Scan barcode
ammarakh's review against another edition
3.0
Amartya Sen tries to emphasize the multifarious nature of identity in this book. Any attempts to accentuate a singular identity, he opines, are not just a gross misrepresentation of human identity but a potential catalyst for violence. He mostly focuses on how the idea of an all encompassing religious identity undermines other identities. Also, he explains the inherent fault in the popular counter fundamentalism approach that seeks to give voice to “moderate” religious views but fails to see how such an approach undermines other civic identities and thus further divides people along religious lines, instead of bringing them together. He believes that we all need to embrace the fluid nature of our identity. He realises that there are certain constraints in choosing any identity we want but believes that we still have the freedom to choose. If we refuse to acknowledge this freedom, he warns, we might end up with a regressive identity. He gives the example of religious fundamentalism that often turns violent, in this context.
I found most of the arguments quite compelling but felt the chapter on colonialism was rather problematic. But then Amartya Sen is an economist and it is perhaps too much to expect him to be on par with any political philosophers on a topic as replete with tough problems as postcolonialism.
All in all, I quite liked this book and would like to read his other works which focus more on economics.
I found most of the arguments quite compelling but felt the chapter on colonialism was rather problematic. But then Amartya Sen is an economist and it is perhaps too much to expect him to be on par with any political philosophers on a topic as replete with tough problems as postcolonialism.
All in all, I quite liked this book and would like to read his other works which focus more on economics.
surbhibee's review against another edition
3.0
This is my first Amartya Sen book and I wish I had started with the likes of The Argumentative Indian instead; my impression of Sen's writing prowess would've certainly been better had that been the case. Identity and Violence seeks to explore very pertinent issues including religious fundamentalism and globalisation and succeeds in touching upon many historical anecdotes. However, the gist of the book is that violence is fostered by a singular sense of identity that ignores one's other affiliations. this thesis statement is repeated far too often and even parts of a short 200 page book as this begin to feel hackneyed.
this is a good book for speed reading for many ideas on perceptions of Western civilization are cogently presented (I read my copy in 3 hours, admittedly having skimmed through many pages.) A finer editing job would've made it all the more readable.
this is a good book for speed reading for many ideas on perceptions of Western civilization are cogently presented (I read my copy in 3 hours, admittedly having skimmed through many pages.) A finer editing job would've made it all the more readable.
fishsauce's review against another edition
3.0
Many good ideas, and much food for thought, but incredibly repetitive and didn't go into specific examples with sufficient depth. Felt more like a really long abstract than a book.
rekhainbc's review against another edition
4.0
Still my hero, though he tends to repeat himself quite a bit. But hey, repetition is the key to learning.
natwuertz's review against another edition
5.0
Very interesting reflection, many insightful points re culture, classification, identity and the nexus with violence. pushes my understanding that communities are important but they must not be treated as a monolith
nhusain14's review against another edition
3.0
"Violence is fomented by the imposition of singular and belligerent identities on gullible people, championed by proficient artisans of terror."
shanehawk's review against another edition
Ghastly writing. I feel like I read a college peer's paper whose word count minimum was an intense 60,000 but only had enough content to fill about 10,000 words. Sen repeats himself far too much. His argument was interesting, but it could have been summarized on a note card. I will not be revisiting this book.