My name is Sueda, but I’m also Sue.

I speak English, Turkish, French, and Arabic.

My blood is Turkish, my accent is American, but my heart? Undecided.

In a world where names and ages attempt to define individuals,

I find myself struggling not to be confined within the limitations of a few pages.

My story runs deeper than the surface; it is an intricate tapestry woven across three distinct countries, shaped by unseen battles and quiet transformations.

I was often looked at as a fool for believing my dual identity could be free, but we live in a world where, if they can’t place you in a box, they simply label you as “other.”

Born in Turkey, my childhood carried the scent of distant lands long before I understood what longing was. The world pulled me into new places, new skies, new songs…

and with every move, I found myself both losing and finding pieces of who I was meant to be.

Change did not ask for permission; it swept through my life like a storm, teaching me that home is not always a place; sometimes it’s a memory, a voice, a feeling tucked deep within the soul.

I grew up learning that survival often meant adaptation, and that in trying to belong everywhere, I sometimes felt like I belonged nowhere at all. In my attempt to mold myself into something “acceptable,” I let parts of myself blur the vibrant colors of my identity muted in exchange for a quieter, safer existence.

It took years stretching years to understand that belonging was never about fitting in. It was about standing firm in the soil of who I truly am.

My path has gifted me wisdom that no classroom or map ever could. If you asked me to name myself with a single word, I would hesitate, because I am too many things to be reduced to just one word.

Still, if I had to choose, I would say: unique.

Because my identity is not static. It is alive growing, stretching, breaking, healing

a testament to the resilience born of a life lived between borders and beyond definitions.

I grew up understanding that home isn’t always a place. Sometimes it’s a memory.

Sometimes it’s a wound.

Trying to belong became a silent war inside me. I bent myself into shapes that weren’t mine.

I softened parts of myself that were never meant to be dulled.

And somewhere along the way,

I lost so many pieces of me, shattered them against the cold walls of acceptance, left them behind on the altar of belonging.

But now I see it, those pieces were never meant for this world to understand.

They were fragments of something eternal. I’ve realized that I don’t belong to a city, a nation, or a label.

I belong to Heaven.

My soul was never meant to fit in a place built by human hands. It was crafted for something far beyond.

As I continue down the winding path of self-discovery, I know now that my essence cannot be confined by a few words, or tucked neatly into a nationality, or captured by a language.

I belong to every place I loved,

I belong to every culture that has shaped me,

I belong to every language that has found its way to my tongue.

I am from three countries, not one.

I am from three cultures and four languages.

I am from Turkey, Africa, from every silent prayer and every loud dream. I am not fighting my duality anymore — I am embracing it.

My name is Sueda, but I’m also Sue.

I speak English, Turkish, French, and Arabic.

My blood is Turkish, my accent is American, but my heart?

In a letter to G-20 leaders in 2013 Pope Francis stated, “It is regrettable that, from the very beginning of the conflict in Syria, one-sided interests have prevailed and in fact hindered the search for a solution that would have avoided the senseless massacre now unfolding.” The head of the Roman Catholic Church proceeded to call for “a renewed commitment to seek, with courage and determination, a peaceful solution through dialogue and negotiation of the parties, unanimously supported by the international community.” In hindsight, his words were prophetic. It is now 2017. The atrocities of ISIL, and Boko Haram and the devastation from armed conflict world-wide have increased. The flow of refugees into Europe from Syria has reached epic proportions, testing the ability of diverse and at times conflicting religious cultures to establish mutual understanding and trust. But the situation of ethnic and religious conflict goes beyond narrow Muslim-Christian differences and extends to intra-religious, intra-ethnic, and intra-cultural hostilities.

Sustained commitment and constructive dialogue become difficult when one crisis supplants another in the non-stop flow of information-as-news. Real resolutions require diplomats and politicians to reach an (increasingly unlikely) agreement as to what is at stake, before rational decisions can be made about what to do. With global political discourse focused on “country” and “region,” “national interest” and “homeland security,” responsive strategies lose sight of “the people” and their human right to life, safety, and self-determination. Military intervention does not honour that right; nor do Western strategies favouring partisan economic and geo-political options.

The degradation of human dignity and the apparent overwhelming power of evil is a cause of bewilderment for believers in a loving God, the all-merciful Lord of the worlds. From a Christian perspective the words of Pope Francis, in Joy of the Gospel, resonate with me. “Sometimes I wonder if there are people in today’s world who are really concerned about generating processes of people-building, as opposed to obtaining immediate results, which yield easy, quick short-term political gains, but do not enhance human fullness.”  

Homeland security or global solidarity?
None of us—neither Christian nor Muslim—stands outside this concern; none is unaffected by the suffering. In a 2013 vigil, Pope Francis prayed that God give all “Christians, and our brothers and sisters of other religions, and every man and woman of good will,” the resolve to “cry out forcefully: violence and war are never the way to peace!” And he offered, in a non-particularistic phrase, the “goodness of creation” as the moral standard for judgment. Those who call “Allah, the Lord of the worlds” and those who call “God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth,” appeal to a moral measure beyond national security or sectarian interests to a shared sense of humanity, whose dignity cannot be negotiated at the tables of political or economic power.

Against such a profound understanding of human dignity—a dignity that transcends even human legislation—it is difficult to argue in favour of bombing or boots on the ground, which will inevitably feed international crises, create divisions among groups, and erode human hope. It is equally untenable to stand by, numbed and inactive, in the face of the enormous and relentless degradation of humanity.

A creation perspective would allow governmental and legislative policy makers to let go of the Gordian knot of irreconcilable—because partial—positions on what ought to be done. It is difficult enough to define justice in peaceful times – and most difficult when the definition is skewed by particular interests and shared biases that pass for common sense.

On the Catholic side of the dialogue, Pope Francis stresses our moral obligation, not only to respond to violence, but to look at the prejudices that enforce and are enforced by entrenched positions, especially those of cultural and economic exclusion.

One of these prejudices is the idea of distance or of space or territory, where we view boundaries and borders as principles of containment or security—a notion pursued by both terrorists and anti-terrorists. “Giving priority to space means madly attempting to keep everything together in the present, trying to possess all the spaces of power and of self-assertion; it is to crystallize processes and presume to hold them back.” The Pope calls for “giving priority to time … being concerned about initiating processes rather than possessing spaces.” He readily concedes, however, that while easily imagined such hopes do not readily penetrate the heart and move the will. He blames a mindset that compromises truth and goodness through political self-interest, a “globalisation of indifference,” and an intellectual laziness that can no longer be bothered with authentic “dialogue and reconciliation.”

If the Pope appeals to the conscience of world leaders, he appeals more directly to the conscience of every person.

Both Christians and Muslims have substantive reasons for opposing war, not least of which is the economic hardships suffered by the poor in their respective nations. But we in the West are joined to the victims in the Middle East and Africa, along with all those following dangerous migration routes in hope of new lives. We are connected as well to the impasse to peace created by dominant economic and political structures benefitting the West. As Pope Francis says, “Today in many places we hear a call for greater security. But until exclusion and inequality in society and between peoples are reversed, it will be impossible to eliminate violence.” Economic and political structures have a causal relationship to the oppressive conditions and revolutionary anger that fuel violence not only in the Middle East, but across the world and within our own nation and neighborhoods.

While calling on divine intercession and protection is an authentic expression of religion, without meaningful deeds on the part of believers, these words become routine and empty. Moral outrage without decisive action toward significant resolution leads to hypocrisy.

It is not enough to feel bad about the wanton violence and degradation of life that has become commonplace, or to make moral judgments about the failure of politicians and governments to act effectively. Pope Francis insists, “We need to give priority to actions which generate new processes in society and engage other persons and groups who can develop them to the point that they bear fruit in significant historical events.”

Only communicative action and authentic conversation can contribute to a satisfactory outcome—not one that brings about “eternal peace” (as was the dream of Kant), but that creates the conditions for human progress, an alternative to the current cycle of decline. Here is an appeal to conscience, a summons to act.

Conscience is more than a moral judgement about something “out there;” it makes a claim on the one making that judgment. We are not spectators in an evil world; we are connected to that world, and share in that evil—some by being its direct victims. The continuation of soul-destroying violence threatens to extinguish everyone’s sense of human dignity and the value of life.

Formation of conscience and the task of building a moral community
Conscience is often portrayed as a mysterious inner voice that tells us that what we have done, are doing, or thinking of doing is morally good or evil. The pinch of conscience, in this view, can torment a person until he or she repents. While we may try to dull it, conscience can never be totally silenced. Conscience is not a moral “app” that works like something independent of who we are. Its range is often limited by bias and culture to individual actions, choices, and attitudes. Moral education for most of us has not included weighing our relationship to or responsibility for the violence, suffering, and pain that is so real in the lives of millions.

However, the incessant reports of unspeakable violence and insufferable circumstances of the lives of countless others is a summons to find a space where we can leave behind the rhetoric that narrows our understanding and feeds the impatience and indifference that leads to the apathy of despair or the anger of militarism. But we must go further in order to become a strong social force.

Because the world’s Muslims and Christians do not belong to a single organization or community in the simplest sense of that word, one cannot expect a spontaneous emergence of a shared understanding and common will that leads to peace. We need a process that fosters the development of a collective moral consciousness among and between Muslims and Catholics, and enables groups and individuals to make decisions and take actions that offer alternatives to war.

Religious leaders must lead and not just moralize. How can they demonstrate that believers are able to act with cooperative, conscientious responsibility? First of all, Muslims must dialogue with other Muslims, and Christians with other Christians, about how they can respond in faith to suffering and injustice. An internal discussion is not a substitute, but may be a condition for a Christian-Muslim exchange. It is also a prerequisite for dialogue with other citizens and the formation of public opinion with transformative potential in the face of current fatalism over the possibility of harmony in the world.

The kind of process and dialogue that leads to resolution and action requires structure and organization, which in turn depends on leadership and inspiration. If the religious leaders believe in what they preach, they will recognize this moment as a transformative opportunity, an opportunity to bring their followers together to think seriously about the senseless escalation of violence in our world.

The kind of dialogue that is needed will require coming together in prayerful resolve, to gather often and share at length in order to even begin to gain some understanding of what is happening. A transformative moral consciousness in Islam and Christianity can only take root in the lives of people.

Resistance to the radical rejection of life inherent in escalating global violence is not just a matter of religious morality. Wherever people of conscience raise their voices and act against the de-humanizing intent and consequences of terrorism, we are all summoned to stand with them. Standing up to any threat to humanity is not a “Christian” or “Muslim” issue. But it is one that challenges all believers to make clear what faith means in terms of the real lives of people in tangible solidarity with the victims of violence.

More than a war for territory or property, this is a struggle for the minds of people. It requires an acknowledgement of the feelings, and even despair, of heartbreak and compassion as a necessary prelude to talking about how to respond. We don’t need simplistic or naive ideas. We don’t need to fall into hasty reductionisms that reduce “the whole problem” to this or that. Dialogue must be patient, and, as Pope Francis suggested, it needs us to not be overwhelmed by the urgency, so that we do not lose sight of the other and not hear what they are saying. If neither side learns from the other, nothing is accomplished.

Such a process is risky and can get out of hand. It may be subject to conflict between people with entrenched or simplistic political opinions. But the development of a moral will for peace requires leaders who can help participants learn mutual respect and gain the capacity for conversation.

The hope, however, is that as we learn to listen to one another and that the bonds of inter-religious community will, in the vision of Canadian philosopher Bernard Lonergan, “make the experience of each resonate to the experience of others and arouse in all a drive to understand and an insistence on behaving intelligently that generates and implements common ways, common manners, common undertaking, common commitments.”

In the face of the atrocities multiplying daily in centres of violence around the world, Catholics cannot be spectators; they must be actors. For moral opinion to become formative of public will, and for social justice to become a mass social movement, something has to change. The process of creating a truly human moral consciousness, capable of peace-making, with the credibility and persuasiveness to influence world politics, begins with the recognition that we are not spectators.

In this issue, we are celebrating Black History Month with Laila Muhammad. The grandchild of Elijah Muhammad, the founder of the Nation of Islam, and the daughter of Warith Deen Mohamed, she is recognized more by association with her family, but she has continued her family’s incredible legacy of community work. In our interview with her, you will not only read about her family, but you will also encounter a social activist with common sense and compassionate vision. Anyone who is involved in any type of community work will benefit from her words. “We have to move forward,” Muhammad says, adding “collectively” at the end, with emphasis. This message is more relevant than ever at a time when our society is growing more polarized on multiple axes of race, religion, and gender.

Laila Muhammad’s message resonates with a book Justin Pahl reviews in this issue: Peace and Dialogue in a Plural Society, by Fr. Thomas Michel. Fr. Michel is a Catholic priest and a professor at Georgetown University who has been involved in interfaith dialogue with Muslims for many decades. He’s traveled and lived with Muslims in many countries including Indonesia, the Philippines, Turkey, the United States, and Europe. His research in this book focuses on the Hizmet Movement and how the movement’s educational and dialogue efforts around the world are contributing to peace in the plural society of the twenty-first century.

A complementary piece to the above themes is “The Age of Self-Awareness” by Caroline Halford. Halford writes, “The world became connected very quickly and with that came not only conflict, secrecy, and fear, but also progress, growth, and knowledge, or at least, attempts at these things.” This global plural society has stepped into an age of self-awareness in the twenty-first century, Halford argues. Whether our self-awareness will diminish into self-obsession or will allow us to be great, continuing the legacy of those who came before us, is up to us.

This issue’s lead article “Chaos and Flourishing Hopes” redefines our relationship with the past, the present, and the future. While some of us delve into the glorious days of our past, others, especially younger people, submit themselves to fanciful thoughts of the future, Fethullah Gülen writes. Yet according to Gülen, the best path is to implement “what is required in every stage of life,” after which we will perceive the past-future-present as “the three angles of a single unit, and we will be able to experience each period of time with its own depth. The golden ages of human history have always been experienced when the concept of time has been perceived as such.”

As he defines a perspective as a concept of time, Gülen also establishes a prescriptive approach to misfortunes and ordeals: “Going through such ordeals is how we can overcome the weariness caused by monotonousness. This is how we can always sense the pleasures and enjoyment to the same extent in the positive sense. This is in fact the transformation of difficulties and afflictions into spiritual prosperity.”    

This perspective was endorsed by many scholars and writers from around the world who kindly submitted their testimonials for The Fountain in 2013. Here is one by Rabbi Allen Maller from Los Angeles: “What I like most about The Fountain magazine is its wide perspective – not just about religion, science, the past or the present. It seeks to bring together in a special, respectful way different people’s insights in the nature of both the material and spiritual world that we live in.” Professor Wan Daud, from Malaysia, says, “All the articles and interviews show respect for knowledge, sciences, and hospitality, in a manner that is engaging and friendly to the mind.” John Davis from Athens, Alabama, concurs when he says, “Through the articles in The Fountain we can see that the other person faces the same concerns about life, about family, and about love and friendship as we do.” Professor David Perlmutter from Austin, Texas, explains our motto even better: “The Fountain is one of those few venues left where they step back and ask some big philosophical questions about society and faith.” You can read more of these testimonials from our anniversary pamphlet, “A Panorama of 20 Years,” which is available on our website, or watch these testimonial videos by clicking the Testimonial button.

The change of motto inspired us to conduct last year’s essay contest to inspire writers to ponder over their life philosophies and to condense them into a few words, like a motto. The 400 essays we received from around the world is evidence that all of us are quite interested in investing in some intellectual engagement and voicing our worldviews with others.

In the interest of sharing such viewpoints, we also convened a small group of 12 scholars from the US and Europe to meet with their colleagues based in Turkey for a three-day workshop last November. The topic was again inspired by our motto: “Conversations on Life, Knowledge, and Belief.” Unobstructed by formal structures of paper presentations that are usually required in other academic gatherings, partners enjoyed the freedom of lengthy periods of free discussions and defending their arguments. You can read a detailed report of the event on our website under blog: “An Overview of the Conference.”

Borrowing from the Lead Article of this issue, “we reflect on the joyous past and the beautiful future yet to come.”

Life, illness, and death are basic human conditions. But at the same time, it is a very individual decision which specific meaning you ascribe to these elements. These meanings also affect the behavior patterns of our life and its consequences. Ascriptions of meaning can – considered without any judgment – be of religious, nationalist, pluralist, and atheistic nature, or be supported from the symbiosis of several ways of thinking.

In the training of health care professionals and in public lectures, the author of this article noticed that illness has a very negative image: the color which stands for physical and mental discomfort is a deep black, while shiny white is the color of health. Consequently, modern medicine therapies have been developed that do not necessarily try to diagnose the causes of diseases, but most of all combat the declared enemy. For this purpose, high-dose drugs, radiation and other weapons are out in the field, according to the motto: attack is the best defense.

The doctors make every effort to win the battle, but there is a risk that the emotional state of the ill person falls into despair – because it is taught to him that his new physical condition is an unnatural, undesirable condition. Thus, a melancholy forms, which reduces the quality of life dramatically. The patient regards the illness as invincible.

In the following, I will present some perspectives that renowned scholar Said Nursi (d. 1960) demonstrated decades ago. They are still powerful today. In my opinion, they harbor the potential to raise the quality of life not only of the ill, but also of healthy people.

In his treatise “The Twenty-fifth Gleam: 25 Remedies for the Sick”¹ Said Nursi throws 25 views (Turkish: Deva² ) on the phenomenon of illness. His outlook could assist in transforming the negative picture of illness into a positive one.

What makes a shift in perspective so important?

Anyone who prepares himself while he or she is a healthy person, if they later catch a more serious illness, will benefit from this text. Nursi’s thoughts on the meaning of illness and potential remedies can play an important role in preparation. Those who internalize his message can help prevent the emotional fall into depression and may instead hope for a cure.

Said Nursi’s first view presents its readers with the understanding that illness should not be seen as a problem that brings bitterness into life, but that you can also draw strength out of it. There may, as said before, be different ascriptions of meaning to human life, but ultimately all people agree that life is something precious and offers a variety of opportunities. The direction of our lives depends on which use we make of these opportunities.

Those who consider illness as something negative will experience every illness as a curse. Such an attitude has a negative impact on the patient and their environment and turns them very pessimistic. They might castigate themselves, and ask questions like: “Why is it me of all people who has ​​this disease?” In extreme cases, this can lead the patient to become delusional and withdraw from society. A shift in perspective, however, can release positive energy and let sorrow and pain melt away.

Those who recognize the opportunities offered by life and appreciate the efforts and labors of everyday life as something positive will concede that even diseases have a meaningful function – for themselves and humanity as a whole.

Nursi says that ill people perceive time differently, which enables them to observe their environment from a more passive perspective. This passivity is supposed to tear modern, urbanized people from the hustle and bustle of everyday life and move them to a pause. It decelerates the lives of those affected and leads them to horizons healthy people find difficulty to access.

Nursi’s second view goes to the role of prayer which he defines in two forms: positive and negative prayers. He refers to prayers like ritual worship, fasting, supplication, and other forms of remembrance as “positive” (müspet) prayers. “Negative” (menfi) prayer on the other hand is attaining awareness and knowledge of one’s own vulnerability and mortality – which is more likely to arise in moments of illness rather than any other time – as a result of which one turns to God in praise of His ultimate power and infinity. Nursi signifies these positive and negative prayers as the second remedy.

The insight into our own transience, which is the third remedy, allows the ill person to recall their past mistakes, many of which might have been forgotten, and allows them to reconcile with themselves and their fellow humans. According to Nursi, this allows a person to realize they are not as perfect and as infallible as they thought. Illness makes people honest: honest with themselves and with others. The confession of the own fallibility is tantamount to an admission of human weakness and mortality.

Viewed from this perspective, the question arises as to whether illness itself is a cure for mankind. It conveys us new views and leads us to reconsider our previous positions. The ill person becomes an observer, and he finally has time to start thinking. As said by Nursi, he realizes that mankind may be considered the crown of creation. But man’s frailty, his aging, and also the health problems of other people make him realize that life on earth is not all there is – a realization that opens his eyes and takes him out of the darkness into the light. Becoming aware of one’s mortality takes away any thoughtlessness. It causes a person to shed laziness and reflect on their obligations.

If the patient manages to do so, they will feel gratitude and be patient, not least in dealing with physical ailments. This gratitude and patience is what Nursi refers to as the fourth remedy. For Nursi, the body is not the property of man, but rather a loan, which he may not dispose of freely. Suffering is to be endured, since it can do some good, too. Nursi characterizes it as a kind of bonus, which God the ultimate owner of our body grants to us, and we should not protest against it.

Chronic diseases or disabilities, which are seen very negatively in today’s society, can be reinterpreted positively in this way because, as Nursi asserts, they bring a gain in knowledge compared that we cannot achieve when healthy. As a result of their illness, they understand new things that healthy people cannot, just as blind, deaf, or dumb people perceive their environment differently, and sometimes more sharply, than people without physical limitations.

Each person strives for well-being, mercy, and forgiveness, and every sorrow and misfortune also harbors rays of mercy in it. From behind the veil of the illness many quite pleasant insights can emerge. A new consciousness arises, and thus many people gain the courage to take risks and reposition oneself in life.

This maturity Nursi describes as the fifth remedy and it can be observed especially in young ill people. Because of their illness, and in contrast to their peers, they have to cope with issues that seem to contradict their youth. They do not fall into the typical noise of youth and are relieved of thoughtlessness and of the pressures of everyday life.

From this point of view, health, for some people, can be even a calamity that can make their heads spin and blind, and lets them lose sight of the fact that their life does not last forever.

Conclusion

Even these first 5 of 25 views on the subject of illness show that not everything, which is interpreted as negative, is actually negative. A shift in perspective can often work wonders.

Nevertheless, such a shift in perspective appears quite disconcerting initially in our modern society in which health equals to a gift and illness to a disaster. If we have considered diseases as the enemy for so long, why should we suddenly welcome disease? A notion that a disease may also enrich the patient and their friends and family is a useful approach. Surely, the thought that positive thinking can influence the illness (coping), and even contribute to the healing process, is quite common. However, the angle shift described by Said Nursi goes much further. And in my eyes, there is no doubt that it is able to significantly improve the quality of a patient’s life and environment.

Illness allows ill persons to pull out from everyday life, at least for some time. Thereby, it gives them new insights and opens doors that probably would have remained closed if they had stayed healthy. Illness allows a refocusing of which we can benefit from as individuals and communities.

Erdogan Karakaya is pursuing a master’s degree in history in Heidelberg, Germany.

Footnotes

1. Nursi, Said. 2009. 25 Remedies for the Sick, the Twenty-fifth Gleam, NJ: Tughra Books.
2. Deva in Turkish actually means cure, resort, and solution. In this article it is also understood as view or view angle.

What I would like to say in this paper is from a glocal perspective even though the case study I will offer at the end is local. That does not mean that I believe that Ireland is the centre of the universe, though for three decades at the end of the twentieth century we had that tragic privilege. An introverted narrative is negative, be it Irish, British, American, Canadian or wherever. My Irish case study is informed and underpinned by global perspective and is therefore, I hope, a glocal story. I would also like to explore two key components of peacebuilding which education can address, indeed I believe, must address, if humanity is to live at peace on the planet as well as with the planet.

PEACEBUILDING THROUGH EDUCATION

In June of this year Aung San Sui Kyi visited Europe. She is a woman who has suffered greatly, remains committed to non-violence, and is a champion for democracy in her own Burma. She reminds us that peacebuilding is about building democracy, which is essential to sustainable peace.

Just over two decades ago many of us sat glued to the television screen. The image is indelible, that of Nelson Mandela finally emerging from his Robben Island prison compound. He walked to freedom to lead, with others, the transformation of apartheid South Africa into a Rainbow Nation. It’s still a work in progress. Mandela has reminded us that peace building is the creation of a pluralist, participative democracy. Peace building is pro-democracy and it is about actively creating rainbow nations and societies, pluralist, participative democracies – at least! Education has a crucial role to play in all of this.

Education for pluralist democracy

Democracy is developing. There is no finished product and there is no one model to be imposed universally irrespective of contexts and cultures. It is not a flawless system either. Winston Churchill once said, “Democracy is the worst of political systems, except for all the others.” Democracy is about freedom. What the promise of freedom and potential for democracy does induce is an almost universal abhorrence of tyranny. Dictatorships, totalitarian regimes and fascist states do not last and do not satisfy the deepest longings and needs for freedom and participative belonging. Whatever past history, newly liberated nations usually move towards democracy. In 1918 when Czechoslovakia was born, its President said, “Our whole history inclines us towards the democratic Powers.” That was repeated in 1989-91 by leaders of all the countries of the ex-Soviet bloc (Norman 1997, 131).

Education for pluralist democracy as part of peace building needs to engage history. Democracy has a lineage, a family tree and young people and adults should be aware of it.

The Greeks invented politics and it began with our city states. The polis needed governance and there was a recognition of a public good, a shared public interest and common concerns, and over these issues there could be argument, debate, discussion, decision and policy making. The assembly of citizens was known as the ecclesia, though it was far from being fully participative. It was only for wealthy males, people of power, excluded women and certainly had no place for slaves and lower classes. Athenian democracy lasted for 185 years. It had limited participation and Plato even thought that democracy meant the rule of the incompetent. Democracy was forgotten for a millennium.

European democracy owes more perhaps to the democratic practices of the Viking world. Popular assemblies enter European history in the 9th century in Sweden and Denmark. Iceland’s national assembly came into being in 930 CE. Long before England had such a democratic assembly, it existed in the Manx assembly, the Isle of Man, a small island between Britain and Ireland with a Viking history. The Manx Tynwald or assembly is also 9th century. Wherever the Vikings went, Nordic democracy went with them.

In the modern era the two great shapers of democracy were the French Revolution and the American Revolution. Any education in pluralist democracy needs to be aware of these seismic events. The history of the 18th-19th century Europe was a history of wars and conflict, and absolutist monarchies and imperial powers. The first political revolution of a new time in European history happened outside of Europe and it led to the dissolution of the first British Empire. It began in 1773 with the Boston Tea Party and a decade later at the Paris Peace Conference American Independence was recognised. Now the people of North America “could work out their problems virtually untroubled by foreign intervention, a blessing to much that was to follow” (Roberts 1997, 347). Popular sovereignty was embodied in the opening words of the Constitution, “We the People.” All governments derive their just powers from the assent of the governed. The American Revolution was a landmark in world history.

Then followed the French Revolution and by 1789, notwithstanding the Terror, great reforms were achieved.

The formal abolition of feudalism, legal privilege and theocratic absolutism, and the organisation of society on individualist and secular foundations were the heart of the principles of ’89 distilled in a Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen… legal equality and legal protection of individual rights, the separation of Church and State and religious toleration were their institutional expression. The derivation of authority from popular sovereignty acting through a unified National Assembly, before whose legislation no privilege of locality or group could stand… (Roberts 1997, 353-354).

Modern democracy is born and by 1900 the principle of democracy was an idea, albeit still resented in some parts of Europe, whose time had come. An education process needs to engage with the historical development of democracy. We may have little consensus about its essence and it remains flawed in practice. “We the People” may even be impossible, strictly speaking, in practice. But democracy as a theory of governance and the ordering of the public good has promoted “all the virtues, from freedom, justice and equality to the rule of law, the respect for human rights, and the promotion of political pluralism and of civil society” (Davies 1997, 131).

Democracy is not amoral. It implies a need to be underpinned by a value system. Values and ethics are the foundation of democracy at work. Peace building is an ethical task, it needs democracy and the values and ethics that underpin democracy. Democracy involves pluralism and freedom, it also requires tolerance or respect. The education process needs to draw the distinction between passive tolerance and active tolerance. The former is the tolerance of indifference. The latter is “The attitude of one who positively co-lives with the other because one respects the other and accepts the multi-faceted richness of reality” (Boff 2011, 8-9). At the heart of any education for democracy is justice, especially justice as distributive and restorative. Democracy is for human, social flourishing. And distributive and restorative justice are core to peace building.

Education for global citizenship

Yale historian, Jay Winter, believes that a new kind of vision emerged at the end of the dark 20th century after the momentous events of the late 1980s and early ’90s. It is a vision set in the framework of globalisation which aims to create a new kind of politics called the “politics of global citizenship.” It has also been described as “globalisation – from – below.”

Global citizens are emerging out of an array of transnational social forces animated by environmental concerns, human rights, hostility to patriarchy, and the vision of humane community based on the unity of diverse cultures seeking an end to poverty, oppression, humiliation, and collective violence. (Winter 2006, 169-170)

A new kind of political consciousness is developing which is transnational and is flowing across national borders. It is a glocal movement holding together the local and global. “Global citizenship is a political project helping people to imagine a different kind of world.” Citizenship is not tied to the state, it is “participation in a transnational set of struggles for dignity and justice” (Winter 2006, 170). The nation state is no longer primary. We are no longer just Irish, American, Turkish or Indian citizens but global citizens, in a different and larger solidarity on environmental rights, women’s rights and human rights. Transnational citizenship is about all of these glocal justice issues none of which is limited by national boundaries. Community now is in the local and the global.

Perhaps this began for many of us as children when we put our name and address on the inside page of a school text book. Name, street, town/city, Ireland, Europe, The World, The Universe! It is now the reality in a globalised world. Transnationalism and global citizenship may still have an unmapped future, but like modern democracy at the beginning of the 20th century this new local – global reality is and will shape who we are in the 21st century. It will be a peace building project stretching us well beyond any introverted narrative. Citizenship education now needs to be global for all ages, and it is not only an alternative to introverted narratives, but also to economic globalisation as the sole determinative factor for human and environmental life on the planet.

A GLOCAL CASE STUDY

I currently work on an initiative called Ethical and Shared Remembering. It is an initiative which will respond to the centenaries of events that occurred in Ireland between 1912-1922 and shaped the rest of the 20th century for the people in Ireland. It was a decade of enormous political change ending with the partition of Ireland, and it was also a decade of brutal violence.

How the centenaries will be handled between 1912-1922 will shape the decades ahead for better or worse. Ethical remembering is an approach that is critical in relation to the militarisation of politics and the violence that was so deeply embedded in culture and practice. Shared remembering is an approach that encourages the protagonists in all their complexity to engage with each other as human beings and to understand better each other’s perspectives on this crucial Irish decade and its legacy. The legacy has left many issues unresolved which have been re-played in the more recen phase of violence and conflict in Ireland. Some of these issues are; nationalism, nation-state, faith and politics, faith and violence, class and labour relations, feminism and equality issues, trauma and peace building. These constitute for any educational programme a generational peace building agenda which needs to be set in a global or glocal context.

There are multiple Irish narratives from this decade. Not only will this initiative try to recover them, especially the alternative, repressed or forgotten narratives, but the events of 100 years ago will be carefully set in the larger global, at least European context of that time. The memory of the Irish narrative(s) has often been introverted, but this community education initiative will seek to provide a larger and more critical perspective on a century ago by placing the events in a more global context. Early 20th century imperialism and the catastrophe of the Great War, provide a larger and rather different perspective.

The framework for an educational exploration will not only include global contextualisation but also narrative hospitality. This is about generosity of spirit and openness to engage with multiple narratives, especially those of one’s sectarian tradition or narrative perspective. Narrative hospitality will also include narrative pluralism and narrative flexibility. These latter two approaches will encourage an openness to recognise that there are multiple histories and diversities of interpretation of historical events and never a fixed or final norm. It is openness to realise that history is a plethora of interpretations, little of which may be about what actually happened even if ever that can be fully known.

Another educational framework will be integrative complexity. This is also getting beyond mono-narrative or mono-truth, simplism or fundamentalist politics or religion. Integrative complexity (IC) is a way of seeing history, culture, politics, faith, the world in all their diversity and complexity and integrating or weaving together the complexities of personal, communal and historical existence, and to see this complexity in the other.

Key to this project will be the development of critical thinking skills in a community where there has been, through the dynamics of violence and conflict, a culture which is unquestioning. The latter has often been understood as being disloyal or unpatriotic. Few people have thought for themselves and this educational methodology will engage with critical reflection on matters of history, politics, religion and cultural identity without reducing their complexity.

Essential to the educational exploration of the past will be future visioning. This is not just about a 2030 vision for Ireland. It is about transcending local nationalist politics of whatever shade and visioning a common good. It will also be about global citizenship, a transnational vision that will require the imaginative creation of a larger identity myth, beyond introversion, and glocal in perspective and complexity. Not only will the initiative encourage the development of an ethical vision for future society but will also unpack the need for ethical leadership in a society where the moral authority of the major institutions has collapsed. The initiative is being delivered through community education programmes, dialogue events, training resources and materials and a series of in-depth publications, and also the use of the arts. The community of ethical and shared remembering will include people from the community development and community relations sector, education, youth, the faith sector, politicians, ex-prisoners, commemorative groups and institutions. This is an initiative which we hope will make a positive contribution through education to peace building as a glocal task.

References

1. Davies, Norman. 1997. Europe: A History, London: Pimlico.
2. Roberts, J.M. 1997. The Penguin History of Europe, London: Penguin Books.
3. Boff, Leonardo. 2011. Virtues: For Another Possible World, Oregon: Cascade Books.
4. Winter, Jay 2006. Dreams of Peace and Freedom: Utopian Moments in the 20th Century, New Haven and London: Yale University Press. The extended quotation is from Richard Falk.

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).

M&B: Your area of study is social ethics. In what way your approach to environmental problems is different than an ecologist, environmental scientist, or a purely religious scholar?

Dr. Hadsell: As social ethicists, when we look at the question of the environment we look at other questions in the human social world. So for example questions of peace and conflict, questions of population, questions of rich and poor within countries, questions of rich nations and poor nations, north and south, east and west so forth. In every case the goal is also to get the science right, to get the data right. So if you’re looking at issues of north and south for example what is the north what is the south what are the relationships we’re talking about are those political relationships? Are those economic relationships? How are political relationships related to economic relationships and culture and language and history and so forth? And when we therefore turn our attention to the environment we’re doing the same thing. We’re asking “whose environment?” According to whom what aspects of the environment. We also look at how are the environmental questions are being raised today. We look at issues of global warming and our use of natural resources accelerated use of natural resources and so forth. The social ethicist will say how these environmental issues are related to other issues that we know something about? That is how are they related to political issues, to economic issues to historical cultural interactions and so forth?

While some environmentalists takes the environmental issue as an object in itself and see it from their own perspective, a social ethicist will say as we look at the environment how is that question embedded in all of these other questions? They want to know the data about the environment the scientific data about the use of the consumption of natural resources and the acceleration of global warming and who is using the most resources? They want to know all of those things but they drive that discussion also from the philosophical religious side of things and ask from a religious perspective from a Christian perspective from a Muslim perspective let’s say, what is the human responsibility here? What does scripture tell us about the proper relationship between humans on the one hand nature on the other and God on the other? What is this relationship between these 3 things?

M&B: It seems like many different factors must be taken in to considerations.

Social ethics is really a composition of a number of things including sociology, political science studies of the social world, sometimes cultural anthropology as well as the more philosophical and religious area of ethics. And if you put those all together you have what is really called social ethics. People often work out of traditions, for example one can be an ethicist who’s interested in the social world and political issues in the social world out of a Muslim perspective or out of a Christian perspective or out of a Hindu perspective and so forth. There are also a humanist perspective so there are various approaches and they can be grounded religiously or not. That is religious people using scripture and faith but also then drawing upon as I said political science, history, sociology, cultural anthropology. When you put that together then it really is what in the United States we call the discipline of social ethics.

M&B: What are the challenges in working in such a diverse multicultural setting?

Multicultural settings are challenging be cause the history of human relationship with the environment varies with the cultures and religions. Different cultures approach nature in different ways and have a history with nature that is specific and different from other cultures.

In the United States and in our school Hartford Seminary we have a lot of cultures interacting as well as religions interacting. So you get a wide spectrum of perspectives and a wide spectrum of experiences and each perspective and each experience may assume that its own perspective is the normative one because of course it comes out of their own experience. It’s very important to think and to discuss these questions of the human relationship with nature across cultures and across religions to check the tendency for each perspective to blow its own perspective up and to call it common sense and to assume that its common to everyone.

M&B: Not only there are various religious and cultural settings but also geography seems to be an important factor when we approach to environmental problems.

In the United States for several decades there was an assumption that the environment is an issue that is of concern to white rich people. And that the rest of the American population or maybe the rest of the global population outside of north America and Europe for example don’t have the luxury of thinking about environmental issues. Of course that’s not true. The environmental issues such as global warming are going to affect most directly the very people who, once thought, shouldn’t care about the environment because they have other things to worry about like getting food on the table and so forth.

So these issues are complex and I think in recent years the environmental movement has become more able to think across cultures and across specific social classes for example and nations to think about the environment in more subtle ways. In the United States one of the things we’ve started talking about already 10 years ago is for example the issue of environmental racism. That is African Americans in the United States and inner cities of the United States may think of the environment as being something that people in the suburbs who are worried about who want to protect their trees or their streams or you know the kind of natural environment that they have and the reason that they’ve moved out into the suburbs in the first place. Whereas there are many environmental issues going on right in the inner cities which is often the place where the dirtiest processing plants are located. Many environmental issues are very close to home to a variety of cultures and a variety of income groups. The environment is far too important for global humanity to leave it up to one group as an issue for that particular group. It has to be an issue that is on the agenda for all of us from our own perspectives because we all get hit with these environmental issues. They’re moral issues for all of us and we need to have that conversation across these groups.

M&B: You said that the environmental problems hits the communities who depends on nature first. On the other hand the ones who are doing the pollution actually do not depend on nature so much. Do you think this adds another layer of responsibility or accountability to the problem?

I think it’s very true that the people around the world who are already vulnerable often already poor and often already living very close to nature. I think about people in the Pacific Islands for example. They are the people who are most immediately affected by changes in the environment as we see with the studies about the rising sea level in relationship to global warming. Many the people who will be most immediately affected are people who live as fishermen for example in villages who can’t protect themselves and can’t protect their villages and their livelihoods from the effects of global warming.

So yes, it’s very much the case that the people who are already vulnerable are the people who are poor and don’t have a lot of political participation or representation. The people who don’t have a lot of control over their lives are the people who will be most immediately affected by global warming. The people who live in big cities and lives removed from nature in the sense that they don’t know where their food comes from it’s shipped in from wherever all around the globe. They live in heated buildings and air conditioned buildings and they drive cars and so forth. They may not understand the complexity of the environmental issues and they may think themselves to be less vulnerable to questions like global warming.

I think one of the challenges of social ethics pertaining to the environment is to get the people in the cities who feel separate from nature and from the processes of nature to understand the direct although sometimes hidden links they have with the natural world and how their lifestyle and their consumption of resources effects the natural world and how the depletion of nature will in turn affect them and their lifestyles and even in big cities.

M&B: In what way religious traditions or ethical approaches could motivate them to take a new look at the nature?

I think that the sense of the sacred is a very important concept for the environmental movement. I think that as religious people the worldview of religious people is that everything that is given by God is endowed with a kind of sacred quality. So that all of the resources given by God should be approached with a sense of respect and honor the same kind of sense of respect and honor that we give towards sort of classically sacred moments or objects. It’s very much the case that many people in the environmental movement even if they are secular people, they have an experience with nature, an intuition of something bigger, grander and outside of human control and domination.

Many people, even if they’re secular, they sense in nature a kind of sacredness and it brings them that sense that they have even if they can’t talk about it in religious terms or don’t choose to talk about it in religious terms. I’ve met a number of people for whom direct experience with nature has brought them back into religious exploration in religious traditions because they’ve sensed a presence of the sacred in nature. And it takes them into an exploration in their own traditions or new traditions for them. It’s very clear that nature and the sacred are in many ways connected.

Unfortunately there is also a sense in which the leveling of the human perception and imagination in an extremely secular spirit so that the only measure is the human. To think that there are no measurements, no dimensions outside of the human is an impoverishment of human imagination and leads to a disregard for the intrinsic value of nature. Nature is not simply a reflection of what it does for me or how I can use it but that the things of nature are intrinsically in and of themselves valuable.

M&B: Do you think interfaith dialog is an important step to solve environmental problems?

I do think that when we think about religious plurality there are varieties of ways to structure conversations across different religious groups. And some people really want to spend their time talking about religious doctrine. That’s what they like to do and they really want to spend their time talking about religious doctrine and I think that’s a wonderful occupation, its time very well spent, and those people ought to spend their time doing that.

There’s other people who want to work together inter religiously not so much on the issues directly of religious doctrine, but on other issues. They want to problem solve together and they want to attack together across religions questions that are facing all of us. And it is for those kinds of people that the environmental issues are good possibilities for bringing people together across religious traditions to work together on environmental challenges. That is how Hindus or Buddhists or Christians or Muslims or Jews, each formed by and carrying with them their religious values can come to a common table and think together about environmental challenges and work together on those environmental challenges.

And I think that’s a very interesting way to work and it is a way that in some ways will go farther than either political conversations – specifically political conversations – or specifically doctrinal conversations; this is a different way of working together and I think it can be very positive.

“I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.” Isaac Newton

Perspective, or how you look at events, is pivotal for happiness in our lives. To be able to look positively and see the good behind everything is not always easy, for it entails a set of beliefs and convictions to be well nested in the heart and mind. But it is also a fact that if we are seeking happiness, there is no other way than this prescription: “The one who sees positively will think positively; one who can think positively can take pleasure out of this life,” a trendsetter saying of Bediuzzaman, the giant trendsetter scholar of the twentieth century.

The lead article “Love for Truth” in this issue opens a door to us on how to set that perspective, the one through which we can see things beautifully, and glimpse across “the great ocean of truth” in the words of Newton from the epithet. From the angle the author of the lead article stands “the whole nature or entire existence is an exhibition of beauties, a gallery of art and marvels, a promenade of pleasure and delight.” His advice is to look at this exhibition and gallery with the eyes of our hearts and with the light of faith, so that it is as if we listen to special lessons of wisdom from every being, and the world becomes a travel to Paradise.

Dr. Kristeller confirms this perspective when she mentions that cancer patients who are caught in a struggle with the thought that they are being punished are not doing well in recovery or in their quality of life. Her research on the role of spirituality in the treatment of cancer patients is worth reading.

The Fountain is rich with psychology and religious thought in this issue. Tosun and Mette are analyzing how psychology is “essentially” a useful discipline for Muslims offering a beneficial body of knowledge and why a special focus is needed for the peculiar settings of a Muslim community. Namik Top delves into character education programs in schools for achievement and to reduce violence. Ozsoy discusses how divergent thinking is significant for authentic interpretations of religious texts in order to “discover the unveiled aspects of it.” Camery-Hoggatt addresses the cognitive and neurological effects stemming from shifts in “culturally mediated systems of external memory” – such as writing and images – and how theological communication could expand in response.

Two perspectives emerge in this context to address change in society. The first perspective is an instrumental one and relies on a rationalist, goals-oriented viewpoint. The second, cultural perspective relies more on stability and depth. The two values in this perspective, stability and depth, ensure constancy in the face of changing times but could also spell society’s death knell if it turns too far inward (Christensen et al, 2007).

 “From the vantage point of instrumental logic, the institution is intrinsically inefficient because it cannot quickly adapt to changing conditions for action or new problems. Yet from a cultural perspective one could argue that it is perfectly possible for an institution to live with such historical inefficiency over time” (Christensen et al, 2007, p. 46).

Historically speaking, these two vantage points have been in conflict: Conservatives who wish to maintain the institution, on one side, and liberals who wish to change those institutions, on the other. An extremely conservative approach creates “institutional lockdown” where the organization is deprived of any opportunity to change. On the far end of the spectrum would be an excessively liberal approach endorsing revolution. These diametrically opposed concepts create a significant dichotomy.

Edmund Burke, English statesman and philosopher, was extremely critical of the revolution in France. He defended the ancien regime as he felt that the institutions of France and Europe were the result of an evolutionary process that had reached its next highest point under the noblemen/monarchs of Europe. For him, European civilization was founded upon the institutional principles of chivalry and clerical learning embodied in the spirit of the gentleman and the spirit of religion. Those who wanted to overturn the French system were to him savages who opposed all of the etiquette that had built Europe (Kontler, 1997).

Before the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, a group of revolutionaries calling themselves the “Young Turks” attempted to change the institutional characteristics of the country. One of the Young Turks named Ahmed Hilmi was more conservatively institutional in his approach to reform. The Young Turks became more anti-religious, and Hilmi wanted Islam to remain the cornerstone of the country. He was starkly against those instrumental values embodied in positivism and materialism. He felt, much like Burke, that the country evolved to that point and that it had as its foundation a spiritual orientation which should not change despite whatever transformations might be needed (Bein, 2007).

Burke and Hilmi embodied the cultural perspective and were averse to revolutionary thinking. Nevertheless, both thinkers recognized that change was needed, but their approach was more incremental and less absolute. It was for this reason that Burke vehemently opposed the French revolution and Hilmi the Turkish revolution.

Positivism/materialism that was prevalent amongst the Young Turks has been criticized by scholars such as Dwight Waldo, who noted how it took on the same characteristics of absolute thought that is often associated with religion (Waldo, 1984). Hugh Miller makes this claim as well in his discussion on Postmodernism and Neo-liberalism, where he notes how the rational quickly becomes irrational particularly with performance measurement (Miller, 2007).

Dwight Waldo states, “In both disciplines (scientific management, i.e., positivism and public administration), these anomalies (inconsistencies between environment and paradigm) and difficulties have been revealed, frequently and characteristically in discussion of the problem whether management is a ‘science’ or an ‘art’ and the relationship of the science and the art” (Waldo, 1984, p. 55).

Jonathan Swift, in his classic novel Gulliver’s Travels, includes in his story the Island of Laputa. On this island, there are scientists whose science has no benefit for human civilization and in which all previous knowledge is rejected. The result is a detached group of people who do not benefit society and are themselves actually detrimental to it. The king of this island shows little interest in culture and only cares about mathematics and music. This island in Swift’s story represents Swift’s account of those who are positivistic in thought and how their endeavors are actually not benefiting society, but rather dismantling it (Swift, 1998).

Given this perspective, the instrumental perspective is called into question and its true ability to react to change correctly. The cultural perspective is more incremental in this respect, but as Christensen, et al (2007) point out, there is a risk of historical inefficiency. Would it be safer to say that society can live with this risk? If the goal is to operate efficiently/effectively in continual adjustment with the environment, then how can any semblance of community develop given that communities often need stability to grow? If the goal is community development that depends on integration and facilitation, then how can any semblance of necessary change develop? This represents the crux of an unsolvable problem in society.

Burke and Hilmi lived in revolutionary times and applied cultural thinking to solve societal problems. The questions raised in their times apply just as fervently today in terms of needed change. Many of those who had beaten the drums to the revolutions that gave rise to modern day societies have in turn given way to conservative descendants of those movements that resist all change. Much of what was lost in those revolutions has not been forgotten by the populace, and the only way forward is to adopt a “middle way” between the instrumental and cultural perspective. Maintaining this balance is often easier said than done.

Daniel Hummel is a Research/Teaching Assistant with a focus on Public Budgeting at Florida Atlantic University.

References

• Christensen, T. et al. 2007. Organization Theory and the Public Sector: Instrument, Culture and Myth. New York: Routledge.
• Bein, A. 2007. “A ‘Young Turk’ Islamic intellectual: Filibeli Ahmed Hilmi and the diverse intellectual legacies of the late Ottoman Empire.” International Journal of Middle East Studies, 39, pp. 607–625.
• Institution. 2010. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved March 30, 2010, from www.m-w.com/dictionary/institution.
• Kontler, L. 1997. “The ancien regime in memory and theory. Edmund Burke and his German followers.” European Review of History, 4 (1), pp. 1–15.
• Miller, H.T. 2007. Postmodern Public Administration (rev. ed.). Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe.
• Swift, J. 1998. Gulliver’s Travels. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Waldo, D. 1984. The Administrative State (2^nd ed.). New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers.