Black Liberation Theology and Holistic Human Development

               There is a universal thread of love which runs through the world's most respected religious, philosophical and ideological traditions - a thread which serves as a call to action - and though it might look slightly different in practice, the focus of this particular love element is very similar in attending to the needs of the poor and oppressed in a given society.  In the Christian tradition, Jesus was not only poor but according to the New Testament chose to identify and surround Himself with those who were the poorest and most oppressed of his time.  The life of Christ serves as a call to Christians to not only address issues of oppression, but to make the concerns of poverty, social marginalization and therefore positive human development a direct part of their lives if they are serious about following Jesus' example.  Further, it is argued here that it is incumbent upon those who carry a love ethic of any kind - religious or otherwise - to stand up, identify and fight with the oppressed against the structures that control their lives and threaten existential destruction. To not do so, or to do otherwise is a denial of humanity and indicates a lack of love. 

                This analysis will focus on the modern radical black theology of the Christian tradition, as first articulated by James Cone in the form of Black Liberation Theology (Cone, 1990).  Cone is arguably the first African-American theologian to present an entirely American black philosophy of religion based upon the idea of oppression, and the inseparability of theology from the here and now of social conditions inhibiting the full development of humanity in general and the oppressed in particular.  What this means pragmatically is that history, consciousness and praxis inform each other in a confrontation with oppressive structural conditions in the social, political and economic arenas of our present day society.  It means that liberation (and salvation) can only come through confronting these structures - directly and forcefully - in a deliberate attempt at their destruction.  Cone (1990) directs his confrontation towards the "white" structures of power as related to the African-American condition in modern times.  His theology - first articulated in 1969 in his book Black Theology & Black Power - has created a modern theology which very much concerns the present, and is centered on an existential concept of the application of spirituality, not some future glory in the form of an afterlife.

                As Cone's theology was first formulated a number of decades ago, I will incorporate his principle of bringing things current by applying his idea of liberation to the 21st century.  To do this, I will utilize corollary philosophies in the tradition of Liberationist Theology and secular theory, as well as looking at the present day example of the prison-industrial crisis in America as it relates to full humanity or full development.   This will provide a context for present day issues of racial oppression, which of course are still very much alive albeit in much more politically correct forms of articulation. 

History Informs The Present:  Oppression and Liberation

                Amartya Sen (2000) argues that development "can be seen as a process of expanding freedoms" (p. 3).  Sen's view of freedom is wide-ranging and all inclusive, focused on political, social and economic opportunities, as well as transparency in structures of power, and the freedom for protective security from violence/oppression.  This wide-ranging micro and macro view of freedom leaves no room for oppression, racism or discrimination of any kind - as they all serve to negate one's humanity.   Freedom is referred to in human-scale (i.e. the individual, micro level) development as the very essence of being a fully developed human, or unfolding to our full potential according to  Johan Galtung (2010).

                It is the understanding of freedom as inseparable from one's humanity that Cone utilizes in his historical narrative of the African-American (Cone, 1990).  Tying this to the Christian theology of the crucified Christ, the historical becomes the existential current in that freedom means becoming free in the present through shaking off the structures applied externally, from the oppressor's interpretation of a historical narrative concerning who one is.   It is through the reclamation of freedom and dignity that the African-American casts off the dehumanized objectification applied to them by a racist society and thus helps the society itself to be re-born.  The oppressed person disavows the society that has sought to strip their humanity, and through doing so acknowledges that their own physical being could cease-to-be in the process of revolutionizing a society that does not allow their full humanity, and considers their claims to humanity to be a threat (Cone, 1990). 

                The historical narrative of the African-American slave as the present target of racism is the modern-day representation of the historical oppressed Christ.  It is through who Christ was that Cone (1990) identifies who He is in the present, and who the professing Christian must now be if they are to be a follower of the Christian faith. 

                Given this understanding of the historical Christ-as-one with oppressed humanity we recognize that the present day structures of American society dictate Christ assume the condition of the African-American and become the black Christ.  The personification of American oppression in Cone's time of 1969-1970 as well as today possesses a face of color.  Thus, it is only through identification with this face of oppression that the Christian can hope to exemplify and follow Christ's teachings (Cone, 1990).  The co-optation of the Christ figure as the oppressor god  traced back to the time of Constantine accounts for His portrayal in modern America as the white Christ - someone who is un-relatable to the black condition (Cone, 1990).  From the Constantinian perspective, Christ is viewed as the god who gives justification to the actions of the nation-state. 

                In the face of Constantianism or the religion of the oppressor class, Cone (1990) uses language similar to Malcolm X in that a religion of oppression is not a true religion nor one that he will acknowledge.  Cone uses powerful imagery to convey this point, stating that the white Christ - the god of the racists - must be killed, destroyed, eliminated as a false god - along with all who follow that god (Cone, 1990). 

                There is no room for existential non-dualism or neutral ground in the position of black theology.  Modern versions - sometimes referred to as prophetic Christianity (West, 2010) - reiterate Cone's emphasis of choosing sides in situations of injustice.  Everyone from Cornel West to South African leader Desmond Tutu have made remarks to indicate that neutrality in unjust contexts means assuming the side of the oppressor (West, 2000).  West in particular has followed in the tradition of Cone by comparing the modern empire of imperialist America directly to the Roman Empire of Jesus day and its identification as the power that executed Him (Morrison & West, 2006).  West along with Cone stands against these nation-state empires which signify oppressive power.  This is not to say that Cone or other black theologians are looking to exclude through dualistic perceptions of the nature of race relations, but that a challenge is issued to all who are looking to manifest justice in the face of racial oppression to become one with the oppressed. 

                This unity of the spiritual with the existential is where space can be found to insert the non-dualism of love into a theology that demands identifying with a particular side.  It is also the place where I can claim Black Liberation Theology as part of the universal nature of my own spiritual thinking.  For it is through love that we become fully human, and the ultimate example of love in Black Theology is the Christ example of becoming one with oppression in order to transcend it in the achievement of a non-dualistic humanity for all.  At the moment of claiming liberation for the black person in America - not merely approving of it, but becoming the liberating aspect - we are fully realized spiritual and existential beings.  Cone (1990) quotes Marx in this respect in that "freedom is the essence of man...it is not something outside one who freely is, it is the specific mode or structure of being" (p. 89). 

The Responsibility of Consciousness

                By truly recognizing freedom as an intrinsic part of our human nature, we have no choice but to side with the oppressed, and this is true whether we consider ourselves Christians or not.  It is at this point that the historical narrative of African-American oppression through slavery, Jim Crow and the modern prison system touches consciousness as an awareness of these structural conditions demands a response.  Once we can clearly see the racism in our society, we must seek to destroy it, or risk our own humanity by continuing to participate in this racist society, thus giving validation to its existence as an oppressive entity that inhibits development.  Later, we will explore how this consciousness is being challenged in the modern day through the denial of continuing racist structural conditions. 

                Much of what I've been saying is not only central to an understanding of Cone, but applies equally to the more secular liberation theory of people such as Paulo Freire (2007).  While Freire would not use language involving Christ, I would argue that the difference between his philosophy and Cone's is semantic.  In books such as Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire (2007) discusses love and universal humanization in parallel to Cone's Christ and the assumption of blackness.  Freire's philosophy is the more general description of the contextual Black Liberation Theology in modern day America.  Philosophies such as Freire's and Cone's mix so well because they all point to the same universal truth and unity that I express as the ultimate divinity or love.  Cone (1990) would seem to make allusions to people such as Freire as effectively being Christian in action through scriptures such as Matthew 25:31 which shows the surprise on the part of those welcomed into heaven by a Christ who commends them for identifying with "the least of these".  In other places, Cone continues this thread of theology by confronting the modern Western conception of Christianity and its focus on codes of morality and theological intricacies at the expense of engaging and living the life of Christ through loving action (Cone, 1990). 

Praxis Through Identification

                From a development standpoint, the full unfolding of humanity as described by Galtung cannot exist in a dualistic setting of dehumanization.  Freire (2007) emphasizes that humanity is not something that one can determine for another, or something that can be assigned or taken away from a person as it is the essence of being.  It is the oppressed themselves that must be conscientious of the structures they are under, even though this awareness can produce fear in the responsibility it carries.  But it is this responsibility, I believe, that provides the full opportunity for self-actualization and agency.  Both Cone and Freire describe this awareness which by nature leads to the praxis of revolution as an expression of love towards the humanity that has not only been denied to the oppressed revolutionary, but to the oppressor as well through their warped worldview. 

                The possession of the humanity of the oppressed is not something that the oppressor can own and yet remain human themselves.  Humanity is only available to the individual as self-humanity.  It is not something that one can "own" from another and still retain their own humanity.   The two do not mix, for the process of owning creates a commodity and takes away the spiritual element of our human condition.  The oppressor may possess and even kill the physical body, but the humanity itself is something that they have no control over.  Cone (1990) would say that this is where God is evident in Black Liberation Theology, and particularly in the Godly concept of freedom.  We are each the possessor and along with God, the only possessor of our humanity.  The key is awareness of this fact, and what it requires of us. 

                We are now beginning to see how history, consciousness and praxis are so intertwined that it is very difficult to talk about one without including all.  The historical condition of "being black" in America gives the black person alone the ability to obtain freedom from racism for all of us through the conscious awareness and praxis of liberating revolution.  However, it is not enough for those of us whose historical narrative is not identical to the African American to simply show support without active involvement.  The black American is the only one able to obtain a society liberated from racism through revolution - Black Liberation Theology states this as a fact tied directly to the meaning of liberation in the life (and death) of Christ (Cone, 1990).  What this means for the rest of us is that we must assume this same "black identity" or be on the side of the oppressor.  In this sense, blackness is freedom, blackness is a calling to be "Christ-like" in modern America.  Blackness in America equals liberation precisely because of its oppressed nature (Cone, 1990).  If we are going to be serious about the development of all on a global scale, then we must start at home, and we must do so by being aware that our identity as humans is inextricably tied into all of us "becoming black".  This then will restore humanity to all so that domestic development can truly begin in a unified liberated communal structure of freedom rather than oppression.  

Modern Racial Dialogue

                One of the biggest threats to consciousness that I have observed in personal experience is the masterful re-articulation of post-racial colorblindness combined with racial fatigue in many people, both white and black.  I have black friends who recognize and acknowledge racism, but I have just as many who are ready to move past the rhetoric in the age of Obama and are honest in saying that they are tired of the debate.  This makes it very difficult for me as a white man to engage in dialogue concerning issues of race with my black friends.  It is a bit unnerving as well in that this can create issues of uncertainty as to the proper role for those of us who are white and concerned about total human development in America. 

                For me, this has become especially true over the past few years as my awareness has increased in that individual freedom is contingent upon universal freedom.  It is an all or nothing approach to freedom as expressed in full human development that has been brought to me through the knowledge that my own human development has come out of personal trauma and the concomitant responsibility that I have seen placed on me as a result.  This awareness showed me how de-humanized I had allowed myself to become by too closely identifying with and being a part of a system of excess which obtains its benefits through oppressing others, and particularly African Americans in the United States.  The structure of racism in the existential sense is current, but the current condition is only possible through the historical narrative, which continues to point to the fact that this country was built on the shoulders of black slave labor. 

                Racism has become incredibly well integrated into the complex structures of modern American society and rhetoric, and it is often difficult to recognize since an open expression of racial bias is taboo in the present day.  Many who think like me want to believe that this scourge is gone from our present day structures, but the statistics - particularly in rates of African American incarceration - show otherwise (Alexander, 2010).  The elimination of widespread openly racist language would be welcome in a different context, but considering that the racism itself has not disappeared with the rhetoric, this lack of overt racism is dangerous in that it evades the issues and allows ignorance to the fact of continued racism.  Better to have racism out in the open - even if it is openly offensive - so that we can know what challenges need to be met, rather than having to deal with a structural oppression that works quite effectively because the exact structures are so intelligently disguised. 

                American society has gained a consciousness of denial through justifying its declaration of post-racial conditions by pointing to the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. (honored by a holiday/national monument) and the election of a half-black President.  It is a phenomenon that is similar, and in fact very closely tied to the spirit of dissatisfaction with the oppressive structures of Capitalism that became a global revolutionary movement in the 1960's, and then faded into obscurity as it came close to overturning but ultimately succumbing to the power of global Capital and its continued exploitation of the poor.  From my vantage point, it would appear that Capitalism gained a societal currency and justification in its defeat of communism.  As communism was the portrayed great evil and enemy, the sins of Capitalism were much easier to ignore and bury. 

                In the case of racism, Capitalism simply assimilated and introduced small tokens to justify its new "recognition" of past injustices by providing programs such as affirmative action and outlawing segregation and overt legalized discrimination of African Americans (Alexander, 2010).  Yet Michelle Alexander (2010) has illustrated just how much of a smokescreen this illegality of discrimination has become by pointing to several legal precedents, such as the Supreme Court case Alexander v. Sandoval in 2001 that effectively eliminated the opportunity to challenge criminal convictions on the basis of racial bias. 

Modern Racism as Incarceration

                Alexander's book The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration In The Age Of Colorblindness (2010) is a concrete useful analysis of racism in the midst of a complex modern America.  In the present day, structural components of racism are perhaps stronger than ever, but their strength lies in their interconnection, not as individual elements.  It is because of the interconnectedness of modern structural racism that it so difficult to isolate components of the larger system in an attempt to eliminate or even identify them (Alexander, 2010).    This makes constructive dialogue surrounding racist issues frustrating in our time as we are often hard pressed to define specific examples of what racism looks like. 

                Racism has been so integral to the existence and origin of America (e.g. elimination of the Amerindians as a threat and a people combined with black slave labor in the colonies), that the historical narrative of the nation is impossible to discuss without reference to the Indian or the black person.  One of the factors in covering up the atrocities in the national consciousness - I believe - is that the narrative has presented itself in the past tense, dealing with racism as a topic which time itself has eliminated.  The skillful manipulation of rhetoric and presentation of the glorious American narrative has allowed it a mythical status comparable to the Bible in the minds of many nationalists (and as such, it is a topic that is not to be challenged).  Therefore, since racism is woven into the Indra's Net construction of all that we call "American", it is inextricably a part of everything that involves tangible national dialogue.  It is no longer necessary to discuss race precisely because it is so ubiquitous.  The lack of dealing with racism is not a matter of apathy, it is a subconscious matter of survival to the nation as we know it.  To properly deal with racism would require the unraveling of a national narrative and the reconstruction of a new honest one.  In fact, from the very beginning of our nation, The United States has been living a lie.  Martin Luther King has famously called America to account for not living up the creed of its founders (King, 1992), which of course states that all are created equal. 

                Michelle Alexander (2010) has used this underlying component of racism in our national narrative to help explain why the new Jim Crow is the disproportionate incarceration and resulting demonization of African Americans.  In her book, she walks us through the various stages of the penal and justice systems, showing how money, legal precedents, national rhetoric and most importantly, the war on drugs all add their own layers to the system of containment that surround the African-American both figuratively and literally (Alexander, 2010). 

                As Alexander (2010) herself states, it is impossible to examine all the ways that racism is tied into the structures of American society in an abbreviated fashion, but the war on drugs is a particularly illustrative example.  In major American cities, up to 80% of young African American males have criminal records directly tied to their use or possession of drugs (Alexander, 2010).  This is despite the fact that the rate of drug use among African Americans is no higher and sometimes less than that of whites.  Yet 80-90% of people incarcerated for drug use are African American (Alexander, 2010).  If this alone doesn't cause suspicion at the injustice and racism of the system, it's hard to imagine what it will take to convince the willfully blind. 

                But the incarceration of African Americans is not the worst part of what we call the "criminal justice system" in America.  Once a person has been labeled a felon (and in some states - including Nevada, my home for ten years - even marijuana possession is a felony), they are stuck with that label for life.  So one joint, one smoke in the presence of a police officer has the potential to effectively ostracize a person from being able to function as a self-sufficient individual for the rest of their lives.  The label of "felon" bars people from employment, college loans, voting, housing and numerous other areas that are essential to day to day existence and long-term human development (Alexander, 2010).  It doesn't take a great deal of critical thinking to realize that when a person is left with little or no choice to feed themselves or obtain money, then they are much more likely to return to crime, particularly if they have already committed similar crimes in the past.   Given these facts, issues surrounding the prison system as it relates to African Americans is far from being irrelevant to development questions.  It is at the very heart of what it means to develop modern American society into its full potential. 

                This is also the case when considering - as Tim Wise does in his book Colorblind (2010) - the continued discrimination against minorities in the workplace.  Using multiple studies, Wise points to the fact that 600,000 African Americans annually experience blatant discrimination that directly affects their ability to find gainful employment (Wise, 2010).  These studies do not even take into consideration the challenges faced by former felons (the study only tracked applicants with non-criminal records), nor do they identify the indeterminate amount of informal application processes where it is impossible to gauge the factor that racism plays.

The Cross Of The Modern Black Christ

                Having spent my younger years growing up in the Christian church, the depth of the sacrifice that Jesus made was constantly emphasized to us by the fact that crucifixion was reserved for only the worst of criminals in the Roman Empire.  In other words, it was the most degrading punishment and form of death that one can imagine.  Jesus chose to become the lowest and most ostracized of human beings - even in death - in order to assume a liberation that would give freedom to all. 

                Understanding this nature of the death of Christ, what do we find when we combine it with a foundational theology rooted in the black experience, and articulated by James Cone, Cornel West, Martin Luther King Jr, and even Paul Freire and Malcolm X among others?  Keeping in mind that Black Liberation Theology places a great emphasis on the here and now tangible, flesh and blood application of Christianity,  I put forth the argument that the cross of the black Christ in modern day America is the prison.  No other structure has such power in stripping away the life and humanity of an entire community of people.  No other structure creates such disdain for its inhabitants and effectively marginalizes them and makes it socially acceptable to hate and avoid them.  Jesus was despised at the time of His death by the powers and society that He was a part of, yet it was through this that He transcended all and obtained a liberation for those who identified and continue to identify with Him. 

                Alexander (2010) has stated that the most damaging aspect of the justice system is the permanent stigma placed on the convicted felon.  It is not hard to understand why, for not only does it bare the person from employment in the face of an already discriminatory system as stated above, but it increases the chances that the felon will become a repeat offender simply to survive.  In addition, the chances of the person turning to drugs and/or alcohol as a means of escapism from an existential nightmare is substantially increased.  Thus, the former felon once again risks arrest for possession and use of illicit substances in the senseless and cyclical "War on Drugs".  Of course their poverty continues as well in that they find it harder and harder to make money through legal employment. 

Setting The Captives Free

                In looking for answers in dealing with modern issues of race, we have come full circle in our discussion of history, consciousness and praxis.  Racism has been deeply embedded in America by way of European culture, colonialism and institutionalism over a process of centuries.  It will not be dismantled simply from a couple of decades of intense activism and legislation in the mid 20th century. In the post-counterculture era of carefully chosen rhetoric and politically correct public personas, the lack of discussion has created a cover for perhaps the most dangerous manifestation of racism to date as it intertwines itself through structures culminating in the prison system.  Each individual component is visible from afar, but is very difficult to identify as we try to look closely at it.  This is true - as both Tim Wise (2010) and Michelle Alexander (2010) inform us - in the way that the police (legally) place undue emphasis upon monitoring "poor urban" (read: "black") communities looking for drug offenders as it is in judges imposing disproportionate sentencing guidelines based on race. 

                For those of us in modern day America, the road is a long and difficult one, but it is attainable through a continued emphasis on history, consciousness and praxis in all areas of human development.  This means that we must be aware that racism is a part of our national fabric, that it is this racism and the human objects of it that hold the very keys to liberation, and that any praxis of development which doesn't identify directly with the oppressed - the African American and other minorities - will be a futile spiritual and existential exercise. 

Concluding Thoughts:  How Will We Answer The Call?

                For the Christian and those of other love traditions, the challenge articulated by Cone cannot be ignored.  What will we do when made conscious of the oppressed African American?  Our consciousness is an awesome responsibility.  In my own life, my political and social awakening created a restlessness in me that culminated in the ending of a career for a life of activism and peacebuilding.  The more conscious I became, the more I was unable to ignore the spiritual nature of the call upon my life.  While I would not identify it as coming strictly from Christ, I wouldn't disavow the Christ-like nature of the call.  Cone is another of those authors who has effectively articulated what I have long sensed in my own being - that is to say that there is unity in the natural order of all that exists, and that the free nature of existence is only as strong as its weakest member, which is why we find liberation to achieve full human development and the key to obtaining it for all at the very place where oppression exists and in the actions of those who are subject to it.  We can then begin by fully identifying with the oppressed as possessing the same humanity we find in ourselves (by not doing so we in fact become oppressed ourselves) and re-igniting the national consciousness and dialogue surrounding issues of race.  We have to not only re-start the racial dialogue, but re-frame it for those who are racially fatigued.   Fatigue could be looked at as another component in the perpetuation of racist cultural dynamics, and is an effective tool in the oppressor's hands in the fight against racial equity. 

                How we overcome racism will require some creative revolutionary thinking in addressing centuries old problems.  The system as it now stands will need to be reconstructed or at the very least re-storied.  We must develop a new national narrative and dialogue that properly accords issues of race its place in history.  As we trace racial dynamics back to the founding of the country, and follow their path through our history, perhaps then we can recognize how the historical has informed the present and created the structures that we have today.  If necessary, and if we have the will, those structures may have to be completely destroyed and rebuilt again in order for the country to survive.  The future of America depends upon full human development which cannot be attained until we achieve full racial liberation through identifying and realizing what it means to be the least of these in our society.  

References

Alexander, M. (2010). The new jim crow: mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York: The New Press.

Cone, J. (1990). A black theology of liberation: twentieth anniversary edition. Maryknoll: Orbis Books.

Cone, J. (1997). Black theology and black power. Maryknoll: Orbis Books.

Freire, P. (2007). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Galtung, J. (2010). A theory of development: overcoming structural violence. Oslo: Transcend University Press.

Jr., M. L. (1992). I have a dream: writings & speeches that changed the world. New York: HarperCollins.

Sen, A. (2000). Freedom as development. New York: Random House.

West, C. (2010). Brother west: living and loving out loud, a memoir. New York: Smiley Books.

West, C. (1999). The cornel west reader. New York: Basic Civitas Books.

West, C., & Morrison, T. (2006, August 26). Toni morrison & cornel west in conversation. Retrieved April 2012, from You tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjifj_PZONo

Wise, T. (2010). Colorblind: the rise of post-racial politics and the retreat from equity. San Francisco: City Lights Books.

X, M. (1965). Malcolm x speaks. New York: Grove Press.

Ozzie Guillen and Cuba

The actions and public position taken by the Miami Marlins against manager Ozzie Guillen have a lot more to say about politics and the elite of this country than it does baseball. Guillen was suspended for five games for stating that he loved Fidel Castro and respected the fact that he stayed in power for so long without being killed.  What Guillen said must be understood in context, and here are some important dynamics to consider:

1. Latin America has been brutalized over the decades from the U.S. Our support of Rios Montt in Guatemala (responsible for 100,000+ Mayan deaths - all with material support from the Reagan administration) being just one example. Others include CIA orchestrated coups in Chile, Nicaragua (Contras), El Salvador, Guatemala, Argentina. Support for atrocities in all of those countries, and multi-national corporation seizure of resources are just the beginnings of what we've done. People like Castro, Chavez in Venezuela (Guillen's home country) and Morales in Bolivia have nationalized North American business interests upon assuming power, which has sealed their demonization in American discourse. You won't hear the same negativity applied to past regimes such as Rios Montt from Guatemala, Augusto Pinochet in Chile, or the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua - all extremely oppressive. The national narrative around those individuals is simply non-existent or filled with misinformation as they were supporters of the United States.

2. Given this context, support for Castro's revolution was and is common if not widespread. He is a leader who has stood against all that the brutal U.S. tied Latin American regimes of the past half century have represented. He has trained more doctors in Latin America than anyone in the world, and has also spread his literacy programs across the Southern Hemisphere. U.S. foreign policy has not been so friendly nor even remotely interested in true development or resolving conflicts/promoting education throughout Latin America's history. Every country we've touched, the situation has become worse - not better for the poor and disenfranchised.

3. Human rights violations? Yes, freedoms have been curtailed, Cuba is far from perfect, but mass killings and torture? Hardly. If anyone has done mass human rights violations and murders in Latin America over the past century, it has almost all been done either directly or with the support of U.S. foreign policy. Look up United Fruit Company from sites outside the U.S. and see what you find in the history of Central America, look at the ruthless human rights violators who have been trained at the School of the Americas in Georgia. Research the coups in Central and South America, or read books by Latin American authors - even American authors who are willing to step outside the mainstream.

4. The Cuban-American community in Miami (especially its voice and lobby influence) has grown largely out of the elites who were sent into exile as Batista's supporters, beneficiaries and cronies. This community is still heavily influenced by the same imperialist ideology that Batista supported - all aligned with international business interests. They have a reason to hate Castro - he nationalized their businesses, which were stripping the country's finances and resources - and took their exploitation of the poor and turned it around. Cuban literacy is nearly 100%, life span and overall health is dramatically improved since before the revolution, and the peasant classes saw their first opportunities for self-sustainability (all this despite a stifling U.S. embargo that has greatly hampered access to resources and further development). As I said, Cuba also has many faults, the lack of a free press being one of them as well as the lack of opposing political parties or national elections.

I do not claim Socialism as my ideology nor do I support Castro, but I too have respect for him. I do not claim any political ideology exclusively. But I think it is a suppression of free speech to punish a man from Venezuela, a man who has seen the OTHER side of our foreign policy in Latin America for expressing a political opinion that has been overblown and ultimately irrelevant to his performance as a manager. Our media truly does control our thinking if we fail to see this situation and possible support of Castro from another perspective - that of the Southern Hemisphere, even if that support is not unconditional or universal (which it certainly isn't). Context is crucial, and our media does a very poor job of describing the dynamics surrounding Cuba from the viewpoint of those in Latin America and other places quite adversely affected by U.S. foreign policy, and does an even worse job of attempting to understand those who come from such places.

Linguistic Conceptions of Love and Idenity

This essay is the culmination of a semester's study of identity in my MA program on Conflict Transformation. I realized that it became a bit of a personal manifesto of belief as well. Identity does reach to the core of who we are, so that would seem to be a natural route for a reflection on the topic.  

     Whenever I'm asked about my religious beliefs, I say that love is the ultimate. I respond that love is God, which is one example of where my beliefs coincide with The Bible. We can see the thread of love in the makeup of all the world's great traditions, but is it enough to say that "I believe in love" and leave it at that? I say no, as not only will there be different ways of applying and defining love, but the universal nature of that small word opens up an entire new language that we can use; and much like language in the broader sense, love creates its own concepts by the very fact of its existence. It gives shape and clarity to everything that is. Its universal nature requires it to, and because of all that it envelops, "love" can seem impossible to harness into something neat and compact that we can categorize in our minds. There is a need to contextualize and explain what we mean when referring to love as related to identity.

     

     Perhaps then it is best to see how love looks in various situations. One of my favorite quotations comes from Cornel West (2010) when he says that "justice is what love looks like in public". There is so much in that statement, including something unsaid: that love takes on a different "look" depending on context. So how then does love manifest itself in issues of identity? Better, what are some of the words and/or statements that we use in this love language of identity? Looking back on a semester, I can see where my worldview of love as the ultimate has found itself enhanced by new additions to my vocabulary. These new words/concepts have sparked corresponding new ideas and potential ways to enact love in our world. It has created new entry points to tap into the energy described so well by Pierre Tielhard De Chardin - who portrays my metaphysical conceptions best - when he sees love as an energy of attraction or coming together of consciousness, humanity, knowledge and biology in a process of evolution that will ultimately culminate in "God" (Chardin, 1976). So, let's look at love as it appears in some of the words we associate with identity. 

Love and identity as dignity

     In my reading of Donna Hicks, I have not seen her name it as such, but her message is consistent with the idea that dignity is the essence of ourselves that is at base inseparable from and a part of universal love. It is where love resides in the individual, and tapping into that essence comes about through a process of self-reflection and discovery. Once we are able to see it in ourselves, then we can see it in others. This ability to see that internal space where love resides in humanity allows us to see true identity. I appreciate how she teaches us that dignity is not part of basic human needs, it is part of basic human essence. To deny someone's dignity is to deny their humanity (Hicks, 2011).

      From my own experience, I have found that it's when I'm most violent to myself that I'm violent to others (that is not to say physically violent, but violent in words/thoughts). It's when I'm least capable of overlooking personal faults that I'm also incapable of overlooking faults in others, and I tend to make sure the other knows about whatever "wrong" they've done in my eyes. My vision has been blocked in those moments. I fail to focus on the truly human and instead pick out external conditions and tie them to the person's identity. I have not placed dignity at the forefront in these situations, and because of this I identify myself and others in relation to the external or a particular context, instead of seeing a human in the midst of and irrespective of a context. Yes, we exist in relation to the world, but in and of ourselves we are still autonomous humans defined by the very dignity that is often denied by others. We learn from those others, and denying their humanity is to deny our own.

Love and identity as mimetic desire

     

     Vern Redekop (2002) gives shape to a concept we all use called mimetic desire. We learn to relate to the world by sent and received messages and signals in relation to others and through imitating positive responses that meet our needs, including the needs around identity. Mimetic desire or the desire to imitate can be positive or negative, but at base it is a desire for connection to something we see in the other. Redekop argues that what we are looking to connect with is at the very essence of what it means to be human, and it is here that I would agree. Notice the consistency with the other aspects of love which we've already addressed, such as Chardin's love energy working through evolution to bring us into tighter relation and consciousness as inter-connected humanity. Also, the desire to reach the essence of the human is the desire for dignity which is inseparable from essence.

     Redekop himself refers often to dignity, and it's concomitant element of autonomy. Both Redekop and Hicks are consistent in their descriptions of the seeming tension between the dual needs of individuation and integration. This tension is not so difficult to resolve when love as the mimetic as brought in. What we desire in imitating the other is that which defines us all as humans. It can be as simple as learning the appropriate way to dress or as complex as connections at the deepest emotional level. Thus, once we attain those desires/needs, we are then fully realized in our individuated humanity while at the same time we have achieved connection with the humanity around us. The two cannot be separated, as seemingly disparate as individuation/integration look at first glance.

     This makes sense when we continue to keep in mind that love is universal. Therefore ultimate love would by nature be fully capable of realization in the whole or part of the whole. However, the part only retains identity in relation to the whole. Identity cannot happen in a vacuum. There must be a relation in order for the individual to stand out or identify to humanity. If humanity or larger societies were universally homogenous, there would be no individual identity as there would be nothing to relate to. Love as mimetic desire fulfills the need for relation and autonomy in its healthiest manifestation by allowing us to be truly present witnesses through an awareness of others and how we identify in a continuous give and take. Thus the individual continues to combine and work towards higher levels of consciousness, unity and love by having their needs fulfilled while at the same time offering back to others those parts of one's self which we are able to give. In this way, mimetic desire works in all areas of the human experience and makes clear why healthy self-care and knowledge is inseparable from the love of others.

Love and identity as biology 

      I have already referred to Chardin's metaphysical paradigm of evolution as love, but I want to expand on that idea a bit and bring in thoughts of biologist Mary Clark as well. The idea of evolution as love and what that means for our identity is a profound departure from the normal discourse of evolution as natural selection. Both Chardin and Clark argue that we have evolved into beings that are by nature social and not competitive. 

      Clark (2002) takes this somewhat novel idea of evolution as a point of departure and argues that our minds are essentially "meaning-making" organs (p. 62). She illustrates this by showing us how language itself has evolved out of relationship in that it is a shared system of making sense of the world. It is through coming together that we come to a greater knowledge simply by the mere fact that we have a common basis for understanding in linguistic terms. This is a refreshing departure from survival of the fittest as a paradigm for increased intelligence. How often have we seen the power of ideas in a group of thinkers being superior to the individual, even if that individual has a higher singular intelligence than any one member of the group? 

     This is but one example of what I take from Clark in that biological evolution is a relation of love, and that the coming together of cells mimics the coming together of humanity. At this point, we enter into the metaphysical, as we cannot see the end of our evolutionary road. Chardin posits that the ebbs and flows of power structures, the errors and violence, the love and hatred are but the normal process of humanity's evolution towards the highest or ultimate realized for him in Christ and for me in love.

     Chardin died before the invention of the internet, but the advancement of technology is another example of evolution at work, and a form of evolution that unites us rather than separates us. Further, It is from imperfections in learning to deal with new and unfamiliar others - and their corresponding identities - that violence can occur. As technology makes the world smaller, we are facing new challenges of how to continue to come together. But Clark argues that it is in our nature to be social beings, and in this I find agreement with her. It is natural to unite, and the violent reactions we see in our world when diverse identities first engage in the trial and error process of unity are a result of earlier evolutionary processes that form the makeup of our individual cells. To continue to evolve, the human as organism will "learn" that going with the grain of the universe means learning to unite, not divide. Their evolution is centered around the ultimate goodness at the heart humanity, which I call love/divinity.

     So as Redekop (2002) and Clark (2002) both point out, we have evolved towards self-preservation, but when we bring that idea together with Chardin's ultimate metaphysic of combined humanity-as-one, we see that the self-preservation will eventually reach to a much greater macro level than anything previously envisioned. For in the end we individual humans, now seen as a whole in and of ourselves, will become - and in many ways already have become - the makeup of a higher form of life, much like the individual cells which make up our bodies.

     

     This evolutionary energy of love that drives life at all levels is what we must learn to tap into as we become ever more physically closer on this planet. This is my conception of becoming closer to divinity - working towards the divinity in ourselves as united with others - and this is where I see and understand the Christian concept of God in man as Christ. This vision of Christ as the ultimate evolution - which is the true view of Chardin and all Christians - is really a vision of the highest stage of humanity and consciousness. Our identity and purpose as humans is to be part of the greater whole that is driven by love. So, to me, love and Christ are inseparable, and to say that I believe in love would also carry a form of belief in Christ, but additionally would include other energies of love that can be seen in Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. All are attempts to identify humans as tied to this energy of love, and that's why I cling to love as the ultimate force and God of the universe.

     Additionally, since all humanity contains the grain of divinity within their very biological essence, then is it too far of a stretch - given all that we've discussed thus far - to envision different autonomous expressions of God in the diversity that is the makeup of humanity? To take it further, isn't it this diversity contained within an even larger whole that will culminate in God? Cannot this God then be diverse as a part of its makeup? Does this not mean then that the energy of love is great enough to be all-inclusive and uniting and even has a destiny to unite? I say yes, and these questions are the kinds that I've grappled with in my own mind in attempts to make sense of the metaphysical. Furthermore, they are all directly related to the very core of who we are as humans, and how we identify with the universe and particularly the "others" around us.

Love and identity as politics

     At first glance, you the reader might think this statement oxymoronic. Politics is traditionally thought of in terms of governments, deal-making and power struggles. Yes, this is a part of politics, but Kenneth Hoover (1997) reminds us that there are power dynamics in any human relationship. If we are alive, we have power, and therefore power is a part of our identity. It cannot be ignored and it cannot be avoided, so awareness of the critical importance that power carries in human identity is crucial to our further evolution and survival.

     Interactions of power-containing individuals and societies, in Hoover's conception, are meant to draw off of the same energy of love that we've been discussing. Proper use of power as political relations is pragmatic application of the energy of love. Politics also encompasses far more than the macro government level. Politics is human relations. Therefore for these relations to remain healthy rather than self-destructive to our species, we need to focus on providing the kind of environments that will contribute to mimetic exchanges that allow diversity, tolerance and equanimity. Stifling mimetic desire as described by Redekop (2002) is to try to counter-act the process of evolution. Eventually this is doomed to failure if we accept everything posited thus far, yet this is what many governmental power structures attempt to do in our world today.

Love and identity as revolution

     Further, it is the stifling of these rich mimetic exchanges, in their ideal form, that becomes a threat to identity and is a direct contributor to violence. This is easily perceived when we remember that mimetic desires help define and shape our identity, and to be aware of our identity is to be aware of our dignity. When governments or power structures establish environments that try to homogenize or restrict this identity formation, they are also engaging in an indirect or direct denial of human dignity. Those subjected to this denial will often rebel and become violent, and these environments are the atmospheres from which revolutions are born.

     Granted, revolutions are not necessarily a bad thing, and much like the evolution of humanity, they can be seen as an evolution of the conditions that contribute to the positive evolvement of human structures of power. The problem is in the violence. Revolution by nature does not equal violence, but it of course often includes it. Revolution at base is about change, and the kind of change that revolutions work towards is to bring conditions that not only provide room for human dignity to shine, but to enhance and grow the dignity of humans; ultimately, it's about increasing awareness in the lives of the oppressor that the oppressed are claiming back their identity. This may sound like some grand statement, but isn't any revolution a progression, which is born out of a desire that a certain group has to elevate their worth as humans?

    

     While I cannot endorse the methods of a Che Guevara, he did capture the essence of revolution in his statement "at the risk of sounding absurd, a true revolutionary is motivated by love for the people" (Franklin, Hsu & Kosanke, 2000, p. 20). What I find admirable about Che's writings is that he was seemingly driven by the lack of dignity that he recognized in his fellow Latin Americans. He had seen how the machinations of power and imperialism had de-humanized the people with which he identified, and he felt this de-humanization in his deepest core essence. Ultimately, he identified himself as one of those people which the power structures of the Northern Hemisphere, particularly the United States, were oppressing.

     I am convinced that Che's revolutionary motivations were as much an effort to restore his own dignity as they were to elevate the dignity of others. His methods became extreme, and he acted violently to keep the revolutionary movement progressing forward. This I can no longer agree with, although there was a time when I did. However, I have come to a greater empathy of the reasons for the actions of a Che Guevara, or at least the actions of the Che that I've read about and that has been presented to me through Cuban and other leftist literature.

     Che's actions as presented were an effort to restore equality and dignity in all people. Theoretically, this is the message of Marxists everywhere. However, the dark side of power inserts itself into dialectic materialism by not acknowledging the fact that one power class ends up replacing another. A purely Marxist message is not one of equanimity and dignity for all humanity, it's only for those who were formerly oppressed. If the Marxist revolution succeeds - at least in the real world outside of Marxist literature - the oppressed becomes the oppressor.

Love and identity as divine revolution

     We can see from the preceding statement how identity can instantly take on a different form when conditions are not created for the proper dignity of all, including the former oppressors. When this happens then we as the greater body of humanity have arrived at the position we held before the revolution. The death and violence involved in the cleansing of the old guard has done nothing to advance the evolution of the new guard. The new guard has separated itself from the greater body by attempting to elevate itself above the previous oppressor. This separation from the larger body of humanity is a form of identity loss, and is akin to a branch being separated from a tree. By refusing to recognize the dignity of the whole, the dignity of the part is lost as well. As previously mentioned, the part can only maintain its identity in relation to the whole.

     However, divine revolution, the revolution that goes with the energy of love recognizes the dignity of all and must by that fact alone be a revolution of non-violence. For how else can we respect our common human dignity but to remain non-violent? Any form of violence is at base a de-humanization. It is a judgment placed on a particular human life, stating that in this situation that human no longer has a place in the greater body of humanity. It is a denial of dignity - of identity at its very foundation - which is the identity of being human.

    

     Revolutionaries such as Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Dorothy Day, Cornel West and many others, like Che Guevara have also fought for the oppressed. But they have done so in a way that keeps the dignity of the oppressor intact. For the revolution means nothing if it is not universal, and for it to be universal it is absolutely necessary to stop the cycle of violence not later, but now. Forgiveness is necessary to restore the dignity of the oppressor, and it is necessary for the restoration of the dignity of the oppressed. The bond comprising the greater human identity has been ruptured in situations of oppression, and to restore it both parties must be reconciled. Forgiveness by the oppressed is at the base of this process as well as the acknowledgment of the rupture committed on the part of the oppressor.

Concluding remarks

     In addition to the methods above, I'd like to close this reflection on the love language of identity by stating that love and identity are also knowledge and awareness. Love grows out of knowledge and awareness. Anything we as individual autonomous members can do to increase our awareness extends itself to the whole through the mimetic exchanges with which we are constantly engaged. We have no choice but to intervene in our world, as the very essence of being human is to interact. Even an inaction is still an action.

     Therefore, when we increase our own awareness, we work towards increasing the awareness of others. At the same time, we cannot increase our awareness separated from others. Awareness, like human existence itself, is individuated yet integrated. Without a cultural base, a frame of reference, linguistic terms to make sense of what's around us, and interactions with others, whether it be in print or in person, our awareness is nothing; it is a vacuum. Even the contemplatives, monks, Buddhists and other ascetics are ultimately trying to tap into the same divine universal energy of love that we all seek and find in ourselves and through our relations with others. Their seemingly isolated search is actually a very intense process of reaching towards the whole. Those who are able to achieve the feeling of ultimate connection of being at one with the universe have tapped into divinity. They have found love, and they are now speaking its language. May we all work towards finding this connection in our lives, for there is no truer way to define our identity than through love.

References

Chardin, P. T. (1976). Activation of energy: enlightening reflections on spiritual energy. New York: Harcourt, Inc.
Clark, M. E. (2002). In search of human nature. New York: Routledge.
Franklin, C., Hsu, R., & Kosanke, S. (2000). Literary studies east and west: navigating islands and continents: conversations and contestations in and around the pacific. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Guevara, C., & Deutschmann, D. (2003). Che guevara reader. Melbourne, Australia: Ocean Press.
Hicks, D. (2011). Dignity: the essential role it plays in resolving conflict. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Hoover, K., Marcia, J., & Parris, K. (1997). The power of identity: politics in a new key. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers, Inc.
Redekop, V. N. (2002). From violence to blessing: how an understanding of deep-rooted conflict can open paths to reconciliation. Ottawa, Canada: Novalis.
West, C. (2010). Brother west: living and loving out loud, a memoir. New York: Smiley Books.

Intervention

The late activist Arthur Gish in Palestine

When asked to reflect on the idea of "intervention" as applied to my peace work grad studies, I realized how foundational this is to every human interaction.  We cannot escape intervention, we engage in it constantly, whether or not we are conscious of it...

...and as with any concept, I like to dig deep, find out all I can, think about it from every angle, and maybe jump in and immerse myself to the point that I am living the idea - at least in my mind.  Is a word or can a word be an idea?  I say yes in the sense that "love" as a word is also an idea, "justice" as a word is an idea, and "intervention" can be as well. 

                Intervention by nature implies an action, which includes stepping into a situation, environment and/or someone's life or lives.  Therefore we have underlying factors such as motive and purpose working in the idea of intervention.  Going deeper still, I seem to hit a bedrock of two dynamics:  1.responsibility and 2. a philosophy or way of life as being at the abstract foundation of intervention.  I think we must begin with the latter.

                For me and probably for many others, the decision to work for others in such an obvious way as peacebuilding came about through an intense and sometimes torturous mental journey.  Why are we so driven to make changes in our world?  Why or how can one person possibly make a difference?  Is there some underlying need that is at work in our own lives?  When we've seen some of the world and realize the transient nature of things, the questioning ultimately will turn to the existential:  Is there a reason for living other than relationships and the impact we make on other lives through our own life?  I've come to the decision that there is not.  People are life and life-giving.  But why do we even need a reason to live?  Is our reason for living for others driven by selfishness?  These are all questions I've spent an enormous amount of time thinking about. 

                At this point we can bring in the issue of responsibility to our philosophy of life.  If we are considering stepping into a situation that has a direct impact on the life of another, then we'd better be aware of the magnitude of what we're doing, and how we're doing it.  But the dialogue can become quite existential here as well.  Is it possible not to have an impact on others?  Isn't our very presence in the world an impact just from the fact that we're alive and live in relation to others, even if that relation is seemingly benign or irrelevant?  Is the lack of the good that we could have done for someone an action of its own accord - an action out of inaction?  The conclusions I've come to in this regard tells me that the energy of the universe, the energy that many refer to as God, and I refer to as love, is the same energy that has caused me to live and that draws me inextricably towards others in positive mutuality.  Yes, I have a need that I am fulfilling - the need of purpose - by choosing to intervene in the world as a peacebuilder.  However, I am fulfilling that need with the full knowledge that what I see inside of myself is interdependent on others.  Humanity by nature is meant to function as a union, and as peacebuilders, we are working towards repairing ruptures in inter-relational dynamics and striving towards a consistent healthy functioning of that union.

                The needs I recognize in myself are common to all of humanity.  We are all drawn towards each other, so in this sense I cannot reduce the actions of peacebuilders to simply selfish motives - as everyone has the need for connection and purpose.  If it is selfish, then it's a shared selfishness with all humanity.   So we need to be connected yes, but there is a coinciding need for autonomy that goes along with connection.  We are independent and autonomous yet connected through the same energy that gives us all life.  I appreciated the reminders that Anderson & Olson (2003) - among others - have given us that peacebuilding in its ideal form is meant to give space to others to establish their own autonomy and independence.  Those two concepts involve the further concepts of dignity, freedom, sustainability and control of self.  Peacebuilding is not meant to impose peace on others, as if it were something that I or anyone was able to give to them.  No, the best that I can hope to do is to open up more spaces for others to realize opportunities that they never were able to see before, and to further allow them to see that they can build upon these opportunities and continue to spread the divine energy of the universe in their own lives and environments. 

                But here again, caution is needed.   The same motive of opening "opportunities" is also claimed by those who enter parts of our world to proselytize.  We have a very real danger of falling into the mentality of the benefactor who believing themselves superior, has something to give to those less fortunate.  I have observed that this benefactor mentality is often combined with a misconception of the categorical imperative to "show the light" to others.  This is where the idea of duty or the establishment of morality by some code can become dangerous, and where I disagree with the wording of Anderson & Olson.  Yes, we should live our lives by a standard.  However, to term that standard "morality" can imply things to others that we don't mean it to.  The same could even be true for the term "love", but I do not know any other way to refer to the ultimate life force we all live by. 

                The main point to be taken from this is that we must constantly be aware of the environment and worldview from which we come.  We must further be aware that everyone has a worldview, and none is benign or lacking of impact upon others in some way.  As mentioned previously, I strongly believe that inaction is still action.  We cannot escape worldviews or our impact upon others.  But we can control how that impact is made upon others.  Entering situations and foreign environments requires us to live and operate with the utmost humility.  Our morality may not be the morality of others, but I fully believe that love is universal.  There is a certain level of dignity and respect for human life and rights that is also universal.  I believe that we cannot go wrong if we always strive to hold our every action up against the energy of love which is inclusive of equanimity, justice, peace, respect, humility, compassion and dignity. 

                But you as the reader may be thinking that all of these are abstractions and not very pragmatic in application.  I would argue otherwise.  When considering our conceptions of humanity - that is how we view human life in all of its facets, right down to the very value of the life itself - we must realize how subconscious these conceptions become and how influential they are on every life decision we make.  There is no choice to intervene, and there is certainly no choice whether or not to intervene for the peace practitioner.  We intervene no matter what we do.  

                Since we have no choice in the matter, we need to approach our "interventions" in life with an open attitude; one that realizes that the need to learn more from others is greater than the need to teach others or assume some sort of "high road" when it comes to morality.  I believe this applies as well to someone who is adopting the "do-gooder" mentality out of a feeling of guilt rather than love.  I cannot see how we can effectively practice peace in our world unless we learn how to truly connect with others on a deep level.  To do that, we must learn how to love - and love in the broadest sense, which starts with the love of self.  If we cannot recognize and love the humanity that resides within us, we will never be able to recognize it in the world around us, and we will be going through life blind to the interventions that we engage in constantly.  I appreciate the insights that the academic world has given me in this respect, but the vast majority of this knowledge cannot be learned through strict academics void of coinciding internal work.  For some, it requires a great deal of adversity, for others it may not.  But no matter how the process manifests itself in life, those who are able to achieve the smallest insight into the complexities of intervention are among the fortunate ones in our world.  

Reference

Anderson, M., & Olson, L. (2003). Confronting war: critical lessons for peace practitioners. Cambridge, MA: The Collaborative for Development Action, Inc.

Kenneth Hoover on Identity, Power and Politics

The focus of several recent posts on this blog have involved the concept of identity as related to Conflict Transformation (which is also a course I'm currently taking).  This has been one of my most enjoyable classes in my grad program this semester.  The book reviews and topics discussed here have been posted because these topics have been integral and parallel to my own thoughts and development this past year.  

Introduction

                There are foundational tensions at the heart of Kenneth Hoover's book The Power of Identity: Politics in a New Key, and they go to the very core of what it means to be in the world and further to be in relation with; i.e. the full range of what it means to exist as a human.  These tensions take various forms, a couple of which are the us vs. them duality we hear in numerous contexts and the positive vs. negative benefits as applied to the individual when referring to identification with a particular group.  Therefore the tensions are multi-dimensional, multi-layered and complex when we begin to break down the internal and external elements of human identifications and relations. 

Politics And Power As Related To Identity

                Politics as defined by Hoover is also multi-dimensional and multi-layered.  Here Hoover is partly  referring to politics in the "traditional" sense, that is to say in the state or governmental spheres.  But politics according to Hoover is much more; it is essentially any interaction involving situations of power, influence and knowledge (among other factors) which affect relations between - and the concomitant identities of - individuals at the micro level and communities/societies at the macro level. 

                Therefore, the scope of this relatively short book is incredibly large as it attempts to look at identity from the vantage point of many different perspectives and group dynamics.  However, Hoover's great achievement is to instigate appropriate lines of questioning when it comes to the meaning of identity.  This type of questioning is not much different from that which goes into the process of healthy identity formation itself.

Stages of Identity Development

                Integral to Hoover's tensions within the various elements and types of identity is the gradations in identity development, both within societies and communities, and within the individual in relation to those larger groups.  Hoover's statements resonate when he mentions the stages of identity development within the individual, particularly the time in late adolescence which he refers to as "moratorium".    The critical importance of this period is emphasized by Hoover, and with the advantage of hindsight, anyone with a bit of life experience and a healthy sense of identity should be able to recognize the decisions made - conscious or not - during this time. 

                What Hoover means by moratorium is that there is enough development in the individual's mind and just enough life experience (in late adolescence) to begin the process of questioning.  Whether or not this process is actually embarked upon at that time is another matter.   There is a danger in this stage of accepting everything that has been presented to the developing mind without the appropriate critical thinking that is so crucial to self-esteem, self-respect and true identity formation.  "Identity foreclosure" is how Hoover describes the process of closing further development at this point in one's life.  One example of this could be the fundamentalist - of any stripe - who simply accepts what has been presented to them externally their entire life.   

                However, identity foreclosure is not necessarily a bad thing once proper identity development has occurred.  If one has given themselves the opportunity and courage to question the world around them during the moratorium period, and has come to certain conclusions on their own then identity foreclosure could be seen as a natural progression.  Hoover could be interpreted as saying that having solid beliefs, with the caveat of flexibility and openness to learning new experiences, is a healthy form of "foreclosure".  This flexibility prevents the creeping in of dogmatic lines of action and thought. 

Identity, Tolerance and Culture

                Once the individual has established and is aware of their own identity progression, they are then able to confidently and openly tolerate differences of opinion in others.  With the solid grounding of their own identity, they perceive no threats from the outside.  This review argues that this is one of the most critical elements at any stage of identity in our world today, whether it be at the individual level, or at the societal and community levels.   Additionally, it is argued that intolerance results from a lack of appropriate questioning in one's life, and this results in insecurity, which could be - and perhaps often is - subconscious.  There is an element of fear that one's beliefs and worldview (a large part of identity) might not be the final "truth", and the perception of threat from those with different identities comes into play.  That is, the individual feels the instability of their own identity in the face of "the other", and it is not inaccurate to say that they almost believe that this "other" wants to change them in some way, or that they might be changed themselves with continued exposure. 

                A very close concept to identity foreclosure before a proper moratorium would be labeled by Hoover as "diffusion".  This is the other direction in which the individual could head in the moratorium period.  Diffusion is where no identity at all is claimed, whether external or internal.  Where it can be interpreted by the reader as similar to early identity foreclosure is in the sense that both elements (identity foreclosure without proper moratorium and diffusion) lack internal stability.  The process of questioning allows the individual to "feel out" the world around them and establish identity in relation to the world or culture.  This, we can argue, is what Hoover means when he talks about culture being inseparable from identity.  

                This statement about the individual process can also be applied to communities of any size and the larger societies around them.  To expand even further on the concept of culture being inseparable from identity formation is that culture provides a starting point.  There is a grounded reference found in culture than can be accepted or rejected by the party (individual, group, society) given all the elements at their disposal.  Even if this culture is rejected by the identity-seeking party, there is still an identity in relation to that particular culture.  The environment around the individual cannot be ignored, because a non-reaction to culture is still a reaction.  The inter-connectedness of all that is comes through very strong in this important idea. 

Identity, Government and Diversity

                A further tension in Hoover's work is seen in the concepts of politics and power in the commonly perceived sense, which is the government or larger community/society.  For a society to exist, and for it to have an internal cohesion, there is a requirement for balance in identity.  This statement seems to match well with Hoover when he illustrates the drawbacks of the two commonly perceived "sides" of politics.  The right can become intolerant in its sometimes closed conservative ideals that refuses to bend to allow others into the circle.  Further, a different sort of conservatism - involving the market mentality - is individualistic to a fault in that the idea of competition has clearly established (and isolated) winners and losers. 

                On the left side of the political spectrum, we can see the demand for tolerance of any and all types of diversity, ideas, personalities, etc.  In theory this is a very laudable and desired concept.  Yet much like the right's insular community this can be taken to an extreme, as Hoover illustrates, by the very stringent demand for diversity being itself an inflexible idea.  There is little room in both mindsets - the closed community of the right and the stringent demand for diversity on the left - for compromise in coming together.  Both end up being self-defeating and intolerant in the end by refusing to allow true diversity which is grounded on a stable identity that is not just unthreatened but enriched through the flexibility to consider outside ideas, however they might arrive. 

                Hoover's idea of the proper concept of power in government or polities/politics at any level is something with which this review can agree.  He believes that power in its most ideal form is something which creates a space for the freedom to engage in proper identity development.  To do this, there must be freedom of expression and ideas.  It is argued here that nothing should be off the table - which would mean a minimum of any type of censorship by power structures - and further that an environment conducive to tolerance is necessary.  This would mean not just laws that technically allow freedom of expression, worship, information, etc..  but an environment that is conducive to equanimity in application of these laws and structures. 

                Further, diversity should be embraced and accepted as a desirable part of community.  Proper identity formation allows this, and the institutions of power and politics can help create a culture and atmosphere conducive to this, but Hoover makes explicitly clear that mutuality is not something that can be mandated at a macro level.  He illustrates this point quite effectively by referring to China at the end of the book and how - particularly under Mao - the Chinese identity was so homogenized that the identity of the individual was lost in the collective.  This is counter-productive to the concept of community.  A healthy community (and Hoover would likely agree) is one where identity is properly established at all levels, from the individual to the community and ultimately the larger society.  The very nature of healthy identity formation will produce its own diversity. 

                As Hoover mentions, this is not something that can be mandated by the state.  Proper identity formation involves relations between individuals and the world around them, and decisions resulting from those relations.  This is an interpretation of a context where Hoover's concept of  "mutuality" can occur.  Mutuality is dependent on individual relationships grounded upon healthy "interiors" or identities, and cannot be state prescribed.  Cults of personality and the resulting identifications as tied to those personalities in authoritarian regimes are external not internal forms of identity.  The same can be said for blanket acceptance without question of any ideology, including religion.  Accepting any identity without the proper internal work goes back to Hoover's description of identity foreclosure. 

Concluding Statement

                It is the interpretation of this review that Hoover's book is yet another example of the attempt to balance the conflict of opposites inherent to the human condition; in this case "opposites" as referring to the opposing tensions in identity development and the necessity to balance those opposites for proper development.  Hoover's illustrations in the structures of politics and the dynamics of power that coincide with them rest on a solid foundation of properly developed identity with the ability of the human consciousness (at any level, micro or macro) to rise above this foundation and immerse itself in diverse ideas, cultures, opinions, peoples, etc.  It is through this paradigm of identity that we as a species can work towards the reduction of fear and the acceptance of "the other" as an integral, yet uniquely diverse expression of our common humanity.  

Les Misérables

I finally read Hugo. To attempt some sort of original review would be superfluous. All I can say is a few thoughts that it stirred in me, which are related to the current context of my life. The same would be true, but different, for anyone else.

1. Everyone has a need out of which they act. To judge actions of people in society at first glance is to not UNDERSTAND, to not EMPATHIZE.

2. The conditions and absurdities of society separate us from others. Sometimes this is by chance, sometimes from misunderstandings. Often these separations cannot be repaired in the context of relationship, but just as often they can. Regardless, redemption is an internal process, and it is the interior work that is where we touch what others refer to as divinity (and what I refer to as the energy of love).

3. I have no use for the categorical imperative or "duty". Morality is not a universal concept, love is. In society, morality or duty trumps love. Therefore I reject that society as morality and duty are defined arbitrarily.  Love is the ultimate, and Javert's attempt at being irreproachable is quite often how society approaches religion. We destroy lives in the name of duty or morality. The actions of love, peace and social justice seek understanding, which is far more important and goes far deeper towards the depths of the soul than any attempt at having the most "morally upstanding society".

Amartya Sen's Controversial look at "Identity and Violence"

With the pressures of a demanding grad school program, my personal writing as been minimal, and I've missed that but still have an outlet in classes with personal reflections on literature, contexts, case studies, etc... that I can and want to share.  One of the classes I'm taking is a fascinating dive into identity with all its philosophical, biological, scientific, sociological and political implications in the field of peacebuilding/conflict transformation.  My approach to Sen's book was at times one of "devil's advocate" in this review, hoping to raise questions as much as give my opinion.  

Introduction

                  In an issue as subjective and wide-ranging as identity and identity as a factor in violent conflict, there is necessarily a wide variety of possible opinions and insights.   Amartya Sen's book Identity and Violence takes an overarching view of identity as related to many areas including culture, religion, economics and politics.  This overarching viewpoint was necessary in that one of the areas where Sen excelled was in constantly illustrating that the singularity of identity, an idea which will be expanded upon below, is one of - if not the - main causes of violence.  There was an emphasis on questioning in order to eliminate what Kenneth Hoover would refer to as "identity foreclosure" both in ourselves and in how we see or recognize the concept of the other (Hoover, Marcia, & Parris, 1997).  In this, Sen was able to use easy-to-read language to prompt further investigation into his ideas. 

                Sen does not leave the reader with a multitude of answers, but perhaps that is as it should be.  By acknowledging the reductionist approach to identity, Sen by nature of his thesis cannot give pre-determined solutions.  Instead, Sen serves as a guide in a process of continued questioning.  This review will focus on a couple of the main problems that Sen emphasizes in how we view the world and the people around us, some potential problems in Sen's argument itself,  and the patterns of thought we can adopt to work at further understanding of identity's connection to violence.  Like identity, Conflict Transformation is in a state of flux, and we must maintain the mental resources of critical thinking to evolve along with an ever-changing world. 

Singularity in Identity

                In peacebuilding, we are constantly looking for ways to reduce "otherness" in viewing people in favor of seeing and emphasizing our similarities and where we can find a place to begin dialogue.  Sen's argument is that the very idea of the other is only possible by focusing our attention on one or at most very few traits in an individual.  This concept could also extend to societies and nations.  There is a hesitation to say it could include culture, because the idea of culture is one area that Sen claims is hard to define.  Culture upon closer examination seems to break down in various ways.   An example would be trying to pinpoint the cultural location of the origin of a particular mathematical concept.  If we go back far enough in history, and break the concept into small enough pieces, we would see that various people in different times, places and situations contributed insights that continued to expand in an evolutionary way. 

                In this particular volume, Sen uses the contemporary modality of West/Anti-West interaction for his illustrations.  Specifically, he focuses on "the West as related to Islam", thus immediately assuming the common identity framework used in current U.S. and British foreign policy dialogue.  As Sen illustrates, that dialogue is limited and divisive.  Both sides have chosen one label to place on the other, excluding the endless options that exist for identifying ourselves in a complex and pluralistic world.  All of the influences that have flowed East to West, West to East and back again are pushed aside in looking at this one way of seeing people.   And worse, this limitation is done by choice.  Environment always plays a factor in our decisions, but using religion as (in this case) a divisive element is not by nature deterministic nor is it necessary for it to be geographically oriented.  It is a decision that is consciously made and therefore it is a decision that can be consciously changed. 

                Sen makes great use of Samuel Huntington's idea of The Clash of Civilizations, which was also the title of a Huntington essay, to show how easy it is to compartmentalize people which then leads to conflict as we differentiate ourselves.  Huntington assumes a division from the beginning in order to make his argument.  By dividing the world into separate "civilizations", something very hard to do in and of itself, Huntington has created the conditions for conflict rather than devising a paradigm incorporating solutions to conflict.  Civilization is another term that is not easily definable upon close examination.  Where the influence of one idea ends and another begins is - at best - a vague or even non-existent boundary. 

                On the other hand, the problem with criticizing arguments like Huntington's is that the criticism can fall back on itself.  Sen's point is that Huntington has focused on one aspect of human identity, and by doing so has created a way for people to differentiate themselves.  Rather than illustrate where we need to focus our efforts, Sen would argue, Huntington has instead created the very need for a conflict transformation rather than its solution by inventing divisions through singularity in identity.  But isn't Sen doing the same thing by pointing to Huntington's thesis as a divisive element?  An interesting question arises which has been partly responsible for the controversy surrounding Huntington, and could be stated as follows:  "Is it possible to analyze a potential conflict without in some way creating a division between peoples in the very nature of the explanation?".  By pointing to what is perceived as the problem, we have brought attention to something that - if not already the problem - could become the problem.  This could apply to Sen, or anyone, just as much as it could to Huntington. 

                Here is one example of some of the traps that those discussing identity could fall into.  It seems that there is a very fine line between viewing the traits we claim contribute to healthy diversity and/or viewing those same traits as something contributing to conflict.  As Conflict Transformation practitioners, it is necessary to emphasize the positivity in the way we view the various backgrounds, religions, ethnicities, politics, etc... of people vs. the negativity. 

                It could be argued that this statement is the key to understanding what Sen is trying to say.  His entire book seems to emphasize the attitude with which we approach the pluralistic nature of the world around us as much as it does the singularity in focusing on one or a only a few significant factors in identity. 

Defining "Culture"

                As an economist, Sen spends a good deal of time discussing the effects of globalization on culture, and what he means by culture.  It will be noticed that Sen makes a special point of attempting to name possible ways of looking at "cultural diversity" and what is it that we are truly trying to attain by having a culturally diverse society and world.  There are many ways that he goes about this, including the very definition - if there is one - of culture.

                Beginning with culture, one of the ways Sen attempts to shape the debate is around the ideas of cultural liberty vs. valuing cultural conservation (Sen, 2006, p. 113).  Here, he leaves us with two choices.  First, we can promote a society that encourages freedom of thought and allows the individual to make their own choices about what elements of their family, religious environment, nation, or any other ideology/thought pattern they wish to retain for themselves.  This is what is meant by cultural liberty, and it can be argued, is an important process for everyone to go through.  Nothing should ever be accepted externally, and one can only come to a realization of identity through the internal process of questioning. 

                This too is what many mean when they refer to self-discovery, and is where this reviewer disagrees with Sen's comment that there is no "self" to discover, that the self is simply a matter of choices we make.  It is true that the self is determined by choices, and Sen's point is noted that we have freedom of choice in shaping our lives.  However, the choices that any one individual will make will never exactly match another person's.  There is always the issue of context, and an individual context, by nature, is incapable of being repeated.  Where a particular person is in time, place, location, genetic/family heritage, gender, etc... is never exactly matched.  There is an individual there that is unlike anyone else, so in that sense, there is a self  to be discovered.  Further, this concept of self does not even begin to delve into the realm of the spiritual, where individuals have unique metaphysical connections and identities. 

                Where the reviewer would agree with Sen is when he makes the reference in the preface to the remark that "most people are other people" (credited to Oscar Wilde) (Sen, 2006, p. xv).  This is one concern raised by those who promote valuing cultural conservation.  Paradoxically, it is also a concern of some promoting cultural liberty.  What is meant by this?  Well, when people assume an identity fed to them externally, whether that be in the dominant messages received from the media, an admired person and/or leader, or any other source outside of themselves, they are not really questioning what it is that they themselves truly believe.  To take this argument even further, depending on how strong and how forceful those external messages become, it can be debated whether or not there is true cultural liberty and freedom of choice at all.  An extreme example could come from some of the Communistic totalitarian structures under Mao or Stalin.  A less forceful illustration would be the manipulative messages put forth by the media that influence every decision we make. 

                The other side to this argument, is that even in a society that proclaims and for the most part promotes what would generally be referred to as freedom of choice, those choices about "self" are still being made in a context of an ever-changing cultural environment, and further, an environment that is becoming ever more familiar with other parts of the world in our era of globalization.  So a particular culture is becoming ever more infused by influences from other "cultures".  As can be seen, the dividing lines between one culture and another very quickly begin to merge (and it is argued here that they have been vague throughout human history).  This is a concern for those who value cultural conservation, and therefore can become reactionary in attempting to preserve a perceived past that may no longer have the necessary conditions to preserve its existence, however it may be defined. 

Concluding Remarks

                It is the position of this reviewer that the intellectual aspects of globalization are indeed beneficial to all of humanity if we take the time to properly learn from the rich history of our world.  The economic effects can be debated as economics delves into the profit motive and all the implications  - most of all greed and exploitation - that that paradigm implies.  The key in that respect is to figure out better ways of including the have-nots in the area of basic human needs.  That needs to be the primary concern in the humanitarian work and global economics of our time, and we are badly missing the mark. But having access to the rich cultural heritage of places never before accessible (through technology such as the internet) can only mean increased choices for humanity, and the ability to tap into greater collaboration and larger ideas through the integration of so many individual identities.  The possibilities of mutual respect and by extension the reduction of violence through familiarity with diverse identities is greatly increased.  However, all must have access and that, again, must be the first priority.

                New forms of mobilization and democracy are also possible, and mutuality can further be increased by the expansion of dialogue through processes such as social networking and access to literature and the dominant ideas in different parts of the world.  All of this furthers understanding, and reduces violence by allowing our focus to expand in a pluralistic manner regarding identity as we learn more and more about those around us.  We can begin to see that those who share our planet do not have to be the other, but can be viewed as a different, yet beautiful expression of the common humanity that we all share. 

       

References

Hoover, K., Marcia, J., & Parris, K. (1997). The power of identity: politics in a new key. Chatham, nj:    Chatham House Publishers, Inc.

Sen, A. (2006). Identity and violence: the illusion of destiny. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.