Sen lived in Rangoon, Dacca and Calcutta as a child. Rangoon, as part of Buddhist Burma, separated from India in 1937. Manipur chose to remain with India because it is majority Hindu. Dacca became part of Islamic Pakistan and separated from Hindu India in 1947. Pakistan and India clashed because Islam clashes with non Islamic Civilizations. Burma and India did not clash. India has no problem with Buddhist Bhutan- though it expelled Hindu Nepalis- or Buddhist Sri Lanka. Why? Hindu and Buddhist Civilizations don't clash. Thus, Sen's life experience suggests that there really is a Clash of Civilizations. Yet, he says of Huntington's book that it is a
A remarkable use of imagined singularity
A Nation may be described as an 'imagined community'. Every world religion is an empirical reality.
can be found in the basic classificatory idea that serves as the intellectual background to the much-discussed thesis of “the clash of civilizations,” which has been championed recently, particularly following the publication of Samuel Huntington’s influential book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order .
He was a true prophet- at least when compared to his rivals. History didn't end a la Fukuyama. Multi-Culti did not prevail. 'Reasonable accommodation' for Islam is being pruned back in Chrisitian countries. India has moved towards Hindutva vs. Hinduism- a far cry from Nehruvian atheism. Civilizations are back with a vengeance- the truth is they never went away. What Huntington did not predict was the fault lines between Turkish led Hanafi and Hanbali Islam- but that may decline as it did historically with the Shia Sunni divide retaining salience.
The difficulty with this approach begins with unique categorization, well before the issue of a clash—or not—is even raised.
Things which pre-exist can clash. Imaginary shite can't. Ultimately people are uniquely characterized by which body they are encased in. Bodies clash. But bodies ally along religious lines and such alliances give rise to culture. Where a culture dominates others, a Civilization arises.
Indeed, the thesis of a civilizational clash is conceptually parasitic on the commanding power of a unique categorization along so-called civilizational lines,
No it isn't. If civilizations exist they can clash. Have they done so? Yes. Were they doing so when Sen wrote this? Yes, in the opinion of the enemy the West was fighting. There is no fucking 'parasitism' here. Huntingdon's thesis was based on reality- which is unique whereas Sen's shite is based on fantasy which is wholly arbitrary and can be incompossible with physical reality.
Consider the Ukraine War. Putin believes in a Civilizational clash between Eurasian 'passionarity' and Western Christendom. The fault line in Ukraine is between Russian Orthodox and Ukrainian Catholic.
There was a time when some analysts pretended that Putin was a victim of black propaganda by International LGBTQ activists. Pussy Riot provoked the Crimean invasion! Maybe that was why Trump & Co had a soft spot for that soul-less little freak. What we now see, however, is a purely Civilizational clash. It isn't about Gay siloviki joining hands with Lesbian plumbers and yacht loving oligarchs across the globe.
which as it happens closely follows religious divisions to which singular attention is paid. Huntington contrasts Western civilization with “Islamic civilization,” “Hindu civilization,” “Buddhist civilization,” and so on.
It is likely that the borders of a religion correspond to natural frontiers of nations or else that they limn trade routes and emporia.
Sen's bigotry towards Religion- God doesn't exist, thus Religion has no business existing- blinds him to elementary facts of historical geography.
The alleged confrontations of religious differences are incorporated into a sharply carpentered vision of one dominant and hardened divisiveness.
In Sen's world, only 'visions' and 'narratives' and 'conceptual disarrays' matter. This is because his is a fairy tale world. If only everybody shared Sen's point of view there would be no war or conflict or economy or language or human life.
In fact, of course, the people of the world can be classified according to many other systems of partitioning, each of which has some—often far-reaching—relevance in our lives: such as nationalities,
Sen comes from a place where nationality is ultimately founded in Religion.
locations,
which are within nations which....see above
classes,
which don't actually have any 'class consciousness' crossing national boundaries.
occupations,
prostitutes of the World unite!
social status,
which isn't portable between countries
languages,
see above
politics,
see above
and many others.
Unlike the above, Religion actually makes a difference which is why we are still talking about Northern Ireland and, in Putin's eyes, there's a war in Ukraine.
While religious categories have received much airing in recent years, they cannot be presumed to obliterate other distinctions,
Nor can they presumed not to.
and even less can they be seen as the only relevant system of classifying people across the globe.
But they can be seen as much much more relevant that Sen's endless whining.
Huntington did some actual research. He chose 'Clash of Civilization' over other models. Sen has no model. He just doesn't like Huntington's model because he himself is an Indian citizen, not a Bangladeshi citizen, because of 'Civilizational Clash'.
I may mention that Bengal had two big famines because of the transition to Democracy. Sen knows this but has spent a lot of time claiming that Democracy is the panacea for Famine.
The difficulty with the thesis of
anything arises only in one way. Does it accord with the facts? Does it enable us to make predictions? Clash of Civilizations was a good thesis. If people ask 'how come Houthis and Hezbollah are with Iran?', the answer is there is a clash between Shia and Sunni Islam. If Afghan Hazaras continue to fight for Iran in Syria then Tehran might be cool with Taliban Kabul. This sort of stuff is useful. Sen's shite is useless.
the clash of civilizations begins well before we come to the issue of an inevitable clash;
Who said there would be an inevitable clash? Not Huntingdon. Sen, in typical fashion is tilting at a straw man. This is because he voraciously devours dog turds as part of his multiple identity.
it begins with the presumption of the unique relevance of a singular classification.
No. It begins with the presumption that a Structural Causal Model featuring Religion based Civilizations clashing where they have clashed before is better than some shite Sen pulled out of his ass.
Indeed, the question “do civilizations clash?” is
empirical. Sen has no empirical evidence.
founded on the presumption that humanity can be preeminently classified into distinct and discrete civilizations,
Whereas Roman citizens spoke Chinese and subjects of the Celestial Emperor conversed in Mayan.
and that the relations between different human beings can somehow be seen, without serious loss of understanding, in terms of relations between different civilizations .
Huntingdon was not concerned with the relations between different human beings. Nor is Sen. Huntingdon made a good prediction. Sen wrote worthless shite. The relationship between Sen's shite and Huntingdon's work represents the clash between Bengali Civilization, which is shit, and American Civilization which isn't shit at all. That's why Sen teaches in Amrika not Bangladesh.
The basic flaw of the thesis much precedes the point where it is asked whether civilizations must clash .
Sen's thesis is flawed because he thinks this is a matter which can be decided on a priori grounds. But the thing is empirical.
This reductionist view is typically combined,
This is itself a reductionist view. One must not put people into little boxes. One must also not put views or views about views into little boxes. Reductionism has multiple identities. It does not relate to anything in a reductionist way. Sometimes it is romantic. At other times it is random. Sen also has a foggy perception of foggy perception which can in fact be totes moggy or boggy or soggy.
I am afraid, with a rather foggy perception of world history which overlooks, first, the extent of internal diversities within these civilizational categories,
No. 'Internal diversities' generate the very dynamics which create civilizational categories. If there was no diversity to start off with there would be only culture, not civilization.
and second, the reach and influence of interactions —intellectual as well as material—that go right across the regional borders of so-called civilizations (more on this in chapter 3 ).
The difference between a culture and a civilization is that the latter's dynamics depend on such interactions. Where such interactions decline a civilization sinks down to the level of a culture.
And its power to befuddle can trap
how?
not only those who would like to support the thesis of a clash (varying from Western chauvinists to Islamic fundamentalists),
this cretin thinks nutters need to read a book by a Harvard Prof. in order to get 'trapped'. No doubt, he thinks people only get trapped into respiration after they read a textbook on pulmonology.
but also those who would like to dispute it and yet try to respond within the straitjacket of its prespecified terms of reference.
Dispute it by listing the various conflicts which definitely weren't 'civilizational clash'. There's always a more fine-grained version of an SCM. Consider the recent clash between the BJP and the TMC in Bengal. Is it Civilizational? The Patriarchal 'Ram bakht' of the West confronting the Bengali Mother God? No. It is a clash between traditional Bengali thuggery and Gujarati disdain for such low class behavior.
There are different Civilizations in the World and greater amity and friendship is created when we make an effort to understand other Civilizations. Sen, for some crazy reason is against this. That's a good enough reason to be against Sen. He is betraying Tagore's legacy. No wonder Nalanda was such an abject failure when he was Chancellor.
No comments:
Post a Comment