Our hearts are broken today” said the President Obama after the school shooting in Connecticut on December 14, 2012. These words reflected most concisely the emotions all of us felt that tragic day, as our minds and hearts failed to grasp how possibly this could have happened, how come a seemingly human being could go this much lower than the wildest beasts. One of the ideas that was proposed to explain this murky situation was that the gunman had an Asperger’s syndrome, which was immediately refused by experts. “First and foremost, our thoughts go out to the families,” says Lisa Goring, vice president of family services for Autism Speaks. “We are all searching for answers, but it can be so irresponsible to label autism as the cause of this because we endanger totally innocent kids” (1). This article aims to explain what the Asperger’s Syndrome is about in an effort to save especially kids with this syndrome from another stigma that they have to deal with on top of so many other things.

Thirty years ago, only 4 or 5 Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) cases were reported per 10,000 people. Today, however, approximately 1 in 150 children across the U.S. is diagnosed with it; so chances are, you know someone affected either directly or indirectly by these disorders (2). This being the case, the debates, advocacy, and awareness activities are on the rise. Individuals with ASD show abnormal social interactions, language difficulties, repetitive or restrictive behaviors, and special interests. ASD includes Autism, Pervasive Developmental Disorder and Asperger’s Syndrome (3).

Asperger’s syndrome was first recognized by Hans Asperger in 1944 and the term was popularized by English psychiatrist, Lorna Wing, in 1981. The incidence of this syndrome is not well established, but experts in population studies estimate that two out of every 10,000 children have the disorder. It is more common in boys. They are three to four times more likely than girls to have Asperger’s syndrome (ninds.nih.gov). However, the prevalence in females might be lower because of the fundamental lack of awareness of what Asperger’s Syndrome looks like in females. A female with Asperger’s Syndrome might be considered as shy, quiet, perfect at school, tomboyish, moody, overly competitive, aloof, Gothic, depressed, anxious, or a perfectionist (disabled-world.com).

It is always challenging for people with Asperger’s to lead a normal life in spite of it because this disorder makes it hard to develop social and conversational skills. Affected people display socially and emotionally inappropriate behavior, limited facial expressions, body gestures and inability to recognize nonverbal signals. They lack interest in other people; however, they are obsessively interested in unusual and specific subjects. In addition, they prefer to follow repetitive routines or rituals because they cannot cope with unexpected changes.

Children with Asperger’s Syndrome

A child with Asperger’s syndrome may have the listed signs and symptoms (kidshealth.org):

• inappropriate or minimal social interactions
• conversations almost always revolving around self rather than others
• “scripted,” “robotic,” or repetitive speech
• lack of “common sense”
• problems with reading, math, or writing skills
• obsession with complex topics such as patterns or music
• average to below-average nonverbal cognitive abilities, though verbal cognitive abilities are usually average to above-average
• awkward movements
• odd behaviors or mannerisms
• lack of eye contact

Parents usually sense there is something abnormal about a child with Asperger’s by the time of his or her third birthday, and some children may exhibit symptoms as early as infancy. Their early language skills retain but motor development delays (for example, crawling or walking late, clumsiness) are sometimes the first indicator of the disorder (ninds.nih.gov).

Hans Asperger called the children with these behaviors “little professors” because they could talk continuously and in great detail about their favorite subjects. These little professors may have an amazing ability to recall dates, names, and events. One parent laughs about how her ten-year-old knew the scientific name of everyday things—from the sugar in the kitchen to the trees in the backyard. He would keep discussing things using the scientific classification (yourlittleprofessor.com).

Most children with Asperger’s syndrome have difficulty interacting with their peers due to the problems in understanding figurative language and tendency to use language literally. Children with this syndrome do not recognize non-literal language that includes humor, irony, and teasing. They struggle just to understand common social cues so they are mostly loners and may display odd behaviors. A child with Asperger’s, for example, may spend hours each day preoccupied with counting cars passing on the street or watching only the weather channel on television. Children with Asperger’s syndrome are also at risk for other psychiatric problems including depression, attention deficit disorder, schizophrenia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder (aacap.org).

While the more obvious symptoms of autism are usually at their most florid in early childhood, the symptoms of Asperger’s syndrome may only become noticeable with the social and functional demands of adolescence (autism.net.au). Luke Jackson, a thirteen-year-old boy with Asperger’s Syndrome from England, wrote a book named Freaks, Geeks and Asperger’s Syndrome: A User Guide to Adolescence. He wrote this informative, sincere and entertaining book about complicated topics such as bullying, friendships, when and how to tell others about Asperger’s syndrome, school problems, dating, relationships and morality (4).

The idea that every child with Asperger’s syndrome is a potential genius can put excessive pressure on a child with Asperger’s syndrome (yourlittleprofessor.com). Luke Jackson, for example, complains that he is always watching television about high functioning autistic people who can do things like play the piano brilliantly without taking lessons, draw detailed renditions of buildings they had only seen once or add numbers in their heads like Rain Man. “I find these television programs depressing,” he says. “I got all the nerdiness and freakishness but none of the genius.”

Seeing a child struggle socially and emotionally can be particularly heartbreaking for parents. Children who had seemed to be developing in normal and delightful ways suddenly retreat into their own world, excluding their loving moms and dads in the process after being diagnosed with ASDs. Learning more about ASDs can help parents take charge of their child again and find treatments and therapies that work (specialchildren.about.com). In some states, expanded services are available through public school programs. The most valuable service might be “parent in-home training” with a behavior specialist sponsored by the school. Moreover, parent education and skill building groups organized by some hospitals or health centers can be helpful for parents of youth with ASDs.

Speculations about famous people with Asperger’s Syndrome

There are many famous people for whom there is a lot of speculation that they had Asperger’s Syndrome (5 and 6), such as Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Leonardo da Vinci, William Shakespeare and Ibn al-Haytham. We may never know for sure if all these people have been affected by Asperger’s syndrome. However, most of the listed geniuses focused on something which interested them and their works were not disrupted by the everyday interactions that take up so much time for the rest of us. This might be the key factor behind all their great inventions. Then we can think of their Asperger’s syndrome as a blessing for humanity, because it does give certain strengths and brilliance to these scientists or pioneers that others do not have. In brief, Asperger’s syndrome is not a handicap, but rather a collection of strengths and challenges. If Asperger’s individuals are supported as they explore their capabilities, they can build on their strengths; they can even be the most successful people in history.

References

1. http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/why-asperger-8217-didnt-cause-sandy-hook-school-164900109.html
2. Delaney T. and Madigan T. 2009. The Sociology of Sports: An Introduction. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
3. Llaneza DC, DeLuke SV, Batista M, Crawley JN, Christodulu KV, Frye CA. 2010. “Communication, Interventions, and Scientific Advances in Autism: A Commentary.” Physiol Behav. 100, 268-276.
4. Jackson, L. (2002). Freaks, geeks and Asperger syndrome: A user guide to adolescence. Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
5. Steffens, B. 2007. Ibn al-Haytham: First Scientist (Profiles in Science). Greensboro, NC: Morgan Reynolds Publishing.
6. www.news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3766697.stm

There are lots of interesting examples of how plants communicate with insects. For instance, in self-defense against insects eating its leaves, a plant emits a volatile chemical that signals other insects, who are predators of those insects eating the plant. A byproduct of such insect communication may allow plants to signal danger to other extremely close, downwind plants. Professor of Entomology, Richard Karban and other researchers from the University of California showed that a cut sagebrush “told” nearby, downwind wild tobacco plants about its injury, and the tobacco plants apparently responded to protect themselves from damage. Over three seasons, researchers clipped leaves of sagebrush plants to mimic insects eating their leaves. The cut sagebrush released volatile chemicals (methyl jasmonate), which the wind carried to nearby downwind plants. The tobacco plants apparently sensed the chemicals-at least the tobacco plants increased production of a defensive agent-that caused their leaves to taste bad to insects. These downwind tobacco plants experienced less than half the leaf damage from grasshoppers and cutworms than control plants (Anon.). In one case study an acacia tree responded to browsing, or being beaten with a stick, by increasing the levels of tannin in its leaves within minutes. Amazingly, the tannin levels then rise in neighboring trees, and, due to its bitter taste, repel the browsers before they can do any further damage (Jacob 2001; Anon.).

What’s more is that plants can also talk to mammals. A study done by Professor Steven Johnson and his research team from the University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, demonstrated how ground-dwelling mammal pollinators are attracted by a rare parasitic plant’s unique “perfume.” This specific floral aroma is comprised of over 30 compounds, especially ketones, fatty-acid derivatives, mono- and sesquiterpenoids. The three most abundant scent chemicals were 1-hexen-3-one, 3-hexanone, and ethyl butyrate. When the impact of these chemicals was tested on mice, it turned out that mice, like humans, find 3-hexanone to have a pleasant smell. The molecule is routinely used in artificial flavoring to produce a sweet fruity grape-like flavor. In addition, 3-hexanone has also been found in some bat-pollinated flowers, so it may be a general mammal attractant. Remarkably, scent cues are particularly important to plants pollinated by small ground-dwelling mammals because these animals are usually around at night when visual cues are less effective (Johnson et al. 2011; Anon.).

In addition to pests, plants have to deal with numerous microbial pathogens such as bacteria, fungi and oomycetes, and viruses in the natural environment. A proper response to pathogens can lead to resistance mechanisms that enable plants to survive. Plants can recognize potential pathogens by detecting pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs). This recognition activates a defense mechanism. A well-organized communication between the pathogen-invaded plant tissues and non-invaded ones is essential for the timely manifestation of defense mechanisms that limit the systemic spread of pathogens (Shah 2009). Salicylic acid, an important mobile signal, is transported from infected tissue to the rest of the plant body. It activates the systemic acquired resistance, which is a “whole-plant” resistance response that occurs following an earlier localized exposure to a pathogen. Plants not only communicate within themselves about a microbial invasion, they also talk to one another. For example, Tobacco plants warn each other against tobacco mosaic virus attack by releasing methyl salicylate, which is then converted to the protective salicylic acid in uninfected plants (Jacob 2001).

In contrast to harmful pathogenic interactions, there are also symbiotic, advantageous interactions between some microorganisms and plants. Establishment of such a beneficial symbiosis (which literally means “living together” in Greek) is complex. For successful infections, a molecular dialogue between partners is essential (Vadassery and Oelmüller 2009). Among these kinds of interactions, legume-Rhizobium symbiosis is of particular importance in agriculture, because by forming the symbiosis, atmospheric nitrogen can be used to sustain the growth of legume crops, such as soybean, pea, and bean, which occupy 12% to 15% of the land that can be used for growing crops throughout the world (Sugiyama, Shitan, and Yazaki 2007). Rhizobia are soil bacteria that fix nitrogen (diazotrophs) after becoming established inside root nodules of legumes such as alfalfa, clover, peas, beans, lentils, lupins, mesquite, carob, soy, and peanut.

Rhizobia require a plant host, since they cannot independently fix nitrogen (Anon.). Plant roots secrete signaling molecules (e.g. flavonoids) to attract Rhizobia. When Rhizobia sense these chemicals, they colonize around root tissues of the host legume plant. So, the rhizobial infection in legumes is an invasion by invitation (Murray 2011). The attached rhizobia secrete Nod factors, which are perceived by the plant. This initiates a series of events that leads to the formation of nodule, where Rhizobia fix nitrogen. Thus, Rhizobia make legume independent of soil nitrogen and the legume supplies nutrients to the bacteria. In addition, the legume plant supplies one critical component of nitrogenase, which is the key enzyme for fixing nitrogen. It all happens because the plant can talk to the bacteria.

The plant has many interests in being colonized by mycorrhizal fungi. Apart from providing nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen, the fungi protect plants from diseases, parasites, and other stresses. Plants even grow as much as 40% more when colonized. In laboratory experiments, carrots that were colonized grew 20 times more than the carrots that were not! In fact, they are such close “friends” that the fungus cannot live without a plant, and between 80-90% of all plants on earth are somehow associated with mycorrhizal fungi. The origin of this incredible friendship is communication (Montréal 2012).

As a result, plants can talk to microorganisms, pests, and mammals, but do they communicate with people? Are they intelligent creatures who can communicate with us? In 1848, Dr. Gustav Theodor Fechner, a German professor, suggested that plants are capable of emotions and that one could promote healthy growth with talk, attention, and affection. An Indian scientist, Sir Jagdish Chandra Bose, conducted experiments on plants in 1900. Bose found that plants grew more quickly amidst pleasant music and more slowly amidst loud noise or harsh sounds (Sir Patrick Geddes and Geddes 1920).

Moreover, according to Royal Horticultural Society, talking to plants helps them grow, especially if the one talking to the plant is a woman. Even though there are lots of divisive experiments done with plants to understand if they can talk to human beings, there is no serious finding about this subject yet. Even if, plant biologists do not currently know how to talk to plants, they strive to comprehend how plants communicate with other organisms in order to use this new and exciting language for improving the resistance of plants against pests or pathogens. Instead of using chemical pesticides, genetically engineered plant defense and communication pathways in crops are a preferred avenue.

Communication of plants with other organisms is such a complex problem. Plants can have a network with so many different creatures. They pass on information to each other or to other organisms that speak other languages. How did they obtain these amazing communication skills? Even the most advanced creatures, human beings, experience problems in communication, how can plants have robust communication systems in a heterogeneous environment?

The next time you hear a strange rustling among your garden plants, maintain distance. They might be having an argument. Plants also talk and they respond to attacks like we do. So, be careful and do not hurt plants as they might even curse or scream to you (Anon.).

Safiye Arslan is a research fellow in the area of molecular biology in Nevada.

References

• Adler, Frederick R. 2011. Plant signalling: the opportunities and dangers of chemical communication. Biology Letters. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3061173tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract.
• Anon. Do plants talk? What are the chances it’s a boy? – USATODAY.com. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2006-07-24-plant-talk-baby-boys_x.htm.
• Anon. jacobson’s organ and the remarkable nature of smell. http://books.google.com/books/about/Jacobson_s_Organ_and_the_Remarkable_Natu.html?id=liKKQgAACAAJ.
• Anon. BBC – Earth News – “Perfumed” parasitic plant lures in pollinating mammals. http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9376000/9376474.stm.
• Anon. What is Rhizobia. http://www.bionewsonline.com/y/what_is_rhizobia.htm.
• Anon. Biotechnology: Plantlinguistic: – “Plants Communicate With Each Other.” http://bioinformations4all.blogspot.com/2009/08/plantlinguistic-plants-communicate-with.html.
• Jacob, Tim. 2001. “The science and myths of smell.” EMBO Reports 2 (10): 880. http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v2/n10/full/embor301.html.
• Johnson, Steven D, Priscilla M Burgoyne, Lawrence D Harder, Stefan Dötterl, and Proc R Soc. 2011. “Mammal pollinators lured by the scent of a parasitic plant Subject collections Mammal pollinators lured by the scent of a parasitic plant.” Society 278 (January): 2303-10. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.2175. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3119003&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract.
• Montréal, Jardin botanique de. 2012. “Chatting with a plant’s best friend – Science +” (June 3). http://www.aucoeurdelarbre.ca/en/thematics-texts/thematics-texts-details.php?id=8.
• Murray, Jeremy D. 2011. “Invasion by invitation: rhizobial infection in legumes.” Molecular plantmicrobe interactions MPMI 24 (6): 631-639. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21542766.
• Shah, Jyoti. 2009. “Plants under attack: systemic signals in defence.” Current Opinion in Plant Biology 12 (4): 459-464. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19608451.
• Sir Patrick Geddes, and Sir Patrick Geddes. 1920. The life and work of Sir Jagadis C. Bose. Longmans, Green. http://books.google.com/books?id=EPtCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA97&q=”continuous”#v=twopage.
• Sugiyama, Akifumi, Nobukazu Shitan, and Kazufumi Yazaki. 2007. “Involvement of a soybean ATP-binding cassette-type transporter in the secretion of genistein, a signal flavonoid in legume-Rhizobium symbiosis.” Plant physiology 144 (4) (August): 2000-8. doi:10.1104/pp.107.096727. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1949875&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract.
• Vadassery, Jyothilakshmi, and Ralf Oelmüller. 2009. “Calcium signaling in pathogenic and beneficial plant microbe interactions: what can we learn from the interaction between Piriformospora indica and Arabidopsis thaliana.” Plant signaling & behavior 4 (11) (November): 1024-7. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2819509&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract.

Definition of concepts

Religion: It seems proper to begin this section with a brief overview of what religion is and what it stands for. There are many definitions of religion classified broadly into two main domains, i.e. (1) Subjective and (2) Functional perspectives. The subjective definitions of religion relate to beliefs and belief systems in supra-natural beings, whereas the functional definitions of religion relate to the binding and unifying forces of religions. Nevertheless, just a few of such definitions would be highlighted here. To begin with a dictionary definition on the subjective perspective, the Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary (1983) defines religion as “The personal commitment to and serving of God or a god with worshipful devotion.”

Edward Taylor (1903) made an early attempt to define religion—a definition he considered as a “minimum definition.” This minimum definition has been given as the “belief in spiritual beings.” In this definition, Taylor stressed that “all things, organic and inorganic, contain a soul or spirit which gives them their particular nature and characteristics.” According to Furseth and Repstad (2006), the definition of religion offered by Taylor seems to underscore the belief that all human beings have souls; a stand-point which transforms to the belief in spirits, gods, devils and other spiritual beings. Though an early attempt, the definition of religion given by Taylor has attracted a number of criticisms. One critic has seen Taylor’s definition of religion as being “naively evolutionary and ethnocentric.”

Another sociologist of religion, Roland Robertson (1982:1912) considers religion as being above the empirical. Religion to Robertson is “supra-empirical.” Robertson (1982) argues that there is a difference between “an empirical and a supra-empirical, transcendental reality,” and religious culture and activities came out of this distinction. Giving a full definition of religion, partly given by Robertson, Michael Hill (1973:42-3) has defined religion in his “Introduction to Religion” as:

The set of beliefs which postulate and seek to regulate the distinction between an empirical reality and a related and significant supra-empirical segment of reality; the language and symbols which are used in relation to this distinction; and the activities and institutions which are concerned with its regulation.

Finally on the subjective perspective, Emile Durkheim (1982/1921:47) has referred to religion as systems of beliefs, practices, and sacred things set aside and are forbidden, and a church.

On the functional perspective, a definition of religion has been given by Durkheim (1982/1921:47) in which he notes that religion is a powerful force that produces integration in a moral community. And according to Thomas Luckman-a German sociologist-religious process is the formation of self, where “human beings develop their understanding of self by placing themselves in a meaningful totality where they are creating a frame of reference for interpreting reality.”

Social capital: Social capital refers to networks, contacts, connections, socialisation, opportunities, etc. The social capital theoretical perspective-the proponents being the French sociologist Pierre Bourdier and the American Sociologist Robert Putnam-has gained wider acceptance in the literature. This is perhaps due to the ability of this perspective to undertake and predict the norms and social relationships that enable people to coordinate action to achieve desired goals (Putnam, 1993; Narayan and Cassidy, 2001, p. 59).

The proponents of social capital perspective have argued that while economic capital is in people’s bank accounts and human capital in their heads (or brains), social capital inheres in social interaction. In other words, social capital is relational. It is obvious here why efforts to identify and overcome the likely factors that inhibit interaction, most especially inter-group interaction, are worth mustering. And religious values are formidable in that direction.

Social capital and development

Social capital, as earlier noted, is built upon social contacts and networks. Therefore, social interactions and relations are paramount to building social capital; as interactions and relations could serve as a pool of development opportunities and chances. A number of studies (Narayan and Cassidy, 2001; Woolley, 1998) support the hypothesis that frequent social contacts through interactions are more likely to yield high resultant outcomes-be it solidarity, integration, cohesion or goal-attainment. The mobilisation of resources for development of the society can be made more feasible through establishing frequent social contacts and networks in a number of ways. The ways which are crucial to building social capital essential for societal development have been outlined, though not exhaustive, below:

Group characteristics: This concerns the active and frequent participation of people in activities that concern their collective, developmental interests and goals. Group characteristics constitute a crucial element of building social capital for societal development both at the micro and macro levels. Religion appears so relevant in this direction, as religious activities and practices entail frequent group participation.

Generalised norms: Trustworthiness and fairness of the people in their dealings, interactions with others are essential elements not only in building social capital, but also in charting the path for societal development. Again, religious values, virtues and belief systems embody these generalised norms.

Everyday sociability: This refers to friendly connections, relationships and the approachability of the people one lives with. Everyday sociability creates the friendly atmosphere in which people are keepers of one another-an ingredient that can serve the cause of societal development. Religious values and virtues encompass everyday sociability.

Togetherness: This dimension requires that people are happy in their interactions and relationships with others. The feeling of togetherness easily binds people towards collective goal-attainments. Similarly, religious belief systems do not coerce allegiance from their adherents. This suggests that religious followers are happy with their religious belief systems, as they could easily abandon their faiths if unhappy. Constantly attached to the religious belief system may constitute a potential source of manpower for societal development.

Rewards and costs: This refers to the consequences as perceived by the interacting people. Thibaut and Kelly describe the consequences of interaction as “rewards and costs.” In every interaction or relationship, while some aspects may appear enjoyable, pleasing and gratifying, other aspects may be unpleasant, less enjoyable and unrewarding. Rewards and costs, therefore, refer to the former and latter respectively. This seems to suggest that any meaningful societal development process should engender more rewards (benefits) than costs (disappointment). However, religion teaches people to see disappointments as a wake-up call, and must live up to the challenges posed to them-a value which is essential in overcoming development obstacles.

Social capital and religion: theoretical and empirical perspectives

Theoretical perspective: The assumptions underlying social capital theoretical perspective are that social contacts, connections and networks both at the micro and macro levels can lead to social solidarity, integration essential for goal-attainment. The prowess of religion in binding people together through promoting interactions and relationships at local, national and international levels makes it indispensable in building social capital. Religious belief systems have been identified largely as the prime source of social cohesion, integration and solidarity. According to Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), human society has long been viewed as an integrated unity, which in some cases is compared to living organisms in the functional perspective. For this reason, all efforts must be made to keep society in its integrated unity. Of course, there may be many forces that work to destabilize the social unity, cohesion and integration. Equally, there are other forces that work to keep societies integrated and unified, and religious beliefs and values have been identified by Durkheim as a powerful force that binds people and societies into a unified, moral community.

Furthermore, the collective consciousness that connects the individual to the total society and also gives the society a strong moral strength, according to Durkheim, is reinforced by religious beliefs. However, the unifying force of religions may vary from one religion to another. This has been proved by Durkheim in his study on Suicide. He found in this study that suicide rates were higher among the Protestants than among the Catholics, the reason of which has been traced to the level of religious integration. Durkheim argued in this study that the Protestants were largely left alone before God by their belief system, while the Catholics had been integrated into a set of social practices such as confession, mass, communion, etc. which integrated them more than the Protestants.

For this reason, according to Durkheim “religion is in every essence social.” Religious rites, collective behavior, relating the individual to the larger social group, and all religious beliefs are collective representations (Durkheim, 1915/1956, p. 22; McGuire, 2002, p. 197). Although Durkheim has been criticized for his analysis on suicide and religious integration, the fact remains that religion really helps the course of social cohesion, unity and integration through the common belief systems and values holding the people, societies, and civilizations together, as these categories interact over time.

From the functionalist perspective, religion integrates members of the society to ensure social progress or maintenance (Chalfant, Beckley and Palmer, 1994, p. 40). Even the conflict theorists-its proponent being Karl Marx-acknowledge the soothing impact of religion on the majority of the people. Marx attributed the inability of the Proletariat to revolt against the bourgeoisie to religious belief system, which he believed, had hypnotized the poor working class to seek their rewards in the Hereafter. Marx then labeled religion as the “opium of the people” (Johnstone, 1992).

Empirical perspective: The socio-economic and political significance of religion is tremendous. Historically, it has been acknowledged that religious belief systems have played a significant role in the development of national life in North America. According to Chalfant, Beckley and Palmer (1994), the first immigrants to the New World did so for religious reasons. With particular reference to the Calvinist Faith, more than one-third of the states that constitute the present-day USA were formed around particular interpretations of religion-the Christian faith.

Socially, religious belief systems “provide us with both self-identification and self- placement in a heterogeneous society” (Herbert, 1955; Chalfant, Beckley and Palmer, 1994). Religion is a way of belonging. It serves as a point of reference for man to acquire a religious self or the “generalized other.” Also, as religions set aside things forbidden and emphasize the sacred, religion serves as the watchdog. And any forces that seem to threaten the status quo are strongly challenged by religious groups or bodies.

Many examples have been given about the unity that religion brings to human societies. Particularly in the West, many solidarity and human rights movements have all been influenced by religious beliefs that seek to correct some anomalies in order to strengthen social solidarity, integration and unity. Because religious groups transcend national boundaries to bring people, societies and civilizations into close proximity, the tendency of religion to enforce is very high.

Economically, the religious belief system, although arguably, has been associated with the formation of capitalism-an economic paradigm. In the The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Max Weber advanced how the kind of religious belief system can instill in people the zeal to strive for economic success.

Conclusion

In a nutshell, these are some of the various ways in which religious values and virtues (the belief system) can promote unity, integration, and solidarity that are essential in building social capital for the development of the human societies. However, religion can also be abused as a source of discord and conflict in society. Such conflicts can be avoided if people avoid “religio-centrism”-a construct out of “ethno-centrism.” Religio-centrism refers to the “feelings of rightness and superiority resulting from religious affiliation.” Such religious tendencies “inhibit the ability of a society to achieve adaptation, integration and goal-attainment” (Chalfant, Beckley and Palmer, 1994, p.51).

Abdul-Mumin Abdulai is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology, International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM).

One argument is that the fundamental source of conflict in this new phase will not be political or economic ideology. The great divisions among humankind and the dominant source of conflict will be civilizational or cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful agents in world politics, but the principal conflicts will occur between groups of nations and peoples of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics.

A civilization is the broadest notion of identity people have of themselves, short of that which distinguishes humans from other species. It is composed both of objective elements, such as religion, language, customs, institutions, and of subjective elements, subjective notions of belonging.

Civilizations are meaningful entities, and while the lines between them are seldom sharp, they are nonetheless real. Civilizations are dynamic: they rise and fall; they divide and merge.

Civilizational identity will be increasingly important in the future, and the world will be shaped in large measure by the interactions among seven or eight major civilizations. These include the Islamic, Western, Japanese, Confucian, Hindu, Slav-Orthodox, Latin American and possibly African, civilizations. The most important conflicts of the future will occur along the cultural fault lines separating these civilizations from one another.

Why will this be the case?

Civilizations are differentiated from each other by history, language, customs and tradition, and, most important, religion. Differences do not necessarily mean conflict, and conflict does not necessarily mean violence. Over centuries, however, differences among civilizations have generated the most prolonged and the most violent conflicts.

The world is becoming a smaller place. The interactions between peoples of different civilizations are increasing; these increasing interactions intensify civilization consciousness and awareness of differences as well as commonalities.

The processes of economic modernization and social change throughout the world are alienating people from long-standing local identities. They are also weakening the nation state as a source of identity. In much of the world, religion has moved in to fill this gap, often in the form of revival movements that are labeled ‘fundamentalist’. Such movements are mostly found in Western Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism, although Islam is intentionally blamed for such movements. In most countries and most religions, the people active in this kind of movements are young, college-educated, middle-class technicians, professional and business persons.

The growth of civilization-consciousness is enhanced by the global reach of the West. The West is at a peak of power. Perhaps precisely because of that, among the peoples of non- Western civilizations, there is a growing movement to return to their ‘roots’ .One hears increasingly of a turning inward away from failed Western ideas of socialism and nationalism, in particular of ‘re-Islamization’ of the Middle East and Africa.

Cultural characteristics are less mutable, therefore less easily compromised, and the differences between them less easily resolved than political and economic differences. An individual can be half-Arab and half-French, but it is more difficult to be half-Muslim and half-Catholic.

Finally, the importance of regional economic blocs is likely to continue to increase in the future and to reinforce civilization-consciousness. Economic regionalism is likely to succeed only when it is rooted in a common civilization. Thus, the European Community rests on the shared foundation of European culture and Western Christianity. Similarly, culture and religion form the basis of the Economic Co-operation Organization (ECO), which has brought together ten non-Arab Muslim countries: Turkey, Pakistan, Iran, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgzstan, Turkmenistan, Tadjikistan, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan.

As people define their identity in ethnic and religious terms, they are likely to see an ‘us’ and ‘them’ relation between themselves and people of different ethnicity or religion. The end of ideologically defined states in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union has allowed traditional ethnic identities and animosities to come to the fore. Differences in culture and religion create differences over policy issues, ranging from human rights to immigration, trade and commerce to the environment. Most important, the efforts of the West to promote its values of democracy and liberalism as universal values, to maintain its military predominance and to advance its economic interests, provoke countering responses from other civilizations. Decreasingly able to mobilize support and form coalitions on the basis of political ideology, governments and groups will increasingly attempt to mobilize support by appealing to shared civilizational and religious identity.

The clash of civilizations thus occurs at two levels. At the micro-level, adjacent groups along the fault lines between civilizations struggle, often violently, over the control of territory and population. At the macro-level, states from different civilizations compete for relative military and economic power, for control of international institutions and third parties, and competitively promote their particular values. 

*See S. P. Huntingdon’s article, ‘The Clash of Civilizations?’, Foreign Affairs, Summer 1993, Volume 72, Number 3, pp.22- 49