Evolution of consciousness, or growing awareness, is a common theme of the authors we read in class. Amin Maalouf‘s book, In the Name of Identity: Violence and the Need to Belong, shares this theme. Maalouf advocates that we become more aware of the importance of particular components in a persons identity. Globalization is inevitably, according to Amin Maalouf, and certain groups will have components of their identity challenged and ultimately subsumed. For many individuals, the idea that certain aspects of identity may have decreasing value in the global society is frustrating and even angering. Sadly, the best way to react, engaging in the globalization and thereby propagating one’s cultural components, is frequently not the course of action taken by those challenged. Rather, isolationism is often the response, which then naturally leads to stagnation. Failure for identity components to be validated and integrated typically leads to thoughts of victimization, and ultimately the feeling of a need for strong, even violent, reaction. How are we to assuage those who react violently to the perception that the core of their identity is at risk?
THE ESSENCE OF IDENTITY: LANGUAGE
Maalouf locates the core of identity in language. He spends a considerable amount of the book advancing language over religion. He writes:
I don’t seek to express a preference between religion and language, or to prove that one is a greater determining factor that the other. I just want to draw attention to the fact that language has the marvelous characteristic of being both a component of identity and a means of communication. That being so, and contrary to my attitude in the case of religion, I regard any attempt to separate language from identity as neither possible nor desirable. Language is bound to remain the mainspring of cultural identity, and linguistic diversity the mainspring of all other diversities. (p. 132)
In essence, he sees religion as secondary to language in identity formation. This conclusion is drawn from the fact that individuals must learn language in order to practice religion and secondly, it appears many individuals have been able and willing to leave the religion into which they were born and raised in order to integrate themselves into the new global society. Maalouf believes these individuals were able to adopt a religiously neutral position. This is in contrast to language. Language strikes at the core of a person’s being. Language is the foundation of thoughts and produces understanding. According to Maalouf, when one’s language is threatened, deemed less valuable, a whole person is struck to his or her core. Yes, we can adopt additional languages. Some individuals become very adept as translating their thoughts. But of course, no two languages can provide an exact translation. There may be items and experiences in common, but there are nuances in each language that cannot be translated. There is always a communication gap between speakers of different languages. And so the language of our birth is the language of our identity. Translating our identity from it’s birth language to some second language is imprecise, and for many, very painful. It is not their fault that the language of their birth does not have the same commidity in the global market. They do not deserve that pain. Moreover, they may be resentful of those who by some fortune, have as their birth language the language of the global community. Therefore, in solidarity, we should assist them with the difficult process that is inevitable.
Maalouf’s concrete suggestion is a policy of language subsidy. Maalouf seems sure that English will be the global language, and as such should be taught. Regions will likely continue to practice their historic language, but as it will be less and less useful in the global economy, it will risk being devalued. In order to mitigate the unification power and utilitarian advantage English will have, Maalouf recommends a policy of promoting and teaching of a third language. This third language will help level the playing field, preventing English and native-English speakers from gaining to much advantage. Maalouf advocates European languages as the best candidates for this third, refereeing language (pgs. 139-140). It is Maalouf’s hope that this policy will then hopefully assuage those who fear English (and therefore America) is becoming to powerful and all-encompassing.
A GLOBAL VALUE OF LANGUAGE
While I do not deny that one’s language in important part of an individual’s identity, I do not think it is MORE important, or even prior to other aspects, including one’s physical attributes, history, ethics and their religion. Rather, I believe some languages are superior. However, their superiority is relative to the value individuals place on certain aspects. For example, we might agree that English is a superior languages if we agree we both highly value a language’s “learnability.” This is not to say that other languages, which may be extremely difficult to learn are of lesser value. Indeed, they may be superior in their ability to describe. They may provide greater opportunity for nuanced story-telling. But it we agree that we are entering into an age of increased globalization, when basic communication will be deemed essential to survival, then I believe ease of learning may be deemed more valuable to other features, such as the capacity for nuanced description. But I believe I have heard that compared to other languages, English is easy to learn. Do not get me wrong. I am all for nuanced description. And if we discover that this aspect of English is weak, then I have some confidence from historically evidence, that this aspect will develop in English or English will die. It will develop at a faster rate if – and here Maalouf and I agree – speakers of that language with superior capacity for description engage in dialogue with English-speakers.
TOWARD A GLOBAL VALUE OF RELIGION
I disagree that language is the essence, or is at the core, of a person’s identity and it therefore deserves the most care and attention. Language does not deserve more respect than religion. Maalouf fails to equally acknowledge the historical evidence of individuals who were either forced to integrate with other cultures and societies, or who did so willingly because they believed it would improve their standard of living. There is significant historical evidence of whole people groups who have willingly adopted additional languages without harsh reaction and talk of insult to identity. Moreover, many of these individuals, who willingly adopted other languages, adamantly refused to give up their religious practices and customs, even at the risk of their lives. Given that, I do not believe individuals have been able to ditch religion, or adopt a religiously neutral, say secular, position.
Like languages, some religions are superior. I value an ethic of love and justice – of responsibility. My sense is that puts me in agreement with most people. In short, love and justice are global values. We can say a religion is superior when it best promotes Shalom, or, as Nicholas Wolterstorff puts it, “human flourishing” – my flourishing as well as my neighbors. Religion should help me to “love my neighbor as myself.” A religion that does not do this, but rather encourages me to hate my neighbor and do him or her violence, is radically inferior. It will absolutely be challenged by increased globalization.
What kind of religion will not be challenged by globalization? One which has a healthy respect for the faith. Religion is about trust and fidelity in times when evidence is lacking. It is not obviously apparent to everybody which religion is superior. Given that, we should anticipate a plurality of religions. A superior religion will not be threatened by pluralism. It will not feel threatened by the presence of and inspection by individuals of differing faiths. Rather, the superior religion will respond accordingly to other religions – it will to enter into dialogue with other faiths, and work to clarify points of agreement and disagreement. The development of religious creeds and institutions assist in this dialogue.
Maalouf claims to be a Christian. And yet he appears to be more than willing to give this aspect of his identity up if doing so helps in the globalization process. This is not my understanding of True Christianity. And the history of Christianity abounds with lives of individuals who gave up everything, even their life, rather than give up Christ. Maalouf’s sentiments place him more in the Humanist camp. Humanism is ultimately a religious position whose adherents believe that what is of the “greater good” of humanity is of the highest value. Humanism, like all bad religions, is hypocritical. It claims to value equality, but will eventually require it adherents to sacrifice their individuality, their identity, to the whole. It claims to be respectful of the individual, yet asks them to make identity sacrifices, to pick one aspect of their identity over others.
Just because Maalouf deems the religious aspect of identity of lesser value than language does not mean that it is, or even that everyone else feels the same way. But precisely because Maalouf deems it a lesser value he is shameless in his argument that language should be treated with more respect than religion. He thinks he is willing to make a sacrifice – he will sacrifice religion for the good of humanity – and yet he is not really making a sacrifice. His real religion, Humanism, compells him to sacrifice his pseudo-Christianity. It would be interesting to see if someone were to suggest that Maalouf lay down his native language – he is a Lebonese and a native French speaker (which may explain his vote for a European Language as a third language) – if he would be so compliant.
He may be very compliant in the end, especially if he convinced that in the end laying down his language is best for him in his situation. He would echo the model history provides us. Individuals will lay down was they deem non-essential to their particular lives. History provides us equal examples of this being done with language, as well as religion. It is then incorrect to conclude that one is universally prior to the other in identity formation. The individual knows better what he or she is willing to lay down. We should respect individual’s choice on this matter.
True Christianity is superior because it acknowledges that the religious AND linguistic (and physically, and economic, and ethically, etc.) aspects of a person are equally worthy of respect. A person is diverse in his or her aspects, but also coherent. True Christianity states to elevate one aspect over the others ultimately warps a person and works again his or her flourishing. One evidence of a lack of flourishing is demands made of my neighbor, requiring them to do something I myself an not willing to do. For the True Christian, the response to this knowledge is a true equality, a true respect and finally a true pluralism, a willingness to live with one’s neighbor, engaging deeply, without fear of loss.
Globalization and Identity Sacrifice
Citizenship Education
Evolution of consciousness, or growing awareness, is a common theme of the authors we read in class. Amin Maalouf‘s book, In the Name of Identity: Violence and the Need to Belong, shares this theme. Maalouf advocates that we become more aware of the importance of particular components in a persons identity. Globalization is inevitably, according to Amin Maalouf, and certain groups will have components of their identity challenged and ultimately subsumed. For many individuals, the idea that certain aspects of identity may have decreasing value in the global society is frustrating and even angering. Sadly, the best way to react, engaging in the globalization and thereby propagating one’s cultural components, is frequently not the course of action taken by those challenged. Rather, isolationism is often the response, which then naturally leads to stagnation. Failure for identity components to be validated and integrated typically leads to thoughts of victimization, and ultimately the feeling of a need for strong, even violent, reaction. How are we to assuage those who react violently to the perception that the core of their identity is at risk?
THE ESSENCE OF IDENTITY: LANGUAGE
Maalouf locates the core of identity in language. He spends a considerable amount of the book advancing language over religion. He writes:
In essence, he sees religion as secondary to language in identity formation. This conclusion is drawn from the fact that individuals must learn language in order to practice religion and secondly, it appears many individuals have been able and willing to leave the religion into which they were born and raised in order to integrate themselves into the new global society. Maalouf believes these individuals were able to adopt a religiously neutral position. This is in contrast to language. Language strikes at the core of a person’s being. Language is the foundation of thoughts and produces understanding. According to Maalouf, when one’s language is threatened, deemed less valuable, a whole person is struck to his or her core. Yes, we can adopt additional languages. Some individuals become very adept as translating their thoughts. But of course, no two languages can provide an exact translation. There may be items and experiences in common, but there are nuances in each language that cannot be translated. There is always a communication gap between speakers of different languages. And so the language of our birth is the language of our identity. Translating our identity from it’s birth language to some second language is imprecise, and for many, very painful. It is not their fault that the language of their birth does not have the same commidity in the global market. They do not deserve that pain. Moreover, they may be resentful of those who by some fortune, have as their birth language the language of the global community. Therefore, in solidarity, we should assist them with the difficult process that is inevitable.
Maalouf’s concrete suggestion is a policy of language subsidy. Maalouf seems sure that English will be the global language, and as such should be taught. Regions will likely continue to practice their historic language, but as it will be less and less useful in the global economy, it will risk being devalued. In order to mitigate the unification power and utilitarian advantage English will have, Maalouf recommends a policy of promoting and teaching of a third language. This third language will help level the playing field, preventing English and native-English speakers from gaining to much advantage. Maalouf advocates European languages as the best candidates for this third, refereeing language (pgs. 139-140). It is Maalouf’s hope that this policy will then hopefully assuage those who fear English (and therefore America) is becoming to powerful and all-encompassing.
A GLOBAL VALUE OF LANGUAGE
While I do not deny that one’s language in important part of an individual’s identity, I do not think it is MORE important, or even prior to other aspects, including one’s physical attributes, history, ethics and their religion. Rather, I believe some languages are superior. However, their superiority is relative to the value individuals place on certain aspects. For example, we might agree that English is a superior languages if we agree we both highly value a language’s “learnability.” This is not to say that other languages, which may be extremely difficult to learn are of lesser value. Indeed, they may be superior in their ability to describe. They may provide greater opportunity for nuanced story-telling. But it we agree that we are entering into an age of increased globalization, when basic communication will be deemed essential to survival, then I believe ease of learning may be deemed more valuable to other features, such as the capacity for nuanced description. But I believe I have heard that compared to other languages, English is easy to learn. Do not get me wrong. I am all for nuanced description. And if we discover that this aspect of English is weak, then I have some confidence from historically evidence, that this aspect will develop in English or English will die. It will develop at a faster rate if – and here Maalouf and I agree – speakers of that language with superior capacity for description engage in dialogue with English-speakers.
TOWARD A GLOBAL VALUE OF RELIGION
I disagree that language is the essence, or is at the core, of a person’s identity and it therefore deserves the most care and attention. Language does not deserve more respect than religion. Maalouf fails to equally acknowledge the historical evidence of individuals who were either forced to integrate with other cultures and societies, or who did so willingly because they believed it would improve their standard of living. There is significant historical evidence of whole people groups who have willingly adopted additional languages without harsh reaction and talk of insult to identity. Moreover, many of these individuals, who willingly adopted other languages, adamantly refused to give up their religious practices and customs, even at the risk of their lives. Given that, I do not believe individuals have been able to ditch religion, or adopt a religiously neutral, say secular, position.
Like languages, some religions are superior. I value an ethic of love and justice – of responsibility. My sense is that puts me in agreement with most people. In short, love and justice are global values. We can say a religion is superior when it best promotes Shalom, or, as Nicholas Wolterstorff puts it, “human flourishing” – my flourishing as well as my neighbors. Religion should help me to “love my neighbor as myself.” A religion that does not do this, but rather encourages me to hate my neighbor and do him or her violence, is radically inferior. It will absolutely be challenged by increased globalization.
What kind of religion will not be challenged by globalization? One which has a healthy respect for the faith. Religion is about trust and fidelity in times when evidence is lacking. It is not obviously apparent to everybody which religion is superior. Given that, we should anticipate a plurality of religions. A superior religion will not be threatened by pluralism. It will not feel threatened by the presence of and inspection by individuals of differing faiths. Rather, the superior religion will respond accordingly to other religions – it will to enter into dialogue with other faiths, and work to clarify points of agreement and disagreement. The development of religious creeds and institutions assist in this dialogue.
Maalouf claims to be a Christian. And yet he appears to be more than willing to give this aspect of his identity up if doing so helps in the globalization process. This is not my understanding of True Christianity. And the history of Christianity abounds with lives of individuals who gave up everything, even their life, rather than give up Christ. Maalouf’s sentiments place him more in the Humanist camp. Humanism is ultimately a religious position whose adherents believe that what is of the “greater good” of humanity is of the highest value. Humanism, like all bad religions, is hypocritical. It claims to value equality, but will eventually require it adherents to sacrifice their individuality, their identity, to the whole. It claims to be respectful of the individual, yet asks them to make identity sacrifices, to pick one aspect of their identity over others.
Just because Maalouf deems the religious aspect of identity of lesser value than language does not mean that it is, or even that everyone else feels the same way. But precisely because Maalouf deems it a lesser value he is shameless in his argument that language should be treated with more respect than religion. He thinks he is willing to make a sacrifice – he will sacrifice religion for the good of humanity – and yet he is not really making a sacrifice. His real religion, Humanism, compells him to sacrifice his pseudo-Christianity. It would be interesting to see if someone were to suggest that Maalouf lay down his native language – he is a Lebonese and a native French speaker (which may explain his vote for a European Language as a third language) – if he would be so compliant.
He may be very compliant in the end, especially if he convinced that in the end laying down his language is best for him in his situation. He would echo the model history provides us. Individuals will lay down was they deem non-essential to their particular lives. History provides us equal examples of this being done with language, as well as religion. It is then incorrect to conclude that one is universally prior to the other in identity formation. The individual knows better what he or she is willing to lay down. We should respect individual’s choice on this matter.
True Christianity is superior because it acknowledges that the religious AND linguistic (and physically, and economic, and ethically, etc.) aspects of a person are equally worthy of respect. A person is diverse in his or her aspects, but also coherent. True Christianity states to elevate one aspect over the others ultimately warps a person and works again his or her flourishing. One evidence of a lack of flourishing is demands made of my neighbor, requiring them to do something I myself an not willing to do. For the True Christian, the response to this knowledge is a true equality, a true respect and finally a true pluralism, a willingness to live with one’s neighbor, engaging deeply, without fear of loss.