Discourse of Circumcision over boundaries

Who has the right to determine what culture is violent? How do we decide what is violent: according to culture, medical science, or Westerners? African female genital circumcision practice is one of the discursive issues for feminists, activists, medical science in all over the world, especially in U.S. Most of the time these discussions facilities the eradication of circumcision practice (Nambi 282) as Wairimu Ngaruiya Nambi mentions in her article Dualisms and female bodies in representations of African Female circumcision. However, the female circumcision is considered as a celebration of womanhood for many African women (Nambi 296). Now there comes bunch of questions. Why feminists, activists, or Westerners have to bother to try hard to eradicate the circumcision practice if many African are happy with their tradition? Who gives them (outsider of Africa) right to interfere in other sovereign states’ matter? Some of the arguments which support the attempt of abolishing the circumcision practice are that the practice is an uncivilized action and it violates human rights since it is harmful for the women’s health. However, similar kind of violent acts such as breast implants, tongue slicing are taking place in the Western countries, but the activists or Westerns do not try as hard as they try to eliminate the circumcision practice (Nambi 229). Thus, the question needs to be asked is that why Westerners do not stop violent practices in their countries, instead, interfere into others practices? Is this because people do not see the violence of their own culture? This article says yes to this question as we see the author, an African circumcised woman, criticizes American culture as a violent culture because of their tongue slicing, piercing, tattooing, which is fashion for American. On the other hand, American sees female circumcision as a violation of human rights, but the practice is part of African culture.
If practices in the both countries are violent, why we just focus on only one? Why Africa, not America?
Moreover, male are also circumcised in Africa like many other countries. However, there is not discourse about this issue like the women circumcision. Is this because of the belief that men are enough brave or capable to tolerate the pain? Or because of the flow of colonization where Westerners just see Eastern women to be dominated by men?
Multination of body whether it is for men or women, fashion or tradition, showing bravery or achieving equality should not be continued if it is harmful for health regardless of countries and sexes. We do not really need to practice violent tradition to show our bravery and achieve equality because there are many other sectors in the world where we can show our bravery and achieve equality. Women should not try to achieve equality to men in dangerous way (circumcision) when there are many other options to be equal with such as education, wealth, knowledge in technology. Women should raise the awareness about the negative effect of male circumcision instead of the violent competition of being equal. Moreover, men should also be protected from the violent act of circumcision since circumcision is not a healthy way to show bravery. At last, the discourse of circumcision should take a turn to talk about both violent practices of men and women regardless of countries; otherwise, it brings the concept of colonization on Earth again as a group of powerful people get the right to interfere in some less powerful people’s affair by telling their (less powerful) culture is uncivilized despite of having the similar problem within their culture.

Structural Violence

What causes someone to be dominated? Ignorance? Imbalanced wealth? Or combination both with some other factors? The form of violence predatory voyeurs: tourists and “tribal violence” in remote Indonesia shows is a continuous structural violence which has been affected by unequal power relationship and ignorance. The primitive people of Indonesia experienced the brutal practice of slavery (800) like many other parts of the world because of unequal power relationship with the westerners in terms of power ( wealth and technology) and ignorance. That slavery was the root of the structural violence that Indonesian has been experiencing. The fear of losing their beloved one during the slave trade gave birth to a fear about the white Westerners and that fear has been continuing till today since the imbalanced power still exists between them. Technologically developed Westerners, motivated to experience the unique tradition and adventure of Indonesia, bring camera with them in their tour to Indonesia. However, Indonesian think that the camera is a metal box which carries blood of the children because they do not know what camera is and cannot believe in the Westerners since they seized their ancestors forever. If the people of Sumba had equal knowledge about science and technology, they would not have to suffer from mental form of violence, fear of losing their children in the presence of Westerner with camera. The power imbalance between the westerners and the Indonesian still leads to violence in Indonesia. Westerners adventurous trip to the sacred places of Sumba violate the tradition of the rural people. However, Indonesian cannot do anything else except telling the scary consequence of violating the sacred places by going there, but this cannot stop adventurous loving tourists. On the other hand, Indonesian might not be able to approach or violate Westerners sacred places or rituals since Westerner countries are powerful. If the Indonesian had equal power to Westerners, they would have stopped the Westerners from violating their culture. Now the real question is “is it ethically correct to violate someone’s culture for fulfilling the desire of adventure?” Or is it justified because Westerner can have power over any developing countries to fulfill their wishes? The inequality of power causes violence in a new term which continues the structural violence. In order to attract more tourists, Indonesian intentionally or willingly continues the murderous fighting which was part of their tradition before. This fighting causes both injury and death and the occurrence of death makes the game more interesting to the tourist since they become curious to see the death gaming. If the Indonesian were developed, many people in Indonesia might not have performed murderous traditional fight to attract tourists since they would not have to depend on tourists to lead their lives.

Violence Awareness Week: Project Proposals

Dear All:

Here is a list of all the projects that have been proposed. As you will see, there is some overlap in the kinds of activities that different groups want to do. Please communicate with each other about how best to coordinate your activities. For instance, it would be good if the groups who want to show films coordinate their schedules to make sure there are no conflicts. The groups who want to put together a performance should decide if they want to do this on the same evening. All groups should contact me as soon as possible about booking space, so that we can make sure that rooms are available for these activities.

IMPORTANT: if group composition changes (i.e. if two groups decide to join together), please let me know. 

Here are the groups and proposed activities, in no particular order:

 

Group #1: Haneen, Bayan, and Waruni

Film screenings with related activities

 

Group #2:Sweta, Shalu, Minnu, and Farha

Posters on different topics

 

Group #3: Priyanka, Rubina, and Sumitra

A short play and poster

 

Group #4: Naima, Arpita, and Sharmin

Film screenings and related activities

 

Group #5: Marian, Sneha, Ganga, Renu

Short play on structural violence (A conversation between two bourgeosie and two proletariat)

 

Group #6: Aberamy, Mehala, Rubaiya, and Junita

Film screenings

 

Group #7: Asma, Afroza, Marvah, Priya, Shakila, and Sumpa

Survey about religious violence and documentary

Reflection on Gender perspective of war and peace

Sneha Thankam Alexander

Whenever I read an article or take part in a discussion related to gender I wonder why with very few exceptions the whole world is patriarchal? Why is it that women have to take special effort to win their rights and even after long time of struggle for equality, women are still considered as subordinates? Then comes the question that often comes to my mind, but  which I wish will never receive ‘yes’ as the answer, does this mean this is how it should be and basically meant to be?

The author thinks that it is important to conduct gender specific analysis of all events in war and peace. Men and women are assigned certain roles by society that becomes norms that people do not think beyond that framework and is not given a special thought. She explains how norms of war and peace are set such that men and women are assigned specific roles in these. In the case of war men takes the protective roles and sets out for war while women stays back. However, this does not mean that women are excluded from the sufferings of war. They are mostly victimized through rapes and prostitution during war and post war. This stands as the strongest tool to demoralize and to prove the incompetency of the men of the opposite party. Why is it that the honor of women is to be safeguarded by men? It is this expectation that makes this war tool more violent. Women and rapes diminish as tools in a men’s game that is war.

The author mentions in the conclusion that there is a continuum of violence in war.  This is true because violence does not end with official ending of war. The effects of war remain intact in the post war period and also pervades to the political, social and economic aspects of a society. The existing structural violence against women is exacerbated by the consequences of the war. Thus, I do agree with the author that a gender specific analysis of the power relations in war and peace is essential.

The Continuum of Violence. A Gender Perspective on War and Peace. – Cynthia Cockburn.

The Continuum of Violence brings in a feminist approach on war and peace, and how women are affected by war; and its violent aspects. Going beyond, author exemplifies the cultural restrictions and patriarchal oppression, placed on women. Author has scaled how women are affected by violence within the home, culture, political authority, economically and military actions such as war. According to her, violence takes place in different dimensions within the socioeconomic and political context.

 

This reading analyses the violence in a gender perspective. A significant focus is placed on gender imbalances related to war. Besides, violence is not justified. Impacts of war run through all individuals as a form of violence, mentally, and physically. Hence, the gender perspective analyses the socio economic factors also as a form of violence and as possible warning signs. Author identifies uneven distribution of power, patriarchal domination, economic distress, and militarization as forms of violence over women. Here, the patriarchal domination and economic depression are identified as a form of structural violence.

Furthermore, violence placed on women is elaborated within the context of militarization and arming. Expenditure on military and arms which leads to economic instability which eventually impacts on household economy, loss of husband, brother, parents, domestic violence related with arms and military experiences are recognized as negative impacts of war. In particular as  post conflict violence, the destruction, disruption in daily life and brutalization of the body such as, sexual harassment and rapes within refugee camps, and prostitution are prominent. Here, not only physical violence remains and sustains, but also mental violence remains as a “wound”.

 

More importantly, author sees an unseen aspect of war in relation to gender. War is seen always as a form of violence against the whole civilization. However, this reading relates to women in general and analyses how that impacts on women in several dimensions. Author reminds the contribution of women to the war as a positive element that is seen in gender perspective. She argues against the gender inequality in every dimension and why we don’t take the gender imbalances in to account. Hence, it is importance to take the gender imbalances to account in order to save the vulnerable female society. We can also see how women mobilized against the oppression against the oppressors demanding their freedom. Thus, we can relate this back to Fereire, who discusses about the oppressed and their struggles to gain freedom through revolutionary act against the oppressors.

 

Since women are affected and vulnerable in every ways women are defined as weak characters than men. Therefore, is it ethical to consider women in such degradation and is it ethical to consider in that manner? Moreover, is it ethical to disregard the gender imbalances? What can be the role of Feminine ethics in war and peace?

Reading Reflection 4

Renu Johnson
AUW 080014
Reading Reflection 4
Though it was hard for me to understand the article, “The Saffron Army, Violence, Terrorism: Buddhism, Identity, and Difference in Sri Lanka” by Ananda Abeysekara, in the beginning, I kept on reading it in the hope that I will finally be able to identify the author’s main argument towards the end of the article. However, after spending so much time I am still confused about his major argument because of my limited understanding of English and the complex vocabulary he uses (at least for my standards). However, if my understanding is right, the author argues that before we make hasty generalizations about the links between violence and religion based on particular events in the past it is very important to look into the varying perspectives of historical narration of the same issue. He describes how Premadasa’s government proclaimed that the JVP monks are terrorists and how some of the monks testify that it was Premadasa’s government who perpetuated terror. Here, there exists a controversy as to who the real perpetuators of terror were in the Sri Lankan Case.
However, the knowledge that there was a violent agitation related with Buddhism was surprising since unlike violence perpetuated in the names of Hinduism, Christianity, Sikhism and Islam, violence associate with Buddhism is rarely heard of. It is preposterous how religions- the institutions which advocate non-violence- are considered as the reasons for violence. There are people who argue that religions are social constructs that were created so as to discipline the ordinary masses by putting forth the idea of an after-life that would the incentive for those who lead a good life. Some say that religions are the different paths that lead us in the same direction, the direction of almighty. Whatever the religions are, there are not any religions that argues for violence. However, the very fact that religions the icons of non-violence are used for violence makes me agree with J Glenn Grey’s idea that man has a destructive streak in him which takes immense delight in destruction. This might be the very reason that peaceful institutions like religions are used as scapegoats for the perpetuation of violence by misinterpreting the religious doctrines.

Should war be against terrorism or the elements behind the terrorism?

Whom should we punish, terrorist or the factors which make a person terrorist? Human beings do not come on the earth as a terrorist (8); it is the surroundings (socio-economic, politics, and culture) of a place which lead someone to be a terrorist. However, terrorist or terrorist groups are punished for their crimes and the elements which fuel the terrorism among human being remain untouched most of the time. Is it justified to simply punish a person who became a terrorist because of the influence of his or her culture, religion or poverty, who would not be a terrorist if he or she would have been in another culture? Or, can punishing a terrorist eliminate terrorism from the earth? I would say no to this question; it is important to know about the reasons behind terrorism in order to decrease terrorist activity as the author mentioned.

Terrorists are not the onlyWhom should we punish, terrorist or the factors which make a person terrorist? Human beings do not come on the earth as a terrorist (8); it is the surroundings (socio-economic, politics, and culture) of a place which lead someone to be a terrorist. However, terrorist or terrorist groups are punished for their crimes and the elements which fuel the terrorism among human being remain untouched most of the time. Is it justified to simply punish a person who became a terrorist because of the influence of his or her culture, religion or poverty, who would not be a terrorist if he or she would have been in another culture? Or, can punishing a terrorist eliminate terrorism from the earth? I would say no to this question; it is important to know about the reasons behind terrorism in order to decrease terrorist activity as the author mentioned. Terrorists are not the only subject who is responsible for terrorism. Though it is true that terrorist have rational like other human being to distinguish right and wrong before they act, there are so many factors which influence the rationality of a terrorist. For example, a person who grows up in a place which is already under attack and the people in that place are being violated, it would be rational for the person to act violently to save him or herself and the community (12). Moreover, there are many religions resemble divine struggles (149), which are used as the justification of the violent activities of many religious activists. The war between Israel and Arab is a continuation of the war described in the holy book Bible and this war is considered as the war of good and evil by both Palestinian and Israeli leaders till today (157) because of the reference of their religions. Thus, the new generation which grows up within this ideology, it becomes rational for them to divide themselves according to the ideology of their ancestor and act violently, which is considered as terrorism by normal people. Therefore, if we want to win a war over terrorism, we, firstly, need to analyze the factor which causes terrorism. Otherwise, we can punish some of the terrorist, but we cannot make a substantial change in the world of terrorism because there would be new replacement in the terrorist groups since the factors behind terrorism remains the same which would motivate new terrorists. Though it would be difficult to bring changes in the terrorist’s world by changing the ideas of terrorists, it would the most helpful way to decrease terrorism from the world. Punishing terrorist cannot stop the upcoming terrorist who will be motivated by the same ideology and culture. subject who is responsible for terrorism. Though it is true that terrorist have rational like other human being to distinguish right and wrong before they act, there are so many factors which influence the rationality of a terrorist. For example, a person who grows up in a place which is already under attack and the people in that place are being violated, it would be rational for the person to act violently to save him or herself and the community (12). Moreover, there are many religions resemble divine struggles (149), which are used as the justification of the violent activities of many religious activists. The war between Israel and Arab is a continuation of the war described in the holy book Bible and this war is considered as the war of good and evil by both Palestinian and Israeli leaders till today (157) because of the reference of their religions. Thus, the new generation which grows up within this ideology, it becomes rational for them to divide themselves according to the ideology of their ancestor and act violently, which is considered as terrorism by normal people.

Therefore, if we want to win a war over terrorism, we, firstly, need to analyze the factor which causes terrorism. Otherwise, we can punish some of the terrorist, but we cannot make a substantial change in the world of terrorism because there would be new replacement in the terrorist groups since the factors behind terrorism remains the same which would motivate new terrorists. Though it would be difficult to bring changes in the terrorist’s world by changing the ideas of terrorists, it would the most helpful way to decrease terrorism from the world. Punishing terrorist cannot stop the upcoming terrorist who will be motivated by the same ideology and culture.

Naima JannatDat…

Naima Jannat

Date: 1^st March 2012

Religion: Use as a Key of Terrorism

Mark Juergensmeyer argues about the relationship between the religion and terrorism. He provided many examples where people made religion as the main fact of terrorism. Our religion teaches us to be peaceful and not to do violence. However, there are many people who use religion as politically and cause violence. They act to be good towards others showing religious beliefs and acts; in fact they create violence and use religion so that people believe whatever they are doing there is a legitimate reason.

The author Juergensmeyer brings political violence as a cause of religion whereas other authors argue about different causes of political violence. It is true that no religion suggests violence but people make the situation bad for their own interests. Through the examples of different types of violence the author supports his argument. However, in reality it happens that most of the time very pious people attempt for violent acts.

The people who create violence, for some people they may considered as terrorist whereas for some people may consider their act as a legitimate reason. It depends on us, the general people how we think of those people who create violence. However, we cannot think killing innocent people as justifiable. This types of violence can never be justified because we do not have the authority to kill others even if they do not support the same political leader or from the same religion. In religion killing people is sin but people do kill others and make a religious issue. However, the reason that they take religion as an issue of violence is to make a legitimate reason.

We cannot make religion as a part of politics that impose to create violence. However, people are using religion as a tool of terrorism that affects our society. Political violence should not be justified if it destroys religious beliefs. Moreover, religion can never be used as a legitimate way to create violence.

 

Psychological Boundaries and ethnic conflict

“Psychological Boundaries and ethnic conflict” by Lina Haddad and Kristen Monroe is a social helpful yet very disturbing analysis. These two social analyses conclude for us the actual and the closer reasonable reasons behind committing violent commands against the others. Those we do not proceed, or do not want to, as the main reasons most of the time because we always search for an escape of our reality. The conclusion of the first article lead me to think that it is hard on someone to accept that it is mainly the human nature of gathering and forming groups of certain identities that actually create sorts of violence between ethnics . As it is mentioned other factors considered being secondary, but in some readings I read in other classes over such cases the writers considered these secondary as mainly. But now I am totally convinced that it is when we feel our identity is under attack we perform a kind of resistance and as we have seen from the example of the Civil War of Lebanon even in the same community identity has been the dominant reason of all the violent actions.

In the first article “The Dilemma of Obedience” by Stanly Milgram the author has given very nice analyses that seem to justify the obedience of the soldiers during war time for violent actions. It is convincing still disturbing because it is not enough from him to explain that the sense of leaving the responsibility of committing these violent actions is why a solider may do it, or that someone must encourage themselves to transform their morals into action is enough. I need to know how they could transform it. And what if the one, who is obedient to these actions, believe in destruction or his beliefs call for that? It is true that it is the people and the environment around us affect on us, yet I think the psychological side/ the identity of an individual or a certain community performs the most important part on this. It is true if I say that we even have a conflict within ourselves when a part on your back head calls you to think of the others not as others but as humans, while we still want to keep our identity that is different from them and want it to arouse. But then the thought that came into my mind is about fear, isn’t it that when we fear something we want to hold to something else in order to escape that fear. I would think through many times it is my fear that brings my identity forward and slows my heart beat whenever I see an Israeli soldier facing me.

Eruption of Violence

“Today’s victim can become tomorrow’s perpetrator”- tells if a person becomes a victim of today’s aggression or violence, he/she will become an aggressor in the future (Kreidie and Monroe, 6). Moreover, I assume the authors try to demonstrate in the article “The Dilemmas of Political Identity and Ethnic Violence” introducing the story of Saud, who has become a victim of the massacres in the Sabra Shatila in 1982, yearns for a war to be appeared again so that she can fight against and take revenge. The situation makes me remind what Norman defines human psychology saying “violence breeds violence” and “the outcome of one war becomes the cause for the next war” (208). He mainly identifies violence as historical practice that happened in the past but the result persists through violence. Violence won’t be ended with victims, it will occur again when the victims will become perpetrators and take part in violence.  

During the Labanese civil war, people were divided into different groups based on social identity and social domination.  They did not hesitate to kill people from the same country they belong, Lebanon, and not because felt guilty about killing and taking part in massacre since they believed in “the tremendous power in identity” (18) which made them to think separately from others. If they do not join in fighting, their existence and identity will be lost since “they see themselves as victims or subordinates of an unjust distribution of power and resources of a dominant group” (28). However, they do not support that conflicts should be continued. In this case, they have to be involved as they “were pushed into action by “the other” (19). “The other” refers the authority that makes ordinary people to be violent in such situations. On the other hand, Gray observes through his article “The Enduring Appeals of Battle” psychological features that a soldier has during fighting in a war. According to him, a soldier get attracted to be involved in wars for three reasons-delights in seeing, delight in comradeship and delight in destruction (29).

In the article “The Dilemma of Obedience”, Milgram mentions defining psychological behavior for “obedient” subjects who mostly are ordinary people from professional classes (604). Moreover, obedient groups of people feel a commitment to the authority as a result though they do not want to continue conflicts, they do.  More than that, perpetrators know if they do not take actions, their existence would be destroyed. That is the reason makes them to obey the orders of authority. Is their action justified?  Is the violence justified which was created from the social, political and economic frustration? According to Marxist’s theory, “society is structured into classes which are in conflict for power and resources” (Kreidie, Monroe, 14). Moreover, he did say, “force is the midwife of every old society which is pregnant with a new one” (Marx, 70). It is justifiable to have violence to move along with history.

Mainly Kreidie and Monroe want to clarify that to save group identity ethnic violence is created is called ethnic violence. If there would be no ‘social comparison’ no ‘social domination’ of power and group differences, I assume there would not have any violence between ethnic groups. I wonder if there is no violence, then will there be any move in history? Is ethnic violence needed to save social identity of a group?