Identity And Violence The Illusion Of Destiny Deals on Amartya Sen

Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny

Category: (Book)

17 new, starting at $10.95

6 used, starting at $12.69

Editorial Reviews

The world may be more driven by murderous violence than ever before, yet Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen argues in this sweeping philosophical work that its brutalities are driven as much by confusion as by inescapable hatred. Sen argues in his new book that conflict and violence are sustained today, no less than the past, but by the illusion of a unique identity. Indeed, the world is increasingly taken to be divided between religions (or 'cultures' or 'civilizations'), ignoring the relevance of other ways in which people see themselves through class, gender, profession, language, literature, science, music, morals or politics, and denying the real possibilities of reasoned choices.In "Identity and Violence", he overturns such stereotypes as the 'the monolithic Middle East' or 'the Western Mind'. Through his penetrating investigation of such subjects as multiculturalism, fundamentalism, terrorism and globalization, he brings out the need for a clear-headed understanding of human freedom and a constructive public voice in Global civil society. The world, Sen shows, can be made to move towards peace as firmly as it has recently spiralled towards war.

Customer Reviews

Can a knowledge of history be a substitute for reality?

Reviewed by Gautam Maitra, 2008-10-09

Economics Nobel Laureate and the Harvard Lamont Professor Dr. Amartya Sen travels extensively all around the globe and appears in so many forums like the print and the electronic media to air his viewpoints, largely on political issues. His book Identity and Violence thus bears a cosmopolitan yet superficial account on one of post cold war's burning issues, viz., the cultural and the identity issues. His book, no doubt,is aimed at disproving Samuel Huntington's scholarly and perhaps a near- accurate account of what lies at the heart of history and civilization and how the political superstructure arose out of ethnic and cultural bases than on economics. The main difference between Huntington's books on culture and Sen's book on Identity and Illusion is while the former hits the bull's eye in analyzing the post cold war situation by piercing the cold war curtain, Amartya Sen's above work does not have a genuine historio-political basis. His book is more a narrative yet based on wrongly judged assumptions from history and rather borders on utopia since universal and philanthropic considerations never guided the course human civilizations. History is rather about the use of force to assert cultural and political supremacy plus economic interests. For an analysis to come nearer to truth, the assumptions must be sound. Dr. Sen's assumptions already have a preconceived goal in which historical instances have been used to justify those assumptions. This superficial approach has rendered the book unimpressive since the readers can't accept a model that strives to satisfy every actor. Professor's Sen's above work may be a praiseworthy attempt to stress the moral and ethical elements in human beings and in society but they diverge so much from reality. One may be fired by the accounts of ancient Islamic historians but it is necessary to see the whole instead of the part. As a result, Dr. Sen's well intended and laborious attempts are mired in that he seems to undermine the role of group, culture, ethnicity, hatred, and force. For example, economic developments failed to do away with such parochial culture-centred approaches in other countries, much to America's discomfort.

Gautam Maitra
Author of 'Tracing the Eagle's Orbit: Illuminating Insights into Major US Foreign Policies since Independence.'

Unfolding the causal link between identity and violence

Reviewed by nafrica, 2008-05-07

I thought Sen accurately nailed the problem on the head - strong identities lend themselves to violence. This is an inherent problem with identity. When you form strong attachments with like-minded people, you must by necessity be exclusive. The dark side of exclusivity is that people often times treat the 'other' as the 'enemy.' This is not to say that identity per se is evil or even anti-social. Quite the contrary. As Robert Putnam correctly points out in Bowling Alone, there is enormous positive value in forming close-knit communities, not the least of which is that it forces you to be less selfish. There is no selfishness like being a loner.

So far, so good. I think where Sen's book runs into trouble is his critique of Sam Huntington's seminal book - The Clash of Civilizations. Huntington's thesis is that the world is no longer driven by ideological struggle (communism vs. free capitalism) but now by civilizational struggle (the prime example being Islamic vs. Western). Sen objects to this civilizational paradigm as being too reductionistic and instead advocates seeing people as belonging to a complex web of associations, with civilizational/religious ties being one of many. As Sen puts it, a Christian and a Muslim will be less at odds with each other if they realize that they share other identities, like gender, class, profession, interests, etc.

There are several problems with Sen's argument. (1) Huntington's thesis does have its flaws, as all meta-theories invariably do (for instance, India, as Sen points out, is not singularly an Hindu civilization), but I think it's pretty much on the mark with Islamists and many others. So Huntington's book is descriptive, not prescriptive. Sen's book is prescriptive, but tries to come off as descriptive. (2) Sen is convinced, wrongly, that it is only a small cadre of self-appointed leaders who have whipped up the general population and imposed, quite artificially, these civilizational/religious identities for their own power-hungry reasons. No doubt there are people who cynically use identity for their own gain (the Chinese Politburo immediately comes to mind). But I think it is Sen who is now reductionistic, kinda insulting to non-elites, and frankly conspiratorial. (3) Sen seems to think religious identity should have the same force, no more and no less, than any of several identities. But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of religion. Religion, by definition, demands ultimate allegiance. I think this is difficult for Sen as a self-confessed secularist to understand. (4) Sen is absolutely wrong in his insistence that singular identities cause violence while multi-form identities lend themselves to peace. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of violence. Strong, singular identities may be the avenue through which violence is exercised, but there is something twisted and evil in the heart of man that will use any platform, any paradigm to destroy and kill. The real question should be: what kind of exclusive identity will nevertheless embrace the alien `other'? (Aside: as a Christian, may I say that if the core of your identity is a man who died for his enemies, that will lend itself to the most embracing kind of strong identity.)

This is unrelated to Sen's argument, but may I grip about his prose a bit? First, I found Sen's syntax to be unnecessarily complicated. Second, Sen is incredibly repetitive. He basically says that same thing over and over and over again. How many ways can you extol the benefits of complex identities? Pluriform, variegated, sundry, multitudinous identities? If you find yourself looking at the same entry in your thesaurus over and over again, maybe it's time to find something new to say...

I want to conclude by saying that I really enjoyed Sen's book overall. He made many incisive points, such as arguing against the idea that democracy is the province of 'Western' thinking. Sen rightly rejects that kind of misguided and patronizing cultural relativism. I thought his foray into Muslim history was really interesting and informative. And here, Sen made a very interesting point that one cannot condemn violence or even terrorism as being strictly anti-Muslim, as Islamic thought is not, nor cannot be, settled on the subject. As for Sen's earnest plea for a civil society in which religion has a diminished role, I think Sen betrays too much his own narrow secularist vision. I don't think an enlarged role of religion in the public sphere necessarily means a less rational world. Prof Sen, why should they have to be at cross purposes?

A thought-provoking read throughout!

The Illusion of Incomprehension

Reviewed by Kashyap Deorah, 2008-02-08

Amartya Sen's ideas and opinions in this book are eminently agreeable. However, this book comes across as either a hard-selling rebuttal to the nay-sayers to Sen's theories about identity, or repetitive professing to a reader who doesn't get it.

If I eat a peanut every time Sen criticizes Samuel Huntington and the Civilization theory, I will weigh a thousand pounds. With this book and the repeated attempts to nullify Civilization theory, Sen makes it much more important than it will or should be.

Amartya Sen continues to educate and continues to make smart and rational arguments that question conventional conservative wisdom. If this is your first Amartya Sen book, you will definitely get the party line in the signature format. However, if you are looking for more insights than what you have already received from the author, this book may not be the right one to spend time on.

Wise Counsel

Reviewed by Mark K. Harty, 2007-12-13

I am compelled to write a review of this book for one reason - much of the harshest criticism of the book appears to me to miss its fundamental aim. The criticism of Mr Sen seems to be reduced to two issues the first being that he is a relativist and the second being that he is somehow an apologist.

This criticism of the book is entirely based on the false premise that Mr Sen in some way is arguing that we should somehow learn to love the extremist. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Mr Sen's basic argument in this book is not about how we should learn to accomodate extremism but rather how we should learn to defuse extremist tendencies arising from religious identity or cultural identity.

Perhaps the most telling section of the book and to my mind the core argument is that in dealing with the rise of islamic fundamentalism western governments should address their islamic citizens as citizens of the state and members of the civic community rather than as members of a religious community. He argues that Britain in particular is mistaken in reacting to terrorism in particular or cultural isolationism in particular in seeking to use the moderate religious leadership as allies within the community to the exclusion of all other forms of engagement . The argument is that if the state uses the moderate religious leadership as its principal path of discourse with the community then the state is giving credibility to the extremist religious leadership if only by making it the obvious haven for those who feel themselves most disenfranchised and separate from the state in which they live. Simply put, if the government that you hate is being helped and assisted by the moderate leadership then you will cease to engage with that moderate leadership and find yourself more definitely and irrevocably aligned with the extremist fundamentalist leadership.

Mr Sen's argument is that rather than seeking to interact with the islamic community through the medium of their faith one should seek to interact and engage with them through the medium of their civic life thereby engaging them and empowering them in the process of the state itself.

The flip side of this argument, the one which most of the negative reviews here appear to concentrate on is that we must not see people simply as stereotypes of their religious or cultural identities. This argument may be relativist but it is also true. Mr Sen's argument is that if we reduce the individual to a single all encompassing identity based on religion or race then we lose the ability to engage with them on a civic basis.

Mr Sen's book is compelling and important one that should be read more widely to show us how we have erred and given credence to the extremists by failing to realise that a man with a grievance should be seen first and foremost as a man and should be dealt with, addressed and engaged on that basis. How anyone can have a difficulty with this is beyond me.

A prayer for freedom of identity

Reviewed by Brian Griffith, 2007-09-25

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".