Given the many definitions you can give to Palestinian, Arab, Jew, Muslim, Israeli, these identities are not mutually exclusive. In theory, it is very possible that one same person can be all of them, combined.
Consider Dr. Uri Davis, long-time Palestinian activist. He's famous for criticising Israel. Professor Davis is officially a Palestinian, as written on his passport, and describes himself as an Anti-Zionist Israeli Palestinian Jew. He's born of a Jewish mother, and he's an Israeli citizen. He's a member of the Palestine National Council, and of the Movement Against Israeli Apartheid in Palestine. I don't know if he's a Muslim, but it's very possible. He could also belong to the large category of Arab Jews.
He's only famous because he's an activist, but of course he's not the only case of multiple-identities. Consider also the case of a person born of a Jewish father, with a Jewish surname, of a non-Jewish mother. According to most Jews, he's not Jewish, according to most Arabs, he's Jewish. And this is without even asking him what he thinks he is, or without even considering his religion. Only filiation.
Welcome to Paradoxland, aka: the Middle East.
A funny thing is the phenomenal success of the movie "Bienvenue Chez les Ch'tis" in France. It broke all records in the history of cinema in the country that invented it. 20 million admissions at the Box-Office.
It's a comedy about French micro-regional identities: North vs South. Can't be more French than that.
The funny thing is, the two main characters, who each represent the most typical North and South Frenchmen, are both played by children of immigrants, and it's never even mentioned in the story. Both actors come from Algerian parents. But they're so integrated that no one in the audience even questions that they're typically French.
Their sense of humour, the way they talk, the common references, without which this comedy would never work, are totally and absolutely French.
Make no mistake about it. Actors Kad Merad and Daniel Hamidou (a.k.a Danyboon) are both very proud of their parents. But their identity is French. Nonetheless, to anyone in the Middle East, no matter who they really are, they'll forever be "Arabs".
Which brings me again to point this clear distinction between identity in the Middle East and in the West.
In the West, identity is "self-empowered". In the Middle East, identity is defined by others, by default, with absolutely no empowerment or self-determination by the individual: "I can not define who I am". Others do, and others will disagree among themselves as to who I am or what I am, leading to countless practical problems and massively erroneous statistics.
It also leads to large-scale disinformation and misconceptions. In-depth understanding of Egypt or Jordan implies getting past gross ethnical statistics, because people are simply more complex and subtle than that. They're at the same time more united by a common heritage, and more subdivided into smaller, less homogenous groups.
Under these conceptions lies the dangerous assumption that a number of characteristics (culture, political opinions, tribal allegiance, and other non-biological acquired characteristics) are transmitted through blood, which is the very definition of racism.
As sensitive as we all are to the charm of tradition, this rampant concept of tribal/religious/ethnic classification, along with other remnants in the world (like the hereditary caste system in India) is something that defies pure logic. As shown above, it is very easy to demonstrate how it relies on absurd, subjective concepts, that do not resist simple analytical examination. Therefore, it's very likely that it is necessarily going to erase itself in a distant future, with higher level of education, mixing families and more complex societies forming.
The question is: when will this change be acknowledged ? And will people and leaders resist it or welcome the change ?
5 comments:
Great post. Waiting for the debate.
"In the West, identity is "self-empowered". In the Middle East, identity is defined by others, by default, with absolutely no empowerment or self-determination by the individual."
This is a pretty rigid generalization. I'd agree that compared with the ME, in Western societies there is more freedom of self-expression and more freedom/ability to define your identity on your own terms. I wouldn't say Western identity is primarily "self-empowered" though. Westerners assign identity and stereotype too.
I also would hesitate to immediately reject classist, tribal, ethnic, or racist identity politics as absurdly illogical. Stereotypes persist because they are maintained by discourse, but also because they can be useful. When people identify themselves in a certain way and act accordingly, it can be logical to perceive their actions through their identity. If you ask a bedouin not to think in tribal terms, it will be illogical to him: in his experience, tribal identity is an invaluable tool for understanding and even predicting behavior. If one white person lives in an all-black community where crime is rampant, racist assumptions about black people work logically within his experience. Properly discrediting racism or tribalism (or any misguided belief) requires first understanding its utility.
It's human to create/assign identity and thereby exclude an Other. I think that this is one of the great sources of conflict in our world, but I don't think it'll go away. One thing you can do is try to shape the identities in play. For example, in Jordan the Hashemites constructed a state identity to meld Jordanian tribal identities together in allegiance to a family of outsiders. This identity has its own narrative and its own mythology from the Arab Revolt. Its icons are plastered on windows and walls throughout the kingdom.
You talked about this in your post below - "as a political entity, the State's interest should be to unify its people under the only identity of "citizen"." This is a modern concept it in its pure, idealized form. In practice, this unification of identity is usually accomplished by manipulating ethnic, tribal, linguistic, etc. identities. Nationalism needs a nation first.
If we look at our own Western history, we're only a few centuries removed from an era where tribal, ethnic, racial, etc. identities were paramount in our own societies. Even today, they remain intensely powerful forces competing within the larger modern nationalist identities we've constructed.
Tribal, ethnic, and racial identities may seem anachronistic but I don't think that they're going away anytime soon. Sure, maybe one day far in the future humans will have interbred into a nicely monochrome race. But for now, these identities are as relevant as ever. I agree with you that to properly understand this region, we should also look beyond them because they are, as you pointed out, so subjective and malleable. But as long as they make so much sense to the people who rely on them, I don't think that it helps any cause to dismiss them as nonsense.
Hi Tim,
Thanks for the interesting comment.
You are missing my main points though: separation of churches and State, of religion and law, and, by extension, equal rights for all regardless of ethnicity.
I'm not saying it would be nice to erase the mention of ethnicity and religion on ID papers. I mean it's an absolute necessity.
This identity you're refering to, that still makes a lot of sense, is a social construct, based largely on the myth of a "pure blood" and of "waterproof" separation between one ethnic group and another (which is absolutely impossible, as all geneticians and anthropologists have proven). Therefore, it is a largely subjective, irrational concept.
Problems arise when your own identity differs from the identity that is "given" to you by society. For example, society "decides" for you that you're an Arab Sunni, but you are really Kurdish Shi'a (I've seen that case).
In our century, instances of utter inadequation between those two identities (external and individual) are bound to grow in numbers.
Examples: in every country in the Middle East, the middle class youth studies in American Universities or abroad. They're bound to meet and marry people from a different ethnicity or religion. Can they marry at all ? What will there children be ?
Of course "tribal" thinking is not dead. Of course it will survive, and it's good that a sense of community remains. In most western countries, ethnic/religious identity is not "lost". Jewish or Muslim communities are alive and well in France, the UK, the US, as social groups.
And, of course, this identity makes sense and is still relevant and heuristic for social studies. Relevant, yes. Logical and rational, of course not.
But the LAW does not make a difference. The LAW protects ALL religions equally, as well as atheists, in western countries. The State does not officially assign you an identity.
I was pointing out the anachronism of the reference of ethnicity or religion in the laws of Middle Eastern countries. And I am convinced that these walls are bound to be torn sooner or later, for practical purposes.
You used, rightfully, the word "mythologies". National identities ARE social constructs, absolutely. You say nationalism needs nations first. I say nations need national construction first. "Nation-building" is a Political Science term, and a branch of studies by itself. It takes decades of "social engineering" to build a nation. That is how it's always been done, and undone, and re-done.
You are right, it is all about shuffling the cards. It's done through many tools. Religion has been used as one. But also school, education, and laws are powerful tools that can be used by States, in a more peaceful way than a pseudo-"ethnic purity".
Post a Comment