Globalaffairs

Issue 4/August-September 2007
By Eva Díez Ajenjo

An agreement on the definitions of religion, culture and identity is essential in order to understand their relevance in conflicts. A discussion of the terms is offered in this article which does not pretend to achieve final definitions due to the relative character of the terms. The underlying principle reflected is that there are not absolute, external and unchanging truths against definitions can be measured. According to Lease ‘definitions are useful points of departure for interpretation and analysis, but they are not final stages, complete results or achieved goals, but rather directional signals or map markings’ (2000: 287). In line with this argument, the author suggests (2000) to establish certain limits or boundaries to the terms being defining so as to distinguish what it is allowed as religion, culture or identity.

Culture and Huntington cultural approach

As for culture, although Huntington uses very often the term, the clear definition of this term is missing. All in all, he equals culture to civilization and he (2002) points out the impossibility to separate culture from civilization because civilization is the broadest cultural entity. Furthermore, he identifies six main elements of civilization: history, language, religion, customs, institutions, and the subjective self-identification of people. However, he (2002) recognizes that cultures are dynamic because they split and change over time as a result of the people’s redefinition of identities thereby cultures interact and overlap. Moreover, culture serves as a source of identification for people because they define themselves with cultural groups.

According to Huntington (2002) an important function of culture is that it serves to reconfigure global politics. On his account alignments defined by ideology have been replaced by alignments defined by culture and civilization. In addition to this, cultural commonality facilitates cooperation and cohesion among people and cultural differences promote cleavages and conflicts. Hence cultural conflicts between groups from different civilizations become central to global politics. Furthermore, cultural affinities facilitate economic cooperation between countries and the creation of economic regional blocs such as the EU.

On the other hand, Senghaas (2001) focuses on the political facet as the main characteristic of culture. On Senghaas’ account (2002), one way that culture can be created is through the resistance to foreign determination which provokes a resentful attitude thus it raises the self-awareness of a suppressed group and the group’s own blueprint for life and society; therefore culture is empathically political because its purpose is to shape actively the many spheres of life. According to the author the Cold War was a cultural conflict instead of ideological conflict because there were two completely different cosmologies confronted with different blueprints for society.

Flores-Caraballo et al (1991) criticize the tendency of cultural definitions to become self-serving, class-bound cultural projects and often fail to asses the cultural contributions of several social sectors. Moreover, they criticize the tendency to reduce culture to the study of artefacts. It is interesting to mention the definition of culture given by the authors: ‘culture as the body of learned beliefs, traditions, and guides for behaviour that are shared among members of any human society’ (1991: 30). In this case the key word that defines culture is the customary behaviour that distinguishes one human society from another and that the members have acquired by observation, imitation, or instruction at the hands of other members of the same group. Although the authors recognise the plausibility of the definition, they stress the necessity of accounting for the problematic relationships that exist among people in class societies where individuals are clustered in different social classes that develop different cultural practices, even though what appears at times to be a homogeneous cultural overlay. What is interesting of their definition is the holistic approach of culture. They regard culture as a collection of subcultures produced by all the social classes in a society.

As to cultural production, Flores-Caraballo et al (1991) deny the unidirectional character of this flow and its influence. Instead, subcultures interact with one another on a number of planes in a complex web of influence and counter influence of domination and resistance therefore the cultural realm is a battleground for class struggle. According to this Marxist account of culture, fractions of classes, as well as elites and working classes, compete for the right to determine what is legitimate in their society, and the mass media are key players in this attempt to reach a cultural hegemony.

In order to establish an initial definition of culture some aspects of the definitions discussed above have to be revised. First of all, some of Huntington’s ideas concerning culture are blurred and incomplete. For instance, the equality between culture and civilization implies that civilizational elements such as religion, language history, customs, institutions, and the subjective self-identification of people are part of culture. Hence, the boundaries of the definition are vague and broad so as to determine what it is allowed as religion or culture. According to Lease definitions without boundaries are unable to function because ‘the heart of the defining act is precisely the setting of boundaries’ (2000: 288) and because without boundaries definitions cannot serve as sources of comparison and cross-cultural analysis. Nevertheless, due to the dynamic nature of cultures, definition boundaries of culture are constantly shifting and changing likewise cultures overlap and interact.

Huntington’s conceptions in regards to culture are per se conflictive because in the interaction between different cultures or civilizations it seems that their differences almost always lead to conflict. On the other side, similarities between groups within the same civilization promote cooperation and cohesion. Nonetheless, in the interaction between different cultures more socio-economic factors should be taken into account in order to explain conflictive or cooperative relationships. One of these factors could be the resistance to the values imposition of an external culture. In line with this argument, Senghaas (2001) mentions this factor as decisive in order to produce culture because this resistance attitude is the cause of the cultural group’s own blueprint for life and society.

To recapitulate, in order to define culture it is important to avoid cultural essentialism, there is no soul of culture due to the dynamic nature of cultures which are in a constant process of interaction and change. Second, culture is a political concept because it implies blueprints for life and society. Third, culture and religion are different realms which sometimes can be closely linked in a society or completely separated. Thus, religion could be regarded as a boundary of the culture definition where the realm of religion starts and the one of culture ends. Fourth, culture should not be reduced to the simple study of artefacts such as flags. Fifth, culture comprises learned beliefs, traditions and guides of behaviour common to the members of the same society. Sixth, a culture could be composed by different subcultures and could include values imported from other cultures due to the constant interaction between them. Seventh, many actors interplay in the production of cultures such as different social classes and mass media. Finally, the direction of the influences between cultures is not unidirectional, on the contrary culture interaction creates complex web of influence and counter influence of domination and resistance. These eight features mentioned above are the main defining characteristics of the term culture.

Identity and the need of enemies

As for the concept of identity, examining Huntington’s ideas it is possible to extract some clues about what is the meaning of identity. First of all, he devises identity as conflictive term because it is defined with the identification of enemies ‘for peoples seeking identity and reinventing ethnicity, enemies are essential, and the potentially most dangerous enmities occur across the fault lines between the world’s major civilizations’ (2002: 20). On Huntington’s account (2002) hatred belongs to human nature therefore for self-definition and motivation people need enemies. Furthermore, identity can only be defined in relation to another and it creates conflict due to feelings of superiority towards people who are perceived as different, fear in such people, difficulty of communication as a result of the differences in language and lack of familiarity with the others’ assumptions. Thus, at the broader levels of civilizational identity there is a deeper consciousness of civilizational differences and the need to protect what distinguishes “us” from “them” (Huntington 2002: 129). Identity comes when a community identifies with a specific civilization. As a result of the definition of identity as us versus others, identity wars occur and a hate dynamic emerges where mutual fears feed each other. Moreover, on Huntington’s account (2002) the dominant identity in such conflicts is almost always defined by religion.

Another point of view regarding identity, it is the Senghaas’ idea (2001) of identity as a reaction to European modernization. Due to the fact that European modernization allows a plurality of political interests and identities resulting from ideas such a democracy, conflict arises in traditional and conservative countries because they see modernization as an external imposition thereby they react to it becoming guardians of the past. In a nutshell, the reversion to traditional culture when dealing with modernization is a way of preserving ones identity. In the author’s opinion there is nothing essential in identities because they are a reaction against the domination of the West and its modernization process. Moreover, the author (2001) suggests that identity is a political term whose function is to eliminate the syndrome of discrimination of the benefits of the modernization and domination of the West.

Some aspects mentioned by Pinxten et al (2004) should be highlighted in order to understand the concept of identity. The first characteristic is the dynamic nature of identity that is why the authors prefer to talk about identity dynamic instead of identity. According to the authors (2004), there are constant shifts in identity and they point out three levels of identity dynamics: individual, group and community. All of them are constituted and reorganized constantly by changing values on three dimensions: personality which refers to the own individual characteristics, sociality which relates to the sets of rules that explain how individuals and groups interact and communicate and finally culturality which refers to all of the processes that produce meanings. Moreover, Pinxten et al (2004: 39) mention the ideas of Ely regarding identity who suggests that identities are products of 19 century state and its interest in identifying, cataloguing, measuring and regulating its subjects with modes of identification. Hence identity is regarded as a mode of defining individuals ready for control and discipline.

As for the subjective nature of identity, Hough (2003: 107) argues that nations’ identities are subjective social constructions and they are phenomena of modern history. Likewise the conflictive character of identity is a product of the modern era because as Hough argues ‘pre-modern imperial conquests sometimes claimed millions of lives but, in most cases, the aim was the conversion or subjugation of the conquered peoples rather than their annihilation’ (2003: 107). As to the main functions of identity, Colombo & Senatore (2005) emphasise the idea that identity is discursively and socially constructed in order to provide meaning to experience, thus, making experience meaningful to individuals is one of the defining characteristics of identity. The second one is the organization of collective sentiment in order to mobilize individuals as stated by Hopkins et al (2004). They regard identity as constructed according to strategic interests so as to incite to political action.

Once more identity on Huntington’s account is a conflictive concept because defining identity entails the systematic recognition of enemies thereby identity wars arise. Furthermore, identity is again linked to religion as it happened with culture thus the definitional boundaries are vague. In this point Huntington seems to have fallen prey to superficial analysis of identity because he states that identity provokes conflict but it does not explain this relationship.

From the descriptions of identity mentioned above, some essential characteristics of identity could be drawn. First, identity as culture is a dynamic concept resulting from the constant interaction between different identities. Second, identity is socially constructed in order to provide meaning to experience. Third, identity as political term can be used in order to mobilize the people against other social groups. This mobilization can be a consequence of the syndrome of discrimination mentioned above on Senghaas’ account. Hence, the political and subjective nature of the term makes identity a dynamic and non-essential concept. Finally, identity as the desire to exterminate the other is a product of modern history thus non-essential.

Religion and conflict

Religion is the central defining characteristic of Huntington’s notion of civilization. On Huntington’s view (2002) religion fills the identity and authority vacuum left by the processes of social, economic and cultural modernization. Hence, religion is a new source of identity and set of moral precepts which provides a sense of meaning and purpose. Furthermore, religion provides identity distinguishing between believers and nonbelievers, between a superior in-group and inferior out-group. Consequently religion is a conflictive concept because it creates antagonism which leads to conflict.

As to the notion of religion Niles (2004) contends that the attempt to define the term religion is itself a western enterprise due to a scientific desire or disposition to analyse and categorize all reality. This western tendency promotes a division between a transcendent deity and everything else. On the other hand, Niles argues that non-western cultures tend to see reality as a whole, without categorizing and separating reality because ‘even in traditions that have a sense of deity, a transcendent deity tends to be an integral part of the cosmic whole’ (Niles 2004: 213). Likewise it should not be possible to expect that western and non-western religions are going to behave or react in the same way when facing same situations because their conceptions about deity and reality are completely different. Following this account, the Huntington’s concept of religion as conflictive can be regarded as wrong because due to the different methods in order to articulate religion and its relations with reality western and non-western civilizations behave in different ways and different methods of study should be applied so as to explain their behaviour.

Regarding the defining characteristic of religion, Pinxten (2004) highlights its political character. In this line, religion was constructed from a political point by Christian notions of conscientia and universitas fidelium. By the time religion took the role of secular conscientia which means that Christian moral rules became common in all life facets thereby religion and policy became the same thing therefore the current concept of religion is a political term due to its origin. On the other hand, Senghaas (2001) points out an interesting function about religion. He regards religion as a resource of desperation when promising life perspectives do not emerge otherwise. Thus, religion is the consequence of socio-economic problems involving systematic discrimination.

Despite the interaction between reality and religion stated by Huntington which leads to struggle, Melleuish argues that currently religion has been separated from the reality in which people live and it has become ‘just another specialised element of our rather fragmented culture in which individuals pursue a rather bewildering range of interests’(2005: 18). Following Lease (2000) boundaries should be established in order to define religion, however, the establishment of permanent boundaries to religion results in an essentialist objectification of the concept. Therefore impermanent boundaries are in accordance with the relative character of religion as stated by Lease.

Huntington does not make a clear difference between religion and identity, on the contrary Hough contends that ‘religious identity predates national identity by many centuries and was the chief cause of wars and massacres within and between the rudimentary states of the pre-Westphalian era’ (2003: 109). Therefore religion and identity are different concepts which do not necessarily go together nevertheless in some cases they are closely linked for instance Iranian revolution and its establishment of a religious state where Islam became an essential element of Iranian identity. Notwithstanding this, other identities such as Basque identity is not specifically related to any religion.

In order to grasp the concept of religion it is worth to recapitulate some interesting ideas exposed in the above descriptions of the term. Religion as stated by Huntington is composed by a set of moral precepts which provides a sense of meaning but it cannot necessarily be per se an identity. On Huntington’s view religion became a confrontational term because religion provides identity distinguishing between believers and nonbelievers thereby religion creates conflict and tension. Nonetheless, the political nature of the term invalidates the inevitability of conflict because the term could be used in both directions: to inflame or inhibit conflict. Apart from the political character of religion, it could be conceived as a resource of desperation resulting from socio-economic problems. In this case, religion has a socio-economic dimension.

In regard to conflict, Kriesberg (2001) describes it as a situation where two or more parties believe that they have incompatible objectives. It should be noted that conflict requires awareness that is the parties must think that getting what each wants is incom¬patible with the adversary getting what it wants. In this vein, for a conflict to arise, three elements are necessary. First, the adversaries must have a conception of themselves as a collectively identified entity. Second, at least one adversary must be dissatisfied with the current situation, regard it is unjustified, and believe that they can change it; in other words, there is a correctable grievance. Third, at least one adversary must develop a goal to rectify its grievance that needs changes from another party who is likely to be resistant to changes.

To conclude, culture, identity and religion are different and non-essentialist concepts which sometimes can overlap. From their political nature some ideas can be derived; first, they can be constructed as a reaction against modernization and external impositions and as such they can be used and manipulated in order to mobilize populations. Second, from this political function a non-essentialist character can be inferred. Furthermore, their dynamic nature makes these concepts changeable over time.

Eva Díez Ajenjo
Global Affairs director

References

- Colombo, M. & Senatore, A. (2005) ‘The Discursive Construction of Community Identity’ Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 15 (1), pp48-62.
- Flores-Caraballo, Eliut D. (1991) ‘Class-bound reductionism vs. the multidetermination of national cultures: An essay on Puerto Rican national consciousness’, Studies in Latin American Popular Culture, 10, pp.25-34.
- Hopkins N. & Kahani-Hopkins V. (2004) ‘Identity construction and British Muslims’ political activity: Beyond rational actor theory’ British Journal of Social Psychology, 43 (3), p339-356.
- Hough, Peter (2003), Understanding Global Security, London: Routledge
- Huntington, Samuel P. (2002) The Clash of Civilizations and the remarking of world order, London: The Free Press
- Huntington S. (1993a) ‘The Clash of Civilizations’ Foreign Affairs, 72 (3), pp22-49.
- Huntington (1993b) ‘If Not Civilizations, What? : Paradigms of the Post-Cold War World’. Foreign Affairs 72 (5) pp186-194.
- Kriesberg Louis (2001) ‘Social conflict theories and conflict resolution’ Peace & Change, 8 (2/3) pp.3-18.
- Lease, Gary (2000) ‘The definition of Religion: an analytical or hermeneutical task?’ Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 12 (1/2), p287-294.
- Melleuish G.(2005), ‘Globalised religions for a globalised world’ Policy, 21 (2), pp5-20.
- Niles D. (2004) ‘The Study of Popular Religions and our Theological Task’ Asia Journal of Theology 18 (1) pp212-219.
- Pinxten, R., Verstraete, G. & Longman, C. (2004) Culture and Politics: Identity and Conflict in a multicultural World, Oxford: Berghahn Books.
- Senghaas, Dieter (2001) The clash within civilizations: coming to terms with cultural conflicts, New York: Routledge.

Global Affairs is not liable for author’s opinion