Role of Religion Maggie Nelsen

Maggie Nelsen

4/4/12

The Role of Religion

                The readings this week reflected the major theme of modernity/western culture in coexistence—and sometimes clashing—with the religious lives of people today across the globe. I think this sentiment was most epitomized in the Jihad V. McWorld reading. I have to say I was a little perplexed and not wholly convinced of the commonalities the author drew between Jihad and western cultural take-over of the globe. He described them both as defying national borders and governments, and ultimately undermining democracy. I can’t completely agree with such a bold statement. I can see how both can be perceived as unstoppable machines, yielding to no principles or entities: the profit-driven invisible—and perhaps out-of-control—hand of global capitalism, and the seemingly random and terrifying attacks on innocents by terrorists. However the two phenomenon are totally unrelated, their own separate issues and I do not think they are comparable beyond a couple intriguing similarities. I think it is too soon to determine whether Jihadist terrorism is just a passing phase, like the Cold War, or if it is an ever present phenomenon, that the world will have to adapt to and learn to live with. As for global markets and the imminent cultural homogenization of the world, that is being driven by the world’s leading democracies themselves. I think most western democracies perceive the increasing cultural expansion as the result of global capitalism—which is a democratic ideology. Therefore, something that democracies support is not going to undermine them…However, the author does interestingly point out the irony in the fact the Jihadists employ modern technologies to propagate their messages and achieve their goals. Terrorists often use the same channels as ordinary citizens to stage their attacks, such as subway systems or internet blogs, etc. But I believe this is one of the only connections Jihad and McWorld share.  

Bin Laden and Other Thoroughly Modern Muslims was an important read because it highlighted the diversity and complexity of both the Arab world in general and Islamic radicals, plus it touched on a few key American misconceptions. Al Qeada is a prime example of a truly globalized organization. With affiliates wannabes, and cells across all continents, Al Qaeda has an impressively interconnected global network. For example, the Mumbai attacks was the result of coordination between bomb-makers, shooters, planners, transportation—each element of the attack involved resources or people from around the globe, including Europe, Africa among others. The global coordination of the Mumbai attacks is an exemplary demonstration that terrorism is perhaps one of the most globalized happenings in the planet. But more importantly is how the rest of the world interprets these attacks and the motivations of terrorists like Bin Laden. One will quickly find that the underlying goals and motivations behind Al Qaeda are not modern at all, but a push to revert the region or world back to a traditional Islamic caliphate—as it existed hundreds, thousands of years ago. Unfortunately, since 9/11and other subsequent attacks, many westerners have homogenized the entire Islamic community or the “Middle East” as a whole.  Most are unaware of the tremendous diversity of interpretation of Islamic faith—even within the Jihadist groups themselves. U.S. foreign policy has not only done a lot of damage to Arab perception of America, but has also framed a narrative Americans have followed, which is full of ignorance, and has subsequently developed a lot of misconceptions and lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic people.

The article about dowry-murders and domestic violence murders was quite interesting, and the authors made some insightful correlations. I definitely would like to reiterate the fact that because there is no cultural element or practice linked to American domestic violence/murder (whereas domestic murder is frequently related to dowry in India) it does not receive the same “death by culture” sentiment. American feminists are always making the intrinsic connection between Hindi culture and traditions like dowry to domestic violence and murder, when in fact it is not a Hindu concept or a tradition in the country at all—but is no different than partners who murder their partner in the U.S. Many western feminists might ask “why would a culture do this? Why would a man burn his wife, what is going on that leads to such an act?” yet they never make the connection to home: “Why in America do men beat their wives or partners? What leads to that phenomenon?” The two are the same phenomenon, but because a cultural element (dowry) is linked to the murder it is immediately made more “visible” for one and also categorized as an entirely separate issue. Therefore, how we “coin” issues actually holds major implications for how that issue is perceived and dealt with.  Western feminists still retain a sense of cultural superiority and believe they live in a more post-feminist country than that of Indian women. The key point the author makes is that national context is the absent component that leads to these false assumption, misconceptions and ignorance. The problem with cultural learning is that it does not carry with it the existing economic, political and social circumstances that impact the issue tremendously. Without that background information people are creating false ideas and accumulating skewed knowledge of a culture or cultural practice or issue. This awareness of the conditions and context was demonstrated through the question why there are not battered women’s shelters in India. The author, Ulma Narayan explains: “economic, social and institutional features that make certain policies and strategies feasible in some contexts but not in others… ‘contextually self-conscious’ about the features of their national landscapes that might shape their engagement with the issues of violence against women”(Narayan, 95). Clearly, there are many other factors at play which shape western perceptions of a another culture’s problem. You would think it would be common sense to not equate one cultural occurrence with another culture’s understanding and principles—given no two cultures share the same historical experience or socio-political conditions, yet that is just what western feminists are doing.

The situation in France with the veil is another example which demonstrates the abundant diversity of opinion within the Muslim community on issues such as what is means to adhere to a faith, what it means to have rights and what it means to live in a ‘host’ country. This article was really powerful for me because I learned the various reasons why young women wear the veil. One reason being, living in a xenophobic country makes one want to hold onto their religion and culture by identifying themselves as such through the veil. But more interestingly was the incredibly smart arguments the women interviewed made. Some pointed out on a more basic level, which is more important to worry about: 1) children wearing veils to school and thereby visibly signifying their religiousity in a secular space, or2) kids arriving at school with knives and guns, intending to wreak havoc on the place? This rhetorical question points out the obvious and gives the issue necessary perspective. Another important point is that this whole issue is creating a lot of confusion in young developing minds, and is likely to cause some detriment to figuring out their identity—this is really said. One theme I noticed in most of the interviewees who were against the veil in schools is that their testimonies were all laced with fear, whether blatantly so like the quote below or with underlying subtleness: “we’re here in a country that isn’t ours; you shut-up; your respect their customs and their habits”(Killian, 582). Clearly a colonialist complex still resonates with many people. I think given all the facts dispersed throughout this article it is clear France is pursuing not only the wrong policy to uphold their value of laicism but a incredibly hypocritical policy as well. The recent banning of the headscarf is only going to breed hatred and resentment towards the French, all I can say to the French is “you had it coming to you”. The sad thing is, in my mind, this huge issue can so easily be made a non-issue for both French Muslims and French government. France can still preserve its principle and value of the separation of church and state, while also allowing for religious freedom and choice. As for the opposing opinions within the Muslim community, if France changes its policy, Muslim women can practice whichever path they choose, whether it be wearing the headscarf or not. This article points out a clear generation discrepancy within the Muslim community as a major factor, and also the important point that many Muslims feel being faithful does not equate wearing the headscarf, it is so much more that entails being a pious Muslim.