresently).Thesecondissue,however,ismorecomplexandingreaterneedofaclearerunderstanding.Evenifthe

poorwhoareengagedintheglobalizedeconomywerebecomingjustalittlericher,thisneednotimplythatthepooraregettingafairshareofthebenefitsofeconomicinterrelationsandofitsvastpotential.Norisitadequatetoaskwhetherinternationalinequalityisgettingmarginallylargerorsmaller.Torebelagainsttheappallingpovertyandstaggeringinequalitiesthatcharacterizethecontemporaryworld,ortoprotestagainstunfairsharingofthebenefitsofglobalcooperation,itisnotnecessarytoclaimthattheinequalitynotonlyisterriblylarge,butisalsogettingmarginallylarger.

Theissueoffairnessinaworldofdifferentgroupsanddisparateidentitiesdemandsafullerunderstanding.Whentherearegainsfromcooperation,therecanbemanyalternativearrangementsthatbenefiteachpartycomparedwithnocooperation.Thedivisionofbenefitscanwidelyvarydespitetheneedforcooperation(thisissometimescalled“cooperativeconflict”).7Forexample,theremaybeconsiderablegainsfromthesettingupofnewindustries,buttherestillremainstheproblemofthedivisionofbenefitsbetweenworkers,capitalists,sellersofinputs,buyers(andconsumers)ofoutputs,andthosebenefitingindirectlyfromtheincreasedincomeinthelocalitiesinvolved.Thedivisionsinvolvedwoulddependonrelativeprices,wages,andothereconomicparametersthatwouldgovernexchangeandproduction.Itisappropriate,therefore,toaskwhetherthedistributionofgainsisfairoracceptable,andnotjustwhetherthereexistsomegainsforallpartiesincomparisonwithnocooperation(whichcanbethecaseforagreatmanyalternativearrangements).AsJohnNash,themathematicianandgametheorist(andnowalsoahouseholdnamethankstothe

enormouslysuccessfulfilmbasedonSylviaNasar’swonderfulbiography,ABeautifulMind),discussedmorethanhalfacenturyago(inapaperpublishedin1950,whichwasamonghiswritingscitedbytheRoyalSwedishAcademyinawardinghimtheNobelPrizeineconomicsin1994),thecentralissueisnotwhetheraparticulararrangementisbetterforallthannocooperationatall,whichwouldbetrueofmanyalternativearrangements.Rather,theprincipalquestioniswhethertheparticulardivisionstoemerge,amongthevariousalternativesavailable,arefairdivisions,givenwhatcouldbechoseninstead.8Acriticismthatadistributionalarrangementthatgoeswithcooperationisunfair(whetherairedinthecontextofindustrialrelationsorfamilyarrangementsorinternationalinstitutions)cannotberebuttedbymerelynotingthatallthepartiesarebetteroffthanwouldbethecaseintheabsenceofcooperation(wellreflectedinthesupposedlytellingargument:“Thepoorbenefittoo—sowhat’sthegripe?”).Sincethiswouldbetrueofverymany—possiblyinfinitelymany—alternativearrangements,therealexercisedoesnotliethere,butratherinthechoiceamongthesevariousalternativeswithdifferentdistributionsofgainsforalloftheparties.Thepointcanbeillustratedwithananalogy.Toarguethataparticularlyunequalandsexistfamily

arrangementisunfair,itdoesnothavetobeshownthatwomenwouldhavedonecomparativelybetterhadtherebeennofamiliesatall(“Ifyouthinkthattheongoingfamilydivisionsareunfairtowomen,whydon’tyougoandliveoutsidefamilies?”).Thatisnottheissue—womenseekingabetterdealwithinthefamilyarenotproposing,asanalternative,thepossibilityoflivingwithoutfamilies.Theboneofcontentioniswhetherthesharingofthebenefitswithinthefamilysystemisseriouslyunequalintheexistinginstitutionalarrangements,comparedwithwhatalternativearrangementscanbemade.Theconsiderationonwhichmanyofthedebatesonglobalizationhaveconcentrated,towit,whetherthepoortoobenefitfromtheestablishedeconomicorder,isanentirelyinadequatefocusforassessingwhathastobeassessed.Whatmustbeaskedinsteadiswhethertheycanfeasiblygetabetter—andfairer—deal,withlessdisparitiesofeconomic,social,andpoliticalopportunities,andifso,throughwhatinternationalanddomesticrearrangementsthiscouldbebroughtabout.Thatiswheretherealengagementlies.

ThePossibilityofMoreFairness

Thereare,however,somepreliminaryissuestobediscussedfirst.Isafairerglobaldealpossiblewithoutupsettingtheglobalizedsystemofeconomicandsocialrelationsaltogether?Wemustask,inparticular,

whetherthedealthatthedifferentgroupsgetfromglobalizedeconomicandsocialrelationscanbechangedwithoutunderminingordestroyingthebenefitsofaglobalmarketeconomy?Theconviction,whichisoftenimplicitlyinvokedinantiglobalizationcritiques,thattheanswermustbeinthenegativehasplayedacriticallyimportantpartingeneratinggloomanddoomaboutthefutureoftheworldwithglobalmarkets,andthisiswhatgivestheso-calledantiglobalizationproteststheirchosenname.Thereis,inparticular,anoddlycommonpresumptionthatthereissuchathingas“themarketoutcome,”nomatterwhatrulesofprivateoperation,publicinitiatives,andnonmarketinstitutionsarecombinedwiththeexistenceofmarkets.Thatansweris,infact,entirelymistaken,asisreadilyascertained.Useofthemarketeconomyisconsistentwithmanydifferentownershippatterns,resource

availabilities,socialfacilities,andrulesofoperation(suchaspatentlaws,antitrustregulations,provisionsforhealthcareandincomesupport,etc.).Anddependingontheseconditions,themarketeconomyitselfwouldgeneratedistinctsetsofprices,termsoftrades,incomedistributions,and,moregenerally,verydifferentoveralloutcomes.9Forexample,everytimepublichospitals,schools,orcollegesaresetup,orresourcestransferredfromonegrouptoanother,thepricesandquantitiesreflectedinthemarketoutcomeinescapablyalter.Marketsdonot—andcannot—actalone.Thereisno“themarketoutcome”irrespectiveoftheconditionsthatgovernthemarkets,includingthedistributionofeconomicresourcesandownerships.Introductionorenhancementofinstitutionalarrangementsforsocialsecurityandothersupportivepublicinterventionscanalsoyieldsignificantdifferencesintheoutcome.Thecentralquestionisnot—indeedcannotbe—whetherornottousethemarketeconomy.That

shallowquestioniseasytoanswer.Noeconomyinworldhistoryhaseverachievedwidespreadprosperity,goingbeyondthehighlifeoftheelite,withoutmakingconsiderableuseofmarketsandproductionconditionsthatdependonmarkets.Itisnothardtoconcludethatitisimpossibletoachievegeneraleconomicprosperitywithoutmakingextensiveuseoftheopportunitiesofexchangeandspecializationthatmarketrelationsoffer.Thisdoesnotdenyatallthebasicfactthattheoperationofthemarketeconomycancertainlybesignificantlydefectiveundermanycircumstances,becauseoftheneedtodealwithgoodsthatarecollectivelyconsumed(suchaspublichealthfacilities)andalso(ashasbeenmuchdiscussedrecently)becauseoftheimportanceofasymmetric—andmoregenerallyimperfect—informationthatdifferentparticipantsinthemarketeconomymayhave.10Forexample,thebuyerofausedcarknowsfarlessaboutthecarthantheownersellingitdoes,sothatpeoplehavetomaketheirexchangedecisionsinpartialignoranceandinparticularwithunequalknowledge.Theseproblems,whicharesignificantandserious,can,however,beaddressedthroughappropriatepublicpoliciesthatsupplementtheworkingofthemarketeconomy.Butitwouldbehardtodispensewiththeinstitutionofmarketsaltogetherwithoutthoroughlyunderminingtheprospectsofeconomicprogress.Indeed,usingmarketsisnotentirelyunlikespeakingprose.Itisnoteasytodispensewithit,butmuch

dependsonwhatprosewechoosetospeak.Themarketeconomydoesnotworkaloneinglobalizedrelations—indeeditcannotoperatealoneevenwithinagivencountry.Itisnotonlythecasethatamarket-inclusiveoverallsystemcangeneratewidelydifferentresultsdependingonvariousenablingconditions(suchashowphysicalresourcesaredistributed,howhumanresourcesaredeveloped,whatrulesofbusinessrelationsprevail,whatsocialinsurancesareinplace,howextensivelytechnicalknowledgeisshared,andsoon),butalsotheseenablingconditionsthemselvesdependcriticallyoneconomic,social,andpoliticalinstitutionsthatoperatenationallyandglobally.

Ashasbeenamplydemonstratedinempiricalstudies,thenatureofmarketoutcomesaremassivelyinfluencedbypublicpoliciesineducationandliteracy,epidemiology,landreform,microcreditfacilities,appropriatelegalprotection,etc.,andineachofthesefieldstherearethingstobedonethroughpublicactionthatcanradicallyaltertheoutcomeoflocalandglobaleconomicrelations.Itisthisclassofinterdependencesthathavetobeunderstoodandutilizedtoaltertheinequalitiesandasymmetriesthatcharacterizetheworldeconomy.Mereglobalizationofmarketrelationscan,onitsown,beadeeplyinadequateapproachtoworldprosperity.

OmissionsandCommissions

Therearemanydifficultproblemstobefacedinworkingforfairereconomicandsocialarrangementsintheworld.Thereis,forexample,considerableevidencethatglobalcapitalismistypicallymuchmoreconcernedwithmarketsthanwith,say,establishingdemocracy,orexpandingpubliceducation,orenhancingsocialopportunitiesoftheunderdogsofsociety.Multinationalfirmscanalsoexertsubstantialinfluenceontheprioritiesofpublicexpenditureinmanythird-worldcountriesinthedirectionofgivingpreferencetotheconvenienceofthemanagerialclassesandprivilegedworkersovertheremovalofwidespreadilliteracy,medicaldeprivation,andotherhandicapsofthepoor.11Theseadverseconnections,observableinLatinAmerica,Africa,andalsopartsofAsia,havetobefacedandtackled.Whiletheymaynotimposeaninsurmountablebarriertoequitabledevelopment,itisimportantthatthesurmountablebarriersbeclearlydiagnosedandactuallysurmounted.Thecontinuedinequitiesintheglobaleconomyarecloselyrelatedtovariousinstitutionalfailuresthat

havetobeovercome.Inadditiontothemomentousomissionsthatneedtoberectified,therearealsoseriousproblemsofcommissionthatmustbeaddressedforelementaryglobaljustice.Manyoftheseproblemshavebeendiscussedextensivelyintheliterature.12However,someoftheseissuesdemandgreaterattentioninpublicdiscussionthanhashappenedsofar.Anoddlyunderdiscussedglobal“commission”thatcausesintensemiseryaswellaslasting

deprivationconcerns,aswasdiscussedinthelastchapter,theinvolvementoftheworldpowersintheglobalizedtradeinarms(nearly85percentofthearmssoldinternationallyinrecentyearsweresoldbytheG8countries,thegreatpowersthathaveamajorroleinleadingtheworld).13Thisisafieldinwhichanewglobalinitiativeisurgentlyrequired,goingbeyondtheneed—theveryimportantneed—tocurbterrorism,onwhichthefocusissoheavilyconcentratedrightnow.Injuriouscommissionsalsoincludeseverelyrestrictive—andinefficient—tradebarriersthatcurb

exportsfromthepoorercountries.Anotherimportantissueisthatofinequitablepatentlawswhichcanserveascounterproductivehurdlesfortheuseoflifesavingdrugs—neededfordiseaseslikeAIDS—whichcanoftenbeproducedverycheaply,butthemarketpriceofwhicharepushedhighupbytheburdenofroyalties.Whileitiscertainlyimportantnottocreateeconomicconditionssuchthattheinnovativeresearchofpharmaceuticalsdriesout,thereare,infact,plentyofintelligentcompromisearrangements,includingfacilitiesforvariablepricing,thatcanprovidegoodincentivesforresearchwhileallowingthepooroftheworldtobuythesevitallyimportantdrugs.Itmustberememberedthatthenonbuyingofdrugsbythepoorwhichtheycannotaffordtobuycanhardlyaddanythingtotheincentivesofthedrugproducers;theissueistocombineefficiency-basedconsiderationswithdemandsofequity,inan

intelligentandhumaneway,withanadequateunderstandingofthedemandsofglobalefficiencyaswellasjustice.Thecounterproductivepatentregimesthatexist—andrule—atthemomentalsoprovidevery

inadequateincentiveformedicalresearchaimedatdevelopingnewmedicines(includingnonrepeatingvaccines)thatwouldbeparticularlyusefulforthepoorerpeopleoftheworldwhoseabilitytoofferahighpriceforsuchmedicinesisquitelimited.Thereachofincentivesinproducingmedicalinnovationsofspecificbenefittolow-incomepeoplecanbepunyindeed.Thisiswellreflectedintheheavybiasofpharmaceuticalresearchinthedirectionofcateringtothosewithmoreincometospend.Giventhenatureofthemarketeconomyandtherolethattheprofitcalculationsinescapablyplayinitsoperation,theconcentrationhastobeondeparturesthatcanchangetheincentivepatternradically.Theycanvaryfromalteredlegalarrangementsforintellectualpropertyrights(includingdifferingtaxtreatmentofprofitsfromdifferenttypesofinnovations)toprovidingpublicincentivesthroughspeciallydevisedprogramsofsupport.14Thedemandsofeconomicglobalizationarenotconfinedonlytojoiningthemarketeconomyandfreeingtradeandexchange(importantthoughtheyoftenare),butextendalsotomakingtheinstitutionalarrangementsmorefairandequitableforthedistributionofgainsfromeconomicintercourse.15

Enhancementofdomesticarrangementscanalsobecrucialtothewayglobalizationaffectspeoplewhoarebroughtmoreintoglobalexchange.Forexample,whileforcesofcompetitionmaydrivesometraditionalproducersoutoftheircustomaryjobs,thedisplacedpeoplecannoteasilyfindnewjobsbyenteringintonewenterpriseslinkedtotheglobaleconomyiftheyhappentobeilliterateandunabletoreadinstructionsandfollowthenewdemandsofqualitycontrol,oriftheyareburdenedbyillnessesthatimpairtheirproductivityandmobility.16Withsuchhandicaps,theycangetthesticksoftheglobaleconomywithouttastingthecarrots.Theremedyingofthesebarriersrequiresthedevelopmentoffacilitiesforschoolingandeducation,andalsoofasupportivesafetynetwork,includinghealthcare.Economicglobalizationisnotjustaboutopeningupthemarkets.Indeed,theglobalmarketeconomyisasgoodasthecompanyitkeeps.17Globalvoices—fromfarand

near—canhelpglobalization,includingglobalmarkets,tohavebettercompanions.Thereisaworldtobewononbehalfofhumanity,andglobalvoicescanhelpustoachievethis.

Poverty,Violence,andtheSenseofInjustice

Ifreligionandcommunityareassociatedwithglobalviolenceinthemindsofmanypeople,thensoareglobalpovertyandinequality.Therehas,infact,beenanincreasingtendencyinrecentyearstojustifypoliciesofpovertyremovalonthegroundthatthisisthesurestwaytopreventpoliticalstrifeandturmoil.Basingpublicpolicy—internationalaswellasdomestic—onsuchanunderstandinghassomeevidentattractions.Giventhepublicanxietyaboutwarsanddisorderintherichcountriesintheworld,theindirectjustificationofpovertyremoval—notforitsownsakebutforthesakeofpeaceandquietintheworld—providesanargumentthatappealstoself-interestforhelpingtheneedy.Itpresentsanargumentforallocatingmoreresourcesonpovertyremovalbecauseofitspresumedpolitical,ratherthanmoral,relevance.Whilethetemptationtogointhatdirectioniseasytounderstand,itisaperilousroutetotakeevenfora

worthycause.Partofthedifficultyliesinthepossibilitythatifwrong,economicreductionismwouldnot

onlyimpairourunderstandingoftheworld,butwouldalsotendtounderminethedeclaredrationaleofthepubliccommitmenttoremovepoverty.Thisisaparticularlyseriousconcern,sincepovertyandmassiveinequalityareterribleenoughinthemselves,anddeservepriorityeveniftherewerenoconnectionwhateverwithviolence.Justasvirtueisitsownreward,povertyisatleastitsownpenalty.Thisisnottodenythatpovertyandinequalitycan—anddo—havefar-reachingconnectionswithconflictandstrife,buttheseconnectionshavetobeexaminedandinvestigatedwithappropriatecareandempiricalscrutiny,ratherthanbeingcasuallyinvokedwithunreasonedrapidityinsupportofa“goodcause.”Destitutioncan,ofcourse,produceprovocationfordefyingestablishedlawsandrules.Butitneednot

givepeopletheinitiative,courage,andactualabilitytodoanythingveryviolent.Destitutioncanbeaccompaniednotonlybyeconomicdebility,butalsobypoliticalhelplessness.Astarvingwretchcanbetoofrailandtoodejectedtofightandbattle,andeventoprotestandholler.Itisthusnotsurprisingthatoftenenoughintenseandwidespreadsufferingandmiseryhavebeenaccompaniedbyunusualpeaceandsilence.Indeed,manyfamineshaveoccurredwithouttherebeingmuchpoliticalrebellionorcivilstrifeor

intergroupwarfare.Forexample,thefamineyearsinthe1840sinIrelandwereamongthemostpeaceful,andtherewaslittleattemptbythehungrymassestointerveneevenasshipaftershipsaileddowntheriverShannonladenwithrichfood,carryingitfromstarvingIrelandtowell-fedEngland,whichhadgreaterpurchasingpower.TheIrishdonothaveagreatreputationforpliantdocility,andyetthefamineyearswere,byandlarge,yearsoflawandorder(withveryfewexceptions).Lookingelsewhere,myownchildhoodmemoriesinCalcuttaduringtheBengalfamineof1943includethesightofstarvingpeopledyinginfrontofsweetshopswithvariouslayersoflusciousfooddisplayedbehindglasswindows,withoutasingleglassbeingbroken,orlawandorderbeingdisrupted.TheBengalishavebeenresponsibleformanyviolentrebellions(oneagainsttheRajoccurredevenin1942,intheyearprecedingthefamineof1943),butthingswerequietinthefamineyearitself.Theissueoftimingisparticularlyimportant,sinceasenseofinjusticecanfeeddiscontentoveravery

longperiod,muchafterthedebilitatinganddisablingeffectsofafamineanddeprivationareover.Thememoryofdestitutionanddevastationtendstolinger,andcanbeinvokedandutilizedtogeneraterebellionandviolence.TheIrishfaminesofthe1840smayhavebeenpeacefultimes,butthememoryofinjusticeandthesocialbitternessaboutpoliticalandeconomicneglecthadtheeffectofseverelyalienatingtheIrishfromBritain,andcontributedgreatlytotheviolencethatcharacterizedAnglo-Irishrelationsovermorethan150years.Economicdestitutionmaynotleadtoanyimmediateviolence,butitwouldbewrongtopresumefromthisthatthereisnoconnectionbetweenpoverty,ontheonehand,andviolenceontheother.TheneglectoftheplightofAfricatodaycanhaveasimilarlylong-runeffectonworldpeaceinthe

future.Whattherestoftheworld(especiallytherichercountries)did—ordidnotdo—whenatleastaquarteroftheAfricanpopulationseemedtobethreatenedwithextinctionthroughepidemics,involvingAIDS,malaria,andothermaladies,mightnotbeforgottenforaverylongtimetocome.Wehavetounderstandmoreclearlyhowpoverty,deprivation,andneglect,andthehumiliationsassociatedwithasymmetryofpower,relateoverlongperiodstoapronenesstoviolence,linkedwithconfrontationsthatdrawongrievancesagainstthetopdogsinaworldofdividedidentities.

Neglectcanbereasonenoughforresentment,butasenseofencroachment,degradation,andhumiliationcanbeeveneasiertomobilizeforrebellionandrevolt.Israel’sabilitytodisplace,repress,andruleoverPalestinians,assistedbymilitarypower,hasextensiveandlong-runconsequencesthatgowellbeyondwhateverimmediatepoliticalgainstheymaybecurrentlybringingtoIsrael.ThesenseofinjusticeinthearbitraryviolationoftherightsofPalestiniansremainsinreadinesstoberecruitedforwhat,fromtheoppositeend,isseenasviolent“retaliation.”ThevengeancemightcomenotonlyfromPalestinians,butalsofrommuchlargergroupsofpeoplelinkedwithPalestiniansthroughArab,Muslim,orthird-worldidentities.Thesensethattheworldisdividedbetweenhavesandhave-notsgreatlyhelpsinthecultivationofdiscontent,openingupthepossibilitiesofrecruitmentinthecauseofwhatisoftenseenas“retaliatoryviolence.”Inordertounderstandhowthisworks,itisnecessarytodistinguishbetweentheleadersofviolent

insurrectionandthemuchlargerpopulationsonwhosesupporttheleadersrely.LeaderslikeOsamabinLadendonot—tosaytheleast—sufferfrompovertyandhavenoeconomicreasonwhateverforfeelingleftoutfromsharingthefruitsofglobalcapitalism.Andyetthemovementsthatareledbywell-offleaderstypicallydorelygreatlyonasenseofinjustice,iniquity,andhumiliationthattheestablishedworldorderisseenashavingproduced.Povertyandeconomicinequalitymaynotinstantlybreedterrorismorinfluencetheleadersofterroristorganizations,butneverthelesstheycanhelptocreaterichrecruitinggroundsforthefootsoldiersoftheterroristcamps.Second,toleranceofterrorismbyanotherwisepeacefulpopulationisanotherpeculiarphenomenonin

manypartsofthecontemporaryworld,particularlywherethereisasenseofhavingbeenbadlytreated,forexample,becauseofbeingleftbehindbyglobaleconomicandsocialprogress,orwherethereisastrongmemoryofhavingbeenpoliticallyroughedupinthepast.Amoreequitablesharingofthebenefitsofglobalizationcancontributetolong-runpreventivemeasuresboth(1)againsttherecruitmentofthecannonfodderofterrorism,and(2)againstthecreationofageneralclimatewhereterrorismistolerated(andsometimesevencelebrated).Eventhoughpovertyandasenseofglobalinjusticemaynotleadimmediatelytoaneruptionof

violence,therearecertainlyconnectionsthere,operatingoveralongperiodoftime,thatcanhaveasignificanteffectonthepossibilityofviolence.ThememoryofilltreatmentoftheMiddleEastbyWesternpowersmanydecades—perhapsevenahundredyears—ago,whichstilllingerinvariousformsinWestAsia,canbecultivatedandmagnifiedbythecommandersofconfrontationtoenhancetheabilityofterroriststorecruitvolunteersforviolence.TheangerwiththeSovietUnionparticularlylinkedwithitsAfghanpolicymayhavebeenseenbyAmericanstrategistsasanicelyusableweaponinthecoldwar,butitwasopentoredirectionagainsttheWesternworldthroughthesolitaristviewofanIslamicidentityconfrontingEuropeandAmerica(thedistinctionbetweenacapitalistUSandaCommunistUSSRwouldnotmattermuchinthatsingularperspective).Inthattwofoldclassification,therhetoricofglobalinjusticeistornawayfromitsconstructivecorrelates,andisdeployedinstead,inasuitablyadaptedform,tofeedanatmosphereofviolenceandretribution.

AwarenessandIdentity

Indeed,alternativewaysofrespondingtoinequalitiesandthesenseofglobalinjusticecan,tosomeextent,competewitheachotherfortheattentionofpeopleoftheworldtoday.Theverydiagnosisthat,in

oneperspective,motivatesasearchforglobalequitycanalso,inanotherlight,begoodmaterialtobetwisted,narrowed,andharshenedtofeedthecauseofglobalvengeance.Muchwoulddependonhowtheissueofidentityisaddressedinassessingtheimplicationsofglobal

inequality.Itcantakeusinseveraldifferentdirections.Theonethatisbeingusedwithdevastatingeffectisthecultivationandexploitationofdiscontentcausedbyperceptionsofpasthumiliationsorpresentdisparities,buildingonsomesolitaristcontrastofidentity,particularlythrougha“West–anti-West”formulation(discussedinchapter5).Weareseeingalotofthisrightnow,supplementingand—tosomeextent—feedingabellicosereligious(particularlyIslamic)identityreadytoconfronttheWest.Thisisaworldofsingularlydividedidentitieswheretheeconomicandpoliticalcontrastsaremadetofit—asa“subtheme”—intodifferencesinreligiousethnicity.Happily,thatisnottheonlywayinwhichglobalinequalities,andpastandpresenthumiliations,canbe

addressed.First,aconstructiveresponsecancomefromaddressingglobalinequalitiesandgrievancesmoreexplicitly,withafullerunderstandingoftherealissuesinvolvedandpossibledirectionsofremedy(withwhichmuchofthischapterhasbeenconcerned).Second,aconstructiverolecanalsobeplayedbyglobalizationitself,notonlythroughtheprosperitythatcanbegenerated—andmoreequitablyshared—bytheoperationofglobaleconomicrelationssupplementedbyotherinstitutionalarrangements(discussedearlier),butalsothroughthebeyond-borderconcernsthatcanresultfromextensivehumancontactsgeneratedbyglobaleconomiccloseness.Theworldhasshrunkagreatdealinrecenttimesthroughcloserintegration,quickercommunication,

andeasieraccess.However,alreadytwoandaquartercenturiesago,DavidHumespokeaboutthecontributionofincreasedeconomicandsocialrelationsinexpandingthereachofoursenseofidentityandthecoverageofourconcernaboutjustice.InAnEnquiryConcerningthePrinciplesofMorals,publishedin1777,Humepointedtotheseconnections(inachaptercalled“OfJustice”):

[A]gainsupposethatseveraldistinctsocietiesmaintainakindofintercourseformutualconvenienceandadvantage,theboundariesofjusticestillgrowlarger,inproportiontothelargenessofmen’sviews,andtheforceoftheirmutualconnexions.History,experience,reasonsufficientlyinstructusinthisnaturalprogressofhumansentiments,andinthegradualenlargementofour

regardstojustice,inproportionaswebecomeacquaintedwiththeextensiveutilityofthatvirtue.18

Humewasspeakingaboutthepossibilitythattradeandeconomicconnectionsbetweencountriescanenhancedistantpeople’sinvolvementwitheachother.Aspeoplecomeinclosertouchwitheachother,theycanbegintotakeaninterestinfarawaypersonswhoseexistencemayhavebeenonlydimlyperceivedearlier.Widespreadinterestinglobalinequalitiesandasymmmetries,ofwhichantiglobalizationprotestsarea

part,canbeseenassomethingofanembodimentofwhatDavidHumewastalkingaboutinhisclaimthatclosereconomicrelationswouldbringdistantpeoplewithinthereachof“thegradualenlargementofourregardstojustice.”Thisfitsinwiththeclaim,presentedearlier,thatthevoicesofglobalprotestarepartofthenewlydevelopingethicsofglobalizationinthecontemporaryworld.Eventhoughthecritiqueofequity-neglectingglobalcapitalismoftenstopsatmeredenunciation,itcaneasilybeextendedtodemandmoreglobalequitythroughappropriateinstitutionalmodifications.“Antiglobalization”critiques,whichfocusontheunequalandunjustdealsthattheunderdogsofthe

worldget,cannotbesensiblyseen(giventhestronguseofglobalethicsinthesecritiques)asbeingreallyantiglobalization.Themotivatingideassuggesttheneedforseekingafairerdealforthedeprivedandthe

miserable,andforamorejustdistributionofopportunitiesinasuitablymodifiedglobalorder.Globaldiscussionoftheurgencyoftheseissuescanbethebasisofaconstructivesearchforthewaysandmeansofreducingglobalinjustice.Thatsearchiscriticallyimportantinitself,andthatmustbethefirst—andmain—thingtosayaboutit.Butitcanalsohaveaverysubstantialroleintakingusawayfromtheconfrontationofsharplydivisiveidentities.Itmakesadifferencehowwechoosetoseeourselves.

CHAPTER 8

MulticulturalismandFreedom

Demandformulticulturalismisstronginthecontemporaryworld.Itismuchinvokedinthemakingofsocial,cultural,andpoliticalpoliciesparticularlyinWesternEuropeandAmerica.Thisisnotatallsurprising,sinceincreasedglobalcontactsandinteractions,andinparticularextensivemigrations,haveplaceddiversepracticesofdifferentculturesnexttoeachother.Thegeneralacceptanceoftheexhortationto“lovethyneighbor”mighthaveemergedwhentheneighborsled,byandlarge,muchthesamekindoflife(“let’scontinuethisconversationnextSundaymorningwhentheorganisttakesabreak”),butthesameentreatytoloveone’sneighborsnowrequirespeopletotakeaninterestintheverydiverselivingmodesofproximatepeople.Theglobalizednatureofthecontemporaryworlddoesnotallowtheluxuryofignoringthedifficultquestionsmulticulturalismraises.Thesubjectofthisbook—ideasofidentitiesandtheirrelationtoviolenceintheworld—isclosely

linkedwiththeunderstandingofthenature,implications,andmerits(ordemerits)ofmulticulturalism.Thereare,Iwouldargue,twobasicallydistinctapproachestomulticulturalism,oneofwhichconcentratesonthepromotionofdiversityasavalueinitself;theotherapproachfocusesonthefreedomofreasoninganddecision-making,andcelebratesculturaldiversitytotheextentthatitisasfreelychosenaspossiblebythepersonsinvolved.Thesethemeshavebrieflybeendiscussedearlierinthisbook(particularlyinchapter6),andtheyfitalsointoabroadapproachtosocialprogressingeneral—“developmentasfreedom”—Ihavetriedtodefendelsewhere.1Buttheissuesdemandacloserexaminationintheparticularcontextofassessingthepracticeofmulticulturalismtoday,particularlyinEuropeandAmerica.Oneofthecentralissuesmustbehowhumanbeingsareseen.Shouldtheybecategorizedintermsof

inheritedtraditions,particularlytheinheritedreligion,ofthecommunityinwhichtheyhappentobeborn,takingthatunchosenidentitytohaveautomaticpriorityoverotheraffiliationsinvolvingpolitics,profession,class,gender,language,literature,socialinvolvements,andmanyotherconnections?Orshouldtheybeunderstoodaspersonswithmanyaffiliationsandassociationstheprioritiesoverwhichtheymustthemselveschoose(takingtheresponsibilitythatcomesfromreasonedchoice)?Also,shouldweassessthefairnessofmulticulturalismprimarilybytheextenttowhichpeoplefromdifferentculturalbackgroundsare“leftalone,”orbytheextenttowhichtheirabilitytomakereasonedchoicesispositivelysupportedthroughsocialopportunitiesofeducationandparticipationincivilsocietyandthepoliticalandeconomicprocessesongoinginthecountry?Thereisnowayofescapingtheseratherfoundationalquestionsifmulticulturalismistobefairlyassessed.Indiscussingthetheoryandpracticeofmulticulturalism,itisusefultopayparticularattentiontothe

Britishexperience.Britainhasbeenintheforefrontofpromotinginclusivemulticulturalism,withamixtureofsuccessesanddifficulties,whichareofrelevancealsotoothercountriesinEuropeandtheUnitedStates.2BritaindidhaveraceriotsinLondonandLiverpoolin1981(thoughnotquiteas

momentousasinFranceinthefallof2005),andtheseledtofurthereffortstowardintegration.Thingshavebeenfairlystableandcalmoverthelastquarterofacentury.TheprocessofintegrationinBritainhasbeengreatlyhelpedbythefactthatallBritishresidentsfromtheCommonwealthcountries,fromwheremostnonwhiteimmigrantshavecometoBritain,havefullvotingrightsinBritainimmediately,evenwithoutBritishcitizenship.Integrationhasalsobeenhelpedbylargelynondiscriminatorytreatmentofimmigrantsinhealthcare,schooling,andsocialsecurity.Despiteallthis,however,Britainhasrecentlyexperiencedthealienationofagroupofimmigrants,andalsofullyhomegrownterrorismwhensomeyoungMuslimsfromimmigrantfamilies—born,educated,andrearedinBritain—killedagreatmanypeopleinLondonthroughsuicidebombings.DiscussionsofBritishpoliciesonmulticulturalismthushaveamuchwiderreach,andarousemuch

greaterinterestandpassion,thantheboundariesoftheostensiblesubjectmatterwouldleadonetoexpect.SixweeksaftertheterroristattacksinLondoninthesummerof2005,whenLeMonde,theleadingFrenchnewspaper,presentedacritiqueunderthetitle“TheBritishMulticulturalModelinCrisis,”thedebatewasimmediatelyjoinedbyaleaderofanotherliberalestablishment,JamesA.Goldston,directoroftheOpenSocietyJusticeInitiativeinAmerica,whodescribedtheLeMondearticleas“trumpeting,”andreplied:“Don’tusetheveryrealthreatofterrorismtojustifyshelvingmorethanaquartercenturyofBritishachievementinthefieldofracerelations.”3Thereisageneralissueofsomeimportancetobedebatedandevaluatedhere.Iwillarguethattherealissueisnotwhether“multiculturalismhasgonetoofar”(asGoldston

summarizesoneofthelinesofcriticism),butwhatparticularformmulticulturalismshouldtake.Ismulticulturalismnothingotherthanthetoleranceofdiversityofcultures?Doesitmakeadifferencewhochoosestheculturalpractices,whethertheyareimposedinthenameof“thecultureofthecommunity”orwhethertheyarefreelychosenbypersonswithadequateopportunitytolearnandreasonaboutalternatives?Whatfacilitiesdomembersofdifferentcommunitieshave,inschoolsaswellasinthesocietyatlarge,tolearnaboutthefaiths—andnon-faiths—ofdifferentpeopleintheworldandtounderstandhowtoreasonaboutchoicesthathumanbeingsmust,ifonlyimplicitly,make?

Britain’sAchievements

Britain,whereIfirstcameasastudentin1953,hasbeenparticularlyimpressiveinmakingroomfordifferentcultures.Thedistancetraveledhasbeen,inmanyways,quiteextraordinary.Irecollect(withsomefondness,Imustadmit)howworriedmyfirstlandladyinCambridgewasaboutthepossibilitythatmyskincolormightcomeoffinthebath(Ihadtoassureherthatmyhuewasagreeablysturdyanddurable),andalsothecarewithwhichsheexplainedtomethatwritingwasaspecialinventionofWesterncivilization(“theBibledidit”).Forsomeonewhohaslived—intermittentlybutforlongperiods—throughthepowerfulevolutionofBritishculturaldiversity,thecontrastbetweenBritaintodayandBritainhalfacenturyagoisjustamazing.Theencouragementgiventoculturaldiversityhascertainlymademanycontributionstothelivesof

people.IthashelpedBritaintobecomeanexceptionallylivelyplaceinmanydifferentways.Fromthejoysofmulticulturalfood,literature,music,dancing,andtheartstothebefuddlingentrapmentoftheNottingHillCarnival,Britaingivesitspeople—ofallthedifferentbackgrounds—muchtorelishandcelebrate.Also,theacceptanceofculturaldiversity(aswellasvotingrightsandlargely

nondiscriminatorypublicservicesandsocialsecurity,referredtoearlier)hasmadeiteasierforpeoplewithverydifferentoriginstofeelathome.Itis,however,worthrecallingthattheacceptanceofdiverselivingmodesandofvaryingcultural

prioritieshasnotalwayshadaneasyrideeveninBritain.Therehasbeenaperiodicbutpersistentdemandthatimmigrantsgiveuptheirtraditionallifestylesandadoptthedominantlivingmodesinthesocietytowhichtheyhaveimmigrated.Thatdemandhassometimestakenaremarkablydetailedviewofculture,involvingquiteminutebehavioralissues,wellillustratedbythefamous“crickettest”proposedbytheredoubtableLordTebbit,thejustlyfamousConservativepoliticalleader.Thetestindicatesthatawell-integratedimmigrantcheersforEnglandintestmatchesagainstthecountryoftheperson’sorigin(suchasPakistan)whenthetwosidesplayeachother.Tosaysomethingpositivefirst,Tebbit’s“crickettest”hastheenviablemeritofdefiniteness,andgives

animmigrantamarvelouslyclear-cutprocedureforestablishinghisorherintegrationintoBritishsociety:“CheerfortheEnglishcricketteamandyouwillbefine!”Theimmigrant’sjobinmakingsurethatheorsheisreallyintegratedintoBritishsocietycouldotherwisebequiteexacting,ifonlybecauseitisnolongereasytoidentifywhatthedominantlifestyleinBritainactuallyis,towhichtheimmigrantmustconform.Forexample,curryisnowsoomnipresentintheBritishdietthatitfeaturesas“authenticBritishfare”accordingtotheBritishTouristBoard.Inthe2005GeneralCertificateofSecondaryEducation(GCSE)examinationstakenbyschoolchildrenwhentheyarearoundsixteen,twoofthequestionsincludedinthe“LeisureandTourism”paperwere:“OtherthanIndianfood,nameoneothertypeoffoodoftenprovidedbytake-awayrestaurants,”and“DescribewhatcustomersneedtodotoreceiveadeliveryservicefromanIndiantake-awayrestaurant.”Reportingonthe2005GCSE,theconservativeDailyTelegraphcomplained,notaboutanyculturalbiasinthesenationwideexams,butaboutthe“easy”natureofthequestions,whichanyoneinBritainshouldbeabletoanswerwithoutanyspecialtraining.4

Ialsorecollectseeing,notlongago,adefinitivedescriptionoftheunquestionableEnglishnessofanEnglishwomaninaLondonpaper:“SheisasEnglishasdaffodilsorchickentikkamasala.”Givenallthis,aSouthAsianimmigranttoBritainmightbeabitconfused,butforTebbit’skindlyhelp,aboutwhatwillcountasasurefiretestofbeingdistinctivelyBritishtowhichtheoutsideentranthastoconform.Theimportantissueunderlyingwhatmaybeseenasthefrivolityoftheforegoingdiscussionisthatculturalcontactsarecurrentlyleadingtosuchahybridizationofbehavioralmodesacrosstheworldthatitisdifficulttoidentifyany“localculture”asbeinggenuinelyindigenous,withatimelessquality.5ButthankstoLordTebbit,thetaskofestablishingBritishnesscanbecomenicelyalgorithmicandwonderfullyeasy(indeedaseasyasansweringtheGCSEquestionsjustcited).LordTebbithasgoneontosuggest,recently,thathadhis“crickettest”beenputtouse,itwouldhave

helpedtopreventtheterroristattacksbyBritish-bornmilitantsofPakistaniorigin:“[H]admycommentsbeenactedon,thoseattackswouldhavebeenlesslikely.”6Itisdifficulttoavoidthethoughtthatthisconfidentpredictionperhapsunderestimatestheeasewithwhichanywould-beterrorist—withorwithouttrainingfromAlQaeda—couldpassthe“crickettest”ofcheeringfortheEnglishcricketteamwithoutchanginghisbehaviorpatternoneiotainanyotherway.Idon’tknowhowmuchintocricketLordTebbithimselfis.Ifyouenjoythegame,cheeringforoneside

ortheotherisdeterminedbyanumberofvaryingfactors,including,ofcourse,one’snationalloyaltyorresidentialidentity,butalsothequalityofplayandtheoverallinterestofamatch—andaseries.Wanting

aparticularoutcomeoftenhasacontingentqualitywhichwouldmakeithardtoinsistonunvaryingandunfailedrootingforanyteam(Englandoranyother).DespitemyIndianoriginandnationality,ImustconfessthatIhavesometimescheeredforthePakistanicricketteam,notonlyagainstEngland,butalsoagainstIndia.DuringthePakistaniteam’stourofIndiain2005,whenPakistanlostthefirsttwoone-daymatchesintheseriesofsix,IcheeredforPakistanforthethirdmatch,tokeeptheseriesaliveandinteresting.Intheevent,PakistanwentwellbeyondmyhopesandwonalloftheremainingfourmatchestodefeatIndiasoundlybythemarginoffourtotwo(anotherinstanceofPakistan’s“extremism”ofwhichIndianscomplainsomuch!).AmoreseriousproblemliesintheobviousfactthatadmonitionsofthekindenshrinedinTebbit’s

crickettestareentirelyirrelevanttothedutiesofBritishcitizenshiporresidence,suchasparticipationinBritishpolitics,joiningBritishsociallife,ordesistingfrommakingbombs.Theyarealsoquitedistantfromanythingthatmaybeneededtoleadafullycohesivelifeinthecountry.ThesepointswerequicklyseizedinpostimperialBritain,anddespitethediversionsofsuchinvitations

asTebbit’scrickettest,theinclusionarynatureofBritishpoliticalandsocialtraditionsmadesurethatvaryingculturalmodeswithinthecountrycouldbeseenasbeingentirelyacceptableinamultiethnicBritain.Thereare,notsurprisingly,manynativeswhocontinuetofeelthatthishistoricaltrendisagreatmistake,andthatdisapprovalisoftencombinedwithsevereresentmentthatBritainhasbecomesuchamultiethniccountryatall(inmylastencounterwitharesenter,atabusstop,Iwassuddenlytold,“Ihaveseenthroughyouall,”butIwasdisappointedthatmyinformantdeclinedtotellmemoreaboutwhathehadfound).ButtheweightofBritishpublicopinionis,oratleasthasbeenuntilrecently,quitestronglyinthedirectionoftolerating—andevencelebrating—culturaldiversity.Allthisandtheinclusionaryroleofvotingrightsandnondiscriminatorypublicservices(discussed

earlier)havecontributedtointerracialcalmofakindthatFranceinparticularhasnotenjoyedrecently.Itdoes,however,stillleavesomeofthecentralissuesofmulticulturalismentirelyunresolved,andIwanttotakethemupnow.

ProblemsofPluralMonoculturalism

Oneimportantissueconcernsthedistinctionbetweenmulticulturalismandwhatmaybecalled“pluralmonoculturalism.”Doestheexistenceofadiversityofcultures,whichmightpasseachotherlikeshipsinthenight,countasasuccessfulcaseofmulticulturalism?SinceBritainiscurrentlytornbetweeninteractionandisolation,thedistinctioniscentrallyimportant(andhasabearingevenonterrorismandviolence).Tocommentonthedistinctioninvolved,letmebeginwithacontrastbynotingthatIndianandBritish

foodcangenuinelyclaimtobemulticultural.IndiahadnochiliuntilthePortuguesebroughtittoIndiafromAmerica,butitiseffectivelyusedinawiderangeofIndianfoodtodayandseemstobeadominantelementinmosttypesofcurries.Itis,forexample,plentifullypresentinamouth-burningforminvindaloo,which,asthenameindicates,carriestheimmigrantmemoryofcombiningwinewithpotatoes.Also,tandooricookingmighthavebeenperfectedinIndia,butitoriginallycametoIndiafromWestAsia.Currypowder,ontheotherhand,isadistinctlyEnglishinvention,unknowninIndiabeforeLordClive,andevolved,Iimagine,intheBritisharmymess.AndwearebeginningtoseetheemergenceofnewstylesofpreparingIndianfood,offeredinsophisticatedsubcontinentalrestaurantsinLondon.

Incontrast,havingtwostylesortraditionscoexistingsidebyside,withoutthetwainmeeting,mustreallybeseenas“pluralmonoculturalism.”Thevocaldefenseofmulticulturalismthatwefrequentlyhearthesedaysisveryoftennothingmorethanapleaforpluralmonoculturalism.IfayounggirlinaconservativeimmigrantfamilywantstogooutonadatewithanEnglishboy,thatwouldcertainlybeamulticulturalinitiative.Incontrast,theattemptbyherguardianstostopherfromdoingthis(acommonenoughoccurrence)ishardlyamulticulturalmove,sinceitseekstokeeptheculturessequestered.Andyetitistheparents’prohibition,whichcontributestopluralmonoculturalism,thatseemstogetmostofthevocalandlouddefensefromallegedmulticulturalists,onthegroundoftheimportanceofhonoringtraditionalcultures,asiftheculturalfreedomoftheyoungwomanwereofnorelevancewhatever,andasifthedistinctculturesmustsomehowremaininsecludedboxes.Beingborninaparticularsocialbackgroundisnotinitselfanexerciseofculturalliberty(aswas

discussedearlier),sinceitisnotanactofchoice.Incontrast,thedecisiontostayfirmlywithinthetraditionalmodewouldbeanexerciseoffreedomifthechoiceismadeafterconsideringotheralternatives.Inthesameway,adecisiontomoveaway—byalittleoralot—fromthereceivedbehaviorpattern,arrivedatafterreflectionandreasoning,wouldalsoqualifyassuchanexercise.Indeed,culturalfreedomcanfrequentlyclashwithculturalconservatism,andifmulticulturalismisdefendedinthenameofculturalfreedom,thenitcanhardlybeseenasdemandingunwaveringandunqualifiedsupportforstayingsteadfastlywithinone’sinheritedculturaltradition.Thesecondquestionrelatestothefact,muchdiscussedinthisbook,thatwhilereligionorethnicity

maybeanimportantidentityforpeople(especiallyiftheyhavethefreedomtochoosebetweencelebratingorrejectinginheritedorattributedtraditions),thereareotheraffiliationsandassociationspeoplealsohavereasontovalue.Unlessitisdefinedveryoddly,multiculturalismcannotoverridetherightofapersontoparticipateincivilsociety,ortotakepartinnationalpolitics,ortoleadasociallynonconformistlife.Andfurthermore,nomatterhowimportantmulticulturalismis,itcannotleadautomaticallytogivingprioritytothedictatesoftraditionalcultureoverallelse.Aswasdiscussedearlier,thepeopleoftheworldcannotbeseenmerelyintermsoftheirreligious

affiliations—asafederationofreligions.Formuchthesamereasons,amultiethnicBritaincanhardlybeseenasacollectionofethniccommunities.However,the“federational”viewhasgainedmuchsupportincontemporaryBritain.Indeed,despitethetyrannicalimplicationsofputtingpersonsintorigidboxesofgiven“communities,”thatviewisfrequentlyinterpreted,ratherbafflingly,asanallyofindividualfreedom.Thereisevenamuch-aired“vision”of“thefutureofmulti-ethnicBritain”thatseesitas“alooserfederationofculturesheldtogetherbycommonbondsofinterestandaffectionandacollectivesenseofbeing.”7

Butmustaperson’srelationtoBritainbemediatedthroughthe“culture”ofthefamilyinwhichheorshehasbeenborn?Apersonmaydecidetoseekclosenesswithmorethanoneofthesepre-definedculturesor,justasplausibly,withnone.Also,apersonmaywelldecidethatherethnicorculturalidentityislessimportanttoherthan,say,herpoliticalconvictions,orherprofessionalcommitments,orherliterarypersuasions.Itisachoiceforhertomake,nomatterwhatherplaceisinthestrangelyimagined“federationofcultures.”Thesearenotabstractconcerns,noraretheyspecificfeaturesofthecomplexityofmodernlife.

ConsiderthecaseofanearlyarrivalofaSouthAsiantotheBritishIsles.CorneliaSorabjicameto

BritainfromIndiainthe1880s,andheridentitiesreflectedthevarietiesofaffiliationsshe,likeothers,had.Shewasvariouslydescribedbyherselfandothersasan“Indian”(shedideventuallyreturntoIndiaandwroteanengagingbookcalledIndiaCalling),asbeingathomeinEnglandaswell(“homedintwocountries,EnglandandIndia”),asaParsee(“IamParseebynationality”),asaChristian(fullofadmirationfor“theearlymartyrsoftheChristianChurch”),asasari-cladwoman(“alwaysperfectlydressedinarichlycolouredsilksari,”astheManchesterGuardiandescribedher),asalawyerandbarrister-at-law(atLincoln’sInn),asafighterforwomen’seducationandforlegalrightsparticularlyforsecludedwomen(shespecializedasalegaladvisertoveiledwomen,“purdahnaschins”),asacommittedsupporteroftheBritishRaj(whoevenaccusedMahatmaGandhi,notparticularlyfairly,forenrolling“babiesasearlyassixandsevenyearsofage”),alwaysnostalgicaboutIndia(“thegreenparoquetsatBudhGaya:thebluewood-smokeinanIndianvillage”),asafirmbelieverintheasymmetrybetweenwomenandmen(shewasproudtobeseenas“amodernwoman”),asateacheratanexclusivelymen’scollege(“ateighteen,inaMaleCollege”),andas“thefirstwoman”everofanybackgroundtogetthedegreeofbachelorofcivillawatOxford(requiring“aspecialdecreefromCongregationtoallowhertosit”).8CorneliaSorabji’schoicesmusthavebeeninfluencedbyhersocialoriginandbackground,butshemadeherowndecisionsandchoseherownpriorities.Therewouldbeseriousproblemswiththemoralandsocialclaimsofmulticulturalismifitweretaken

toinsistthataperson’sidentitymustbedefinedbyhisorhercommunityorreligion,overlookingalltheotheraffiliationsapersonhas(varyingfromlanguage,class,andsocialrelationstopoliticalviewsandcivilroles),andthroughgivingautomaticprioritytoinheritedreligionortraditionoverreflectionandchoice.AndyetthatnarrowapproachtomulticulturalismhasassumedapreeminentroleinsomeoftheofficialBritishpoliciesinrecentyears.Thestatepolicyofactivelypromotingnew“faithschools,”freshlydevisedforMuslim,Hindu,and

Sikhchildren(inadditiontopreexistingChristianones),whichillustratesthisapproach,isnotonlyeducationallyproblematic,itencouragesafragmentaryperceptionofthedemandsoflivinginadesegregatedBritain.Manyofthesenewinstitutionsarecominguppreciselyatatimewhenreligiousprioritizationhasbeenamajorsourceofviolenceintheworld(addingtothehistoryofsuchviolenceinBritainitself,includingCatholic-ProtestantdivisionsinNorthernIreland—notunconnectedthemselveswithsegmentedschooling).PrimeMinisterBlairiscertainlyrighttonotethat“thereisaverystrongsenseofethosandvaluesinthoseschools.”9Buteducationisnotjustaboutgettingchildren,evenveryyoungones,immersedinanold,inheritedethos.Itisalsoabouthelpingchildrentodeveloptheabilitytoreasonaboutnewdecisionsanygrown-uppersonwillhavetotake.Theimportantgoalisnotsomeformulaic“parity”inrelationtooldBritswiththeiroldfaithschoolsbutwhatwouldbestenhancethecapabilityofthechildrentolive“examinedlives”astheygrowupinanintegratedcountry.

ThePriorityofReason

ThecentralissuewasputalongtimeagowithgreatclaritybyAkbar,theIndianemperor,inhisobservationsonreasonandfaithinthe1590s.Akbar,theGreatMughal,wasbornaMuslimanddiedaMuslim,butheinsistedthatfaithcannothavepriorityoverreason,sinceonemustjustify—andifnecessaryreject—one’sinheritedfaiththroughreason.Attackedbytraditionalistswhoarguedinfavorofinstinctivefaith,AkbartoldhisfriendandtrustedlieutenantAbulFazl(aformidablescholarinSanskrit

aswellasArabicandPersian,withmuchexpertiseindifferentreligions,includingHinduismaswellasIslam):

Thepursuitofreasonandrejectionoftraditionalismaresobrilliantlypatentastobeabovetheneedofargument.Iftraditionalism

wereproper,theprophetswouldmerelyhavefollowedtheirownelders(andnotcomewithnewmessages).10

Reasonhadtobesupreme,sinceevenindisputingreason,wewouldhavetogivereasons.ConvincedthathehadtotakeaseriousinterestinthediversereligionsofmulticulturalIndia,Akbar

arrangedforrecurringdialoguesinvolving(aswasdiscussedearlier)notonlypeoplefrommainstreamHinduandMuslimbackgroundsinsixteenth-centuryIndia,butalsoChristians,Jews,Parsees,Jains,andeventhefollowersof“Carvaka”—aschoolofatheisticthinkingthathadrobustlyflourishedinIndiaformorethantwothousandyearsfromaroundthesixthcenturyB.C.11

Ratherthantakingan“allornothing”viewofafaith,Akbarlikedtoreasonaboutparticularcomponentsofeachmultifacetedreligion.Forexample,arguingwithJains,Akbarwouldremainskepticaloftheirrituals,andyetbecameconvincedbytheirargumentforvegetarianismandevenendedupdeploringtheeatingofallfleshingeneral.Despitetheirritationallthiscausedamongthosewhopreferredtobasereligiousbeliefonfaithratherthanreasoning,hestucktowhathecalled“thepathofreason”(rahiaql),andinsistedontheneedforopendialogueandfreechoice.AkbaralsoclaimedthathisownIslamicreligiousbeliefscamefromreasoningandchoice,notfrom“blindfaith,”norfromwhathecalled“themarshylandoftradition.”Thereisalsothefurtherquestion(particularlyrelevanttoBritain)abouthowthenonimmigrant

communitiesshouldseethedemandsofmulticulturaleducation.Shouldittaketheformofleavingeachcommunitytoconductitsownspecialhistoricalcelebrations,withoutrespondingtotheneedforthe“oldBrits”tobemorefullyawareoftheglobalinterrelationsintheoriginsanddevelopmentofworldcivilization(discussedinchapters3through7)?Iftherootsofso-calledWesternscienceorculturedrawinteraliaon,say,Chineseinnovations,IndianandArabicmathematics,orWestAsianpreservationoftheGreco-Romanheritage(with,forexample,ArabictranslationsofforgottenGreekclassicsbeingretranslatedintoLatinmanycenturieslater),shouldtherenotbeafullerreflectionofthatrobustinteractivepastthancanbefound,atthistime,intheschoolcurriculumofmultiethnicBritain?Theprioritiesofmulticulturalismcandifferagreatdealfromthoseofapluralmonoculturalsociety.Ifoneissueconcerningfaithschoolsinvolvestheproblematicnatureofgivingprioritytounreasoned

faithoverreasoning,thereisanothermomentousissuehere,whichconcernstheroleofreligionincategorizingpeople,ratherthanusingotherbasesofclassification.People’sprioritiesandactionsareinfluencedbyalloftheiraffiliationsandassociations,notmerelybyreligion.Forexample,theseparationofBangladeshfromPakistan,aswasdiscussedearlier,wasbasedonreasonsoflanguageandliterature,alongwithpoliticalpriorities,notonreligion,whichbothwingsofundividedPakistanshared.Toignoreeverythingotherthanfaithistoobliteratetherealityofconcernsthathavemovedpeopletoasserttheiridentitiesthatgowellbeyondreligion.TheBangladeshicommunity,largeasitisinBritain,ismergedinthereligiousaccountingintoone

largemassalongwithalltheothercoreligionists,withnofurtheracknowledgmentofcultureandpriorities.WhilethismaypleasetheIslamicpriestsandreligiousleaders,itcertainlyshortchangestheabundantcultureofthatcountryandemaciatestherichlydiverseidentitiesthatBangladeshishave.ItalsochoosestoignorealtogetherthehistoryoftheformationofBangladeshitself.Thereis,asithappens,an

ongoingpoliticalstruggleatthistimewithinBangladeshbetweensecularistsandtheirdetractors(includingreligiousfundamentalists),anditisnotobviouswhyBritishofficialpolicyhastobemoreintunewiththelatterthanwiththeformer.Thepoliticalimportanceoftheissuecanhardlybeexaggerated.Theproblem,itmustbeadmitted,did

notoriginatewithrecentBritishgovernments.Indeed,officialBritishpolicyhasformanyyearsgiventheimpressionthatitisinclinedtoseeBritishcitizensandresidentsoriginatingfromthesubcontinentprimarilyintermsoftheirrespectivecommunities,andnow—aftertherecentaccentuationofreligiosity(includingfundamentalism)intheworld—communityisdefinedprimarilyintermsoffaith,ratherthantakingaccountofmorebroadlydefinedcultures.Theproblemisnotconfinedtoschooling,norofcoursetoMuslims.ThetendencytotakeHinduorSikhreligiousleadersasspokesmenfortheBritishHinduorSikhpopulation,respectively,isalsoapartofthesameprocess.InsteadofencouragingBritishcitizensofdiversebackgroundstointeractwitheachotherincivilsociety,andtoparticipateinBritishpoliticsascitizens,theinvitationistoact“through”their“owncommunity.”Thelimitedhorizonsofthisreductionistthinkingdirectlyaffectsthelivingmodesofthedifferent

communities,withparticularlysevereconstrainingeffectsonthelivesofimmigrantsandtheirfamilies.Butgoingbeyondthat,astheeventsof2005inBritainshow,howcitizensandresidentsseethemselvescanalsoaffectthelivesofothers.Foronething,thevulnerabilitytoinfluencesofsectarianextremismismuchgreaterifoneisrearedandschooledinthesectarian(butnotnecessarilyviolent)mode.TheBritishgovernmentisseekingtostopthepreachingofhatredbyreligiousleaders,whichmustberight,buttheproblemissurelyfarmoreextensivethanthat.Itconcernswhethercitizensofimmigrantbackgroundsshouldseethemselvesasmembersofparticularcommunitiesandspecificreligiousethnicitiesfirst,andonlythroughthatmembershipseethemselvesasBritish,inasupposedfederationofcommunities.Itisnothardtounderstandthatthisuniquelyfractionalviewofanynationwouldmakeitmoreopentothepreachingandcultivationofsectarianviolence.TonyBlairhasgoodreasontowantto“goout”andhavedebatesaboutterrorandpeace“insidethe

Muslimcommunity”andto“getrightintotheentrailsof[that]community.”12Blair’sdedicationtofairnessandjusticeishardtodispute.AndyetthefutureofmultiethnicBritainmustlieinrecognizing,supporting,andhelpingtoadvancethemanydifferentwaysinwhichcitizenswithdistinctpolitics,linguisticheritage,andsocialpriorities(alongwithdifferentethnicitiesandreligions)caninteractwitheachotherintheirdifferentcapacities,includingascitizens.Civilsocietyinparticularhasaveryimportantroletoplayinthelivesofallcitizens.TheparticipationofBritishimmigrants—Muslimsaswellasothers—shouldnotbeprimarilyplaced,asitincreasinglyis,inthebasketof“communityrelations,”andseenasbeingmediatedbyreligiousleaders(including“moderate”priestsand“mild”imams,andotheragreeablespokesmenofreligiouscommunities).Thereisarealneedtorethinktheunderstandingofmulticulturalismbothtoavoidconceptualdisarray

aboutsocialidentityandalsotoresistthepurposefulexploitationofthedivisivenessthatthisconceptualdisarrayallowsandeven,tosomeextent,encourages.Whathastobeparticularlyavoided(iftheforegoinganalysisisright)istheconfusionbetweenmulticulturalismwithculturalliberty,ontheoneside,andpluralmonoculturalismwithfaith-basedseparatismontheother.Anationcanhardlybeseenasacollectionofsequesteredsegments,withcitizensbeingassignedfixedplacesinpredetermined

segments.NorcanBritainbeseen,explicitlyorbyimplication,asanimaginednationalfederationofreligiousethnicities.

Gandhi’sArguments

ThereisanuncannysimilaritybetweentheproblemsBritainfacestodayandthosethatBritishIndiafaced,andwhichMahatmaGandhithoughtweregettingdirectencouragementfromtheRaj.GandhiwascriticalinparticularoftheofficialviewthatIndiawasacollectionofreligiouscommunities.WhenGandhicametoLondonforthe“IndianRoundTableConference”calledbytheBritishgovernmentin1931,hefoundthathewasassignedtoaspecificsectariancornerintherevealinglynamed“FederalStructureCommittee.”GandhiresentedthefactthathewasbeingdepictedprimarilyasaspokesmanforHindus,inparticular“casteHindus,”withtheremaininghalfoftheIndianpopulationbeingrepresentedbydelegates,chosenbytheBritishprimeminister,ofeachofthe“othercommunities.”GandhiinsistedthatwhilehehimselfwasaHindu,thepoliticalmovementheledwasstaunchly

universalistandnotacommunity-basedmovement;ithadsupportersfromallofthedifferentreligiousgroupsinIndia.Whilehesawthatadistinctioncanbemadealongreligiouslines,hepointedtothefactthatotherwaysofdividingthepopulationofIndiawerenolessrelevant.GandhimadeapowerfulpleafortheBritishrulerstoseethepluralityofthediverseidentitiesofIndians.Infact,hesaidhewantedtospeaknotforHindusinparticular,butfor“thedumb,toiling,semi-starvedmillions”whoconstitute“over85percentofthepopulationofIndia.”13Headdedthat,withsomeextraeffort,hecouldspeakevenfortherest,“thePrinces…thelandedgentry,theeducatedclass.”Genderwasanotherbasisforanimportantdistinctionwhich,Gandhipointedout,theBritishcategories

ignored,therebygivingnospecialplacetoconsideringtheproblemsofIndianwomen.HetoldtheBritishprimeminister,“[Y]ouhavehad,onbehalfofthewomen,acompleterepudiationofspecialrepresentation,”andwentontopointoutthat“theyhappentobeonehalfofthepopulationofIndia.”SarojiniNaidu,whocamewithGandhitotheRoundTableConference,wastheonlywomandelegateintheconference.GandhimentionedthefactthatshewaselectedasthepresidentoftheCongressParty,overwhelminglythelargestpoliticalpartyinIndia(thiswasin1925,whichwas,asithappens,fiftyyearsbeforeanywomanwaselectedtopresideoveranymajorBritishpoliticalparty,towit,MargaretThatcherin1975).SarojiniNaiducould,ontheRaj’s“representational”lineofreasoning,speakforhalftheIndianpeople,namelyIndianwomen;AbdulQaiyum,anotherdelegate,pointedalsotothefactthatSarojiniNaidu,whomhecalled“theNightingaleofIndia,”wasalsotheonedistinguishedpoetintheassembledgathering,adifferentkindofidentityfrombeingseenasaHindupolitician.InameetingarrangedattheRoyalInstituteofInternationalAffairsduringthatvisit,Gandhialso

insistedthathewastryingtoresist“thevivisectionofawholenation.”14Gandhiwasnot,ofcourse,ultimatelysuccessfulinhisattemptat“stayingtogether,”thoughitisknownthathewasinfavoroftakingmoretimetonegotiate—topreventthepartitionof1947—thantherestoftheCongressleadershipfoundacceptable.GandhiwouldhavebeenextremelypainedalsobytheviolenceagainstMuslimsthatwasorganizedbysectarianHinduleadersinhisownstateofGujaratin2002.15Hewould,however,havebeenrelievedbythemassivecondemnationthesebarbaritiesreceivedfromtheIndianpopulationatlarge,whichinfluencedtheheavydefeat,intheIndiangeneralelectionsthatfollowed(inMay2004),ofthepartiesimplicatedintheviolenceinGujarat.

Gandhiwouldhavetakensomecomfortinthefact,notunrelatedtohispointinthe1931RoundTableConferenceinLondon,thatIndia,withmorethan80percentHindupopulation,isledtodaybyaSikhprimeminister(ManmohanSingh)andheadedbyaMuslimpresident(AbdulKalam),withitsrulingparty(Congress)beingpresidedoverbyawomanfromaChristianbackground(SoniaGandhi).SuchmixturesofcommunitiescanbeseeninmostwalksofIndianlife,fromliteratureandcinematobusinessandsports,andtheyarenotseenasanythingparticularlyspecial.ItisnotjustthatMuslimsoccupythepositionofbeing,forexample,therichestbusinessman(indeedthewealthiestperson)inIndia(AzimPremji),orhavingcaptainedtheIndiancricketteam(PataudiandAzharuddin),orthefirstseriousinternationalstarinwomen’stennis(SaniaMirza),butalsothatallofthemareseen,inthesecontexts,asIndiansingeneral,notasIndianMuslimsinparticular.DuringtherecentparliamentarydebateonthejudicialreportonthekillingsofSikhsthatoccurred

immediatelyafterIndiraGandhi’sassassinationbyherSikhbodyguard,theIndianprimeminister,ManmohanSingh,toldtheIndianparliament,“IhavenohesitationinapologisingnotonlytotheSikhcommunitybuttothewholeIndiannationbecausewhattookplacein1984isthenegationoftheconceptofnationhoodandwhatisenshrinedinourConstitution.”16ManmohanSingh’smultipleidentitiesareverymuchinprominenceherewhenheapologized,inhisroleasprimeministerofIndiaandaleaderoftheCongressParty(whichwasalsoinofficein1984),totheSikhcommunity,ofwhichheisamember(withhisomnipresentblueturban),andtothewholeIndiannation,ofwhichheis,ofcourse,acitizen.Allthismightbeverypuzzlingifpeopleweretobeseeninthe“solitarist”perspectiveofonlyoneidentityeach,butthemultiplicityofidentitiesandrolesfitsverywellwiththefundamentalpointGandhiwasmakingattheLondonconference.MuchhasbeenwrittenaboutthefactthatIndia,withmoreMuslimpeoplethanalmosteveryMuslim-

majoritycountryintheworld(andwithnearlyasmanyMuslims,morethan145million,asPakistan),hasproducedextremelyfewhomegrownterroristsactinginthenameofIslam,andalmostnonelinkedwithAlQaeda.Therearemanycausalinfluenceshere(including,asthecolumnistandauthorThomasFriedmanhasargued,theinfluenceofthegrowingandintegratedIndianeconomy).17ButsomecreditmustalsogotothenatureofIndiandemocraticpolitics,andtothewideacceptanceinIndiaoftheidea,championedbyMahatmaGandhi,thattherearemanyidentitiesotherthanreligiousethnicitythatarealsorelevantforaperson’sself-understandingandfortherelationsbetweencitizensofdiversebackgroundswithinthecountry.Irecognizethatthereissomethingalittleembarrassingforme,asanIndian,toclaimthat,thankstothe

leadershipofMahatmaGandhiandothers(includingtheclearheadedanalysisof“theideaofIndia”bythegreatestIndianpoet,RabindranathTagore,whodescribedhisfamilybackgroundas“aconfluenceofthreecultures,Hindu,MohammedanandBritish”),Indiahasbeenable,toaconsiderableextent,toavoidindigenousterrorismlinkedtoIslam,whichcurrentlythreatensanumberofWesterncountries,includingBritain.ButGandhiwasexpressingaverygeneralconcern,notspecifictoIndia,whenheasked,“Imaginethewholenationvivisectedandtorntopieces;howcoulditbemadeintoanation?”ThatquerywasmotivatedbyGandhi’sdeepworriesaboutthefutureofIndia.Theproblem,however,

isnotspecifictoIndiaandcanariseforothernationstoo,includingthecountrythatruledIndiauntil1947.Thedisastrousconsequencesofdefiningpeoplebytheirreligiousethnicityandgivingpredeterminedprioritytothecommunity-basedperspectiveoverallotheridentities,whichGandhi

thoughtwasreceivingsupportfromIndia’sBritishrulers,maywellhavecome,alas,tohauntthecountryoftherulersthemselves.IntheRoundTableConferencein1931,Gandhididnotgethisway,andevenhisdissentingopinions

wereonlybrieflyrecorded,withnomentionofwherethedissentcamefrom.InagentlecomplaintaddressedtotheBritishprimeminister,Gandhisaidatthemeeting,“[I]nmostofthesereportsyouwillfindthatthereisadissentingopinion,andinmostofthecasesthatdissentunfortunatelyhappenstobelongtome.”Gandhi’sfarsightedrefusaltoseeanationasafederationofreligionsandcommunitiesdidnot,however,“belong”onlytohim.ItbelongsalsotoaworldthatiswillingtoseetheseriousproblemtowhichGandhiwasdrawingattention.ItcanbelongtodaytoBritaintoo.AtleastIhopeso.

CHAPTER 9

FreedomtoThink

MyfirstexposuretomurderoccurredwhenIwaseleven.Thiswasin1944,inthecommunalriotsthatcharacterizedthelastyearsoftheBritishRaj,whichendedin1947.Isawaprofuselybleedingunknownpersonsuddenlystumblingthroughthegatetoourgarden,askingforhelpandalittlewater.Ishoutedformyparents,whilefetchingsomewaterforhim.Myfatherrushedhimtothehospital,buthediedthereofhisinjuries.HisnamewasKaderMia.TheHindu-Muslimriotsthatprecededindependencealsoledthewaytothepartitionofthecountryinto

IndiaandPakistan.Thecarnageeruptedwithdramaticsuddenness,anditdidnotsparenormallypeacefulBengal.KaderMiawaskilledinDhaka,thenthesecondcity—afterCalcutta—ofundividedBengal,whichwouldbecome,afterthepartition,thecapitalofEastPakistan.MyfathertaughtatDhakaUniversity,andwelivedinanareacalledWariinoldDhaka,notfarfromtheuniversity,inwhathappenedtobealargelyHinduarea.KaderMiawasaMuslim,andnootheridentitywasrelevantfortheviciousHinduthugswhohadpouncedonhim.Inthatdayofrioting,hundredsofMuslimsandHinduswerekilledbyeachother,andthiswouldcontinuetohappendayafterday.Thesuddencarnageseemedtocomefromnowhere,butitwasofcoursecarefullyorchestratedby

sectarianprompting,linkedindifferentwaystotheferventpoliticaldemandsforthepartitionofthecountry.Themurderousriotswouldnotlastlong;theywouldsoonevaporatefrombothsidesofpostpartitionBengal.ThevehemenceofHindu-Muslimviolencewouldrapidlydissipate,givingwaytootherviewsofoneselfandothers,bringingintoprominenceotherfeaturesofhumanidentity.Indeed,mycityofDhakawould,withinafewyears,burstintoBengalipatriotism,withanintensecelebrationofBengalilanguage,literature,music,andculture—commontoboththeMuslimsandtheHindusofBengal.TheresurgenceofanintenseprideintherichnessofasharedBengaliculturehadimportanceonitsown,sinceithadbeeneclipsedsoseverelyduringthebewilderingfuryofHindu-Muslimviolence.Butithadstrongpoliticalcorrelatesaswell,linkedparticularlywiththeresentmentinEastPakistan(thatis,theBengalihalfofPakistan)ofthesevereinequalityofpoliticalpower,linguisticstatus,andeconomicopportunitiesbetweenthetwohalvesoftheimperfectlyintegratedIslamicstate.ThealienationofBengaliswithinPakistanwouldeventuallylead,byDecember1971,tothepartition

ofPakistan,andtheformationofthenewstateofsecularanddemocraticBangladesh,withDhakaasitsnewcapital.InthecarnagethatoccurredinDhakainMarch1971,duringthepainfulprocessofseparation,withthePakistaniarmy’sfrenziedattempttosuppresstheBengalirebellion,theidentitydivisionswerealongthelinesoflanguageandpolitics,notreligion,withMuslimsoldiersfromWestPakistanbrutalizing—andkilling—mainlyMuslimdissenters(orsuspecteddissenters)inEastPakistan.Fromthenthenewlyformed“MuktiBahini”(“freedombrigade”)foughtforoutrightindependenceofBangladeshfromPakistan.Theidentitydivisionthatfedthe“struggleforliberation”wasfirmlylinkedtolanguageandculture(and,ofcourse,topolitics),ratherthantoanyreligiousdifference.

OversixtyyearsafterKaderMia’sdeath,asItrytorecollectthedeadlyHindu-Muslimriotsinthe1940s,itishardtoconvincemyselfthatthoseterriblethingsdidactuallyhappen.ButeventhoughthecommunalriotsinBengalwereentirelytransitoryandephemeral(andthefewcasesinwhichriotshavebeenfosteredlateroninotherpartsofIndiadonotcompareinsizeandreachwiththeeventsofthe1940s),theyleftintheirwakethousandsuponthousandsofdeadHindusandMuslims.Thepoliticalinstigatorswhourgedthekilling(onbehalfofwhattheyrespectivelycalled“ourpeople”)managedtopersuademanyotherwisepeaceablepeopleofbothcommunitiestoturnintodedicatedthugs.TheyweremadetothinkofthemselvesonlyasHindusoronlyasMuslims(whomustunleashvengeanceon“theothercommunity”)andasabsolutelynothingelse:notIndians,notsubcontinentals,notAsians,notmembersofasharedhumanrace.Eventhoughthevastmajorityofbothcommunitiesdidnotthinkinthosenarrowlyfrenziedterms,too

manyweresuddenlytrappedintothatviciousmodeofthinking,andthemoresavageamongthem—oftenatthetroubledendsofeachcommunity—wereinducedtokill“theenemieswhokillus”(astheywererespectivelydefined).Many-sidedpersonswereseen,throughthehazylensesofsectariansingularity,ashavingexactlyoneidentityeach,linkedwithreligionor,moreexactly,religiousethnicity(sincebeinganonpractitionerofone’sinheritedreligionwouldnotgiveapersonanyimmunitywhateverfrombeingattacked).KaderMia,aMuslimdaylaborer,wasknifedwhenhewasonhiswaytoaneighboringhouse,for

workatatinywage.Hewasknifedonthestreetbysomepeoplewhodidnotevenknowhimandmostlikelyhadneverseteyesonhimbefore.Foraneleven-year-oldchild,theevent,asidefrombeingaveritablenightmare,wasprofoundlyperplexing.Whyshouldsomeonesuddenlybekilled?Andwhybypeoplewhodidnotevenknowthevictim,whocouldnothavedoneanyharmtothekillers?ThatKaderMiawouldbeseenashavingonlyoneidentity—thatofbeingamemberofthe“enemy”communitywho“should”beassaultedandifpossiblekilled—seemedaltogetherincredible.Forabewilderedchild,theviolenceofidentitywasextraordinarilyhardtograsp.Itisnotparticularlyeasyevenforastillbewilderedelderlyadult.Whilehewasbeingrushedtothehospitalinourcar,KaderMiatoldmyfatherthathiswifehadasked

himnottogointoahostileareaduringthecommunalriot.Buthehadtogooutinsearchofwork,foralittleincome,becausehisfamilyhadnothingtoeat.Thepenaltyofthatnecessity,causedbyeconomicdeprivation,turnedouttobedeath.Theterribleconnectionbetweeneconomicpovertyandcomprehensiveunfreedom(eventhelackoffreedomtolive)wasaprofoundlyshockingrealizationthathitmyyoungmindwithoverpoweringforce.KaderMiadiedasavictimizedMuslim,buthealsodiedasapoor,unemployedlaborerlooking

desperatelyforabitofworkandasmallamountofmoneyforhisfamilytosurviveinverydifficulttimes.Thepoorestmembersofanycommunityaretheeasiesttokillintheseriots,sincetheyhavetogooututterlyunprotectedinsearchofdailysubsistenceandtheirricketyshelterscaneasilybepenetratedandravagedbygangs.IntheHindu-Muslimriots,HinduthugskilledpoorMuslimunderdogswithease,whileMuslimthugsassassinatedimpoverishedHinduvictimswithabandon.Eventhoughthecommunityidentitiesofthetwogroupsofbrutalizedpreywerequitedifferent,theirclassidentities(aspoorlaborerswithlittleeconomicmeans)weremuchthesame.Butnoidentityotherthanreligiousethnicitywasallowedtocountinthosedaysofpolarizedvisionfocusedonasingularcategorization.Theillusionofa

uniquelyconfrontationalrealityhadthoroughlyreducedhumanbeingsandeclipsedtheprotagonists’freedomtothink.

TheCultivationofViolence

Sectarianviolenceacrosstheworldisnolesscrude,norlessreductionist,todaythanitwassixtyyearsago.Underlyingthecoarsebrutality,thereisalsoabigconceptualconfusionaboutpeople’sidentities,whichturnsmultidimensionalhumanbeingsintoone-dimensionalcreatures.ApersonbeingrecruitedtojointheHutukillingmobin1994wasbeingasked,ifonlyimplicitly,nottoseehimselfasaRwandan,orasanAfrican,orasahumanbeing(identitiesthetargetedTutsisshared),butonlyasaHutuwhowasdutyboundto“givetheTutsistheirdue.”APakistanifriendofmine,ShaharyarKhan,ahighlyrespectedseniordiplomatwhowassentbythesecretary-generaloftheUnitedNationstoRwandafollowingtheslaughter,toldmelater,“YouandIhaveseenthebeastlinessoftheriotsinthesubcontinentinthe1940s,butnothinghadpreparedmeforthecolossalmagnitudeofthekillingthathadoccurredinRwandaandforthecomprehensivenessoftheorganizedgenocidethere.”1ThebutcheryinRwanda,andtherelatedviolencebetweenHutusandTutsisinneighboringBurundi,tookmanymorethanamillionliveswithinaspanofaveryfewdays.Hatingpeopleisnoteasy.OgdenNash’spoem(“APleaforLessMaliceTowardNone”)gotthisjust

right:

Anykiddieinschoolcanlovelikeafool,Buthating,myboy,isanart.

Ifweneverthelessseeagreatdealofhatredandviolentconflictbetweendifferentgroupsofpeople,thequestionthatimmediatelyarisesis:“Howdoesthis‘art’work?”Theillusionofsingularidentity,whichservestheviolentpurposeofthoseorchestratingsuch

confrontations,isskillfullycultivatedandfomentedbythecommandersofpersecutionandcarnage.Itisnotremarkablethatgeneratingtheillusionofuniqueidentity,exploitableforthepurposeofconfrontation,wouldappealtothosewhoareinthebusinessoffomentingviolence,andthereisnomysteryinthefactthatsuchreductionismissought.Butthereisabigquestionaboutwhythecultivationofsingularityissosuccessful,giventheextraordinarynaïvetéofthatthesisinaworldofobviouslypluralaffiliations.Toseeapersonexclusivelyintermsofonlyoneofhisorhermanyidentitiesis,ofcourse,adeeplycrudeintellectualmove(asIhavetriedtoargueinearlierchapters),andyet,judgingfromitseffectiveness,thecultivateddelusionofsingularityisevidentlyeasyenoughtochampionandpromote.Theadvocacyofauniqueidentityforaviolentpurposetakestheformofseparatingoutoneidentitygroup—directlylinkedtotheviolentpurposeathand—forspecialfocus,anditproceedsfromtheretoeclipsetherelevanceofotherassociationsandaffiliationsthroughselectiveemphasisandincitement(“Howcouldyoupossiblytalkabouttheseotherthingswhenourpeoplearebeingkilledandourwomenraped?”).Themartialartoffosteringviolencedrawsonsomebasicinstinctsandusesthemtocrowdoutthe

freedomtothinkandthepossibilityofcomposedreasoning.Butitalsodraws,wehavetorecognize,onakindoflogic—afragmentarylogic.Thespecificidentitythatisseparatedoutforspecialactionis,inmostcases,agenuineidentityofthepersontoberecruited:aHutuisindeedaHutu,a“Tamiltiger”isclearlyaTamil,aSerbisnotanAlbanian,andagentileGermanwithamindpoisenedbyNazi

philosophyiscertainlyagentileGerman.Whatisdonetoturnthatsenseofself-understandingintoamurderousinstrumentis(1)toignoretherelevanceofallotheraffiliationsandassociations,and(2)toredefinethedemandsofthe“sole”identityinaparticularlybelligerentform.Thisiswherethenastinessaswellastheconceptualconfusionsaremadetocreepin.

TheLowEdgeofHighTheory

Eventhoughaskingpeopletoconfinetheirthoughtstoonlyoneidentityeachmayseemtobeapeculiarlycrudeinvitation,itisworthrecollectingthatforcingpeopleintoboxesofsingularidentityisafeaturealsoofmanyofthehightheoriesofculturesandcivilizationsthatare,infact,quiteinfluentialrightnow(asIhavealsodiscussedinearlierchapters).Thesetheoriesdonot,ofcourse,advocateorcondoneviolence—indeedfarfromit.However,theytrytounderstandhumanbeingsnotaspersonswithdiverseidentitiesbutpredominantlyasmembersofoneparticularsocialgroup—orcommunity.Groupmembershipscan,ofcourse,beimportant(noserioustheoryofpersonsorindividualscanignorethosesocialrelationships),butthediminutionofhumanbeingsinvolvedintakingnoteonlyofonemembershipcategoryforeachperson(neglectingallothers)expungesatonestrokethefar-reachingrelevanceofourmanifoldaffinitiesandinvolvements.Forexample,civilizationalclassifiershaveoftenpigeonholedIndiaasa“Hinducivilization”—a

descriptionthat,amongotherthings,payslittleattention(aswasdiscussedearlier)toIndia’smorethan145millionMuslims(nottomentionIndianSikhs,Jains,Christians,Parsees,andothers),andalsoignorestheextensiveinterconnectionsamongthepeopleofthecountrythatdonotworkthroughreligionatall,butthroughinvolvementsinpolitical,social,economic,commercial,artistic,musical,orotherculturalactivities.Inalessstraightforwardway,thepowerfulschoolofcommunitarianthinkingalsohallowsexactlyoneidentityperhumanbeing,basedoncommunitymembership,andineffectdownplaysallotheraffiliationsthatmakehumanbeingsthecomplexandintricatesocialcreaturesthatweare.Itis,inthiscontext,interestingtorecollectthatcommunitarianthinkingbegan,atleastpartly,asa

constructiveapproachtoidentity,bytryingtoappreciateapersoninhisorher“socialcontext.”2Butwhatbeganasanentirelyestimabletheoreticalattemptatseeinghumanbeingsmore“fully”—andmore“socially”—haslargelyendedupwithahighlyrestrictedunderstandingofapersonmainlyasamemberofexactlyonegroup.That,alas,isnotenoughofa“socialcontext,”sinceeachpersonhasmanydifferentassociationsandattachments,therespectiveimportanceofwhichvarieswidelydependingonthecontext.Despitetheimmensityofthevisionimplicitinthelaudabletaskof“situatingapersoninthesociety”(whichhasrepeatedlybeeninvokedinsocialtheories),thetranslationofthatvisionintoactualapplicationhasoftentakentheformofneglectingtherelevanceoftheperson’spluralsocialrelations,seriouslyunderestimatingtherichnessofthemultiplefeaturesofher“socialsituation.”Theunderlyingvisionseeshumanityinadrasticallyreducedform.

PenaltiesofSolitaristIllusion

Thesolitaristbelittlingofhumanidentityhasfar-reachingconsequences.Anillusionthatcanbeinvokedforthepurposeofdividingpeopleintouniquelyhardenedcategoriescanbeexploitedinsupportoffomentingintergroupstrife.Hightheorieswithsolitaristfeatureslikecivilizationalpartitioningor

communitarianconfinementarenot,ofcourse,aimedinanywayatsowingconfrontation—infactquitethecontrary.When,forexample,atheoryof“theclashofcivilizations”ispresentedandpromoted,theobjectiveistoidentifywhatisperceivedasapreexistingreality(Ihavearguedthatthisisdoneinamistakenway,butthatisadifferentissuefrommotivationandimpetus),andthetheoristsseethemselvesas“discovering”aconfrontation,notcreating—oraddingto—one.Andyettheoriescaninfluencesocialthought,politicalaction,andpublicpolicies.Theartificial

diminutionofhumanbeingsintosingularidentitiescanhavedivisiveeffects,makingtheworldpotentiallymuchmoreincendiary.Forexample,thereductionistcharacterizationofIndiaasa“Hinducivilization,”referredtoearlier,hasdrawnmuchapplausefromsectarianactivistsoftheso-calledHindutvamovement.Indeed,anyconceptualcategorizationthatcouldbeseenassupportingtheirminiaturizedviewofIndiatends,naturally,tobeinvokedbythatactivistmovement.TheextremistwingofthatmovementevenplayedacriticallyimportantpartinthefosteredviolenceinGujaratin2002,inwhichmostofthevictims,ultimately,wereMuslims.Theoriesaresometimestakenmoreseriouslyinpracticalencountersthanthetheoriststhemselvesanticipate.Andwhenthesetheoriesarenotonlyconceptuallymuddledbutalsoreadilyusableforaccentuatingsectarianexclusion,theycanbewarmlywelcomedbytheleadersofsocialconfrontationandviolence.Similarly,theoriesofIslamicexclusiveness,combinedwithignoringtherelevanceofalltheother

identitiesMuslimshave(inadditiontotheirreligiousaffiliations),canbeutilizedtoprovidetheconceptualbasisforaviolentversionofjihad(apliabletermthatcanbeinvokedforfierceincitementaswellasforpeacefulendeavor).TheuseofthisroutetofosteredviolencecanbeseenplentifullyintherecenthistoryofwhatismisleadinglycalledIslamicterrorism.ThehistoricalrichnessofdifferentidentitiesofMuslims,forexample,asscholars,scientists,mathematicians,philosophers,historians,architects,painters,musicians,orwriters,whichhavecontributedsomuchtothepastachievementsofMuslimpeople(andtotheglobalheritageoftheworld,discussedinchapters3through6),canbeoverwhelmed—withalittlehelpfromtheory—bythesingle-mindedadvocacyofabelligerentlyreligiousidentity,withdevastatingeffects.Aswasdiscussedearlier,thereisnoreasonwhythediscontentedMuslimactiviststodayhaveto

concentrateonlyonthereligiousachievementsofIslam,andnotalsoonthegreataccomplishmentsofMuslimsinmanydifferentfields,indecidingwhattheycandotochangethecontemporaryworld,whichtheyassociatewithsystematichumiliationandinequality.Andyetthereductionismprovidedbyasolitaristunderstandingofpeople,intermsexclusivelyofabelligerentlyreligiousidentity,canbedisastrouslydeployedbypromotersofviolentjihadtoclosealltheotheravenuesMuslimscaneasilytake,inlinewiththeirextensivehistoricaltraditions.Similarly,ontheotherside,inresistingandfightingterrorismofthiskind,thereisgoodreasonto

invoketherichnessofthemanyidentitiesofhumanbeings,notjusttheirreligiousidentity(ontheexploitationofwhichterroristrecruitmentofthiskindrelies).But,aswasdiscussedearlier,theintellectualcomponentoftheresistancehastendedtoremainconfinedeithertodenouncingthereligionsinvolved(thebashingofIslamhasbeenmuchusedinthiscontext)ortotryingtodefine(orredefine)thereligionstoplacethemonthe“right”sideofthedivide(invoking,forexample,touseTonyBlair’sappealingwords,“themoderateandtruevoiceofIslam”).WhileIslamicmilitantshavegoodreasontodenyalltheidentitiesofMuslimsotherthanthatofIslamicfaith,itisnotatallclearwhythosewhowant

toresistthatmilitancyalsohavetorelysomuchontheinterpretationandexegesisofIslam,ratherthandrawingonthemanyotheridentitiesthatMuslimsalsohave.SometimesthesingularityisevennarrowerthanwhatthegeneralcategoryofbeingIslamicwould

allow.ThedistinctionbetweenShiasandSunnis,forexample,hasbeenpowerfullyutilizedforthepurposeofsectarianviolencebetweenthesetwoMuslimgroups.FromPakistantoIraq,thatconflictaddsanotherdimensiontotheviolenceofidentity,definedinevenmoreconstrictedterms.Indeed,asIfinishwritingthisbook,itisstillunclearhowmuchsupportthenewIraqiconstitutionwillgetfromSunnileaders,alongwithleadersofShiasandKurds,andwhatcouldpossiblyhappeninthefuture.TheintegrityofIraqis,ofcourse,hamperedbymanyhistoricalfactors,includingthearbitrarinessof

itsboundariesdeterminedbyWesterncolonialistsandtheinescapabledivisivenesscausedbyanarbitraryandill-informedmilitaryintervention.But,inaddition,thesect-basedpoliticalapproachoftheoccupationleaders(notaltogetherdifferentfromtheBritishofficialapproachtocolonialIndiaaboutwhichGandhicomplainedsomuch)hasaddedmuchfueltoapreexistingfire.TheviewofIraqasasumtotalofcommunities,withindividualsbeingseensimplyasShiaorSunnior

Kurd,hastendedtodominatetheWesternreportingofIraqinews,butitalsoreflectsthewaythepoliticsofpost-SaddamIraqhasdeveloped.Sa’Doonal-Zubaydi(amemberoftheIraqiconstitutionalcommittee)maytellJamesNaughtieoftheBBC,“MayIaskyoutodescribemeasanIraqi,notasaSunni?”3ButthecombinationofsectarianpoliticsinIraqandamuddledmilitaristundertakingofwhatisgoingontheremakesitdifficulttoexpectthatthecommunalproblemsthatIraqandBaghdadfacetodaycangivewaytoanythingbroaderandmorenationalinthatthoroughlytroubledcountry.SincetheU.S.-ledpoliticalinitiativehastendedtoseeIraqasacollectivityofreligiouscommunities,

ratherthanoneofcitizens,thenegotiationshavealmostallbeenfocusedonthedecisionsandutterancesofleadersofreligiouscommunities.Thiswascertainlytheeasywaytoproceed,giventhetensionsthatalreadyexistedinthecountryandofcoursethenewonestheoccupationitselfhadcreated.Buttheeasiestrouteintheshortrunisnotalwaysthebestwaytobuildthefutureofacountry,especiallywhenthereissomethingextraordinarilyimportantatstake,inparticulartheneedforanationtobeaconglomerationofcitizens,ratherthanacollectivityofreligiousethnicities.Theproblemwasdiscussedearlier,particularlyinthelastchapter,inthecontextofaverydifferent

country,viz.Britain,whichhasanaltogetherdissimilarhistoryandbackground.Andyetthebasicdifficultyinseeingacountryasafederationofcommunities,towhichindividualsbelongbeforetheybelongtothenation,ispresentinbothcases.Gandhireferredtothefosteringandprioritizationofsuchcommunity-baseduniqueidentificationasthe“vivisection”ofanation,andtherearegoodreasonsforpoliticalconcernaboutsuchsectionalization.ItisalsocriticallyimportanttotakenoteofthepluralityofIraqiidentities,includinggenderandclassaswellasreligion.OnerecollectsGandhi’sremindertotheBritishprimeminister,runningtheRajin1931,thatwomen“happentobeonehalfofthepopulationofIndia”—alineofthinkingofsomerelevancetocontemporaryIraqaswell.TheneedtotakenoteofthesebroaderconcernsinIraqremainsasstrongtodayastheyeverwere.

TheRoleofGlobalVoices

Thesolitaristillusionhasimplicationsalsoforthewayglobalidentitiesareseenandinvoked.Ifapersoncanhaveonlyoneidentity,thenthechoicebetweenthenationalandtheglobalbecomesan“allor

nothing”contest.Andsodoesthecontestbetweenanyglobalsenseofbelongingwemayhaveandthelocalloyaltiesthatmayalsomoveus.Buttoseetheprobleminthesestarkandexclusivetermsreflectsaprofoundmisunderstandingofthenatureofhumanidentity,inparticularitsinescapableplurality.Recognizingtheneedtoconsidertheclaimsofaglobalidentitydoesnoteliminatethepossibilityofpayingmuchattentionalsotolocalandnationalproblems.Theroleofreasoningandchoiceinthedeterminationofprioritiesneednottakethateither-orform.Ihavetriedtoidentifyearlieranumberofeconomic,social,andpoliticalproblemsthathaveglobal

dimensions,andthepolicyissuesthatrelatetothem,whichhavetobeurgentlyaddressed.Thereis,inparticular,astrongcaseforinstitutionalreformsthatwouldfacilitatethekindofchangethatwouldbeneededtomakeglobalizationafairerarrangement.Theadversitiesfacedbythevulnerableandtheinsecurehavetobeaddressedondifferentfronts.Therangeofnecessaryactionsvariesfromnationalpolicies(forexample,theurgencyofexpandingthereachofeducationandpublichealthcare)tointernationalinitiativesandinstitutionalreforms(related,forexample,toglobalarrangementsforcurbingthearmstrade,expandingtheaccessofpoorercountriestothemarketsoftherichereconomies,makingpatentlawsandincentivesystemsmorefriendlytothedevelopmentandusabilityofmedicineneededbythepooroftheworld,andsoon).Thesechangeswouldbeofimportanceontheirown,but,aswasdiscussedinchapter7,theycanalsocontributetogreaterhumansecurityandrestraineasyrecruitmentforterrorismandtraining.Theycancontribute,furthermore,tochangingtheclimateoftoleranceofviolence,whichisitselfafactorinallowingterrorismtobenurturedinsocietieswithdeepgrievances.Thereisalsoanissueofintellectualfairnessindealingwithglobalhistory,whichisimportantbothfor

afullerunderstandingofthepastofhumanity(nomeantask,that)andforovercomingthefalsesenseofcomprehensivesuperiorityoftheWestthatcontributestoidentityconfrontationinanentirelygratuitousway.Forexample,whiletherehasbeensomediscussionrecently—andrightlyso—abouttheneedforpeopleofimmigrantbackgroundsinEuropeorAmericatolearnmoreaboutWesterncivilization,thereisstillextraordinarilylittlerecognitionoftheimportancethatshouldbeattachedtotheneedforthe“oldBrits,”“oldGermans,”“oldAmericans,”andotherstolearnabouttheintellectualhistoryoftheworld.Notonlywerethereremarkableachievementsindifferentfields,fromscience,mathematics,and

engineeringtophilosophyandliterature,inthehistoryofdifferentpartsoftheworld,butthefoundationsofmanyofthefeaturesofwhatarenowcalled“Westerncivilization”and“Westernscience”weredeeplyinfluencedbycontributionscomingfromdifferentcountriesacrosstheglobe(aswasdiscussedinchapters3through7).Culturalorcivilizationaltheoriesthatignoretheroleof“other”societiesnotonlyrestricttheintellectualhorizonsof“oldEuropeans”or“oldAmericans,”leavingtheireducationpeculiarlyfragmentary,butalsogivetheanti-Westernmovementsaspurioussenseofseparationandconflictthathelpstodividepeoplealongalargelyartificiallineof“West–anti-West”confrontation.

APossibleWorld

Thepointisoftenmade,withevidentjustice,thatitisimpossibletohave,intheforeseeablefuture,ademocraticglobalstate.Thisisindeedso,andyetifdemocracyisseen(asIhavearguedearlierthatitshouldbe)intermsofpublicreasoning,particularlytheneedforworldwidediscussiononglobalproblems,weneednotputthepossibilityofglobaldemocracyinindefinitecoldstorage.Itisnotan“allornothing”choice,andthereisastrongcaseforadvancingwidespreadpublicdiscussion,evenwhen

therewouldremainmanyinescapablelimitationsandweaknessesinthereachoftheprocess.Manyinstitutionscanbeinvokedinthisexerciseofglobalidentity,includingofcoursetheUnitedNations,butthereisalsothepossibilityofcommittedwork,whichhasalreadybegun,bycitizens’organizations,manynongovernmentinstitutions,andindependentpartsofthenewsmedia.Thereisalsoanimportantrolefortheinitiativestakenbyagreatmanyconcernedindividualswhoare

movedtodemandthatmoreattentionbepaidtoglobaljustice(inlinewithDavidHume’sexpectation,citedearlier,that“theboundariesofjusticestillgrowlarger”).WashingtonandLondonmaybeirritatedbythewidelydispersedcriticismofthecoalitionstrategyinIraq,justasChicagoorParisorTokyomaybeappalledbythespectacularvilificationofglobalbusinessinpartsoftheso-calledantiglobalizationprotests.Thepointsthattheprotestersmakearenotinvariablycorrect,butmanyofthemdoask,asIhavetriedtoillustrate,veryrelevantquestionsandthuscontributeconstructivelytopublicreasoning.Thisispartofthewayglobaldemocracyisalreadybeinginitiated,withoutwaitingforsomegiganticglobalstatetoemergeinafullyinstitutionalizedform.Thereisacompellingneedinthecontemporaryworldtoaskquestionsnotonlyabouttheeconomics

andpoliticsofglobalization,butalsoaboutthevalues,ethics,andsenseofbelongingthatshapeourconceptionoftheglobalworld.Inanonsolitaristunderstandingofhumanidentity,involvementwithsuchissuesneednotdemandthatournationalallegiancesandlocalloyaltiesbealtogetherreplacedbyaglobalsenseofbelonging,tobereflectedintheworkingofacolossal“worldstate.”Infact,globalidentitycanbegintoreceiveitsduewithouteliminatingourotherloyalties.Inaverydifferentcontext,dealingwithhisintegratedunderstandingoftheCaribbean(despiteits

immensevarietiesofraces,cultures,preoccupations,andhistoricalbackgrounds),DerekWalcottwrote:

Ihaveneverfoundthatmomentwhenthemindwashalvedbyahorizon—forthegoldsmithfromBenares,thestonecutterfromCanton,asafishlinesinks,thehorizonsinksinthememory.4

Inresistingtheminiaturizationofhumanbeings,withwhichthisbookhasbeenconcerned,wecanalsoopenupthepossibilityofaworldthatcanovercomethememoryofitstroubledpastandsubduetheinsecuritiesofitsdifficultpresent.Asaneleven-year-oldboyIcouldnotdomuchforKaderMiaashelaybleedingwithhisheadonmylap.ButIimagineanotheruniverse,notbeyondourreach,inwhichheandIcanjointlyaffirmourmanycommonidentities(evenasthewarringsingularistshowlatthegate).Wehavetomakesure,aboveall,thatourmindisnothalvedbyahorizon.

Notes

CHAPTER1.

THEVIOLENCEOFILLUSION

1.LangstonHughes,TheBigSea:AnAutobiography(NewYork:Thunder’sMouthPress,1940,1986),pp.3–10.

2.SeeRobertD.Putnam,BowlingAlone:TheCollapseandtheRevivaloftheAmericanCommunity(NewYork:Simon&Schuster,2000).

3.Thereisconsiderableempiricalevidencethatethnocentrismneednotnecessarilygowithxenophobia(see,forexample,ElizabethCashdan,“EthnocentrismandXenophobia:ACross-culturalStudy,”CurrentAnthropology42(2001).Andyetinmanyprominentcasesethnic,religious,racial,orotherselectiveloyaltieshavebeenusedinanexaggeratedformtoleadtoviolenceagainstothergroups.Vulnerabilityto“solitarist”instigationisthecentralissuehere.

4.Jean-PaulSartre,PortraitoftheAnti-Semite,trans.ErikdeMauny(London:Secker&Warburg,1968),p.57.

5.TheMerchantofVenice,actIII,scenei,line63.6.SeeAlanRyan,J.S.Mill(London:Routledge,1974),p.125.Millnotedthathisviewsofwomansuffragewereseenas“whimsofmyown”(JohnStuartMill,Autobiography[1874;reprint,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1971],p.169).

7.SamuelP.Huntington,TheClashofCivilizationsandtheRemakingoftheWorldOrder(NewYork:Simon&Schuster,1996).

8.QuotedintheInternationalHeraldTribune,August27,2004,p.6.9.Thisissueisdiscussedinchapters4and8.

CHAPTER2.

MAKINGSENSEOFIDENTITY

1.V.S.Naipaul,ATurnintheSouth(London:Penguin,1989),p.33.2.SeealsoLeonWieseltier,AgainstIdentity(NewYork:Drenttel,1996).3.SeemyOnEthicsandEconomics(Oxford:Blackwell,1987).4.Ihavetriedtodiscusstheintellectuallimitationsofthispeculiarlyimaginedfigureinpartsofmainstreameconomicsin“RationalFools:ACritiqueoftheBehavioralFoundationsofEconomicTheory,”PhilosophyandPublicAffairs6(1977),reprintedinChoice,WelfareandMeasurement

(Oxford:Blackwell,1982;Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1997),andalsoinJaneJ.Mansbridge,ed.,BeyondSelf-Interest(Chicago:ChicagoUniversityPress,1990).

5.SeeGeorgeAkerlof,AnEconomicTheorist’sBookofTales(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1984);ShiraLewin,“EconomicsandPsychology:LessonsforOurOwnDayfromtheEarly20thCentury,”JournalofEconomicLiterature34(1996);ChristineJolls,CassSunstein,andRichardThaler,“ABehavioralApproachtoLawandEconomics,”StanfordLawReview50(1998);MatthewRabin,“APerspectiveonPsychologyandEconomics,”EuropeanEconomicReview46(2002);AmartyaSen,RationalityandFreedom(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,2002),essays1–5;RolandBenabouandJeanTirole,“IntrinsicandExtrinsicMotivation,”ReviewofEconomicStudies70(2003).

6.See,amongothercontributions,GeorgeAkerlofandRachelKranton,“EconomicsandIdentity,”QuarterlyJournalofEconomics63(2000);JohnB.Davis,TheTheoryoftheIndividualinEconomics:IdentityandValue(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2003);AlanKirmanandMiriamTeschl,“OntheEmergenceofEconomicIdentity,”RevuedePhilosophieÉconomique9(2004);GeorgeAkerlofandRachelKranton,“IdentityandtheEconomicsofOrganizations,”JournalofEconomicPerspectives19(2005).

7.SeeJörgenWeibull,EvolutionaryGameTheory(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress,1995);JeanTirole,“RationalIrrationality:SomeEconomicsofSelf-management,”EuropeanEconomicReview46(2002).

8.KarlMarx,CritiqueoftheGothaProgramme,1875;EnglishtranslationinK.MarxandF.Engels(NewYork:InternationalPublishers,1938),p.9.

9.PierreBourdieu,SociologyinQuestion,trans.RichardNice(London:Sage,1993),pp.160–61.10.E.M.Forster,TwoCheersforDemocracy(London:E.Arnold,1951).11.Ontherelationshipbetweentheselfandthecommunity,seetheilluminatinganalysesofCharlesTaylor,SourcesoftheSelfandtheMakingoftheModernIdentity(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1984),andPhilosophicalArguments(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1995).SeealsoWillKymlicka’sinsightfulassessmentoftheseandrelatedissuesinContemporaryPoliticalPhilosophy:AnIntroduction(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1990).

12.Forcommunitariancritiquesofliberaltheoriesofjustice,seeparticularlyMichaelSandel,LiberalismandtheLimitsofJustice(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1982;2nded.,1998);MichaelWalzer,SpheresofJustice(NewYork:BasicBooks,1983);CharlesTaylor,“Cross-Purposes:TheLiberal-CommunitarianDebate,”inNancyL.Rosenblum,ed.,LiberalismandtheMoralLife(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1989).SeealsoJohnRawls’sresponsetocriticismsofhistheoryofjusticebySandelandothersinhis“JusticeasFairness:PoliticalNotMetaphysical,”PhilosophyandPublicAffairs14(1985),andPoliticalLiberalism(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1993),towhichSandelrespondsinthe1998editionofLiberalismandtheLimitsofJustice.UsefulcommentariesonthesevigorousdebatescanbefoundinWillKymlicka,ContemporaryPoliticalPhilosophy:AnIntroduction,chapter6;MichaelWalzer,“TheCommunitarianCritiqueofLiberalism,”PoliticalTheory18(1990);StephenMulhallandAdamSwift,LiberalsandCommunitarians(Oxford:Blackwell,1992,1996).Myskepticismofthecommunitarian

critiqueoftheoriesofjusticeispresentedinReasonBeforeIdentity(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1999).

13.Onthisandrelatedmatters,seeFrédériqueApffelMarglinandStephenA.Marglin,eds.,DominatingKnowledge(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1993).

14.TheroleofdissentandargumentinIndiantraditionsisdiscussedinmybookTheArgumentativeIndian(London:AllenLane;andNewYork:Farrar,Straus&Giroux,2005).

15.Sandel,LiberalismandtheLimitsofJustice,pp.150–51.16.Theethicsofidentityiscentraltoindividualbehaviorpreciselybecauseoftheinescapablechoicesaboutprioritiesoverourmanyaffiliations;onthis,seeKwameAnthonyAppiah’sbeautifulanalysisinTheEthicsofIdentity(Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,2005).SeealsoAminMaalouf,IntheNameofIdentity:ViolenceandtheNeedtoBelong(NewYork:ArcadePublishing,2001)

CHAPTER3.

CIVILIZATIONALCONFINEMENT

1.SamuelP.Huntington,TheClashofCivilizationsandtheRemakingoftheWorldOrder(NewYork:Simon&Schuster,1996).

2.SomeoftheissuesdiscussedherearemorefullyinvestigatedinmybookTheArgumentativeIndian(London:AllenLane;NewYork:Farrar,Straus&Giroux,2005).

3.IdiscussIndia’smultireligiousandmulticulturalhistoryinTheArgumentativeIndian.4.Huntington,TheClashofCivilizationsandtheRemakingoftheWorldOrder,p.71.5.OswaldSpengler,TheDeclineoftheWest,ed.ArthurHelps(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1991),pp.178–79.

6.SeeNihongi:ChroniclesofJapanfromtheEarliestTimestoA.D.697,trans.byW.G.Aston(Tokyo:Tuttle,1972),pp.128–33.

7.SeeNakamuraHajime,“BasicFeaturesoftheLegal,Political,andEconomicThoughtofJapan,”inCharlesA.Moore,ed.,TheJapaneseMind:EssentialsofJapanesePhilosophyandCulture(Tokyo:Tuttle,1973),p.144.

8.Alexanderresponded,welearnfromFlaviusArrian,tothisegalitarianreproachwiththesamekindofadmirationhehadshowninhisencounterwithDiogenes,eventhoughhisownconductremainedaltogetherunchanged(“theexactoppositeofwhathethenprofessedtoadmire”).SeePeterGreen,AlexanderofMacedon,356–323B.C.:AHistoricalBiography(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1992),p.428.

9.AlexisdeTocqueville,DemocracyinAmerica,trans.GeorgeLawrence(Chicago:EncyclopaediaBritannica,1990),p.1.

10.NelsonMandela,LongWalktoFreedom(Boston:Little,Brown,1994),p.21.11.ThesignificanceofprintingforpublicreasoningisdiscussedinmybookTheArgumentativeIndian,pp.82–83,182–84.

CHAPTER4.

RELIGIOUSAFFILIATIONSANDMUSLIMHISTORY

1.CorpusofEarlyArabicSourcesforWestAfricanHistory,trans.J.F.P.Hopkins,editedandannotatedbyN.LevtzionandJ.F.P.Hopkins(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1981),p.285.SeealsoIbnBattuta:TravelsinAsiaandAfrica1325–1354,trans.H.A.R.Gibbs(London:Routledge,1929),p.321.

2.CorpusofEarlyArabicSourcesforWestAfricanHistory,p.286;“Shariah”hasbeensubstitutedhereforHopkins’sabbreviatedform“Shar’.”

3.SeePushpaPrasad,“AkbarandtheJains,”inIrfanHabib,ed.,AkbarandHisIndia(DelhiandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1997),pp.97–98.

4.ThefatheroftheMarathaking,RajaSambhaji,whomtheyoungAkbarhadjoined,wasnoneotherthanShivaji,whomthepresent-dayHindupoliticalactiviststreatasasuperhero,andafterwhomtheintolerantHindupartyShivSenaisnamed(thoughShivajihimselfwasquitetolerant,astheMughalhistorianKhafiKhan,whowasnoadmirerofShivajiinotherrespects,reported).

5.SeeIqtidarAlamKhan,“Akbar’sPersonalityTraitsandWorldOutlook:ACriticalReappraisal,”inHabib,ed.,AkbarandHisIndia,p.78.

6.MaríaRosaMenocal,TheOrnamentoftheWorld:HowMuslims,Jews,andChristiansCreatedaCultureofToleranceinMedievalSpain(NewYork:Little,Brown,2002),p.86.

7.Ibid.,p.85.8.SeeHarryEyres,“CivilizationIsaTreewithManyRoots,”FinancialTimes,July23,2005.AsJanReedhasnoted,“Moorishirrigationworks,latermuchextended,remainthebasisforagricultureintheparchedanddriedregionsofSpainandPortugal”(TheMoorsinSpainandPortugal[London:Faber&Faber,1974],p.235).

9.ReportedbyMichaelVatikiotis,“IslamizingIndonesia,”InternationalHeraldTribune,September3–4,2005,p.5.SeealsoVatikiotis’s“TheStruggleforIslam,”FarEasternEconomicReview,December11,2003,andM.Syafi’iAnwar,“PluralismandMulticulturalisminSoutheastAsia:FormulatingEducationalAgendasandPrograms,”ICIPJournal2(January2005).

10.ThereisalsotherelatedissueofhowIslamshouldbeinterpretedinsocialandpoliticalcontexts,includingtheneedforabreadthofinterpretation,onwhichseeAyeshaJalal,SelfandSovereignty:IndividualandCommunityinSouthAsianIslamSince1850(London:Routledge,2000).SeealsoGillesKepel,TheWarforMuslimMinds:IslamandtheWest(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,2004).

11.ThegrowingconsolidationofavigorousandlargelyindependentmediainPakistan,dependentonthecommitmentsofcourageousandfarsightedjournalists,isasignificantpositivedevelopmentforpeaceandjusticeinPakistanthatdeservesmuchgreaterrecognitionthanittendstogetoutsidethecountry.ThetraditionofreachandfearlessnessestablishedbysuchperiodicalsastheFridayTimes(pioneeredbythecourageousandvisionaryNajamSethi)andtheHerald,andbydailiessuchasTheDawn,TheNation,theDailyTimes,andtheNews,givereasonforconsiderablehopeforthefutureofthecountry.ThiswouldhavepleasedFaizAhmedFaiz,thegreatpoetanddistinguishedearlyeditorofthePakistanTimes,whoworkedhardforthedevelopmentofanindependentPakistanimediabeforeitwasblastedtobitsbymilitaryruleandpoliticalextremism.Hehadtofaceincarceration,asdidNajamSethilater.

12.HusainHaqqani,“TerrorismStillThrivesinPakistan,”InternationalHeraldTribune,July20,2005,p.8.SeealsohisinsightfulandinformativebookPakistan:BetweenMosqueandMilitary(Washington,D.C.:CarnegieEndowmentforInternationalPeace,2005).AlsoAhmedRashid,Taliban:TheStoryoftheAfghanWarlords(London:Pan,2001),andTaliban:Islam,OilandtheNewGreatGameinCentralAsia(London:Tauris,2002).

13.SeetheHumanDevelopmentReportspublishedannuallybytheUnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme,aprojectthatwasinitiated,andformanyyearsled,byMahbubulHaq.AfterMahbubulHaq’suntimelydeath,thislargelysecularworkhasbeencarriedoutinPakistanbyaninstitutefoundedbyhim(whichisnowablyledbyhiswidow,KhadijaHaq).

14.JudeaPearl,“IslamStrugglestoStakeOutItsPosition,”InternationalHeraldTribune,July20,2005.15.ItisparticularlyrelevantheretotakenoteoftheinsightfuldistinctionMahmoodMamdanihaspresentedwithmuchclarity:“Myaimistoquestionthewidelyheldpresumption…thatextremistreligioustendenciescanbeequatedwithpoliticalterrorism.Terrorismisnotanecessaryeffectofreligioustendencies,whetherfundamentalistorsecular.Rather,terrorismisbornofpoliticalencounter”(GoodMuslim,BadMuslim:America,theColdWar,andtheRootsofTerror[NewYork:Doubleday,2004],pp.61–62).

16.ThisisnottodenythatthedomainofIslamictenetscanbedefinedinsomewhatdifferentways;see,forexample,M.Syafi’iAnwar’sdistinctionbetweenthe“legal-exclusiveapproach”andthe“substantive-inclusiveapproach”inhispaper“TheFutureofIslam,Democracy,andAuthoritarianismintheMuslimWorld,”ICIPJournal2(March2005).Butnoneofthevariantscanmakereligionaperson’sall-encompassingidentity.

CHAPTER5.

WESTANDANTI-WEST

1.AlbertTevoedjre,WinningtheWarAgainstHumiliation(NewYork:UNDP,2002),ReportoftheIndependentCommissiononAfricaandtheChallengesoftheThirdMillennium.ThisistheEnglishtranslationofareportoriginallypublishedinFrench:Vaincrel’humiliation(Paris,2002).

2.WilliamDalrymple’sengrossingnovelaboutloveacrossracialbarriersineighteenth-centuryIndia,WhiteMughals(London:Flamingo,2002),whenaboutathirdoftheBritishmeninIndiawerelivingwithIndianwomen,wouldbehardtoreplicateinthecenturythatfollowed,underincreasinglyhardenedimperialrelations.

3.JamesMill,TheHistoryofBritishIndia(London,1817;republished,Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1975),p.247.

4.QuotedinJohnClive’sintroductiontoMill,TheHistoryofBritishIndia,p.viii.5.Mill,TheHistoryofBritishIndia,pp.225–26.6.WilliamJonesisoftentakenasaquintessential“Orientalist,”whichinanobvioussensehewas.However,anyproposaltofindanoverarchingcommonalityofattitudessharedbyallOrientalists—fromWilliamJonestoJamesMill—wouldbehardtosustain.Onthis,seechapter7(“IndianTraditionsandWesternImagination”)ofmybookTheArgumentativeIndian(London:AllenLane;NewYork:Farrar,Straus&Giroux,2005).

7.MillfoundinJones’sbeliefsaboutearlyIndianmathematicsandastronomy“evidenceofthefondcredulitywithwhichthestateofsocietyamongtheHinduswasforatimeregarded,”andhewasparticularlyamusedthatJoneshadmadetheseattributions“withanairofbelief”(TheHistoryofBritishIndia,pp.223–24).Onthesubstantiveside,Millamalgamatesthedistinctclaimsregarding(1)theprincipleofgravitationalattraction,(2)thedailyrotationoftheearth,and(3)themovementoftheeartharoundthesun.Aryabhata’sandBrahmagupta’sconcernsweremainlywiththefirsttwo,onwhichspecificassertionsweremade,unlikeonthethird.

8.Mill,TheHistoryofBritishIndia,pp.223–24.9.Ibid.,p.248.10.TheArgumentativeIndian,chapters6,7,and16.11.ParthaChatterjee,TheNationandItsFragments(Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,1993),p.6.

12.Ontheseandrelatedissues,seealsoTheArgumentativeIndian,chapters1–4and6–8.13.AkeelBilgrami,“WhatIsaMuslim?,”inAnthonyAppiahandHenryLouisGates,eds.,Identities(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1995).

14.MamphelaRamphele,SteeringbytheStars:BeingYounginSouthAfrica(CapeTown:Tafelberg,2002),p.15.

15.“CultureIsDestiny:AConversationwithLeeKuanYew,”byFareedZakaria,ForeignAffairs73(March–April1994),p.113.

16.QuotedintheInternationalHeraldTribune,June13,1995,p.4.SeealsoLee’sinsightfulautobiography,FromThirdWorldtoFirst:TheSingaporeStory,1965–2000)(NewYork:HarperCollins,2000).

17.W.S.Wong,“TheRealWorldofHumanRights,”speechmadebytheforeignministerofSingaporeattheSecondWorldCongressonHumanRights,Vienna,1993.

18.QuotedinJohnF.Cooper,“Peking’sPost-TienanmenForeignPolicy:TheHumanRightsFactor,”IssuesandStudies30(October1994),p.69;seealsoJackDonnelly,“HumanRightsandAsianValues:ADefenceof‘Western’Universalism,”inJoanneBauerandDanielA.Bell,eds.,TheEastAsianChallengeforHumanRights(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1999).

19.IhavediscussedtheevidenceinHumanRightsandAsianValues:SixteenthMorgenthauMemorialLectureonEthicsandForeignPolicy(NewYork:CarnegieCouncilonEthicsandInternationalAffairs,1997),republishedinanabridgedforminTheNewRepublic,July14and21,1997.SeealsomybookDevelopmentasFreedom(NewYork:Knopf;Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1999)andalso“TheReachofReason:EastandWest,”NewYorkReviewofBooks,July20,2000,reprintedinTheArgumentativeIndian(2005).

20.DevelopmentasFreedom,andalso,jointlywithJeanDrèze,HungerandPublicAction(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1989).

21.CalculatedfromdatapresentedbytheStockholmPeaceResearchInstitute,http://www.sipri.org.22.KwameAnthonyAppiah,InMyFather’sHouse:AfricainthePhilosophyofCulture(London:Methuen,1992),p.xii.

23.MeyerFortesandEdwardE.Evans-Pritchard,AfricanPoliticalSystems(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1940),p.12.

24.Appiah,InMyFather’sHouse:AfricainthePhilosophyofCulture,p.xi.25.Evenwhentherearespecificpoliticalmovementswithlocalconcerns,suchasthedemandsofPalestiniansfortheirownterritoryandsovereignty,therearefundamentalistpoliticalreadingsofthemwhichseethoselocalconfrontationsasfittingintoageneraloppositiontoWesterndominance,nomatterhowdifferentsuchinterpretationsmaybefromthewaymostlocalpeople(inthiscasePalestinians)seethenatureofwhatisinvolvedinthespecificregionaldispute.

CHAPTER6.

CULTUREANDCAPTIVITY

1.Ihavetriedtohaveagoatthatissuein“HowDoesCultureMatter?,”inVijayendraRaoandMichaelWalton,eds.,CultureandPublicAction(Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress,2004).

2.SeeJoelMokyr’sbalancedassessmentofthisdifficultissueinWhyIrelandStarved:AQuantitativeandAnalyticalHistoryoftheIrishEconomy,1800–1850(London:Allen&Unwin,1983),pp.291–92.SeealsoMokyr’sconclusionthat“IrelandwasconsideredbyBritainasanalienandevenhostilenation”(p.291).

3.SeeCecilWoodham-Smith,TheGreatHunger:Ireland,1845–9(London:HamishHamilton,1962),p.76.

4.SeeAndrewRoberts,EminentChurchillians(London:Weidenfeld&Nicolson,1994),p.213.5.LawrenceE.HarrisonandSamuelP.Huntington,eds.,CultureMatters:HowValuesShapeHumanProgress(NewYork:BasicBooks,2000),p.xiii.

6.Onthis,seeNoelE.McGinn,DonaldR.Snodgrass,YungBongKim,Shin-BokKim,andQuee-YoungKim,EducationandDevelopmentinKorea(Cambridge,Mass.:CouncilonEastAsianStudies,HarvardUniversity,1980).

7.WilliamK.Cummings,EducationandEqualityinJapan(Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,1980),p.17.

8.SeeHerbertPassin,SocietyandEducationinJapan(NewYork:TeachersCollegePress,ColumbiaUniversity,1965),pp.209–11;alsoCummings,EducationandEqualityinJapan,p.17.

9.QuotedinShumpeiKumonandHenryRosovsky,ThePoliticalEconomyofJapan,vol.3,CulturalandSocialDynamics(Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress,1992),p.330.

10.SeeCarolGluck,Japan’sModernMyths:IdeologyintheLateMeijiPeriod(Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,1985).

11.Theinclusionofculturalfreedominthelistofconcernsof“humandevelopment”intheUnitedNations’HumanDevelopmentReport2004(NewYork:UNDP,2004)isasubstantialenrichmentofthecoverageofhumandevelopmentanalysis.

12.See“OtherPeople,”publishedintheProceedingsoftheBritishAcademy2002,andalsoas“OtherPeople—BeyondIdentity,”TheNewRepublic,December18,2000.

CHAPTER7.

GLOBALIZATIONANDVOICE

1.TheAdvancementofLearning(1605;reprintedinB.H.G.Wormald,FrancisBacon:History,PoliticsandScience,1561–1626[Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1993]),pp.356–57.

2.Idiscussedthisissueinmycommencementaddress(“GlobalDoubts”)atHarvardUniversityonJune8,2000,publishedinHarvardMagazine102(August2000).

3.T.B.Macaulay,“IndianEducation:Minuteofthe2ndFebruary,1835,”reproducedinG.M.Young,ed.,Macaulay:ProseandPoetry(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1952),p.722.

4.HowardEves,AnIntroductiontotheHistoryofMathematics,6thed.(NewYork:SaundersCollegePublishingHouse,1990),p.237.SeealsoRameshGangolli,“AsianContributionstoMathematics,”PortlandPublicSchoolsGeoculturalBaselineEssaySeries,1999.

5.ItmustbeacknowledgedthatBritain,undertheleadershipofTonyBlairandGordonBrown,hasplayedanimportantpartinmakingtheG8countriesmoveinthatdirection.PopularmovementsledbysuchcolorfulbutsympatheticpublicfiguresasBobGeldorfhavealsoplayedanimportantpartingeneratingsupportforsuchinitiatives(despitetheacademicskepticismthatoftengreetstheseresonantmovements).

6.SeeJeffreySachs,TheEndofPoverty:HowWeCanMakeItHappeninOurLifetime(London:PenguinBooks,2005).

7.Myessay“GenderandCooperativeConflict,”inIreneTinker,ed.,PersistentInequalities(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1990),discussestherelevanceandreachofthecombinationofcooperationandconflict.

8.SeeJ.F.Nash,“TheBargainingProblem,”Econometrica18(1950);SylviaNasar,ABeautifulMind(NewYork:Simon&Schuster,1999).

9.Infact,thepioneeringtheoristsofthemarketeconomy,fromAdamSmith,LeonWalras,andFrancisEdgeworthtoJohnHicks,OscarLange,PaulSamuelson,andKennethArrow,havetriedtomakeclearthatthemarketoutcomesaredeeplycontingentonresourcedistributionandotherdeterminants,andthey—fromAdamSmithonward—haveproposedwaysandmeansofmakingthearrangementsmorefairandjust.

10.SeePaulA.Samuelson,“ThePureTheoryofPublicExpenditure,”ReviewofEconomicsandStatistics35(1954);KennethArrow“UncertaintyandtheWelfareEconomicsofMedicalCare,”AmericanEconomicReview53(1963);GeorgeAkerlof,AnEconomicTheorist’sBookofTales(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1984);JosephStiglitz,“InformationandEconomicAnalysis:APerspective,”EconomicJournal95(1985).

11.Onthis,seeGeorgeSoros,OpenSociety:ReformingGlobalCapitalism(NewYork:PublicAffairs,2000).

12.See,amongothercontributions,JosephStiglitz,GlobalizationandItsDiscontents(London:Penguin,2003),andSachs,TheEndofPoverty:HowWeCanMakeItHappeninOurLifetime.

13.Theratiowas84.31percentforthe1990sasawhole,accordingthefindingsoftheStockholmInternationalPeaceResearchInstitute,andthemorerecentfiguresindicateaconsolidation,ratherthananyreversal,ofthispicture.Theissuewasdiscussedmorefullyinchapter6.OftheG8countries,onlyone(Japan)doesnotexportany.

14.TheVaccineBoardandtheGlobalAllianceforVaccinesandImmunizationhavedonemuchtomakevaccineswidelyavailableinthepoorercountries.AgoodexampleofaninnovativeproposaltoincreasetheincentivesforthedevelopmentofsuchdrugsisthepossibilityofofferingpreguaranteedbulkpurchasethroughglobalNGOsandotherinternationalinstitutionsthatcanbeofferedasalureformedicalresearch;seeMichaelKremerandRachelGlennerster,StrongMedicine:CreatingIncentivesforPharmaceuticalResearchonNeglectedDiseases(Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,2004).

15.Thegeneralproblemof“globalfrontlinesofmodernmedicine”isilluminatinglyaddressedbyRichardHorton,HealthWars(NewYork:NewYorkReviewofBooks,2003).SeealsoPaulFarmer,PathologiesofPower:Health,HumanRights,andtheNewWaronthePoor(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2003),andMichaelMarmot,SocialDeterminantsofHealth:TheSolidFacts(Copenhagen:WorldHealthOrganization,2003).

16.Theroleofpublicservicesintheequitableoperationofmarketprocessesisdiscussed,withmanyillustrations,inmyjointbookwithJeanDrèze,India:DevelopmentandParticipation(DelhiandOxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2002).

17.Onthis,seemy“SharingtheWorld,”TheLittleMagazine(Delhi)5(2004).18.DavidHume,AnEnquiryConcerningthePrinciplesofMorals(firstpublishedin1777;republished,LaSalle,Ill.:OpenCourt,1966),p.25.

CHAPTER8.

MULTICULTURALISMANDFREEDOM

1.DevelopmentasFreedom(NewYork:Knopf;Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1999).2.OnsharedU.S.-Europeanproblems,seealsoTimothyGartonAsh,FreeWorld:WhyaCrisisoftheWestRevealstheOpportunityofOurTime(London:AllenLane,2004).

3.JamesA.Goldston,“MulticulturalismIsNottheCulprit,”InternationalHeraldTribune,August30,2005,p.6.Foradifferentperspective,seealsoGillesKepel,TheWarforMuslimMinds:IslamandtheWest(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,2004),particularlychapter7(“BattleforEurope”).

4.“Dumbed-DownGCSEsArea‘Scam’toImproveLeagueTables,ClaimCritics,”byJulieHenry,DailyTelegraph,August28,2005,p.1.

5.Onthefar-reachingrelevanceofhybridizationinthecontemporaryworld,seeHomiBhabha,TheLocationofCulture(NewYork:Routledge,1994).

6.AgenceFrance-Pressereport,August18,2005.7.Thedescriptionherecomesfromthedistinguishedchairofthe“CommissionontheFutureofMulti-ethnicBritain,”LordParekh,in“ABritainWeAllBelongTo,”Guardian,October11,2000.Therehavebeenmanyotherexpressionsofasimilarkind,oftendemandinga“federal”systeminamuchcruderform.However,BhikhuParekhhimselfhasinsightfullypresentedothervisionsofmulticulturalisminhisownwritings;seeparticularlyRe-thinkingMulti-culturalism:CulturalDiversityandPoliticalTheory(Basingstoke:Palgrave,2000).

8.SeeCorneliaSorabji,IndiaCalling(London:Nisbet,1934),andVeraBrittain,TheWomenatOxford(London:Harrap,1960).

9.FromthetextofapressconferencebyPrimeMinisterBlaironJuly26,2005.TonyBlairshowsastrongdesireforculturalfairnessintreatingthenewlyestablishedIslamicschoolsinthesamewayastheolderChristianschools.Thatissuetoowasdiscussedinchapter6.

10.SeeM.AtharAli,“ThePerceptionofIndiainAkbarandAbu’lFazl,”inIrfanHabib,ed.,AkbarandHisIndia(Delhi:OxfordUniversityPress,1997),p.220.

11.Onthetraditionofreasoningaboutalternativeschoolsofreligiousthought(includingagnosticismandatheism),seemybookTheArgumentativeIndian(London:AllenLane;NewYork:Farrar,Straus&Giroux,2005).

12.FromapressconferenceonJuly26,2005.13.IndianRoundTableConference(SecondSession)7thSeptember,1931–1stDecember,1931:Proceedings(London:HerMajesty’sStationeryOffice,1932);seealsoC.RajagopalachariandJ.C.Kumarappa,eds.,TheNation’sVoice(Ahmedabad:MohanlalMaganlalBhatta,1932).

14.M.K.Gandhi,“TheFutureofIndia,”InternationalAffairs10(November1931),p.739.15.AsidefromthebarbaritiesinvolvedinthatterribleepisodeinGujaratin2002,theideologicalissuesbroughtoutbythatlargelyengineeredviolence(includingtheattemptedrejectionofGandhiji’sintegrativeideas)areilluminatinglydiscussedbyRafiqZakariainCommunalRageinSecularIndia(Mumbai:PopularPrakashan,2002).

16.IndianExpress,August13,2005.17.ThomasFriedman,TheWorldIsFlat(NewYork:Farrar,Straus&Giroux,2005).India’srecordinKashmirinparticularis,however,farlesssatisfactory.Kashmiripoliticshassufferedbothfromtheinvasionofterrorismfromabroadandfromrebellionathome.

CHAPTER9.

FREEDOMTOTHINK

1.Seealsohismoving—anddepressinglyilluminating—book:ShaharyarM.Khan,TheShallowGravesofRwanda,withaforewordbyMaryRobinson(NewYork:I.B.Tauris,2000).

2.SeeWillKymlicka,ContemporaryPoliticalPhilosophy:AnIntroduction(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1990).

3.See“TheRealNewsfromIraq,”SundayTelegraph,August28,2005,p.24.4.DerekWalcott,“Names,”inCollectedPoems:1948–1984(NewYork:Farrar,Straus&Giroux,1986).

THEBEGINNING

Lettheconversationbegin…

FollowthePenguinTwitter.com@penguinukbooks

Keepup-to-datewithallourstoriesYouTube.com/penguinbooks

Pin‘PenguinBooks’toyourPinterest

Like‘PenguinBooks’onFacebook.com/penguinbooks

ListentoPenguinatSoundCloud.com/penguin-books

FindoutmoreabouttheauthoranddiscovermorestorieslikethisatPenguin.co.uk

PENGUINBOOKSUK|Canada|Ireland|AustraliaNewZealand|India|SouthAfrica

PenguinBooksispartofthePenguinRandomHousegroupofcompanieswhoseaddressescanbefoundatglobal.penguinrandomhouse.com.

FirstpublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyW.W.Norton&Co.,Ltd2006FirstpublishedinGreatBritainbyAllenLane2006PublishedinPenguinBooks2007

Copyright©AmartyaSen,2006

Themoralrightoftheauthorhasbeenasserted

CoverDesign:EstuaryEnglish

Allrightsreserved

ISBN:978-0-141-91175-5