One of the groups of people that suffer heavily from trauma are immigrants. In this issue, Dr. Tekin starts his article on trauma with the example of a couple from Iraq, tortured and abused by terrorists who killed their kids. Now, safe and away from the dangers of their home country, the couple cannot overcome their fears and pains, despite now living under a roof and having plentiful food and work. “Mass Trauma, PTSD, and Treatment Options” raises awareness of this epidemic, which is lived at both personal and public levels. Its effects will not only shape our populations, but will also leave indelible marks in our souls. 

Can one way of dealing with trauma and disasters be relevant to “the way we view the world and our place in relation to it”? Robert Howe suggests it is. “Fundamentally, the problem of environmental decline is a malady of tension – between the self, society, and nature,” writes Howe, for whom “the environment’s decline is a sign that modernity is suffering from a crisis of spirituality.” In his “Regenerating Life with Soulcentric Education”, Howe pinpoints the problem as education systems which value academic intelligences because they serve the economic values the system upholds. For him, the contemporary education is “the story of separation” in which humans are divorced from nature and the world by “othering” and “commodifying” them. One solution, for Howe, could be “regenerative education,” which educates healthy, soul-centered adults who understand why they are on Earth, why they were born, and who live with a sense of belonging to the natural and human communities. It is certainly an interesting piece to read and offers a renewed perspective on our lives.

“Turning the Unknown and the Different into the Familiar and the Friendly” by Ellen Michelson offers a second way of dealing with the troubles plaguing our world: interfaith dialogue. Ellen is the editor of The Menorah newsletter of the Congregation B’nai Israel, in New Jersey. She has been an active member of the interfaith community, and, together with the other members of her congregation, she reaches out to other faith groups to promote dialogue and understanding. Her piece offers a humble reading of what can be done today to overcome prejudice and to build a society that respects differences.

Abu Hanifa (d. 767 CE) is considered a leading scholar of Islamic law and his thoughts led to the formation of the Hanafi school of Islam, which has the greatest following among schools. Abu Hanifa’s time was an era of intense political and social mobility. While new conquests brought in new cultural and religious components, the political authority aspired to disseminate an official form of Islam; at the same time, new groups and formations emerged to respond to changing conditions. Unfortunately, these conditions led to some groups being radicalized. Abu Hanifa’s stance against radicalism was exemplary and his arguments are still worthwhile today.

His political attitude

Abu Hanifa represents the prototype of an independent scholar. He was wary of state power, believing that it corrupted intellectual honesty in the interest of preserving power; thus, he did not hold an official political position. This was a brave stance, as he was seriously persecuted for it. Yet his independence allowed him to see radicalism – on both sides of the political spectrum – for the danger that it was.

Understanding of Islamic jurisprudence

Abu Hanifa is considered the pioneer of the school of sound opinion (ray), which advocates seeking solutions to social-judicial problems by using reason together with religious essentials and scholarly comparison (qiyas). Deductive reasoning (ijtihad), juristic preference for the better (istihsan), and acceptable custom (urf) have an important place in his understanding of Islamic jurisprudence. We can infer that he also believed in the necessity of taking social and psychological realities into account when making religious judgments; this was what he did in practice.

Abu Hanifa did not choose a reductionist approach by restricting himself to the frame of religious essentials, but produced solutions to the questions he faced—or could possibly face—by benefiting from the sources mentioned along with the Qur’an and Sunnah. It is possible to define his approach to jurisprudence as an understanding that places humanity in the center; his views expanded the domain of legitimacy and accepted components of historical and cultural heritage that do not contradict the spirit of religion and belief of Divine oneness, such as local customs and practices. This broad perspective ran contrary to radical beliefs. Because the Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence does not disregard real problems in life, it is more capable of solving them.

Abu Hanifa viewed education and debate as essential to his jurisprudence. He would bring a certain problem – some of them contemporary, and some hypothetical – to the attention of his students, each of whom was an expert on an Islamic discipline such as tafsir, hadith, and fiqh; he would let them discuss that matter in detail, follow the discussions with patience, and come to a conclusive judgment according to the strength of the arguments. But he would still tolerate the opposing thoughts of his disciples, such as Imam Muhammad and Abu Yusuf, and let those thoughts come to life. All of their opposing thoughts were recorded, and people acted upon most of them.

We can accept Abu Hanifa’s educational method as a pluralist and democratic one, which also teaches how to forbear different opinions with patience. It shows the value of viewing an issue from different points of view. Despite its value, there were some groups that did not support Abu Hanifa’s methods.

His understanding of belief

Some groups had formed prior to Abu Hanifa as extensions of the extremist Kharijites. They not only directly declared believing Muslims who sinned were apostates, but they also attacked them and tried to exterminate them in the name of religion. The Kharijites even declared Caliph Ali – and many other devout believers – apostates. Though the Kharijites were the most violent, other groups – including the Mutazilites – also persecuted certain religious groups when they came to political power. Unfortunately, this act of dividing society into groups inevitably led to more violence.

According to one definition, it is possible for religion to be a dividing or uniting factor within a society. It can be a great force for good when it is kept separate from the political machinations of power. In his work Fiqh al-Akbar, Abu Hanifa defined the concept of religion (din) in terms of its contents by saying, “Religion is the title given to the entirety of religion, faith, submission, and religious judgments.” Abu’l Muntaha, the scholar who annotated this definition, states that the word religion has different uses, sometimes meaning belief, sometimes submission, and sometimes as the Divine judgments conveyed by a certain Prophet. However, at his answer to the question directed to him about the difference between religion and religious law, Abu Hanifa he expressed that he saw a difference between them. He did not only acknowledge this difference, but also gave a religious and rational explanation for it.

According to Abu Hanifa, religion (din) and religious law (shariah) are separate concepts. He accepted religion as the principles to be believed in – namely, the belief of Divine unity, and faith in the existence and unity of God. Religious law, however, is a body of judgments related to different aspects of human life such as worship, interpersonal relations, and the like. Abu Hanifa interpreted the Qur’anic verse meaning, “I have not created the jinn and humankind but to worship Me (exclusively)” (Dhariyat 56), in the sense of, “So that they know Me and acknowledge my Oneness.”

He believed the origin of religion is the belief in the unity of God. Obviously, this definition is based on the distinction between the essence of religion and what it necessitates. Here, belief is the absolute condition of religion, because a person belonging to a certain religion is a matter of accepting the essential teachings of that religion, rather than observing the acts of worship commanded by that religion.

Abu Hanifa came to this conclusion about religion by considering the fact that the essentials of belief brought by the Prophets are the same, but there are certain differences on other issues, such as worship. The Prophets of God did not belong to different religions. None of them commanded their people to forsake the religion of the previous Prophets, since their faith is the same. On the other hand, every Prophet invited their people to follow the law they conveyed, as decreed by God Almighty for that specific people, not necessarily following the exact law conveyed by the previous Prophets. There were many different codes for different peoples. It is for this reason that God Almighty states, “(For each community) …We have appointed a clear way of life and a comprehensive system (containing the principles of that way and how to follow it). And if God had so willed, He would surely have made you a single community (following the same way of life and system surrounded by the same conditions throughout all history)” (Maedah 48).

The faith of Divine oneness is always the same and religion does not change from one Prophet to another in this sense; it is the systems and their rules that change. If “religion” were fulfilling everything God commands and avoiding everything He forbids, then a person who fails to observe only one command or commits one forbidden act would be an apostate. As such, the legal judgments between fellow believers such as marriage, receiving an inheritance, attending a funeral, and the like would be invalid. However, it is having belief that makes them lawful between fellow believers. Other commands come after having accepted religion. If the commanded acts were faith itself, then God would not call His servants believers until they fulfilled the acts He commanded.

In order to support the point stated above, Abu Hanifa asserted the fact that when believers are excused from certain acts at certain times, they are still considered to have faith: a menstruating woman who abandons the daily prayers, a man who has a valid excuse abandons the Ramadan fasting, or a poor man who cannot give the alms of zakat are still considered believers. If such observances were identical to having faith, failing to observe them for some excuse would have the same meaning. However, it is impossible to make such a claim. According to Abu Hanifa, there is no complete relation between faith and deeds, since they are separate things.

Abu Hanifa stated that the following verses and others of similar meaning also point to the same fact:

“Tell those of My servants who believe that they must establish the Prayer in conformity with its conditions…” (Ibrahim 31); “O you who believe! Prescribed for you is retaliation in cases of (deliberate, unjust) killing…” (Baqarah 178); “O you who believe! Remember and mention God much” (Ahzab 41).

If the commanded acts were identical with belief or faith (iman), then God would not address people as believers until they fulfilled those acts. In addition, God Almighty separates having faith and good deeds in other verses as well:

“Except those who believe and do good righteous deeds…” (Asr 3); “No! Rather, whoever submits his whole being to God (and does so) as one devoted to doing good, aware that God is seeing him, his reward is with his Lord, and all such will have no fear, (for they will always find My help and support with them), nor will they grieve” (Baqarah 112); “But whoever wishes for the Hereafter and strives for it as it should be striven for, being a believer…” (Isra 19).

This distinction proves that faith is not the same as deeds. Believers observe the prayers, fasting, zakat, Hajj, and they make remembrance of God owing to their faith – but they are not considered to have faith for having observed these. This proves that they do good deeds after having faith (iman) already.

In his letter to Uthman al-Batti, a scholar from Basra, Abu Hanifa stated this view with reference to different proofs. He used the following example: an indebted man firstly acknowledges his debt and pays it afterwards, but not vice versa. His acknowledgement of the debt is not for having paid the debt, but his paying is for having acknowledged the debt.

Abu Hanifa did not believe that a person who sins is out of the sphere of faith; nor are they an apostate. He expressed this point, saying, “Those who have acknowledged the direction to turn for worship are believers. I cannot count them as having forsaken faith owing to some command they do not observe. As for one who abandons some obligatory acts in spite of having faith, that person is a believer, but a sinful one (he is not a disbeliever).”

Abu Hanifa argued that what would make one an unbeliever is not committing a forbidden act, but considering it lawful; not abandoning an obligatory command, but considering it unnecessary.

Abu Hanifa also pointed out that real believers commit sins not by considering them lawful, but by giving in to their carnal soul. When asked, “If God is dearer for a believer than everything, why does a believer rebel Him? Is it possible for a person to rebel while having sincere love for God?” the great imam replied, “Yes, a child loves his father, but sometimes disobeys him. The situation of a believer is the same…He commits sins not owing to a lack of love for God, but for giving in to the feeling of lust or something similar.”

Some claimed that this stance aligned Abu Hanifa with the school of Murjia, whose adherents believed that sins would not nullify one’s faith, but Abu Hanifa soundly argued that it is not possible to guarantee anything in matters of faith:

“We cannot say that sins do not harm a believer at all. Similarly, we cannot say that a person who commits sins will not enter Hell. Neither can we say our good deeds are accepted and our evil deeds are forgiven… However, who commits good deeds in conformity with all of the conditions of validity…and dies as a believer without nullifying those deeds, then God does not let those deeds be in vain, but rewards them.” We need to clarify at this point that by this definition Abu Hanifa did not refer to an argument as if religion was a matter of conscience only; religion for him is a comprehensive system of life that concerns all aspects of believers’ existence.

While founding the most developed school of Islamic jurisprudence, Abu Hanifa defined religion with reference to its essence, pinpointing the difference between religion and other factors related to religion. His definition of religion as the faith of Divine oneness is very important in terms of maintaining social unity. Such a definition does not lessen the importance of religion’s other requirements. Moreover, the political and social conditions of his time called for such a definition. For this reason, Abu Hanifa made a definition that referred to the essence of religion and aimed to maintain unity in society by counteracting the tendency to easily condemn those with different opinions.

This is valuable even today, as taking belief in Divine unity as the basis of religion allows followers of different monotheistic religions to meet on common grounds. In the Qur’an, God Almighty addresses Muslims in the person of the Prophet and demands them to call People of the Book to a common word between them: “O People of the Book, come to a word common between us and you, that we worship none but God, and associate none as partner with Him, and that none of us take others for Lords, apart from God” (Al Imran 3: 64).

Conclusion

When Abu Hanifa’s world of thought and understanding of life are studied, it’s clear that his viewpoint valued differences and did not permit persecution. This perspective still bears significance in terms of peaceful coexistence in today’s societies. Such a magnanimous attitude can help to combat radical attitudes and inclinations for violence.

Hate speech is much like propaganda in that it targets specific audiences that are sympathetic to their message. Manjoo (2008) called this selective exposure. All one has to do is go to any discussion board posted by various hate groups to see that most people commenting there are vehemently opposed to some group without any counter-messages. Manjoo (2008) explored another related concept, selective perception. Hate speech can simply be an issue of perception.

Manjoo (2008) describes how these different perceptions are actually a result of different beliefs and world-views. Manjoo (2008) described this phenomena with 9/11 conspiracy theorists such as Phillip Jayhan, whom he describes as harboring distrust for government. Manjoo, who described himself as having different beliefs than Jayhan, noted that, “as a consequence of his ideas about the world generally, he is naturally prone to seeing something in those pictures that I – as a consequence of my (Manjoo’s) own vastly different beliefs about the world – do not (Manjoo, 2008, p. 75).”

These dual truths can be considered a natural product of communication patterns, which Todd Kelshaw elaborates on in his chapter in the book by Shepherd et.al., on communication perspectives. According to Kelshaw, people form meaning by communicating with each other. He notes a pushing and pulling process in communication in which truth or fiction is not necessarily the premise, but values are (Kelshaw, 2006). Kelshaw (2006) adds, “since everything we know is relationally made, relationships may be defined in this way: as negotiations of values that gird personal and social ethnical frameworks and – in effect – make us who we are in light of others” (p. 158).

This definition of meaning through a process of communication adds a significant detail to this concept of selective perception. While Manjoo (2008) points out the stratification of the population into like-minded networks, values begin to develop as those individuals interact. What is apparently hate speech to others outside the group is considered normal discourse for those inside the group. When these groups attempt to spread out their message of hate, many of them might not even understand why their message is being opposed so vehemently.

Dharmapala and McAdams (2001) present, in an economic analysis, the potential linkage between hate speech and hate crimes. The authors focus on the esteem theory in which motivation is based on fame, whereas the utility of committing a hate crime increases as this motivation increases. In this case, perpetuators of hate crimes are highly influenced by hate speech. The authors note that if individuals possess common prior beliefs, engage in Bayesian inference (the adjustment of beliefs/values in relation to evidence or observations), and are risk-neutral, than speech will likely not influence them. The paper notes that this is typically not the case where Bayesian inference is replaced by correspondence bias. This correspondence bias is akin to Manjoo’s selective perception, whereas any contrary evidence is filtered through deeply held beliefs about the world. The authors backup their claims with various economic and psychological models not elaborated on here. The authors do conclude, “thus, even if potential hate offenders overestimate the number of hate crime approvers (as is likely), they will overestimate more in the presence of high levels of hate speech than they will in the presence of low levels of hate speech” (Dharmapala McAdams, 2001, p. 24).

The link between hate speech and hate crimes is where hate speech becomes problematic. When speech induces an action that hurts others – whether through institutionalized prejudice or non-institutionalized prejudice – or provokes violent actions against the group the hate speech is directed against, than that speech should not be allowed and criminalization could be an option. The problem is that because the First Amendment in the United States is so broad on free speech, it is unlikely that hate speech will ever be forbidden or criminalized there. There are differences in legal approaches to hate speech and even cases of discrimination depending on the identity of the person involved in different countries. (Elgot, 2013). While free speech of some groups might be criminalized in a given country because of their lyrics and social media statements for conspiring to provide material support to terrorist groups (Muslim Legal Defense Fund, 2013), in another country a to-be terrorist could be allowed to reference to hate speech perpetrators as many as he likes (Daily Mail, 2011).

In Islam, speech is not just words without ramifications. In 50:18 (al Qaf), the Qur’an says, “Not a word does he utter but there is a watcher by him ready (to note it)” (Ali, 2010, p. 354). The watcher is referring to the angels that watch over every living person and record all their words and movements to be used in their judgment (Ibn Kathir, 2013).
Further, it is recorded from the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, in which he states, “Let him who believes in God and the Last Day speak good, or keep silent; and let him who believes in God and the Last Day be generous to his neighbor; and let him who believes in God and the Last Day be generous to his guest” (Nawawi, 2013, website).

In this verse and Prophetic saying, the Muslims are warned against saying anything that will cause them to be judged poorly in the hereafter. This speech most definitely includes hate speech. Islam recognizes the extreme harm that wayward speech can cause and includes injunctions against it. For instance, the Qur’an states (6:108), “Do not revile those whom they call upon besides God, lest they out of spite revile God in their ignorance. Thus have We made alluring to each people its own doings. In the end will they return to their Lord, and We shall then tell them the truth of all that they did” (Ali, 2010, p. 92). In this verse, the Muslims are told not to insult the deities of others because of the potential for it to lead to bigger evils than any benefit that may be received by doing so. Additionally, those insults tend to spread like wildfire, causing bigger ramifications than at first perceived (Kathir, 2013).

During the time of the Prophet in Medina, harsh words of unbelievers were addressed to him and his community in different ways. One time, Abu Bakr, one of the leading Companions of the Prophet, entered a Jewish school and met Finhas, who was one of the respected rabbis there. Abu Bakr invited Finhas to Islam. Finhas retorted that God was poor, but they were rich so it is God who should submit Himself to them. This comment angered Abu Bakr to the point that he hit Finhas. Later when retelling the story to the Prophet, the Prophet received a revelation concerning the situation (3:186): “(So O believers, as a requirement of the wisdom in, and purpose for, your life of the world,) you will surely be tested in respect of your properties and your selves, and you will certainly hear many hurtful things from those who were given the Book before you and those who associate partners with God. If you remain patient (are steadfast in your Religion, and observe the bounds set by God in your relations with them) and keep within the limits of piety (in obeying God, and in your conduct toward them), (know that) this is among meritorious things requiring great resolution to fulfill.” (Ishaq, 1967, p. 263. The translation of the verse is from Ali Unal, 2006).

In this verse revealed about Abu Bakr and his exchange with Finhas, the Muslims are enjoined to be forgiving, patient, and forbearing with the words of those who do not believe in Islam. Ibn Kathir adds in his commentary that, “indeed, the Messenger of God and his Companions used to forgive the (polytheists) and the People of the Scriptures, just as God commanded them, and they used to tolerate the harm that they suffered” (Kathir, 2013, website). In the modern era, this advice is more than adequate when dealing with hate speech directed against the Muslims and the religion of Islam. When people insult the religion and its followers, Muslims are enjoined to forgive and bear these insults patiently.

Bearing patiently and forgiving is also not an excuse for inaction. Responses to hate speech are to be measured with a strong foundation of forgiveness and patience, but it does merit a response. Hate speech and its potential negative effects have to be addressed either by calling attention to it through research, lobbying, providing counter messages and rallies, and legal actions, if needed.

Unfortunately, hate speech is becoming more pronounced in the modern era. As fiscal crises continue to cause unemployment and economic hardship across Europe and the United States, people search for an easy scapegoat. In the past, religious minorities such as Jews were these scapegoats. Hate speech abounded decades and even centuries before the atrocities of the Holocaust in the early 20th century. This should cause some alarm amongst the Muslim minorities of Europe as far-right groups continue to emerge, spewing hateful speech mostly directed at the small Muslim communities there. Muslims are reminded to follow the advice contained in the Qur’an and hadith regarding this speech while seeking means to be involved in making their communities a better place to live for all people.

References

Ali, A. Y. 2010. The meaning of the glorious Qur’an. Istanbul: ASIR Media.

Bill of Rights. 2010. In The Charters of Freedom. Retrieved May 30, 2010, from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html.

Dharmapala, D. McAdams, R. H. 2001. Words that kill? Economic Perspectives on Hate Speech and Hate Crimes. U Illinois Law Economics Research Paper No. LE02-004. Retrieved from http://ideas.repec.org/p/uct/uconnp/2003-05.html.

Elgot, J. (2013, June 26). Pamela geller and robert spencer banned from the UK by home office, due to speak at EDL Woolwich rally. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/06/26/pamela-geller-banned_n_3503307.html

Hate speech. 2010. In Webster’s New World Dictionary. Retrieved May 30, 2010, from http://www.yourdictionary.com/law/hate-speech.

Ishaq, M. 1967. A. Guillaume (Translator.) The Life of Muhammad. Karachi, Pakistan: Oxford University Press.

Kathir, I. 2013. Quran tafsir Ibn Kathir. Retrieved from http://www.qtafsir.com/.

Kelshaw, T. 2006. Communication as political participation. In Shepherd, G.L. et.al. (Eds.), Communication as…perspectives on theory (pp. 155 – 163). Thousand Oaks, California, Sage Publications Inc.

Manjoo, F. (2008). True enough: Learning to live in a post-fact society. Hoboken, New Jersey, John Wiley Sons Inc.

MLFA funds appeal of ziyad yaghi thought-crime conviction. (2013, April 30). Retrieved from

http://www.mlfa.org/mlfa-funds-appeal-ziyad-yaghi-thought-crime-conviction

Nawawi, A. Z. (2013). 40 Hadith Nawawi. Retrieved from http://sunnah.com/nawawi40.

Unal, Ali. 2006. The Qur’an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English, NJ: Tughra Books.

‘We could have another Timothy McVeigh’: U.S. authorities warned against anti-Islamic terrorism after Norway shooter ‘inspired’ by Robert Spencer and Unabomber. (2011, July 27). Daily Mail. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2018976/Norway-shooting-Anders-Behring-Breivik-inspired-Robert-Spencer-Unabomber.html.

The purpose of this article is to shed light on such questions from an academic perspective by focusing especially on religious identity. It is especially crucial to understand identity as it is a widely used concept in social scientific academic disciplines in explaining the causes of many prominent social and cultural phenomena that take place in the world.

Identity is derived from group membership. In this respect, Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov (2010) equate identity to one’s belonging to a group. Further, Hofstede et al. (2010) state that identity is visible, it is commonly rooted in language (such as Latin American identity deriving from Spanish) or religious affiliation (such as Muslim identity deriving from Islam), and can be differentiated by shared symbols, heroes, and rituals that are part of observable practices but not necessarily the values of a nation. Identity is not a core part of national cultures; it is explicit, and it can change.

An individual can have multiple identities. For example, one can identify herself as a woman, Jewish, and American. Multiple identities are dependent on culture, especially on the individualist – collectivist cultural dimension. Individualistic environments allow multiple identities and permit identity shifts. On the other hand, in collectivistic cultures, one’s group identity is mainly based on one group, which may be ethnic, religious, community-based, or national (Hofstede et al. 2010).

People who share similar ethnic and cultural backgrounds may have different group identities and fight with each other, such as Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland (Hofstede et al. 2010). In this respect, Pruitt and Kim (2004) posit that groups with strong group identity are the ones whose members are highly identified with the group and they are more likely to be involved in conflict. Accordingly, members of such groups feel the suffering of the fellow group members deeply. Group identity is especially strong among people who have historical ethnic or religious ties and perceive that they are being illegitimately deprived of their basic needs (Pruitt and Kim 2004). For example, Muslims in different areas of the world, including places as distant as the United States and Indonesia, can protest at the same time when they perceive injustice against Egyptian Muslims.

From another perspective, in explaining the changes taking place in the world after the Cold War, Huntington (2007) states that social, cultural, and economic modernization processes have disrupted people’s identity sources in the second half of the twentieth century as people moved from countryside to the city. Religion has provided the meaning and purpose as the new source of identity that people seek, hence a new revival of religion and de-secularization began. For example, Orthodoxy in Slavic republics and Islam in Turkic republics of the former Soviet Union resurged, filling the gap of the communist ideology as people identified themselves more and more with their authentic religions that were suppressed by Communism (which was the main source of identity in the Soviet Union).

Similarly, in Turkey, in the 1990s, the ultra-secularist state-driven Kemalist identity was challenged with the revival of the Muslim identity. In this respect, Huntington (2007) argues that psychological, emotional and social needs of people caught in the traumas of modernization are best satisfied by a global religious revival. In the case of Muslim communities, Islam provided the answer to these needs, causing the Islamic Resurgence. According to Huntington (2007), the recent Islamic Resurgence is “the latest phase in the adjustment of Islamic civilization to the West, an effort to find the ‘solution’ not in Western ideologies but in Islam. It embodies acceptance of modernity, rejection of Western culture, and recommitment to Islam as the guide to life in the modern world.” Similarly, Hunt and Aslandogan (2007, 96) posit that by the early twentieth century, Muslims perceived themselves as “part of intellectual, political, and social movements that sought either a restoration and renewal of the Islamic civilization of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, a return to the purity of the period of Muhammad and his immediate successors, or even a thoroughgoing ‘modernization’ of Islam.”

The resurgence was not limited to the Islamic world. In South Korea, a traditionally Buddhist nation, where only one to three percent of the population was Christian in 1950, Christianity spread. Presbyterians and Catholics were at least 30 percent of South Korea’s population in the 1980s (Huntington 2007). In the case of Latin America, “The number of Protestants in Latin America increased from roughly 7 million in 1960 to about 50 million in 1990” (Huntington 2007, 1779) which according to Huntington (2007, 1783) is “a major net increase in religious commitment and participation” rather than a replacement of one religion with another. According to Huntington, such changes in South Korea and Latin America reflect the ability of Protestantism in meeting the psychological, emotional, and social needs of people caught in the traumas of modernization more than Catholicism and Buddhism. Hence, worldwide identities became more aligned with religion due to psychological and spiritual needs satisfaction in the midst of the complexities of modernization and change, which can create confusion.

From the theories of conflict perspective, identity can be used to explain many of the conflicts in the world. According to Deutsch, Coleman and Marcus (2006), basic needs such as security, identity, recognition of identity, freedom, distributive justice, and participation are seen as the essential elements for human development. Social identity theory asserts that the group that one belongs to is part of his identity, and one tends to view the group favorably to reinforce his self-respect. Thus, one perceives an attack on his in-group as an assault on his self-worth (Pruitt and Kim 2004). Since identity groups serve as the primary vehicle through which these needs are expressed and satisfied, intergroup conflict takes place when one group’s basic needs are frustrated or denied (Deutsch et al. 2006). Accordingly, intergroup conflict increases cohesiveness within the competing groups, primarily through the effects of threat. A perception of threat plays a key role by heightening in-group solidarity in addition to increasing hostility toward the threatening out-group, especially if there is a history of antagonism between the groups (Deutsch et al. 2006).

Furthermore, identity groups exist in organizations and communities. Wherever groups gather around a common social identity, if needs for recognition of that identity or for dignity, safety, or control are obstructed, conflict is highly likely. In this respect, professional groups, scientific disciplines, political parties, government departments, lobby groups, businesses, sports teams, street gangs – all carry a sense of group identity that shapes their dealings with other groups (Deutsch et al. 2006).

Based on social identity theory, since an individual’s self-esteem is linked to group membership, a positive self-concept requires favorable evaluations of one’s group and discriminatory comparisons with other groups (Deutsch et al. 2006). For example, ethnic groups exhibit ethnocentrism and national groups exhibit nationalism-pride and loyalty to their own nation, while defaming other nations.

According to Huntington (2007), in fault line wars, casual and multiple identities often transform and become more focused and hardened. With increased violence, communal conflicts become identity wars and the initial issues at stake tend to get redefined more exclusively as “us” against “them” as group cohesion and commitment are enhanced. With political leaders’ narratives emphasizing and capitalizing on ethnic and religious loyalties, civilization consciousness strengthens with respect to other identities. An example is the war in Bosnia where the common Slavic or Yugoslav ethnic identity diminished, and Muslim, Catholic, and Orthodox identities came to the front among the three fighting groups as nationalist political leaders built their agendas on ethnocentrism and religious differences.

Nevertheless, religious identity can take a constructive form and play an important role in peace building (Deutsch et al. 2006). Accordingly, when faithfulness is a source of extending compassion, justice, tolerance, and respect to other people regardless of their faith, it can prevent violence and help build peace. In places where religious diversity is celebrated, religious identity can become the mediating factor for understanding and cooperation. Faith based diplomacy is an example where religious identity is the opening point for building trust and starting dialogue (Deutsch et al. 2006). Parties involved in interfaith – intercultural dialogue can attain a better understanding of their own religious or cultural identity and how it acts to form their perspective of the world and others. Therefore, interfaith dialogue is not only about learning about others’ faith traditions, but it is also exploration of one’s own identity. It also helps develop respect and understanding of various traditions as parties break down barriers of misunderstanding and build trusting relationships (Deutsch et al. 2006).

Another area where religious identities can foster bonds with others is humanitarian relief work. One can capitalize on her religious beliefs in protecting or enhancing human life regardless of ethnic or religious identity of the needy. The Kimse Yok Mu foundation in Turkey is based on such concepts that transcend identity based boundaries. Furthermore, Hunt and Aslandogan (2007) point out that education can become the vehicle through which a higher sense of identity can be developed to end divisions and frictions over artificial differences. Hence, the role of education for promoting a universal view of humanity and for the development of understanding and tolerance to secure respect for the rights of others is tremendous. One such educational endeavor is brought to life through the implementation of the annual Turkish Olympiads in Turkey, where identity based differences are minimized and universal values are emphasized around speaking a common language among students from more than 140 countries.

In conclusion, understanding the concept of identity can be especially important for international development, disaster relief, interfaith – intercultural dialogue, and education work in differentiating why and how various groups of people around the world identify themselves with various factors such as religion, ethnicity, language, and race. In the international development domain, it is vital to work with identity-based sensitivities in mind, as identity underlies many conflicts around the world. In the interfaith – intercultural dialogue domain, on the other hand, different identities provide the basis for much needed cooperation for a brighter future for all.

References

• Deutsch Morton, Peter T. Coleman, and Eric C. Marcus. 2006. The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. Kindle Edition.
• Hofstede, Geert, Gert J. Hofstede and Michael Minkov. 2010. Cultures And Organizations: Software of The Mind. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw Hill.
• Hunt, Robert, and Yuksel Aslandogan. 2007. Muslim Citizens of the Globalized World. Kindle Edition.
• Huntington, Samuel P. 2007. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition.
• Pruitt, Dean G. and Sung Hee Kim. 2004. Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw Hill.

A consocational democracy is a type of democracy which emphasizes the importance of power-sharing and decision-making among different segments in society. But is consociational democracy the most suitable form of democracy when it comes to establishing lasting peace in post-conflict societies?

Consocational democracy addresses problems in democratic state building that result from deep segmentation. These divisions as a result are easily defined and measured where real boundaries (political or otherwise) exist. As a result of these environmental and social conditions there exists a natural tendency for competition and the supporting of ethnically-based parties (Andeweg 2000).

The consocational framework is dependent on elite cooperation. This is the centerpiece of the model and is based on the premise that communal violence between groups is often exacerbated by elites so that when these elites have a voice in government, they have a vested interest in maintaining its integrity. Although elite meddling in conflict is the most potent, it is not the only incendiary in inter-group relations (Andeweg 2000).

Under the current model where a society has the characteristics necessitating a consocational framework, the sub-groups have two choices: to remain a part of the country or to separate. These two forces pull on individuals of each group in which decisions are often based on various factors. Those societies that do not cooperate are termed “centrifugal.” In this case, the sub-groups emphasize separation over integration. Consocationalism is a top-down integration/cooperation mechanism that seeks to overcome centrifugal forces (Andeweg 2000).

Loyaltiyes and state building

One of the forces that create these centrifugal tendencies is also one of the characteristics that make communal life possible i.e. group loyalty. According to A.A.M. Kinneging (2004) loyalty, “pertains to a bond that withstands the passing of time and the winds of change: a bond that is conceived of as lasting, permanent, unbreakable, even holy” (Kinneging 2004, 68). This definition of loyalty indicates how intractable it is when integrating many different groups with different loyalties under one government. In this case, as Kinneging points out, the community is higher than the individual. In ethnically homogenous countries this presents no problem and allows democracy to flourish at all levels. Often times this is not the case in heterogeneous societies where either the state enforces a loyalty to its institutions, such as in the republican liberal democracy model, while still maintaining individual rights or enforces it in such a way that violates individual rights in an undemocratic manner.

Loyalties typically follow racial or religious lines. They can even be more fragmented such as loyalty to one’s town or city. Evidence can be seen in the sport’s world. Loyalty is typically to a person or an institution (Healy 2007). Loyalty to the nation-state has been somewhat of a recent phenomenon. The lack of loyalty can be detrimental to state integrity when it is towards another group. The lack of loyalty between sub-groups is something that consocationalism does not address as it represents an administrative/electoral solution to a heavily divided society. It does not address the psychological/emotional element that loyalty forms a part of and which in essence is the backbone of society.

Lijphart envisioned consocationalism as a temporary solution in which it was only meant as a transitory phase to greater levels of democratic cooperation (Andeweg 2000). This of course assumes that through elite cooperation and living peacefully alongside each other under one roof, it is possible that these groups would eventually reconcile their differences and move to greater integration. Unfortunately, there is the other direction such as entrenched differences that only get worse with time that may stalemate/postpone the conflict i.e. not resolving the conflicts (Fox & Miller 2007). Still, consocational democracy is considered the best option for deeply stratified societies because it recognizes, among other things, that some sub-groups have a complete way of life that requires a certain level of autonomy from the state.

The risk in this approach is that these sub-groups may look at the government as a burden or unnecessary overhang on complete control of their affairs. In response, the state may have a few choices at its disposal that may either create incentives such as the consocational framework or force a state identity upon all sub-groups, essentially eliminating them.

Bosnia: Adversarial communities under one roof

Bosnia is composed of three adversarial communities that have existed since the 15th century. Primarily, these communities came into existence around a particular religion. These religions of interest in the Bosnian case are Orthodox Christianity, Catholic Christianity and Islam. The Serbian people primarily follow Orthodox Christianity, the Croatians follow Catholic Christianity, and the Bosniacs follow Islam. These communities erupted into full-fledged war in the early 90’s when the Orthodox Serbs engaged in genocide against the Muslim Bosniacs (Kasapovic 2005).

These people were subject to the first consocational system of the world, the millet system which was implemented by the Ottoman Empire shortly after conquering the area that is now the former Yugoslavia. The millet system, which has roots in the religion of Islam, gave different religious communities their own autonomy headed by an elite (millet bashi) who was responsible for different religious and civil areas. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the various nation-states that emerged did not act so kindly on the remaining Muslim groups and either forced them to leave or massacred them. The Bosniacs represented a unique example as well as other indigenous ethnic groups who converted to Islam during Ottoman rule (Katsikas 2009).

These communities have historical differences that cannot disappear overnight. The Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croatians owe their divide to the Great Schism in the 11th century between Constantinople and Rome (Norwich 1999). The Muslim Bosniacs and Orthodox Serbs owe their divide to Serb defeat at the hands of the Ottomans in the 14th century (Kinross 2003). Although present-day communities probably give little thought to these events, the mimetic transmission of hatred means that these communities are seemingly locked in an adversarial relationship.

After the 1995 Dayton Peace Accord, a consocational-type government was established. Kasapovic described it as an “asymmetrical confederation” in which the country is divided into two parts with one part being more consocational between Bosniacs and Croatians and the other representing a more homogenous state of Serbs. At the national level equal representation is given to the three groups, mutual veto exists, autonomy is given to each group, and consensus is maintained (Kasapovic 2005).

More than fifteen years after the Dayton Peace Accord there is peace, but as Kasapovic pointed out, this is only because all groups consented to peace. Kasapovic notes that the state is still highly unstable because there is no consensus on its organization and there are continuing external threats that may tear the country apart (Kasapovic 2005). This instability means that these groups, by and large, have not resolved their differences.

He argues that there are three reasons for this inefficiency of the model of consocational democracy, one “at the level of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a state, and one more at the level of the Federation as a state sub-entity: no consensus on the state, no consensus on the political system, no consistent strategy of international actors in establishing a democratic state, and the unfavorable two-segmental structure of the Federation with one segment outnumbering the other” (Kasapovic 2005, 9).

The fact remains that despite living in a consocational-type system for six centuries, the different groups that compose Bosnia’s adversarial groups have not cooperated at any level that would have caused them to avoid the deluge in the early 90’s. This indicates that although these people are living together under one country, they harbor distrust or hatred of those who compose the other group. The fact that they are all part of one country appears to have no influence on the perceptions towards the other group.

Considering that this conflict has been ongoing at varying intensities for several hundred years, an unfreezing process is needed. The concept of unfreezing has its roots with the organization theorist Kurt Lewin who proposed an unfreezing, moving/changing, and re-freezing process. In the process, values are changed and thus can be labeled change management. The re-freezing may have more clout with individual organizations, but the re-freezing creates an organized way of thinking akin to concepts of efficiency i.e. an established uniform identity (Levasseur 2001).

The involvement of religious leaders has importance in this case. Since these conflicts involved Christian and Muslim communities which are international religions, and since these conflicts also involved an international response, these local conflicts have implications that are not only local. International religious leaders should remember to be sensitive to religious sentiments despite their distance from Bosnia.

Haynes pointed out that one of the problems of the roles religious leaders face is that they lack the capacity to build a strategy for peace (Haynes 2009). As members of an international faith, these leaders would have access to a large network of resources that would facilitate them in their role as peace-makers. One of the aspects that may be appropriately addressed in Bosnia is training these leaders to both acquire these resources as well as use them appropriately. This would make their role far more influential than the elites.

The side effect is that many of these religious leaders may have instigated violence against the other or continue to preach hatred towards the other. These leaders need to either be isolated by the national government or reprimanded severely by those leaders of international representation. The globalized world makes all this possible. The world in this essence can either be a harbinger of peace or a catalyst for war at the local level.

Religious leaders should be engaged in dialog with each other as much as other community members are engaged in workshops both inventing solutions and implementing them. Once a healthy environment of dialog is fostered, then either naturally or through planned social action, inclusive networks should be developed. These networks can create cooperation and community.

Lastly, the existence of these networks means that the state as a reactionary entity becomes a mirror of that society. In this case, the consocational model of governance might work and if possible a more unified democratic format may be chosen. The result would be a multi-group democratic state with shared loyalties to the state, one’s own group, and to another group. This does not guarantee continued peace, but at least secures it much more tightly than as proposed under the consocational framework alone.

Hummel is a doctoral candidate at the School of Public Administration, Florida Atlantic University.

References

• Andeweg, Ruby B. 2000. “Consociational democracy,” Annual Review of Political Science 3, no. 1: 509-536.
• Fox, Charles & Hugh Miller. 2007. Postmodern Public Administration, Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe.
• Haynes, Jeffrey. 2009. “Conflict, Conflict Resolution and Peace-building: The Role of Religion in Mozambique, Nigeria and Cambodia,” Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 47, no.1: 52-75.
• Healy, Mary. 2007. “School Choice, Brand Loyalty and Civic Loyalty,” Journal of Philosophy of Education 41, no. 4: 743-756.
• Kasapovic, Mirjana. 2005. “Bosnia and Herzegovina: Consociational or Liberal Democracy,” Croatian Political Science Review 42, no. 5: 3-30.
• Katsikas, Stefanos. 2009. “Millets in Nation-states: The Case of Greek and Bulgarian Muslims,” Nationalities Papers 37, no. 2: 177-201.
• Kinneging, Andreas A. M. 2004. “Loyalty in the Modern World,” Modern Age 46, no. 1/2: 68.
• Kinross, Lord. 2003. The Ottoman Empire, London: Folio Society.
• Levasseur, Robert E. 2001. “People Skills: Change Management Tools – Lewin’s Change Model,” Interfaces 31, no. 4: 3.
• Norwich, John J. 1999. A Short History of Byzantium, New York: Vintage Books.

•conquered and occupied two large Muslim countries (Afghanistan and Iraq)

•compelled a huge Muslim army to root out a terrorist sanctuary (Pakistan)

•deployed thousands of special forces to numerous Muslim countries (Yemen, Somalia, Sudan etc.)

•imprisoned hundreds of Muslims without recourse

•waged a massive war of ideas involving Muslim clerics to denounce violence and new institutions to bring Western norms to Muslim countries

•killed Osama bin Laden, the inspirational leader of Al Qaeda who carried out the 9/11 attacks.

Have these actions – which some have called, “World War IV” – made America safe?

In a narrow sense, America is safer and justice has been served. There has not been another attack on the scale of 9/11. Our defenses regarding immigration controls, airport security, and the disruption of potentially devastating domestic plots have all improved. This is the positive side of the ledger.

In a broader sense, however, America is not safe enough. Anti-American suicide terrorism rose rapidly around the world in the decade since September 11, 2001. In 2003, then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld famously asked, “Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrasas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?” As even a casual glance at the facts shows, the answer is a disappointing no. The negative side of the balance sheet is daunting.

September 11, 2001 was so devastating largely because it was a suicide attack in which 19 hijackers killed themselves in the course of killing 3,000 innocent people. So the key to tracking the threat is to focus on suicide terrorism, especially those inspired against Americans.

Look at the numbers. In 2000 – the year before 9/11 – there were 20 suicide attacks around the world and one – against the US Cole in Yemen – was anti-American inspired. By contrast, in 2010, there were well over 200 suicide attacks and about 90 percent were anti-American inspired – against US troops or those working with America – a ten-fold increase over the past decade.

Each month, there are more suicide terrorists trying to kill Americans and its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other Muslim countries than in all the years before 2001 combined. Yes, these attacks are mostly (although not exclusively) focused on military and diplomatic targets. However, so too were the anti-American suicide attacks before 2001. It is important to remember that the 1995 and 1996 bombings of US troops in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and (as mentioned) bombing of the US Cole in Yemen in 2000 were the crucial dots that showed the threat was rising prior to 9/11. Today, such dots are occurring by the dozens every month.

American military policies have not stopped the rising wave of extremism in the Muslim world. The reason has not been lack of effort, lack of will among the American people, lack of bipartisan support for aggressive military policies, lack of funding, or lack of genuine patriotism.

No. American military policies are not failing for the standard excuses. Something else is creating the mismatch between America’s effort and the results.

What went wrong

America has been waging a long war against terrorism, but without much serious public debate about what is truly motivating terrorists to kill us. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack, this was perfectly understandable. If toppling the Taliban was necessary to take out Al Qaeda’s sanctuary in Afghanistan, so be it.

But, in an instant, there was also a great need to know, or perhaps better to say, to “understand” the events of that terrible day. A simple narrative was readily available and a powerful conventional wisdom began to exert its grip. Since the 9/11 hijackers were all Muslims, it was easy to presume that Islamic fundamentalism was the central motivating force driving the 19 hijackers to kill themselves in order to kill us. Within weeks after the attack, surveys of American attitudes show that this presumption was fast congealing into a hard reality in the public mind. Americans immediately wondered, “Why do they hate us?” and almost as immediately came to the conclusion that it was because of who we are, not what we do.

The narrative of Islamic fundamentalism did more than explain why America was attacked. It also pointed toward a simple, grand solution – one whose ambition only made it seem all the more worthy in light of the trauma of that terrible day. If Islamic fundamentalism was driving the threat and if its roots grew from the culture of the Arab world, then America had a clear mission: to transform Arab societies – with Western political institutions and social norms as the ultimate antidote to the virus of Islamic extremism.

The only problem: Islamic fundamentalism is not the main driver of suicide terrorism. What drives this phenomenon more than any other single factor is foreign military presence – which inspires wave after wave of individuals to join terrorist groups in order to carry out suicide attacks in the hope that these would end the foreign presence in their lands.

On September 11, 2001, the United States had deployed over 12,000 combat forces to countries on the Persian Gulf (5,000 in Saudi Arabia and 7,000 in other countries along the rim). We now know that these troops were the principle rallying cry of Osama bin Laden in his efforts to mobilize volunteers for suicide attacks against the United States and that the martyr videos of the 9/11 hijackers – their last video will testimonials – prominently justify their actions as in response to Western military control of the governments on the Arabian peninsula. Further, escalation of American combat forces in the region for the Iraq war directly fueled still further anti-American suicide terrorism.

Hence, the grand solution became the grand catalyst for more anti-American inspired suicide terrorism than ever before.

What we know

Vast new research on suicide terrorism has produced important new knowledge. Here is a summary of what we know:

•Occupation causes suicide terrorism

Over 95% of all suicide attacks are in response to foreign occupation

•The more occupation, the more suicide terrorism

As America has occupied two large Muslim countries, Afghanistan and Iraq with a total population of about 60 million, total suicide attacks worldwide have risen dramatically – from about 300 from 1980 to 2003 to 2000+ from 2004 to 2010. Further, 90% of all suicide attacks are now anti-American.

•Indirect occupation is the equivalent of direct occupation

The US compelled Pakistan to deploy 100,000 troops against the Taliban in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Pakistani suicide attacks escalated dramatically.

•Ending occupation can end suicide terrorism even without transforming Muslim countries

Since Israel withdrew its army from Lebanon in May 2000, there has not been a single Lebanese suicide attack. Since Israel withdrew from Gaza and large parts of the West Bank, Palestinian suicide attacks are down over 90%. Since America and its allies began withdrawing from Iraq, suicide attacks are also falling fast.

•Empowering local groups can reduce suicide terrorism

In Iraq, the surge’s apparent success was not the result of increased US military control of Anbar Province, but rather quite the reverse – the empowerment of Sunni tribal leaders for their own security, commonly called the Anbar Awakening.

•Taking power away from local groups can escalate suicide terrorism

In Afghanistan the ISAF’s expansion strategy, designed to exert more central government control over the Pashtun tribes in the Western and Southern provinces, caused a resurgence in the Taliban and an increase in the number of suicide attacks.

The tide is turning

The oxygen for America’s strategy is, fundamentally, how we understand the root cause of the terrorist threat we face. In recent years, the intellectual climate has begun to change. In January 2010, a Zogby poll found that 27% of Americans now believe that the “most important factor” motivating terrorists to attack the United States is that they “resent Western power and influence” compared to 33% who still think the main motive is “make Islam the world’s dominant religion.”

American military policies are also changing. The United States started to draw down military forces from Iraq in 2008, has already removed 100,000 troops, and is on schedule to end its commitment of heavy combat forces there next year. Since their peak in 2007, suicide attacks in the country have fallen by over 80 percent and the country is more stable today than at any point since America conquered the country in 2003.

In Afghanistan, President Obama announced in July his plan to remove about a third of US forces from the country over the next year and to continue drawing down thereafter. If so, there is good reason to expect that suicide attacks will soon begin to decline significantly there as well.

Fortunately the US does not need to station large ground forces in either Iraq or Afghanistan to keep them from being a significant safe haven for Al Qaeda or any other anti-American terrorists. This can be achieved by a strategy called “Off-Shore Balancing” that relies on over-the-horizon air and naval forces and rapidly deployable ground forces, combined with empowering local groups to oppose the terrorist groups. No matter what happens in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US will maintain a significant air and naval presence in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean for many years, and those forces are well-suited to striking terrorist leaders and camps in conjunction with local militias – just as they did so successfully against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in 2001.

Above all, to truly move beyond the war on terror, it is important for scholars, policy intellectuals, government leaders, and the public at large to continue to educate themselves about the factors that lead to suicide attacks like 9/11. The more we know, the fewer mistakes and the better our policies – and the more we can all live our lives in peace.

Robert A. Pape is Professor and Director of the University of Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism and author of Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It (2010).

Original Article: Ichinohe T. et al., PNAS (published online before print 2011).

Influenza, also known as seasonal flu, affects up to 5 million people annually. Flu viruses infect and damage the animal respiratory tract, especially the lungs. Upon flu virus infection, a life or death battle between an animal’s immune system and the flu virus begins. To defeat the flu virus, the animal’s immune system synthesizes important flu-fighting molecules. Researchers at Yale University discovered that mice on the antibiotic regimen, a treatment that wipes out certain bacteria which normally live in the guts of the animal hosts, showed deficiency in immune responses against flu virus in the lungs compared to mice that had not been treated. This finding suggests an unexpected link that the bacteria living in the animals seem to control the production of these flu-fighting molecules. These commensal bacteria, or good bacteria, prime the immune system in making flu-fighting molecules even before infection, and this priming is important for subsequent flu-fighting strategies. The exact bacterial species that helps fight the flu are yet to be identified. It is interesting to contemplate why the immune system trusts bacteria with such an important job. Whatever that reason might be this finding warns against misuse or abuse of antibiotics. We don’t want to kill the good bacteria that might just protect us in the next flu season.

2- Less talking with longer words

Original Article: Piantadosi S.T. et al., PNAS 108, 3526 (2011).

What factors affect the length of a word? Do we prefer to use short words or long words while we are talking? For many years, researchers believed that the most frequently used words tend to be short in order to make the language more efficient. It is intuitive when we think of words such as “a,” “the,” “but” and their popularity in our everyday life. However, according to a recent study done by Piandatosi and coworkers in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT, the length of a word reflects the amount of information it contains. They observed that people use many words in predictable sequences along with other words in their daily life. Most of the time a short word may not contain information per se, but carry information as a collection with other familiar words. This observation led the researchers to look at the problem from an ‘information content’ perspective. A word is said to have more information if it is less predictable in a sequence. An analysis was done on the Google text database in 11 different languages. The results show that word length closely correlates to information content. Once again, it is not important how much you talk. It is important how much you mean.

3- Ups and downs of sleep with alpha waves

Original Article: McKinney S.M. et al., PLoS One 6, e17351 (2011).

Why do we randomly wake up in the middle of the night? Searching for an answer for this question, researchers at the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) discovered a brain rhythm that determines one’s susceptibility to disturbance by the outside world while asleep. Scott McKinney and his colleagues conducted a study where they analyzed the electroencephalographs (EEGs) of 13 volunteers, who spent 3 nights in MGH’s Sleep laboratory. EEG devices use electrodes on the scalp to detect electrical activity in the brain. There are four major brain waves that can be detected by EEG: alpha, beta, delta and theta waves. Alpha waves usually emanate from the back of the head during relaxed wakefulness, particularly when your eyes are closed, and they are thought to gradually disappear when a person goes to sleep. Researchers developed a special computational method that can probe EEGs in much deeper data resolutions. Their analyses revealed that alpha waves never disappear during sleep; they just go below conventional detection levels. Moreover, when alpha wave activity spikes just before an obnoxious auditory stimuli (e.g., loud talking or traffic noise) is played, volunteers seems to wake up more easily than when alpha wave activity was low. These findings suggest that maybe the alpha wave activity is the brain’s way of keeping us aware of our surroundings during sleep, and perhaps it enables us to wake up quickly in case of danger. Of course, too much alpha activity might also have a downside: it can make you a light sleeper and give you restless nights.

4- Killer whales imitate enemies and friends

Original Article: Wei B.M. et al., Marine Mammal Science (published online before print 2011).

In marine mammals, as individuals frequently cannot see each other, sound is particularly important for communication. Killer whales live in groups or clans, and these different clans have their own dialects. A recent study showed that whales can do more than just talk in their own language: they can mimic calls from other groups with a different dialect. While analyzing the social behavior of wild orcas living near Vancouver Island in British Colombia, a group of researchers from the University of Vienna discovered that resident whales occasionally produce call types from the repertoires of other vocal clans. The calls resemble the calls of foreign groups that the original group interacted with before. When different clans are in close proximity, it is quite challenging to reliably distinguish original calls from resembling calls. For this reason, researchers recorded calls that resemble call types of a different clan in the absence of that clan and compared them to the originals of the respective call types by analyzing their sonograms. Sonograms reveal distinctive information about the structure of the sound waves, i.e. the spectral density of these signals, and this information can be used to classify animal sounds. The comparative analysis clearly shows that killer whales can imitate calls from other groups even when members of that group are not around. Researchers suggest that this could be a way of labeling outsiders or keeping tabs on their location. Maybe by impersonating the calls of a group, they are conveying a message about that group to their own family members. It is exciting to see that vocal mimicry is not limited to songbirds and dolphins, and that killer whales have more complex social lives than we previously thought.

While these conflicts are represented and justified in terms of religion, historical linkages and occurrence, resources, election or ethnicity, a critical look at these “points of division” increasingly clarifies certain underlying currents: group affiliation, attachment and solidarity. It is this affiliation, attachment and solidarity that have informed the increasingly common dichotomy of people, locally and sometimes internationally, between the “we” and the “them,” “the in-groups” and “the out-groups” or, as is used among the Yorubas in western Nigeria, between the “Omo-ilus” and the “Ara-ilus.”

In the Yoruba language the Omo-ilus denotes a group of people who belong to a particular area in terms of religion and culture, and not only reside in such areas, but are attached to the land. Conversely, the Ara-ilus are people who find themselves in the same area as the Omo-ilus, but who are considered aliens by the latter because of history, religion, tribe, etc. Therefore, there is a clear division to the extent that an Omo-ilu tends not to see an Ara-ilu as his tribal brother even when the latter has stayed in the Ilu (village or locality) for more than 20 years, or even where he was born in the Ilu and haz imbibed some of the culture of the land, including its religion. Though elsewhere, this division is termed the native-settler syndrome, the underlying logic is similar.

The “group thesis” as an explanatory paradigm postulated by Arthur Bentley is not new in the social sciences, but its essence and relevance has been a subject of academic standoffs, while the respective groups continue to move towards violent settlement of issues. Even the global system has not been left out in this segmentation of the humanities. While Huntington spoke about a “clash of civilizations,” President George W. Bush partitioned the world into “Our Allies” and the “Axis of Evil,” even as some Arab scholars and leaders publicized an “Arab Renaissance”-sometimes termed “Arabism”-which splits the Northern African countries from other parts of Africa, and in other, more Machiavellian usage justifies conflicts in places like Darfur, Sudan. All these assertions and points of view tend to perceive of the global system as a mixture of groups with mutually exclusive interest and existences. These patterns of thinking, though gaining grounds, qualify as perhaps the greatest form of communal self-deceit. Men will always remain interrelated and interdependent on one another.

It is within this milieu that I propose Justobification, a simple interpersonal disposition to be adopted or adapted by these various groups. Justobification is a personal experiment that has helped me understand, to a large extent, someone from “another group.” Today that someone is my wife. It is simple and replicable in a wider context. Most importantly, it is adaptable in attempting to address some of these socially constructed divisions with a sense of love and respect, emphasizing centripetal rather than centrifugal forces. Justobification is a story, spanning nine years of my life and culminating in my marriage to my friend, classmate and, now, wife, Justina Olatuga. We had different backgrounds in terms of religion, state of origin (a key means of division and appropriation in Nigeria), family background and differing opinions on a number of issues. Though we belonged to the same Yoruba ethnic group in Nigeria, the aforementioned differences created a dialectical summation which made us Omo-ilu and Ara-ilu simultaneously, depending on whether we are in my native Lagos State or in her Ondo State in Nigeria. To complicate issues, our parents are religious leaders: a Pastor and an Alhaji. Justobification is in itself, and originally, an attempt to merge my native name and hers to form a word: Justina and Tobi. It was coined by a colleague of ours who had, unknown to us, watched us since we stated our friendship in 1999. But beyond his coinage, I proceed to justify Justobification.

I have always had the belief that one’s position and stage in life is determined by a number of factors. These factors have been broadly identified as nature or nurture. By nature, it presupposes the fact that a human being’s way of seeing things is shaped by the way he or she was born. Thus, often it is said in some cultures that a fat person is usually friendly and lively, or a baby with a gap in its tooth means that it will be a socialite when it grows up. More clearly, race and ethnicity are key nature-factors; for instance, people who are born by European parents see themselves as Europeans just as an African, in the strictest form, gives birth to an African, though nurture also has a role to play in the formation of racial or ethnic identities.

The nurture angle argues that human beings are influenced by those events that they experience and the circumstances in which they find themselves. This means that the opportunity for and location of their education, their friendship, the books they read, their family orientation and so on all being a function of what occurred after birth. In other words, experiences have an enduring impact on the way we see things. As a factor, religion-without any attempt at interpreting the embodiment of the Books-falls under nurture. Thus, a large number of people are Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sango worshipper, etc., most often because their parents belong to such religions.

However, while nature-nurture makes human beings different in terms of their culture, race, tribe, region, religion, etc, this nature-nurture engendered classification has been at the core of local and international crises. These crises are reinforced by the fact that some of the emergent groups tend to view themselves as superior or more civilized or more indigenous than the other, as can be seen in the native-settler violence in Middle Belt of Nigeria, the Hutu-Tutsi violence in Rwanda, violence in Darfur in Sudan, Kenya with regards to the recent electoral violence, the crisis in Ireland some years ago, pre-1990 apartheid in South Africa among others.

My marriage to Justina exposed me to certain points. First, all religions teach love and respect. Similarly, all ethnic groups, which are likened to race, teach morality in which love and respect are central. There is hardly any religion, race, tribe, etc, that advocates violence and mutual hatred for the followers of other religions or members of other tribes or groups for no just reason. As friends, not only did we love ourselves as creatures of the Almighty, but we also respected our various points of view on nature-nurture factors such as ethnicity, religion, tribe, class, etc. We understood that these views are personal but we also, most importantly, understood that we must not assume that these individual views must be accepted by the other party. The global system can learn from this in the sense that civilizations, to use the words of Huntington, should not claim to be on a mission to civilize another civilization. Instead, efforts should be made to understand and respect the others’ views through love. Love, if present, allows individuals and groups to overlook the mistakes of others. This certainly does not mean that we should ignore human rights violations, injustices, and corruption; more appropriate and influential means of interaction should be used if we truly want to eliminate such violations.

Second, listening to ourselves helped us make sense of some of our beliefs. This helped us scale the hurdle of assumptions and the breaks in communications which are some of the reasons for group related intra/inter-state conflicts. These can be illustrated by such events as the myth of the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, the emergent Sunni-Shiite enmity around portions of the middle east, a failure to communicate between the top leaders of Palestine and Israel, the continuous religious vacuum created in the neglect of some Islamic leaders in Somalia (Oshodi, 2009) and the ethno-religious violence in 1994, 2001, 2002 and 2008 in Jos, Nigeria to mention just a few. Listening to people helps one to understand their respective points of view. The importance of listening allows the Ara-ilus and Omo-ilus to understand one another better. For instance, our interactions have helped me understand some aspects of Christianity that I never knew existed. Also, I was able to relate a number of the verses of the Qur’an to her, even before we decided to marry.

Thirdly, Justobification helped me understand that some of the points of difference among groups could be transformed to points of understanding. We achieved this by learning to see our similarities rather than overplay our differences. Even as there were areas where we did not agree, we laid more emphasis on the centripetal forces such as common humanity and love, while understanding the centrifugal forces by listening to each other with respect and understanding. Unfortunately, some group leaders tend to over-blow these differences to a massive level, leading to the emergence of hybrid interpretations which find expression in the various violence and counter-violence among a large number of the nature-nurture groupings of the world.

Fourthly, Justobification showed me the importance of prayer for peace and friendship. Though it is unquestionable that prayers are a communication between human beings and the Creator, these prayers often have a psychological effect on us. By praying for a person, you tend to wish such a person well, thereby overcoming any hitherto existing antagonisms or hatreds. I recommend that groups pray for other groups. By this I look, hopefully, for a day when Sunnis pray for Shiites in Iraq, and vice versa in their mosques on frequent occasions, or the day when Christians pray for Muslims, Arabs pray for Americans, Yorubas pray for Hausa-Fulanis, or leaders of larger groups/states pray for others. For instance, the Israeli President pray for Palestinian leaders, or ex-President Bush praying for President Ahmadinajad of Iran, and vice versa. Though this may be considered laughable and debateable, there is no doubt that saying a prayer for peace and friendship will soften the hearts of these groups and their leaders.

In conclusion, even as I write there is the threat of nature-nurture related violence in different parts of the world. Societies are dividing along ethnic, religious, tribal or civilizational line. Sadly, this may continue unless we, as humans, begin to see the need to love, respect, expand points of unity and pray for peace and friendship. Simply put… we could all use a little Justobification.

Abdul-Gafar ‘Tobi’ Oshodi is a lecturer in the Department of Political Science, Lagos State University (LASU), Lagos, Nigeria. Also a trained journalist, Tobi Oshodi specialises in Advanced Specialised Reporting and International Political Economy with bias for the “African Condition.”

References

• Huntington, S. “The Clash of Civilizations,” in Foreign Affairs, Summer 1993.
• Oshodi, T. “Religious Vacuum and the Making of a Failed State: Somalia in the Eyes of the World” a paper presented at the Conference on Religion and International Relations in the Post Cold War Era held at the Uthman Dan Fodio University (UDU) Sokoto, Nigeria, January 16th – 17th, 2009.

HIV/AIDS is one of the most devastating health issues in modern history. Since the first case was reported in 1981, over 25 million people have died of HIV/AIDSrelated causes. Despite a better understanding of the disease, extensive knowledge about virus-human interaction, improved preventive measures, and medical treatment options, most experts agree that the pandemic is still in its early stages and rapidly spreading. According to the World Health Organization, in 2006 4.3 million people became infected with HIV and a total of 2.9 million people died of HIV/AIDSrelated causes. As of 2007, over 40 million people are living with HIV/ AIDS around the world and nearly half of them are females between the ages of 15 and 24.

With a vaccine still perhaps decades away, the best hope for impeding the spread of this deadly disease lies in effective prevention, early diagnosis, and successful treatment. For more than two decades, thousands of researchers from the most prestigious institutions around the globe have been struggling to discover more effective screening, diagnosis, and treatment options against HIV/AIDS, but a great deal has yet to be accomplished. At the moment, the high cost of the current medical treatment options and limited accessibility to HIV testing worldwide remain as additional obstacles to be overcome. Below is a table showing the spread of HIV/AIDS worldwide, based on the best available information provided by WHO in 2006. Additionally, the map below represents the regional distribution of adult HIV/AIDS cases by region based on UNIAIDS 2006 Report on the global AIDS epidemic.

What is HIV/ AIDS?

Healthy human bodies have a wellprogrammed defense mechanism (the immune system) that fights infections and helps prevent the development of cancer cells. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) primarily targets vital elements of the immune system, such as helper-T cells, macrophages, and dendritic cells. Due to the damage and destruction of these cells, the human body loses its ability to fight against infections and cancerous developments. This makes the body more susceptible to certain types of cancers, such as Kaposi sarcoma, and to opportunistic infections that would normally be easily defeated, such as pneumonia (Pneumocystis carinii) and Cryptococcal Meningitis. These infections might result in severe damage or the death of the patients. Therefore, it is not the Human Immunodeficiency Virus that causes death in HIV(+) individuals, but opportunistic infections or cancerous developments that a weakened immune system cannot repel. Hence, the later stages of HIV infection are called Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS).

In spite of many obstacles, in industrial countries there has been a remarkable improvement in the medical care of HIV/AIDS individuals as a result of testing for HIV on a regular basis, particularly among high risk groups. This facilitates early diagnosis and therefore an early start in medical treatment, which allows HIV(+) individuals to live for decades after diagnosis. However, worldwide, particularly in developing countries, 90% of those carrying HIV have not been tested or do not have access to adequate treatment for the disease. Furthermore, every year a considerable number of HIV(+) individuals in developing countries die without even knowing what HIV is and leave thousands of orphans behind who do not have any idea what took their parents away. The number of people living at critical poverty levels in some of these hardest-hit regions, such as sub- Saharan Africa, has reached over 43 percent in recent years. Women encompass 80 percent of those who are living on less than a dollar a day. For people who live in such abject poverty, neither treatment for an HIV+ /AIDS individual (which normally costs around $25,000 annually) nor routine HIV screening seems realistic. On the other hand, even though testing and medical treatment options are available in developed countries, the economic burden on the health care system is becoming greater with every passing day.

HIV and children

As of 2007, over 2.3 million children are suffering from HIV/AIDS worldwide. A small percentage of these children were exposed to the HIV in medical settings, due to unscreened blood transfusions or reused or insufficiently sterilized equipment. Pediatric HIV outbreaks in Romania in 1989 and in Libya in 1998 are two devastating examples of the consequences of negligent or insufficient precautions taken by medical personnel in hospitals. Currently, health care professionals are required to take strict precautions when cleaning and sterilizing medical equipment, while blood banks are monitored closely to ensure the careful screening of blood. These precautions seem to have led to a significant reduction in the number of HIV infections which are acquired in hospital settings. However, motherto- child transmission still constitutes 90% of pediatric HIV cases. An HIV (+) mother has about a 35% risk of transmitting the virus to her child during her pregnancy, child birth, or nursing. This risk can be reduced by administering AZT (an antiretroviral drug) to the mother during the last trimester of pregnancy, delivering the child by C-section, giving one dose of prophylactic antiretroviral therapy to the baby after birth, and by avoiding breast-feeding the infant. As a result of widespread screening and the use of prophylaxis for mother-to-child transmission, the rapid spread of HIV among the pediatric population in industrial countries is relatively under control.

Sadly, not all nations have benefited uniformly from the recent advances in our knowledge about the prevention of transmission. Mothers and infants in developing countries face a different scenario than those in the “modern world.” In places like sub-Saharan Africa, where the majority of HIV/AIDS cases are due to mother-to-child transmission, the number of new infections is rapidly increasing; it seems that ensuring the abovementioned precautions are in place is extremely difficult due to several limitations. These limitations should be discussed in another paper, however to give a brief idea to the reader, one of these instances can be examined. It is a fact that if an HIV(+) mother avoids breastfeeding her newborn baby the risk of her infecting the child with HIV is dramatically reduced. Although this sounds like a wonderful way to combat HIV infection in infants, it poses many problems to mothers in sub-Saharan Africa. Every year, more than one million babies die in the first 28 days of their life in Sub- Saharan Africa. Most of these deaths are due to malnutrition and infections. In most situations breast-feeding is the only clean source of nutrition a mother can offer her child. It also provides natural immunization against most of the infectious agents to which a newborn can be exposed in the later days of his/her life. Babies who are not breastfed have almost no other alternative source of clean nutrients and stand little chance against infections. An HIV(+) mother in Sub-Saharan Africa has to face this dilemma every single time her baby cries from hunger: either take the risk of infecting your baby with HIV or let your child die of malnutrition or infections which kill approximately 3,000 African children every day.

Another issue concerning children in the hard-hit HIV regions is the loss of one or both parents or primary care-givers at a very early time of their life. So far in Africa, HIV/AIDS related deaths have left 14 million orphans. The United Nations estimates that the number of orphans will reach 25 million by the year 2010. Only in rare cases do these children have access to clean water, food, shelter, and education. Furthermore, the orphans who have been infected with HIV by their parents do not have access to adequate treatment options. The number of orphans is so high and resources are so limited that unfortunately most of these children fall through the cracks of society, succumbing to poverty, abuse and even death. Some of these orphans are relatively lucky and have healthy grandparents to care for them. It is not uncommon to find 75-80 year old grandparents who are already living under the critical poverty level taking care of three or four AIDS orphans, and wondering who will care for their grandchildren when they pass away.

Education

Success against the HIV/AIDS epidemic cannot be accomplished only with scientific and medical means. Preventive education plays a key role in the battle against HIV/ AIDS. The first step in preventive HIV/AIDS education is to inform individuals about the disease and answer their questions, such as, “What causes AIDS?”, “How is HIV/AIDS spread?”, “What are the preventive measures to be taken?” If one is already infected with HIV then one must ask “What are the treatment options?”

Preventive education for risk groups who are not aware of HIV/ AIDS and the consequences of the infection helps to decrease the overall number of new infections, particularly those in developing countries. However, another issue appears as education level increases: according to current studies, the number of people who continue risk-taking behavior is increasing in spite of the knowledge they have about HIV/ AIDS prevention and the consequences of the disease. This suggests overthat effective HIV/AIDS prevention should include not only education about the facts of the illness, but also education that focuses on teaching people to avoid behavior that puts them at high risk. It is also worth noting that the widespread dissemination of information by governmental organizations may not be effective on its own, and that different types of intervention may be necessary by groups with the potential to motivate people on a personal level. In other words, it is important to individually instill a sense of consequence and personal responsibility within those at risk, rather than broadly reminding them of the dangers that they face. As a result of recent thinking along these lines, various institutions, professional groups, and government organizations have realized the need for strong collaborative efforts and have aligned themselves in order to begin taking the steps necessary to effect this type of change.

Working together

Around the globe, government agencies have been initiating and sponsoring several efforts aimedat HIV-prevention. However, the complexity of the HIV epidemic and the involvement of many sociologic and behavioral factors require a shared commitment among government agencies and civil society organizations. For example, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) is the leading federal agency in HIV prevention in the United States. In their strategic plan for HIV prevention in 2005, the CDC admits that the HIV epidemic is not a matter that can be handled by only one agency, group, or organization. Therefore, for success in HIV prevention the CDC recognizes the need for other domestic partners, such as:

~ Other federal agencies;

~ State and local health and education departments;

~ HIV prevention community planning groups;

~ Community-based organizations;

~ Academic institutions;

~ The private sector;

~ Faith-based groups and

~ Foundations and nonprofit groups

(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention HIV Prevention Strategic Plan Through 2005)

In addition to domestic partnership, worldwide cross-cultural and cross-faith collaborations are establishing a strong global response to eradicate HIV/AIDS. People from all over the world should contribute, in whatever capacity and with whatever resources they can, to the solution; their involvement is critical. The World Health Organization, UNICEF, UNESCO, and similar organizations are doing their parts to bring multinational aid to the hardest hit regions. Additionally, many faith-based national and international organizations around the globe have started working in collaboration towards the eradication of HIV/AIDS. Among these faithbased efforts there are recent examples of interfaith partnerships. The Africa HIV/AIDS Faith Initiative, a successful example of this type of collaboration, has been active since 2001 in five African countries: The Ivory Coast, Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. One of their noticeable accomplishments is promoting interfaith dialogue in these countries where ethnic and religious variations often cause serious clashes. A report from The Global Health Council lays the power of Interfaith partnership before our eyes:

“In Kenya, the Supreme Council of Kenya Muslims, the Anglican Church of Kenya and the Pentecostal Churches of Eastlands, a low socioeconomic community outside Nairobi, have teamed up to reach bishops, pastors, men, women, youth, children and people infected with HIV/AIDS through education and service initiatives. In Tanzania, the national staffs of the Episcopal, Christian and Muslim HIV/AIDS offices meet monthly to exchange ideas and plan together for the effective development, implementation and coordination of HIV education and service interventions.

But it is in Nigeria, with its welldocumented history of religious conflict and recent violence, where the partnering of Christians and Muslims is most remarkable. Observing the establishment of separate offices in each of the four other countries, Nigeria’s religious leadership said “it won’t work here,” and charged The Balm In Gilead to set up the Interfaith HIV/AIDS Coalition of Nigeria. Christian and Muslim clerics going out on the street together can draw curious crowds, and “people will come into the office just to see us working together,” said one reverend.

Nigerian faith institutions involved in this historical decision included the Episcopal Conference of Nigeria, Christian Association of Nigeria, the Christian Health Association of Nigeria and the Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs. This interfaith approach in Nigeria is being seen as a model that can be replicated by other countries. The Kenyan Muslim leaders have already requested that it be presented as a best practice model and replicated in other parts of the continent.” http:// www.globalhealth.org/reports/ text.php3?id=194

Conclusion

We have witnessed many harsh discussions, questions and speculations about HIV/AIDS such as, “How and where did HIV/AIDS start?”, “Whose fault was that?”, “Why don’t people simply stay away from risky behavior and put a stop to it?”, “What are the roles of faith traditions, family values and public wisdom in terms of preventing and fighting against HIV/AIDS?”, “If I am not involved with certain risky behavioral elements am I safe? Are my children safe from HIV?”, “Is contributing to the solution for HIV the same as trying to legitimize the life-style preferences which are the primary cause of the spread of HIV in the first place?”

As a matter of fact, how this epidemic started, whose fault it was, why precautions were not taken on time does not matter that much anymore. What matters is that hundreds of people are dying, thousands of children have been orphaned, and millions of mothers are crying in desperation everyday. We do not have the luxury to sit back in our comfortable seats and be the judge who decides who is right and who is wrong in this drama. We are all human… we are citizens of the earth… we breath the same air, sleep under the same sky. When we cut ourselves, our blood runs red, our tears are salty. Pain is pain… a cry is a cry… desperation is desperation…No matter where we go, what language we speak, or how we live our lives… We are obliged to put the differences to one side and to become a part of the solution…to think about it… to talk about it… to do something about it… or at least with a sore heart cry and pray for our HUMAN sisters and brothers who are suffering from HIV/AIDS… who might not be able to do much for themselves.

What is multicultural education?

A good place to start is with a workable definition of what is meant by the terms “multiculturalism” and “multicultural education.” Multicultural education is a progressive approach for transforming education which holistically critiques and addresses current shortcomings, failings, and discriminatory practices in education² It is based on social justice, educational equity, and respect for thought. More specifically, the components required in ensuring a multicultural education are: content integration, the knowledge construction process, prejudice reduction, equity pedagogy, and an empowering school culture and social culture³ It seems apparent that each element, somehow, is related to the others, and each requires considerable attention, particularly when thinking about the efforts of conflict resolution in the world. In this paradigm, to be tolerant in social interactions, to give value to every opinion, and to not criticize and object to others seems to be the distinguishing features of a multicultural society. When people are overly harsh the result is destruction, while people who are trying to be constructive bring richness and reflection⁴ The idea of “if you do not like something, make a better one” fits very well with the idea of multicultural education, in which the main task is to reduce the form, stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination between in-groups and out-groups.

Why do we need multicultural education?

We live in a world in which interracial conflicts and tensions seem to have become an inevitable phenomenon of daily life. On the positive side however, the last millennium has made us more knowledgeable about the nature of global acceptance, the equal-status situation, and mutual expectations. In today’s society, as we enter the 21st century, the deepening ethnic background of nations, diversity within societies, and an increasing percentage of people who speak a second language have made multicultural education crucial. Multicultural education is seen as an opportunity to improve race relations and to help all students gain the knowledge, attitudes, and skills needed to take part in cross-cultural interactions. Children learn the difference when playing with one another⁵ The same is true in education, as teaching has become a multicultural experience. Instead of fearing or ignoring the diversity in the classroom (and society), teachers can use diversity to enrich instruction. Multicultural education helps teachers to use diversity as a resource that can bring more meaning, tolerance, and opportunity to multicultural classroom. Both teachers and students belong to diverse groups distinguished by variables such as age, social class, gender, race, and ethnicity.

Multicultural education for a changing world

In American public schools and colleges, about 46% of the student population comes from students from different ethnicity with 14 % of school age youth living in homes in which English is not the native language⁶ Today, most classroom teachers are likely to have students from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds. This brings its own problem in that many students are assimilated in social interaction, and are faced with cultural assimilation. To overcome these difficulties, educators keep looking for more creative, thoughtful, and meaningful educational reform movements. In this sense, multicultural education is able to help students develop a sympathy and understanding towards each group’s perception and point of view. Dewey repeatedly stresses the importance of interaction in education. This interaction is an ongoing process between the individual and the subjects and other people. Dewey talks about a person who tries to build a castle in the air; even when he tries to do that, he interacts with the objects which he constructs in his imagination. As a human being, however, we are more complex creatures than animals. Each human being is a special creature, composed of different feelings and characteristics. Dewey’s ongoing interaction between the individual and other persons becomes essentially important when thinking about the existence of cultures with their uniqueness and distinctiveness. In this sense, school is a place of social interaction between teachers and students. Teaching and learning in a school environment mostly occurs through social interactions in groups. Helping students to develop a sense of reflective and positive identification with their cultural groups does not mean that it is not possible to establish an intercultural exchange between different groups. It means that through developing and clarifying the boundaries of cultural identifications, optimistically students will acquire more positive attitudes towards their neighborhoods and communities.

The rise of multicultural education

Democratic changes in nations contribute and stimulate the growth of multicultural education. Providing people with the freedom to function beyond their ethnic and cultural boundaries keeps societies more democratic and free. Using dimensions of multicultural education (e.g., prejudice reduction) can help students to develop more democratic values and attitudes. Improving dialogue efforts and tolerance in this kind of education might help students to understand, investigate and determine how equal opportunities could be gained by giving everyone a voice. Educators today face unusual challenges and want rapid solutions to educational problems. In particular, problems associated with racism, ethnicity, and prejudice make the situation intolerable, because of the high public expectations. In this sense, multicultural education can be a promising factor in implementing intercultural exchange and in helping students to gain democratic values and attitudes. One of the most effective ways to teach respect for diversity is to eliminate unawareness. If we want to understand other cultures, whether they be superficial or insightful, we had better gain a sense of perception that allows us to distinguish things more clearly and with less bias⁷ For that reason, establishing cultural exchange programs has proven to be successful in improving understanding, insight, and eventually tolerance into the classroom. Teaching lessons that either directly or indirectly address the issues of multicultural communities in the classroom, neighborhood, and nation is another important tactic that teachers can adopt when trying to help children and young adults understand the importance of respect for diversity. Teachers who bring their healthy values and virtues to the classroom can strongly influence the attitudes of their students.

Conclusion

Multicultural education is a new trend and it will become incorporated into most school curriculums in future years. Several prestigious universities in the world today require students to take classes in social studies. Thus, by using multicultural education, teachers, in particular, can help children value the significance of treating all people with self-esteem and not judging groups of people for the actions of a few. More importantly, teachers must model tolerance and compassion in their words and behavior. They should also encourage children to explore their feelings about prejudice and hatred. In doing this, the society will secure a better chance to stop any further destruction and will be able to present potentially powerful opportunities for the next generation to learn and integrate respect and dignity for all people.

Many people today, even those who already live in a multi-cultural society, have problems dealing with “others,” and blame each other for certain issues or follow a different way⁸ Blaming each other because of our origins or culture is not the solution. Rather, trying to understand and analyze people for their personal values and cultural diversity will help to mobilize and construct a caring society. As a matter of fact, religion teaches us to tolerate others and accept that people live in different groups and societies. The beauty and uniqueness of diversity is expressed in the Holy Qur’an and in the New Testament:

O mankind! Surely We have created you from a single (pair of) male and female, and made you into tribes and families so that you may know one another (and so build mutuality and co-operative relationships, not so that you may take pride in your differences of race or social rank, and breed enmities). Surely the noblest, most honorable of you in God’s sight is the one best in piety, righteousness, and reverence for God. Surely God is All-Knowing, All-Aware. (Hujurat 49:13)

You have heard that it was said, you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you. (Matthew, 5:43-44)

Notes

1. Dewey, J., Democracy and Education, Southern Illinois University Press Carbondale and Edwardsville, 1916.
2. Gorski, P, Multicultural education and the internet: Intersections and integrations, McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA:2000.
3. Banks, J., Educating Citizens in a Multicultural Society, Teachers College Press: New York and London:1997.
4. Gulen, F., Pearls of Wisdom, The Fountain, 2001.
5. Dewey, J., Experience and Education, the Kappa Delta Pi Lecture Series Simon Schuster, 1938.
6. http://www.census.gov/apsd/www/statbrief/ (U.S. Bureau of the Census)
7. http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/practice/tolerance/3_stereotypes.htm
8. http://www.rumiforum.org/