Scan barcode
A review by brannigan
Identity And Violence: The Illusion Of Destiny by Amartya Sen
3.0
This book lives up to half of its title - there's a lot on identity, very little on violence. It seems to be more concerned with ethnic conflict in the abstract, which isn't the end of the world but a little misleading if, like me, you're reading it for an essay on the ethnic roots of aggression.
I'll give it a solid but unexceptional three stars, because I must admit it's a decent and readable introduction to the constructivist/modernist approach to identity. Still, it doesn't add much to the debate; you're best hearing it from the horse's mouth and going straight to Gellner's Nations and Nationalism.
There are also a few undeniable limitations to Sen's theory: he seems to focus too much on religion as a category of identification, and though he rightly criticises faith schools for cementing illusory divides, he fails to give due considerations to the 'totalitarian' nature of religions (most overtly in Islam), which seek to impose religious doctrine on all aspects of life - educational, political, social, etc. By classing religion as just one of many equally valid identities a given person has, Sen is denying what is the reality for many people. This focus on religion also leads to some strange conclusions: Sen seems to imply that the 1971 carnage caused by the partition of Pakistan was more justified than the 1940s Hindu-Muslim riots in India, because in the former case the differences were linguistic and political, not religious. Does this mean political and linguistic differences are legitimate causes for conflict?
Another mild annoyance is tedious repetition. The Emperor Ackbar anecdote wears thin around the fourth or fifth iteration, and yes, we get it - India has a lot of Muslims. Still, Sen presents a nicely accessible argument that's concise enough for me to get through in half a day. Worth a read if you can get it from a library, but probably not a great addition to your personal bookshelf.
I'll give it a solid but unexceptional three stars, because I must admit it's a decent and readable introduction to the constructivist/modernist approach to identity. Still, it doesn't add much to the debate; you're best hearing it from the horse's mouth and going straight to Gellner's Nations and Nationalism.
There are also a few undeniable limitations to Sen's theory: he seems to focus too much on religion as a category of identification, and though he rightly criticises faith schools for cementing illusory divides, he fails to give due considerations to the 'totalitarian' nature of religions (most overtly in Islam), which seek to impose religious doctrine on all aspects of life - educational, political, social, etc. By classing religion as just one of many equally valid identities a given person has, Sen is denying what is the reality for many people. This focus on religion also leads to some strange conclusions: Sen seems to imply that the 1971 carnage caused by the partition of Pakistan was more justified than the 1940s Hindu-Muslim riots in India, because in the former case the differences were linguistic and political, not religious. Does this mean political and linguistic differences are legitimate causes for conflict?
Another mild annoyance is tedious repetition. The Emperor Ackbar anecdote wears thin around the fourth or fifth iteration, and yes, we get it - India has a lot of Muslims. Still, Sen presents a nicely accessible argument that's concise enough for me to get through in half a day. Worth a read if you can get it from a library, but probably not a great addition to your personal bookshelf.