Response to Religion

Jane Sternbach

4/2/12

Sociology of Globalization

Response to The Role of Religions

            Barber’s introduction about “Jihad vs McWorld” was an interesting way of looking at world. While I think that it was an over simplification of what is happening, the give and take between the McWorld and Jihad is at the same time ironic, contradictory, and surprising. One of the things that he said that I liked best was that in our McWorld, consuming is our religion, and while it seems like we would have all these options and freedoms in a McWorld, it would be just as limiting and controlling as a “blood community.” I also liked when he pointed out that even though we think that Jihad and McWorlds are polar opposites, they really need the other one to survive. He says, “Jihad not only revolts against but abets McWorld, while McWorld not only imperils but re-creates and reinforces Jihad. They produce their contraries and need one another”(p.5).  This brings me the Kurzman article about modern Islamic fundamentalists. Kurzman brings up this similar relationship. One would think that by virtue of the fact that “fundamental” makes up the word “fundamentalist” that fundamentalists would be the opposite of modern. But Kurzman shows us that in fact, fundamentalists do believe that it is possible to be modern without being western. This is a question that we have discussed quite a bit. Barber sees modern as a global homogenization in an American way. I tend to agree with him. How can someone say that they are anti-western when they use cell phones made by American companies, or wear Adidas? Kurzman’s article is the exemplification of Barber’s quote. Islamists need the West as something to hate and pull away from, yet they have no choice but to buy into it somewhat, which only refuels the hatred. This brings me to Barber’s point, which I think is a good one, that neither countries based on hate nor countries based on profits are good for anyone.

            The other two articles also tie-in very well together. Narayan talks about the importance of knowing the background of other cultures before examining a specific practice, especially when comparing to our own. We can’t just look at dowry-murders through our western lens and American context. We have to understand what is happening India, and how the antecedents of their culture effect the present. This delicate balance of right or wrong with different and same was also brought up in the Killian piece on the “headscarf affair.” We see that even within islam, there is no agreement about right or wrong, and that within the context of modern day France we see the different/same interplay. It’s frustrating bouncing both these ideas back and forth in my head, trying to figure out which side is right and do I only think that because I am from a modern and Western country? As I read the Killian piece, I was surprised at how problematic I found most of the testimony to be. I found myself not able to agree with anyone. But I did come to the conclusion that I think it is the intention that matters. Do the girls want to wear the headscarves because they truly believe they need to in order to be pious? Or do they want to purposefully attract attention or make themselves feel special? Does the French government want to ban them because they are really against symbols of religion in public spaces or is there a racist agenda? However, there is no way to prove what anyone’s intentions were, and so we are back at square one.