Thomas Schrader - Religion and Globalization - 4/2/12

            The articles this week showed the complexity of religion in a globalizing world domain. All the issues discussed this week have probably crossed our minds at one time or another, but they are for the most part issues or topics that fall into the background of the oversimplified and generalized society we live in. In the article on “Jihad vs. McWorld,” the author dives into examining “the two eternities of race and soul: that of race reflecting the tribal past, that of soul anticipating the cosmopolitan future” (4). Today’s world lies somewhere between “retribalization of large swaths of humankind by war and bloodshed” and one of “shimmering pastels, a busy portrait of onrushing economic, technological, and ecological forces” (4). It seems many live in some sort of paradox, combining both ideas into their lives. Though they seem so different, they both develop the same indifference to civil liberty, the end goal basically being the deterioration of democracy. Furthermore, while Jihad can be seen as the negative of the two extreme directions, perhaps most so within our more Western capitalist perspective, it also focuses somewhat on a sense of self-determination, which could be a hopeful direction to head. While Jihad seems like the immediate direction of the world settling this debate, through tribal warfare and internal state conflict, McWorld definitely offers long-term sustainability. Just thinking about how we have seen the success of Western media and technology, I have faith in this as well. Nonetheless, just as we have read about Iranian zealots who watch The Simpsons and Chinese entrepreneurs pursuing KFC franchises, homogenization seems inevitable and a postdemocratic world a possible result.

            This article provided a helpful context for the Kurzman article “Bin Laden and Other thoroughly Modern Muslims,” which debunked the largely generalized view that followers of Islam, especially radical Islam have rejected modernity in all forms. As we have seen time and time again, media has played a huge role in portraying radical Islamism as “medieval, reactionary,” and eager to return to the 17^th century Islamic world (Kurzman 2002:13). It was interesting to see how many of the leaders of the radical Islamic movement have mostly graduated from modern schools. Political goals are also somewhat similar between these Islamic movements and the West, echoing fights against injustice, corruption, oppression, and self-defense with contemporary demands such as economic development, human rights, and self-determination. While interpretations of such values may be different, it is surprising to see how much “othering” of these groups has taken place in Western media. While the differences are still vast, they are inevitably all we will hear about. Similarly interesting was how terrorism was just one (less popular) method of achieving Islamist goals and how most Muslims oppose the agendas of Islamists. While these was sort of confusing at first, it makes somewhat sense that while individuals may affiliate themselves with Islam, Islamists are not always successful in gaining support for their goals, especially their more radical missions.

            Further misperceptions and a certain level of ignorance was made evident in Narayan’s article “Death by Culture.” The idea of women being burned alive in India when unable to pay the dowry owed is an event that is perceived more normalized and common than it actually is. Narayan seems interested in showing why this is the case but also comparing it to the issue of domestic violence in the United States. First off, Narayan explains the issue of burning women only real popped up in the 1970s, which refutes the idea that the practice is normal under Hinduism. Also, when comparing the two countries, one must consider that the resources available vary quite significantly, making it difficult for feminists in India to provide the same sort of aid and prevention as here. I think what I was most surprised by was the author's difficulty in researching the number of deaths caused by domestic violence in the United States and how there is no real term to define this. That is very problematic. Thinking that such an idea has not been made part of our country's vocabulary, makes it seem like it doesn’t exist, even if the action itself has simply been put under different categories such as homocide, etc. This article further establishes the point that religion in itself is just one part of a country’s culture and customs. It may help in defining such practices but when religion is oversimplified and used to explain why countries act in a certain way, the generalizing can be harmful for an entire society.

            In Killian’s article on the “Headscarf Affair,” I found the numerous interpretations of the incident in the French school very interesting and further contributing to the point that religion seems to mean very different things, even to followers of the same religion. It seems that there is a constant negotiation occurring between individuals, their society, and their beliefs – all factors that feed into one's identity. For the women interviewed, the scarf meant different things, significant to some more than others. Furthermore, the role of school and education was subjected to questioning and interpretation as well. I think the issue is especially problematic for children who are the clear and immediate victims of the decisions being made. Class seemed to affect how the situation was interpreted as well, as the poorly educated actually seemed the most confused as to why this was even issue, a stand I would have go along with as well. Nonetheless, this seems like an issue not only in France but around the world. Even in America where “freedom of religion” is clearly a value reaffirmed in our nation’s constitution, it is constantly an issue of debate.