Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
7 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A prayer for freedom of identity, 26 Sep 2007
Sen is so eloquent it's overkill. To a global but divided world he speaks of identity as a multi-layered matter of personal choice: "The same person can, for example, be a British citizen, of Malaysian origen, with Chinese racial characteristics, a stock broker, a non-vegitarian, an asthmatic, a linguist, a bodybuilder, a poet, an opponent of abortion, a bird-watcher, an astrologer, and one who believes that God invented Darwin to test the gullible." (p. 24)
Sen notes several popular ways of dealing with identity. One he calls "identity disregard", and another is "singular affiliation".
In "identity disregard" we dismiss all shared identity, and treat each person as an economic self-interest group of one. As some proponents of this view argue, "If it's not in your interest, why have you chosen to do as you did?". Sen notes that this assumption, "makes huge idiots out of Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela, and rather smaller idiots out of the rest of us." (p. 21)
"Singular affiliation" on the other hand, defines people by their membership in one (only one) of their many social circles. This can be an externally imposed label, as in stereotypes of what Westerners are, or in can be self-imposed general conformity -- as when Oscar Wilde said, "Most people are other people. ... Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation".
Feeling both social and an individual, Sen launches his excellent exporation of identity in the modern world. He visits the great "West VS Non-West" divide, where he dispenses with the usual hoopla:
"... in disputing the gross and natsy generalization that members of the Islamic civilization have a belligerant culture, it is common enough to argue that they actually share a culture of peace and goodwill. But this simply replaces one stereotype with another, and furthermore, it involves accepting an implicit presumption that people who happen to be Muslim by religion would be similar in other ways as well." (p. 42)
In many corners of the world Sen shows the subtle handicaps which delimited identy can impose. He mentions South African doctor and anti-apartheid activist Mamphela Ramphele, who describes the impact of polarized identity on the AIDS crisis: The "mistrust of science that has traditionally been controlled by white people" hampers medical efforts; open discussion of the problem is often suppressed by "the fear of acknowledging an epidemic that could easily be used to fan the worst racial stereotyping". (p. 92)
Always sounding magisterial, Sen wades into the home-town issues of British multiculturalism, political correctitude, and the struggles of "globalism vs anti-globalism". He distinguishes between the desire for ethnic groups to leave one another alone, and the desire for a freedom to choose among many cultural options. To those who urge funding schools for each religion he is blunt: "It is unfair to children who have not yet had much opportunity of reasoning and choice to be put into rigid boxes guided by one specific criterion of categorization, and to be told: 'That is your identity and this is all you are going to get'." (p. 118)
To people who believe their identity is more a fate than a choice, Sen affirms we can do better: "We have to make sure, above all, that our mind is not halved by a horizon". The book's opening dedication sounds almost like a Buddhist vow to seek enlightenment: "To Antara, Nandana, Indrani, and Kabir with the hope of a world less imprisoned by illusion".
|
|
|
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A noble idea, articulated in a truly scholarly fashion, 12 Sep 2008
An outstanding contribution to contemporary discourses on the politics of identity, `Identity and Violence - The Illusion of Destiny' is reminiscent of the intellect and wisdom only a scholar of Amartya Sen's stature could offer in the face of this prime challenge of our time.
Recognising the complex and multifaceted nature of our modern identities, Sen argues that communitarian and cultural thinking that is the bedrock of conventional communal and collective identities results in a divisive reductionism that is bound to evoke conflict. He then articulates an alternative approach founded on the view that individuals form their identities through their diversely different set of attributes, associations and affiliations. These pluralities of human identity, he believes, cut across each other and work against a sharp separation along one single hardened line of impenetrable division.
In other words, in a strategic alteration of the relation between the core concepts, he challenges our currently dominant paradigm of thinking and offers a richer, more flexible and more comprehensive framework of perceptions. This new approach, he convincingly argues, enables individuals and societies to rise above their divisions; transcend superficial boundaries and barriers; and reach a new understanding that unites mankind, not in spite of, but precisely because of her rich diversity.
Luckily in this work he has used accessible everyday examples throughout the book, making the argument easy to understand for average but enthusiastic readers, in spite of the abstract and complex nature of the subject matter. This very quality also goes a long way in illumination of his thinking process and his trace of thought, clarifying the way for those who welcome the opportunity for a more thorough engagement with scholarly essays.
I am sure such an engagement with this book, provokes a whole set of challenging questions in a well informed, enquiring mind, as well as many sparkles of new ideas in an alert fresh mind.
-----
P. S. I strongly recommend this book to all those who have faced/visited Norman Tebbit's famous cricket test in their personal, professional or intellectual life.
|
|
|
10 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Unique identities?, 26 Jan 2007
I was very interested in this book when it came out, as it sounded like a more considered exploration of my own view: that it simply isn't adequate to refer to someone as a "muslim", or a "christian" or a "jew". I've been banging on about identity for a while - a hardline muslim may well feel that their relationship to God is the defining factor about their lives... but I simply don't believe them. When they are at the football match, or deciding what to have for tea, or kissing their partner... I don't believe that faith crosses their mind. And it felt to me that if we want to encourage people towards progressive, rational, basically liberal approaches to ethics then we need a public discourse which doesn't put people in tiny boxes. This, of course, is very difficult, when terrorist acts happen to be very newsworthy, and the people carrying out those terrorist acts happen to be muslim. At least the term 'Islamist' has arisen - hopefully enabling mainstream muslims to view those fundementalists in the same way liberal christians would view, I don't know, Branch Davidians.
This book is a relatively short discussion of the illegitimacy of ascribing single identity to groups. Be it Huntingdon 'Clash of Civilisations', or communitarian sociologists who suggest that individuals 'naturally' discover their own community identity.
It's also, not so explicitly, about the illegitmacy of *claiming* single identity. Sen's states very clear the importance of reason, and choice, in identity (although within limits - clearly a Jew in Nazi Germany couldn't go swanning about saying "never mind my jewishness, I quite like Wagner").
Despite short, it's not the easiest book to read. The concepts are clear, it's more that Sen summarises his argument in pretty much every chapter, and even within chapters. This is useful in clarifying the argument, but because he's quite descriptive and evocative in his language, can mean that you (if you're like me) get bogged down in a couple of passages.
What it doesn't solve, for me, is what we do when people *do* chose a single identity. Or more that, while we accept that people are free to ascribe different important to their complex and contradictory identities - some identities do have a basic 'core' that may be positive, or negative. Being a football fan will tend to involve taking an interest in football. In this, how do we criticise those aspects of faith which appear to have a negative impact? A muslim may not declare jihad every time he goes to the post office, but is that because he isn't being a very good muslim? Obviously that goes for all faiths which declare "revealed truth" from scripture, but then pick and choose from the scripture.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Amartya Sen
by Amartya Sen
by Kwame Anthony Appiah
by Amartya Sen
