20 November, 2018

Blog

Amartya Sen, Identity & Violence: The Illusion Of Destiny

By Charles Ponnuthurai Sarvan

Prof. Charles Sarvan

I recently contributed a comment on Toni Morrison’s The Origin of Others. Subsequently, the above-mentioned work by Professor Sen came to mind: what follows are a few points from his book. Page reference is to the Penguin Books edition, 2006. To save clumsy and repeated attribution, unless otherwise made clear, the ‘argument’ is that made by Amartya Sen. A Nobel-Prize winner, Sen was Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, and is a Professor at Harvard University. Among the many aspects of his identity that Sen lists are Asian, Bengali, an American and British resident, an economist, a believer in secularism and democracy, a feminist, a heterosexual, a defender of gay and lesbian rights, a non-believer in an after-life, as in an earlier life or lives. Once when entering the UK, the immigration officer having examined Amartya Sen’s Indian passport thoroughly, and noting that his address was given as the “Master’s Lodge, Trinity College”, asked him whether the Master was a close friend to extend such hospitality. It did not remotely occur to that white official that the brown man standing before him was the Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. Like that immigration-officer, many of us presume that people can be categorised according to some singular and overriding criterion. Our shared humanity gets savaged when our differences are narrowed into “one devised system of uniquely powerful categorization” (Sen, pp. 16-17). A cultivated sense of identity with one group can be made into “a powerful weapon to brutalize another”. Many of “the conflicts and barbarities” in the world are sustained through the illusion of a unique identity. The short story by Flannery O’Connor I referred to in that earlier contribution, ‘The Artificial Nigger’, is apposite here: the ‘innocent’ boy sees a human being; more narrowly, a man. Then when he’s challenged and pressed, Nelson offers: an old man; a fat man. But his ‘racist’ grandfather sees only that the man is black: skin-colour and only skin-colour is what matters to him.

Often, one affiliation dominates and cancels out all other affiliations. In turn, this leads to conflicts which are then seen as “natural” and, therefore, inevitable and justified. For example, conflict between Sinhalese and Tamils is interpreted in “lofty historical terms, seeing in them something that is much grander than the shabbiness of contemporary politics” (Sen, p. 43). Creating hatred takes the form of invoking some allegedly predominant identity that drowns all other affiliations and overpowers any human sympathy and kindness.

Professor Sen admits that a sense of group-identity can strengthen and warm our relations within the collective – even as it leads to exclusion which, in turn, can result in mal-treatment of the ‘Other’. Indeed, this sense of belonging can be so strong that the group seems to be an extension of one’s own self: p. 33. (Perhaps, one could here turn to Erich Fromm’s Escape from Freedom, also known as Fear of Freedom, and his observations on inner freedom.) Individual behaviour can be excused on the grounds of group-norms. For example, in as much as a person is judged by the laws of her or his country within which she or he acted, so must it be when it comes to social (or anti-social) behaviour, morality and ethics. The individual, absorbed and strengthened by merging with the group, surrenders individual judgement. I cite an extract from what I wrote about Reinhold Niebuhr’s Moral Man and Immoral Society: Niebuhr suggests that when we are in a group, ‘other-than-self’ attributes are vitiated, if not entirely destroyed. There is then little of reason to guide our conduct, less check on our impulses, less capacity for transcending our individual self. Accepting generalisations (and myths) which, though an oversimplification, are very potent, our behaviour as a group is often a shame to our morality as individuals. In other words, as members of a group, we are ready to act in ways in which we, as individuals, would not. The tragedy of human history is that we have been unable to match our collective (group) behaviour to the ideals we cherish as individuals. Though we are individuals, we are also members of a society, a nation, a state. Inescapably, we exist within a group, and our group behaviour leaves much to be deplored and regretted. Indeed, our group-behaviour can encompass the unjust, the cruel, the horrific (Sarvan, Public Writings, Volume 1). Of course, some might doubt that the individual human being, generally, is morally superior to the group. One also wonders: To what extent is the individual a creation of her or his group?

When there is conflict between two religious groups, fostered and fomented by extremist monks or priests (or by public figures), recourse is made to “moderate” monks and priests to calm the situation. Helpful as this may be, Sen argues it only means that out of many identities, one has been singled out as most important, as constituting the essence. So too, to speak of “Buddhist civilization” or “Islamic civilization” prioritises one aspect at the expense of others. The answer, Sen suggests, is to build and strengthen civic society. Of course, those of a minority group facing majority violence and discrimination (both collectively and therefore, ipso facto, also as an individual) are bereft of choice: group-identity is forced upon them. But even when one is inescapably seen as Afro-American or Muslim, “one still has to decide what exact importance to attach to that identity over the relevance of other categories to which also one belongs” (Sen, p. 6). As the book’s subtitle indicates, Sen argues that to believe in one overriding criterion – be it skin-colour, ethnicity, religion, or language – and blame it on destiny is fatalism and passivity or excuse and falsity. (I am reminded of the title of a work by Bloke Modisane: Blame Me On History.)

Amartya Sen is given to critical thinking (one of the attributes of an intellectual) and so it is not surprising the he sees the faculty of reason as that which will help us to create a society that (to a fair degree) is virtuous. It can be suggested that there are two kinds of peace: negative and positive. ‘Negative peace’ is superficial and merely signifies an absence, the absence of overt conflict. ‘Positive peace’ is presence, the presence of harmony which, in turn, is the result of (economic, social and political) justice. It is claimed that Socrates at his trial (as readers know, he was found guilty and ordered to commit suicide) said that an unexamined life was not worth living. Perhaps following in that tradition, Amartya Sen asserts that central to leading a human life is the responsibility of reasoning, and so making informed and thoughtful choices. Ascription (to a group) can be made, but it should be without reflexive denigration. We must not allow ourselves, Amartya Sen urges, to be made prisoners of one single category by the accident of birth. “The hope of harmony in the contemporary world lies to a great extent in a clearer understanding of the pluralities of human identity” (Sen, xiv). However, in less sanguine moments, one might wonder at the prevalence of reason; feel that the so-called “common sense” is not common but, on the contrary, quite rare. How much Sapience have we, proudly and optimistically known as Homo Sapiens, displayed? Be that as it may, Amartya Sen’s work is well worth re-visiting and thinking about.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 3
    0

    CT

    Here is something that the Nobel Laureate commented about Sri Lanka and responses from Sri Lankan:

    “”Sri Lanka missed the richness of plurality – Amartya Sen
    Tuesday, 22 May 2007 43 Comment 379100 views
    While answering a question put to him on Sri Lanka, the Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen observed that Sri Lanka successfully implemented a number of welfare programmes such as free education, free health etc., to its people which should have contributed to peace in that country. But, by taking a position of upholding exclusive status to Buddhism and Sinhalese, it isolated other sections of the society from having a sense of national identity. Now, there is no likelihood that the Sri Lankan state will go back from that position. Sri Lanka didn`t realize the richness in plurality, said the Nobel Laureate Professor Sen to a tightly packed audience in Oslo on Monday. “”

    The comment:

    Mucha-linda
    22 May 2007 02:13:41 GMT
    Richness in Plurality of Sri Lanka..!!

    What a joke. These clowns should first need to get their priorities sorted. This joker, who came from a country where Hindi is the ONLY official Language of the Central Government (Article 343(1)), has spoken about Sri Lanka`s failure to realize the *richness in plurality* to an audience where Evangelical Lutheran Christianity has given an unchallengeable status by its constitution (Articles 2(2) & 4).

    -Muchalinda

    http://lankanewspapers.com/news/2007/5/15121.html

    Missing the richness of plurality
    Opinion By Elmore Perera
    http://www.island.lk/2007/05/31/opinion5.html

    Many Sri Lankans described him as a joker under comments published in various Sri Lankan news papers.

    • 0
      1

      Dumb Native Vedda HOw did you have access to these. Are you a MOLE ?. that is true. Why plurality is not applicable in the Western So-called Technologically developed countries. India is by default a plural country. Even India is agaisnt Islam and christianity. Sri lanka was apluralist country with respect to Hinduism and buddhism. but, Islam and christianity are different. Even for Catholics we can live side by side.

    • 0
      0

      Sri lanka does not need plurality. Sri lanka was a well adopted country with only buddhism and HInduism. chrtistians and “Muslims do not believe in Plurality aas they believe in the Almighty.

  • 0
    1

    Just before the Modi election Prof Amartya Sen raised concerns on the possibility of erosion of secularism in India. As soon as Modi government came into being, Amartya was removed from the Chancellor-ship of Nalanda University and for all practical purposes declared persona non grata.
    Hindu extremism is now respectable in India! Signs of non-secularism? Just look around India!

    • 3
      0

      K.Pillai

      “Hindu extremism is now respectable in India! “

      Descent secular Hindus are hiding from Hindian Hindutva like their counter parts in Sri Lanka, Buddhists have been hiding from Sinhala/Buddhists since 1950s. The Hindutva is creating exactly the same kind of problem the Sinhala/Buddhists created here, from making myths more respectable, enforcing various parochial fascist policies starting from University, ……………….

      The danger is that in their dream Sri Lanka is historically a Hindu part of Akhand Barath .

  • 0
    1

    The past is irrelevant. What is imortant is the present. IT is esseential to Sinhalize Tamils and Sinhala people to learn to speak and write Tamil. Tamils problems are beong used by the west for their benefit. Christians want access to Tamils because they want to spread their religion what ever the denomination is. Only a handful of Tamils are racists and Tribalists. I think Tamil Caste problem can be solved by sinhalizing tamils and also to give them good opportunities. Otherwise, Tamils become a problem again.

  • 0
    0

    HIndus are secular and adoptable to different things coming from the western culture,. but, christianity, Islam and Western value system based on christianoty can not be adopwed to Indian value system or Asian values. Because all those are very aggressive, invasive and predatory. Hinduism and buddhism also have very good resilience. that is why the Aurhor’s hindu upbringing made him multi everything. but christians or Islamic devotees are not capable of showing the same value system. Beczause, they believe the pyramid system in which almighty comes at the top. According t Hinduism or buddhism God shiva/Easwar/vishnu is the creator. but, he/they did not create anything the way christianity or the Islam say.

    • 0
      0

      Jim fooly, Buddha never said anything about god or his existence neither he said he created every thing. You say according to Hinduism or Buddhism God Shiva/Easwar/Vishnu is the creator but he /they did not create anything the way Christianity or Islam says. Can you enlighten me on how God Shiva/Easwar/Vishnu created as Hinduism or Buddhism say. Although you are a donkey we can increase our knowledge by listening to anybody.

      • 0
        0

        Ralli Ameen: YOu are the animal that you do not like to eat. ISlam and christianity says the creator created it. BS. Mohommad Created it for you and you idiots believe it. Hindus have different beliefs. They say it is Brahman and Shiva who were the creators. buddha did not leave anything for belifes of Faith. Only if you practice, you would believe otherwise you wouldn’t dare to believe.

    • 0
      0

      One mistake, Buddhism doe snot have a Creator. It i you are the creator of yourself. Eventhe world SELF is christian. the correct word is bhava

  • 0
    0

    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our Comment policy.For more detail see our Comment policy https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/comments-policy-2/

  • 0
    0

    This guy come and preach about the confltics between buddhism and Islam beczause of etremsit monks and how to solve. MY FOOT, What CRAP. It is you people, YOUR POPE ( at that time there was no protestants) who instigated numerous Crusades. Even todadt crhsitians live on others conflicts. YOu come and preach here. why do not say this is how the Stupid Almighty wantred it. IF you accept only thr Beaby JEsus, he is nolonger here and he was used even to eat magic mushrooms to get high. IT is some one else who baptised him and it is Roman rulers made him a religious leader and established vatican and Pope (that is the begining)

  • 0
    0

    Dear Prof. Sarvan,
    .
    I’ve spent many hours reading about Prof. Amartya Sen, whom I had known nothing of. I’m pretty sure that I can’t suddenly come up with any insights of my own, but I’d like to thank you for bringing to “our notice” a man whose thoughts we ought to be aware of.
    .
    Just to add that there is a variety of YouTube interviews with Amartya Sen:
    .
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jkJ8R_9O-Y
    .
    That’s just five minutes. Today it is possible to listen for hours to wise men of this sort:
    .
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Zy7b1twFxw
    .
    Others much more substantive:
    .
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jkJ8R_9O-Y

    .
    A brilliant lecturer, no doubt, emphasising just how much technology has enabled.
    .
    On the other hand there’s too much. So, thanks, Prof. Sarvan for yet another eye opening article.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 300 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically shut off on articles after 10 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.