Class video today made me miss West Africa. In honor of that and thinking peaceful thoughts going in to Thanksgiving, I'm limiting this post to photos and a virtual hat tip to Ghana. As I once saw painted on the side of a building in Ghana - "count your blessing!" (Singular being accidental, I know, but something I admire - each and every one should be counted and appreciated, right?)

USIP case studies, Nigeria, and cynicism

Thought 2 as the class turns towards peacemaking:

The USIP publication under discussion was an interesting one and of course I appreciated the optimism, but admittedly, the cynic (/realist) in me was thrown by the sentimentalism so prevalent in the case studies provided - often involving radial turn-arounds, tears, and hugging. All well and good, very happy to see some progress, and enjoying the personal focus but it often came hand in hand with simplification and romanticizing the reality of the case.

Take Nigeria, for instance, a case I naturally turn to as it is my own case study at the moment (and, on a more personal level, having spent some time in West Africa and studied sub-Saharan African politics). In neither of the USIP chapters on work in Nigeria did they make a point of mentioning tribal or ethnic ties, regional divisions, or colonialism. ...And as I'm sure they know full well, one cannot have a proper discussion of religious conflict in Nigeria without at least referencing the names Hausa, Ibo, and Yoruba - particularly the first two, given past civil war, a secession attempt, and military coups.

Of course, the USIP publication wasn't meant to provide a history of the conflict (and same to the clip watched in class), but it strikes me that completely failing to mention these other very large and very serious factors was too distracting an omission for me to take seriously an already sentimental overview. I don't expect that every case study or discussion cover ever detail (impossible), but I'd hope that it would at least recognize the complexities.


*Side note on the USIP: have to admit, I was entertained when I first learned that they were relocating to a very snazzy, prominent new building just down the road from DOS headquarters. I attended a USIP event back in April 2010 and had a hell of a time finding the place, which didn't even occupy the entire building in which it was then housed. Can't decide how much I can applaud the symbolism of the relocation when I'm so entertained by the irony of it all. heh

State intervention in religious conflict

Ok. I've been meaning to blog for quite some time here - and here, actually, though neither has happened - so that will likely manifest itself in a few brief posts in a short period of time... ideally.

Thought 1, then:

As we've turned to hopes of peacemaking and different potential methodologies and approaches, both Juergensmeyer and Sellengut list state actions as a viable solution. Sellengut particularly, as noted in class, considers the state use of political/military/police/legal authority to intervene or contain violence, prosecute instigators and/or violent actors, etc, as seen in the case of India and violence containment. [Speaking of, the recent NYT article regarding the prosecution of those implicated in the 2002 Muslim deaths in Gujurat, as mentioned in class, can be found here.]

In any case, my initial responding thought was inspired by a meeting of courses, actually, in that I'd just been explaining Max Weber's definition of the state in an English class, of all places. That is, for a state to be a state, it is essential that it has the monopoly on violence (and is thereby capable of controlling it's own territory) - something that can be taken into consideration when looking at Somalia, uncontrolled areas of Pakistan, etc. The point, however, is this: while of course state response to religious violence is only one part of a resolution, it is a vital one, particularly when we consider what the role of the state is meant to be. (Also debatable, but this one's pretty basic. Citizen safety is more agreed upon than, say, health care. heh) More recent readings have, of course, considered this as tracks 1 and 2 of diplomacy, intertwining both governmental and non-governmental actions, secular and religious, etc.

Potential follow-up thought on that: how do we apply this to religious violence taking place within one nation-state (say, India) versus international issues (say, al-Qaeda)?

The individual and the "banality of evil"

(First, the necessary apology for slacking off of late; things have been on the crazy side. that said...)

As we reviewed Kakar's psychoanalytic take on Hindu-Muslim violence, particularly when recapping the influence of individual character/personality, my mind somehow went straight to the concept of "the banality of evil." Likely because Kakar noted, significantly, that the individuals largely leading the communal violence weren't crazy or psychologically abnormal in some way; they are/were relatively normal people. And the resulting question then has to be, of course, what makes seemingly normal people do seemingly crazy things?

Admittedly, I recall talking about the banality of evil recently, but I can't for the life of me recall when or where it was. I'm relatively positive it was in a class (though my friends are the sort who could reference Hannah Arendt and Adam Sandler over the same meal), but I'm not 100% sure that it was in this Rel/Soc. class - if anyone can assist my memory in that way, I'd be most grateful. ...so my apologize if this is repetitive from a discussion we already had in class. ahem. ...Either way, the concept of the banality of evil is a highly relevant one, particularly, perhaps, as we consider communal violence - be it in India, Nigeria (my paper), 1994 Rwanda, Kosovo... the list goes on. Neighbors against neighbors. Friends turned murderers. Everyday interactions turned nightmarish.

In the midst of it, on one hand, can't help but think that, sure, chalking violence up to insanity really doesn't help us in attempting to resolve or prevent anything. So we look for a pattern, warning signs, etc. But then again, if even the most "normal," sane of people, under circumstances, can become akin to Adolf Eichmann... well, then who's safe, and again, how do we prevent or battle it? What sparks the difference between the reasoned reaction and the violent one?

Along those lines, I do recall mentioning the real-life prison experiment in class, but I don't believe we've mentioned this movie telling of it - a disturbing film, and worth a watch if you're interested. Adrien Brody and Forest Whitaker are powerhouses. 

Necessary (and important) note: Gilad Shalit

Oh, yes, and has to be noted:

Gilad Shalit in exchange for 1,027 Palestinian detainees; talks of Ilan Grapel in exchange for 81 Egyptian detainees.

I posted something along these lines elsewhere this morning, and a friend commented "what an exchange rate." True, but disturbing to refer to people as "exchange rates." So much potential discussion here that I wish I had the time to post more. The question of the value of an individual, the debates (eg political) the matter has spawned within Israel in the past five years, etc etc. Quite something, to say the least.

Check out Ha'aretz for boatloads of coverage. ...and of course, hearty (general) congratulations for the long-awaited return of Shalit.

The Kakar factor in reading Colors of Violence

A brief note as I make my way through our readings in The Colors of Violence - the author, Sudhir Kakar, is a peculiar fellow. More relevant than the oddities of his side comments (eg relaying the beginnings of a mobster joke he was formulating while waiting for an interviewee), though, is his personal bias.

I know, I know, he specifically noted the importance of considering the questioner's own bias an analyzing others, but I felt somehow that, ironically, he failed to recognize his own quite as much as he ought to have. Sure, there's no attempt to veil the bias, and the very fact that an Indian is writing a book about Hindu-Muslim violence tells you that the author is bound to be tied to one side or the other (the question is really not a matter of if we are biased, but in what way and to what extent).

Take, for instance, these two sentences in the third chapter: "The first time Mangal Singh clashed with the Muslims was in 1979. The Muslims had claimed a piece of land on the specious ground that it was an old community graveyard." ...Then later in that same paragraph, "he takes it only after work is done, not like some other pehlwans who take the money but refuse to do the work, daring the client to do his utmost. Mangal, on the other hand, is a man of principles."

Mmk. A."the Muslims" - never "Muslims," but "the Muslims." Call me crazy, and maybe some disagree, but it strikes me that the very use of this definite article immediately encourages generalization. Mangal was not simply clashing with some others who identified as Muslim; no, he was clashing with "the Muslims" - the entire group. In-group, out-group, perpetuated by the author's language. B.Perhaps it was "specious ground," but to what extent should he editorialize - a thought that goes with C."a man of principles"?

...also couldn't help but note his comment on the same page (78) that the Hindi word for "strength" is best translated as "manpower" - misogyny of language much? ...or perhaps just misogyny of an author who reports himself to have said to his female companion, "If they try to rape you, keep your protests down to a minimum. I don't want them to get enraged and kill us both." (66) ....Oy.

Insight from an Irishman on violence and excuses

"If one's goal is not harmony but the empowerment that comes with using violence, it is in one's interest to be in a state of war. In such cases, war is not only the context for violence but also the excuse for it." (Juergensmeyer 152)

To be perfectly honest, this quote highlighted near the end of class today reminded me of a conversation I had this past summer - a conversation with a fellow from Belfast in a bar in Berlin around 1am. One way or another, (after counteracting his pints with falafel), we got into conversation about the Troubles. In the course of the discussion, he made a comment that seemed to come partially from his upbringing and relative liberalness (is that the word I want?), partially from national frustration, and perhaps partially influenced by the self-assurance enhancements of alcohol. In any case, his comment was this: it was, quite simply, an excuse to be violent - something he'd decided, at that point, had become inherent in the Irish nature.

My initial reaction was vague surprise at his cynicism and what seemed to be a bestialization of a national character to which he belonged. Regardless of the somewhat abnormal setting, the discussion required a bit more digging, through which conversation I learned that he'd been orphaned young, both adopted parents had served actively in police forces, and they'd raised him in a secular (possibly agnostic) household. ...all of which could explain a fair bit, and reminded me slightly of various Veterans for Peace movements and organizations, in the US and elsewhere (eg Israel) - those directly caught up in conflict can often be the ones most loudly advocating peace later on, having experienced the horrors of violence. ...On the other hand, we also find things like cycles of violence and revenge.

Truly, I'm not completely sure at the moment what this post is leading to, it's just a bit of thought floating about in my head. Could also be connected to my last post, in that a conflict can become complicated - or perhaps over-simplified in some cases - by mobilizing other matters, like religion, in it's continuation. Even to the point that the actors and bystanders become so entangled in it that it seems an excuse for violence...