Social scientist Svensseon finds two distinct social responses to globalization: “…On the one hand is the 'fundamentalist' religious claim to legitimacy for the local tradition over and above the global, and on the other hand there is the 'liberal' religious endorsement of the global, resulting in ecumenical, flexible and tolerant approach.” Samuel Huntington’s controversial Clash of civilization theory proposed that people’s cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict in the post cold-war era as he wrote (1993), “It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural.” Huntington (1997, 127-130) however recognizes that, through strengthened ethno-religious identities and revival of traditional cultures the ‘clash’ will not stay between the state and international organizations but rather will be in the micro level between publics as they become more religious and cultural.
Islamic revolution in Iran, the rise of the Solidarity movement in Poland, the role of Catholicism in the Sandinista revolution and the rise of liberation theology in Latin America, and the Protestant Evangelical force in American politics are some of the more prominent religious movements that have led the worldwide religious revivalism in the face of globalization and a feeling of loss of identity. While promoting, universal standards, products and values, it provokes particularist reaction along the lines of nationality, ethnicity, religiosity, particularly against western cultural influences. I do not want to go into the details of the flaw in the theory but as Dr Amartya Sen has pointed this sort of stereotypical singularity of human identity not only curtails our means to reaching our true potential as humans but also makes the world more “flammable”.
Even as great thinkers such as Marx, Weber or John Stuart Mills predicted that with technological advancement and cultural openness, religiosity will decline – surely events such as the ones taking place in present day Bangladesh indicates the opposite. Or if we are to take their theories to be correct, perhaps we are yet to reach that threshold of technological and educational advancement when religion takes a back seat as it has done in many western countries. In fact, a global religiosity poll published by Gallup indicates Bangladesh among top countries with more than 99 per cent of population identifying themselves as religion being important in their lives. Interestingly other top ranking countries are also at the low end of human development.
We need to recognize the Islamic revivalism that took place in Bangladesh in front of our very eyes over the past 40 years. During this period, the number of mainstream primary schools has doubled but the number of Dakhil Madrasas (religious schools) has increased eight times. Over the same time, enrolments in primary schools have doubled but those in Dakhil Madrasas increased thirteen times; per head public expenditure on students of the government middle class educational institutions is Tk. 3,000 as opposed to Tk.5,000 in Madrasa sector.( Barkat 2013). Not just these revealing statistics, the overall change in lifestyle due to hyper-globalization is more than noticeable in mega city Dhaka too.
Now comes the delicate matter of ‘freedom of speech’. Where is the line to be drawn when freely expressing one’s views? Surely we recognize if I, for example start defiling my friend’s father irrespective of the fact whether she is present or not, once the message gets to her she will be upset. It could also happen that it will enrage her so much that the next time she meets me she wants to hit me with something hard. This writer firmly believes the same sentiment would prevail for any sentiments with which one personally identifies. A person can choose to identify herself through a number of identities- political, social, cultural, ethnic or religious, where one or two may be dominant than others. If one chooses to tarnish any one of these identities or associated symbols with it, it is likely he will get offended and in the worst case scenario even violent.
Examples of religious anguish turning to mayhem is abundant in history – from the Spanish inquisition to the Klu Klux Klan in the mid 20th century in the USA to the 2011 bombing in Oslo that killed some 90 odd people or the near to our home instances such as the Saffron terror incidents in India being propagated by Hindu Nationalist feelings. All of the examples mentioned here cite grievance caused by people of alternate faith/religion as motivation for their violent acts against these people. The point being it does not only happen in Bangladesh or Muslim majority countries.
Then, one may speak of tolerance. But tolerance comes with education and with wide exposure to the many differences present throughout global history and culture. There was a time when Bangali Muslim girls were not allowed education. Begum Rokeya pioneered a movement and led the society to a better place. But not by asking the girls to take of their burqas or defying the Purda. She complied with all norms of society possibly with all her trust in Napoleon’s famous saying. Had she not been there perhaps Bangladesh would be 500 years backwards now. Similarly, we cannot say had she not taken this particular approach the same would not have happened.
The point is change does not come overnight and verbal aggression is certainly not the way to achieve social change. The notion that people who cannot take criticism of their faith are intolerant is an unjust conclusion and the so-called progressive people who can see through the flaw of (religious) faith must imbibe the notion of patience and tolerance that they so eagerly wait for others to manifest.
Islamic revolution in Iran, the rise of the Solidarity movement in Poland, the role of Catholicism in the Sandinista revolution and the rise of liberation theology in Latin America, and the Protestant Evangelical force in American politics are some of the more prominent religious movements that have led the worldwide religious revivalism in the face of globalization and a feeling of loss of identity. While promoting, universal standards, products and values, it provokes particularist reaction along the lines of nationality, ethnicity, religiosity, particularly against western cultural influences. I do not want to go into the details of the flaw in the theory but as Dr Amartya Sen has pointed this sort of stereotypical singularity of human identity not only curtails our means to reaching our true potential as humans but also makes the world more “flammable”.
Even as great thinkers such as Marx, Weber or John Stuart Mills predicted that with technological advancement and cultural openness, religiosity will decline – surely events such as the ones taking place in present day Bangladesh indicates the opposite. Or if we are to take their theories to be correct, perhaps we are yet to reach that threshold of technological and educational advancement when religion takes a back seat as it has done in many western countries. In fact, a global religiosity poll published by Gallup indicates Bangladesh among top countries with more than 99 per cent of population identifying themselves as religion being important in their lives. Interestingly other top ranking countries are also at the low end of human development.
We need to recognize the Islamic revivalism that took place in Bangladesh in front of our very eyes over the past 40 years. During this period, the number of mainstream primary schools has doubled but the number of Dakhil Madrasas (religious schools) has increased eight times. Over the same time, enrolments in primary schools have doubled but those in Dakhil Madrasas increased thirteen times; per head public expenditure on students of the government middle class educational institutions is Tk. 3,000 as opposed to Tk.5,000 in Madrasa sector.( Barkat 2013). Not just these revealing statistics, the overall change in lifestyle due to hyper-globalization is more than noticeable in mega city Dhaka too.
Now comes the delicate matter of ‘freedom of speech’. Where is the line to be drawn when freely expressing one’s views? Surely we recognize if I, for example start defiling my friend’s father irrespective of the fact whether she is present or not, once the message gets to her she will be upset. It could also happen that it will enrage her so much that the next time she meets me she wants to hit me with something hard. This writer firmly believes the same sentiment would prevail for any sentiments with which one personally identifies. A person can choose to identify herself through a number of identities- political, social, cultural, ethnic or religious, where one or two may be dominant than others. If one chooses to tarnish any one of these identities or associated symbols with it, it is likely he will get offended and in the worst case scenario even violent.
Examples of religious anguish turning to mayhem is abundant in history – from the Spanish inquisition to the Klu Klux Klan in the mid 20th century in the USA to the 2011 bombing in Oslo that killed some 90 odd people or the near to our home instances such as the Saffron terror incidents in India being propagated by Hindu Nationalist feelings. All of the examples mentioned here cite grievance caused by people of alternate faith/religion as motivation for their violent acts against these people. The point being it does not only happen in Bangladesh or Muslim majority countries.
Then, one may speak of tolerance. But tolerance comes with education and with wide exposure to the many differences present throughout global history and culture. There was a time when Bangali Muslim girls were not allowed education. Begum Rokeya pioneered a movement and led the society to a better place. But not by asking the girls to take of their burqas or defying the Purda. She complied with all norms of society possibly with all her trust in Napoleon’s famous saying. Had she not been there perhaps Bangladesh would be 500 years backwards now. Similarly, we cannot say had she not taken this particular approach the same would not have happened.
The point is change does not come overnight and verbal aggression is certainly not the way to achieve social change. The notion that people who cannot take criticism of their faith are intolerant is an unjust conclusion and the so-called progressive people who can see through the flaw of (religious) faith must imbibe the notion of patience and tolerance that they so eagerly wait for others to manifest.
No comments:
Post a Comment