Talal Asad and Laïcité

"It is often pointed out by defenders that laïcité does not require citizens of the Republic to be identical. On the contrary, it encourages them to develop their individuality. The flowering of individuality that laïcité encourages, however, is founded on positivism and humanism" (Asad 2006:519).

The secular state ought to be secular, because secular means neutral, seem to be the argument. On the contrary, Asad argues - and I would agree - that specific modes of being is encourages, whilst others are seen as problematic or illegitimate. The problematic nature is often located as or within religion, especially when that religion is not Judeo-Christian (as much talk revolves around these - oh so elusive - Judeo-Christian values, upon which Europe in general seem to be built), but are connected to other ethnic groups. Asad sums up himself by saying that "differences in class, gender, religion, and ethnic origin do not constitute a community of shared values" (Asad 2006:525). This suggests, that even if we do away with components 3 and 4, we would at the very least be "left with" having to deal with "the problem" of class and gender-significance. Furthermore, class, gender, religion and ethnicity generates other modes or being or identifying with people, than what is contained within the nation state. Asad points to Esther Benbassa who have made this point by asserting that

"precisely because secularism is a state doctrine, devised for the purpose of dealing with state unity, it does not fit well with a world of multiple belongings and porous boundaries, nor can it acknowledge the fact that people identify emotionally with victims in the past and with victims in other countries as 'their own'" (Asad 2006:511).

The nation-state today is therefor left with a scramble for unifying doctrines. That of laïcité is a French mode that is working out less and less everyday for France. In Sweden we have seen unsympathetic attempts to the same end in the past, both when religion was supposed to have this unifying effect, but also the "nordic race" was the posterboy for such an attempt (and Uppsala's racebiological institute got a soon-to-be-infamous sister institute in Germany). The main question is off course: Do we need to find one mode of unity to hold the nation together, that also requires us to all be the same?

I would propose, in line with William Connolly, that it is instead possible to find ways of relating to different groups within the population on different topics. This way, everyone is "in a minority position" in some aspects of their lives (as we may see eye to eye with the majority of the population, in the majority of topics - but in some cases we diverge and sympathize with an "outsider" perspective), which also stresses the way we treat all minorities as legitimate and equal. The way other people "disturbs" a part of our ideas/faiths/beliefs about the world, is a means to be reminded that we are not "finished" or completed persons, but an always ongoing constructing and deconstructing of our own identity/identities. Instead of getting all annoyed with the fact that other people beg to differ we should also allow ourselves to differ - on as many or as few points as we want to - AND to differ to different people. It's not always necessary to agree with your favorite party, it's not always necessary to agree with your spouse, your children, your parents, your neighbours, your colleagues etc. We may slip in and out of these identities in ways, where nothing is acted upon in the way that for instance laïcité proposes; that we ought to first and formost belong to France (or Sweden or whatever country we're citizens of). The fact that we don't always feel the urge to honor such an allegiance doesn't mean that we can't enjoy being French, Swedish or whatever. It just means that sometimes we also feel the urge to honor other aspect of (our) humanity.

best

Jonatan

____

Asad, Talal. (2006). Trying to Understand French Secularism. In: de Vries, Hent & Sullivan, Lawrence, E (ed:s). Political Theologies: Public Religions in a Post-Secular World. pp 494-526. New York: Fordham University Press.

Summary

I just wanted to fill a post with some important stuff that may be nice to have quick-access to. Here I've gathered a bit of each.

MUSIC:

Pinku Vääty: Spirits Away EP (Rakkaus04)

Ernesto: Love Comes Round (Rakkaus03)
Pinku Vääty: Checkout (Rakkaus02)

Pinku Vääty: Lili & Sushi EP (Rakkaus01)

Rakkaus Records Player

Motorcitysoul ft Ernesto: Deliver Me + remixes

Andreas Saag ft Ernesto: Dragons

Ernesto & Waveplant: (I Need a) Bassline

Discography

THEOLOGY:

I vilken utsträckning relaterar unga muslimer till vänster-högerskalan i svensk politik?

Religion & Politics part 1

Religion & Politics part 2

Religion & Politics part 3

(These 3 parts together form a mini-manifest of sorts.)

Just nu! Missa inte min något o-ortodoxa analys inför valet 2010!

COOKING:

Västkustmiso

Surdegsbröd

My kitchen

Kräftskiva (crayfest?!)

Steak of lamb

Classic

This is just a classic piece of music, one of my favorite tech/house songs ever. Way to go Adam Beyer, who hides behind the name Conceiled Project.

HBT-parad - Nej tack/Ja tack?!

Läste lite till i Annelie Enochsons blog (efter det omnipotenta uttalandet kring Israels rätt att försvara sig från filtar, vatten, prefabricerade skolor och mediciner).

Annelie Enochson hade fått en förfrågan om hon ville gå med i Göteborgs HBT-parad, men tackade nej. Hon tror visserligen på människors lika värde, men denna parad hade också politiska ambitioner!

"Vid en närmare genomgång av programmet för festivalen noterar man seminarium för att bryta med heteronormen, störta kärnfamiljsidealet, stödja insemination av lesbiska, uppmuntra till adoption bland homosexuella och även till inspiration för polygami. Alltsammans är inslag som jag både utifrån min kristna tro och min politiska övertygelse absolut inte kan ställa upp på."

Märkligt, för det är sånt som jag utifrån min kristna tro och politiska övertygelse kan ställa upp på. Heteronormen i samhället är etablerad på ett sådant sätt att den får politiska efterverkningar. Det förefaller självklart att arbeta mot en politisk ordning som ger heteronormativitet (alltså en stereotyp könsindelning) förtur och fördelar. Varför skulle det vara kristet att på förhand välja ut roller som människor ska underkasta sig? Här kommer människor i regel dragandes med allsköns bibelcitat, men betänk då detta:

Vi vet relativt lite om omständigheterna under vilka breven i nya testamentet skrevs (för det är dessa som brukar åberopas). Vi vet inte ens med säkerhet vem som skrev merparten (och då brukar vi gissa Paulus). Kristendomens lära utformades mycket medveten om sin kontextuella situation. Kristendomen var därför revolutionerande, för att den som enda tro tog avstånd från grekisk "religion", dess förståelse av verkligheten och språket - och istället använde sig av ett språkbruk tydligt kopplat till tidens diskurs i grekisk filosofi. Detta borgar för att kristendomens lära och texter utformades på ett sätt som skulle förstås utifrån de omständigheter som rådde där och då. (Ett klassiskt exempel är referenser till homosexualitet, som på den tiden var liktydigt gubbar som knullar småpojkar. Jämställd livslång homokärlek var unheard of.)

Annelie Enochsons och KDs tolkning av Bibeln är en mycket specifik nutida bibeltolkning. De som gjort den har ingen särskilt tillgång till källor, som vi andra saknar (inget hemligt KD-bibliotek som de kan gå och gräva i för att få reda på hur det verkligen ligger till). Att därför formulera en snävt normativ familjepolitik utifrån nån form av "bibliskhet" är att vara ute på väldigt tunn is (jag utmanar dig: se hur många referenser till familjebildning du hittar i evangelierna - och vilka slutsatser kan du i så fall dra utifrån dessa!?). Kristdemokraternas manifest hittar sitt stöd i en värdekonservativ tradition, som hela tiden ligger i bakkanten av samhällsutvecklingen; kanske just för att det tar sån tid att tolka bibelställen som egentligen handlar om nåt annat, och tillämpa dem på huruvida det är ok att delta i en HBT-parad eller inte.

Läs inlägget:

Annelies blogg: HBT - parad - Nej , tack!

PS. Det är för övrigt anmärkningsvärt att Annelie Enochsons blogg inte tillåter kommentarer på inläggen. Mycket o-2010. Heja yttrandefriheten, kommentera nedan så mycket ni vill!

Commentary

"[O]n a serious note i thought all along that this is where you're heading... to me it's utterly obvious that our whole culture and politics in sweden are built upon super christian values. perhaps even more than other scandinavien countries... with our state protecting us from bad things bad like alcohol and other stuff. Or is that really a christian thing? Is it more of a socialist/communist thing? And in all it's atheism wasn't communism/socialism built on super christian values that jesus himself would've been proud of?What is religion? What is politics? Should it matter these days anyway? The only possible answer: P O L I G I O N. (now is it a strike of genius or just an easy way out???) "

Well, there are a few things here that I may off course clarify. But I will at the same time try to take the easy way out of the messy connections in here... :)

First and foremost, we have the question of what is build on what. As I've said earlier the birth of science is the outcome of (let's just briefly and abstractly call it) Christian theology's critical reflection on the world (as atheist philosopher Richard Rorty holds true). To further this example political ideas that has arised in the last few centuries in Europe, does off course not emerge out of nothing. They emerge out of culture and context (and like religion, needs to be reinterpreted in order to fit into new culture and contexts when we want to apply them). Here a distinction can be made between whether i.e. communism is strictly or loose built on Christianity. To claim that Christian ideals that saturates culture to a relatively high extend has nothing to do with communism would be to disregard its historical/cultural context. However, strictly speaking communism is focused to a larger extent on materialism than Christianity generally does.

The Christianity we have in Sweden today is in its turn inspired by communism, in a turn to legitimize a bigger focus on materialism. Here we have a perfect example of syncretism; christianity inspires communism inspires christianity. However, to say that they are the same would hide more than it explains. However, both have part in each other, and it is thus legitimate to take both traditions values or truth claims at the same face value.

The project of separating private from public is a discourse that has recieved massive criticism from various directions. However, the main and best formulated criticism comes, in my view, from feminism. Private-Public was a divide that served to relegate another distinction - woman-man - into different spheres, where man would be involved in the decision making and ruling of state (one forgets that even prominent liberalists as Rosseau held this view of women not fit for the public domain). Then off course, what went on in private was a different matter. This was not unproblematic, however, as the result often was that there was no governance over private affairs, such as men's violence towards women going unpunished (a fine tradition we've managed to keep alive since Roman days where pater familias had the right to do whatever he wished to anyone beneath his roof - he could kill his wife for all he cared without punishment).

So tying together this crash course in feminism with what I've said above: it is important to remember that relegating religion to the private - as politics is the subject proper of the public realm - is every bit as problematic, as it just continues down this troubled path. Besides rendering claims made from within religious traditions illegitimate (visavi state/public discourse), it also leaves religion in the private "secret" sphere where less light is shed on it, and it can be left to develop its more sinister sides by itself. Rather than the alternative of religious claims being fully scrutinized in the public eye, as they are legitimate parts of public discourse.

So, easy way out? Rather I believe that all matters of faith (and I think I've clearly demonstrated in previous articles how politics is all about matters of faith) should be set on par, as a starting point, and then see how they do compared to each other, in a collective open democratic discourse.

Snett, Annelie!

På sin blogg skriver KD-ledamoten Annelie Enochson och beskriver Ship to Gaza som ett "propagandajippo", genomfört att perifera sympatier på vänsterkanten och propalestinier. Låt mig här få komma med två påpekanden...

Det första är att det är omöjligt att säga att en uppsjö kända konstnärer och författare - delar av kultursveriges elit - alla skulle tillhöra den beskrivna gruppen. Inte heller är det acceptabelt att kalla en miljöpartist och tillika medlem av justitieutskottet för röd (det heter rödgrön koalition, för att det är skillnad mellan röd och grön). Dessutom är en av Sveriges mest välrenomerade religionshistoriker ombord; Mattias Gardell - som nu enligt uppgift sitter fängslag i brist på diplomatiskt pass.

Dessutom var skeppet fullt med judar för en israelisk-palestinsk fred. Annorlunda uttryckt: det går att vara pro-palestinsk utan att vara anti-israelisk eller anti-semitistisk. Det är också förvånansvärt hur Annelie anser sig ha bättre koll på var skeppet befann sig och vad lasten innehöll, än de som var ombord skeppen i fråga (och som Twittrade och smsade tills deras kommunikationsverktyg blev beslagtagna).

Att försöka koppla detta till en specifik grupp människor (vilka det nu är) som stöder Hamas helhjärtat saknar helt trovädighet. Attacken bör istället jämföras med en attack på vilken annan hjälpsändning som helst. Skärpning, Annelie!

Läs inlägget:
Annelies blogg: Israel har rätt att försvara sin nation och befolkning!

Shoot yourself in the foot, why don't you...

This is a transcript of Israel's forgein ministers' speach on the Israeli attack on Ship to Gaza:

"The armada of hate and violence in support of Hamas terror organization, was an outrageous and premeditated provocation. The organizers are well known for their ties to global Jihad, Al-Qaeda and Hamas. The have a history of arms smuggling and deadly terror. Onboard the ships we found weapons, prepared in advance and used against our forces. The organizers' intent was violent. Their method was violent. And the results were unfortunately violent."

Well, if you're seriously saying that some of, for instance, Sweden's leading politicians, most beloved authors and most ackowledged scholars are in fact nothing but terrorists, then you are right. Or more likely, chances are that people about to be stormed by professional elite soldiers with apparently little regards for human lives, scrambled to defend themselves. Nothing, and I mean nothing, gives Israel the right (regardless of the ships' nature) to board ships on International Waters, which was clearly the case. The fact is that the ships' were filled with medical supplies, concrete, prefabricated houses and schools, clean water and other supplies to improve the Palestinians quality of life (which is by all means extremely poor in the current situation). This takes away all justification for Israel's actions.

Israel now finds itself in a position where they've probably made more enemies in a day, than they've made in the ten previous years. Because of the credentials of the people arrested (you arrested members of parliament for heavens sake!), you have utterly lost your chance at credibility; all retoric means are futile in comparison.

I must also add that it is important not to discuss the "history of the Jews" and anti-Semitism connected with this. For starters Israel does not comprise all jews, nor do they speak for all jews/semites. To deepen this point, many of the Swedes arrested were in fact part of the group jews for israeli/palestinian peace. This point also illustrates that this attack must be viewed as a hanous crime on international waters, and has nothing to do with any overarching semitism/anti-semitism discourse. This was Israel attacking jews, swedes, norwegians, turks, palestinians and numerous other citizens of the world.

And especially seeing that this aid-mission is framed as supporting terrorism by the Israeli foreign minister, has certainly made a Palestine-supported out of me.