Vakkom Moulavi Memorial and Research Centre (vmmrc), Vakkom is organising a Special Lecture on “Women and Italian fascism: What can the past teach us about the contemporary rise of militant nationalism?” by Dr Anne Wingenter, Professor of History and Women’s studies and Acting Associate Dean of Academic Affairs at Loyola University, Chicago’s John Felice Rome Center, Italy to be held on Zoom Meet at 7 PM (IST) on 22 March 2022.
Dr. A.K. Ramakrishnan, Professor of International Relations and Gender Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi will chair the session.
ANNE WINGENTER is a professor of History and Women’s studies and Acting Associate Dean of Academic Affairs at Loyola University, Chicago’s John Felice Rome Center. Her research interests include: gender and women’s history; fascist movements; ordinary writing; and the politics of history/memory. Her most recent publications include “Benito Mussolini in Italian High School Textbooks” Globalisation and Historiography of National Leaders: Symbolic Representations in School Textbooks. Springer: 2017; “Finding Subjectivities in Fascist Italy,” Subaltern Political Subjectivities and Practices in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Between Loyalty and Resistance. (Routledge 2022) and “Politics of Grief: War Widows and Mothers in Interwar Italy,” Veuves, veufs et veuvages en Europe à l’époque contemporaine. [forthcoming] She is currently working on a project that looks at the city of Rome in the transition between “Hot” and Cold War.
A. K. RAMAKRISHNAN, currently Professor, Centre for West Asian Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, is an internationally reputed scholar in International Relations and Gender Studies. Ramakrishnan also served as Professor and Director, Centre for West Asian Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. He was also professor at the School of International Relations and Politics, Mahatma Gandhi University. Ramakrishnan has previously been a Distinguished International Scholar and Visiting Professor at Bucknell University, Pennsylvania, USA, a Research Fellow at Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt and Visiting Fellow at Allameh Tabataba’i University, Iran. He delivered lectures at several international conferences at the London School of Economics and Political Science; Hebrew University, Jerusalem; University of Melbourne; EHESS, Paris; Middle East Technical University, Ankara; University of Delaware, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, etc.
A few years back, an analysis that appeared in the Harvard Business Review showed that women were grossly underrepresented in the media across the world and that they only appeared “in a quarter of television, radio, and print news.” Quoting a report, a group of Harvard behavioural scientists said that women constituted “a mere 19 % of experts featured in news stories and 37% of reporters telling stories globally.” They studied women’s underrepresentation in the workplace and found that “this gender-imbalanced picture of society can reinforce and perpetuate harmful gender stereotypes.” The scholars posed a question: “It is clear that the media must change how it reflects the world – but who can change the media itself?”
While analysing the overall trends in the media, the Harvard scholars also brought in a new experiment within the BBC and pointed out that for “over two years, journalists and producers across the BBC have been tackling the gender representation issue by rethinking whom they put in front of the camera, with the goal of achieving 50:50 gender representation every month.” According to the study, “500 BBC shows and teams have joined the so-called 50:50 Project.” In April 2019, 74% of the English-language programs that had been involved in 50:50 for a year or more reached 50%+ female contributors on their shows. ” They sought to analyse the factors that are critical in shaking up the status quo and improving diversity, equality, and inclusion in organisations such as the BBC. These factors could largely be the lessons that are relevant to a wide spectrum of media in the world today.
Vakkom Moulavi Memorial and Research Centre (VMMRC), Kerala observed this year’s International Women’s Day with a focal theme, Breaking Patriarchy in the Media: A Reality Check, with two prominent senior women journalists in conversation on a range of issues. Incidentally, one of them, a well-known writer, Sagarika Ghose, was also a prime-time anchor for BBC World on ‘Question Time India.’ Saraswathy Nagarajan, who raised some important questions in her conversation with Ghosh, currently serves as the Deputy Editor of The Hindu. Sagarika Ghose has more than three decades of experience working with The Times of India, Indian Express, Outlook, CNN-IBN, etc. The conversation began with a discussion on the facets of male-domination in the Indian media, where Ghose worked in different environs.
Quoting Mahatma Gandhi—who famously said, “Those who oppose the rise of independent, free-spirited women, also obstruct the rise of free-spirited independent men”—Ghose said that “the pursuit of justice for women is about justice for society, it’s about democratisation in society. Those who work for the emancipation of women, the progress of women, and their rights are those who work for the emancipation of men and society at large.” Ultimately, “the pursuit of women’s liberation is part of a larger democratisation of society,” she said.
Having worked with several media organisations, Ghose said that she has come to the conclusion that “we need to build bridges with men, with a larger society, and not just be confined to women’s only space.” Ghose recalled that when she first joined journalism way back in 1991, she came into “a very patriarchal set up. There was a clear demarcation between what the male workers had to do and what the female workers were expected to do. Women journalists were entrusted with subjects in “softer areas” such as health, environment, etc., while male journalists were given “hard” subjects such as politics, defence, foreign affairs, etc., and women were almost excluded from these areas. However, things have changed tremendously over the years, “Ghose pointed out.
She said an important factor in the transformation of the media came with the advent of television, which began to provide much greater space for women. Though digital media has given ample opportunities for women, the general mindset has to change. “Unless the mindset of people about women in the media has changed, we will continue to face opposition and bullying,” Ghose added. She said cyberbullying and threats to woman-journalists online often cross the limits of decency. Ghose, who was a close friend of journalist and activist Gauri Lankesh, who was shot dead in 2017, said Lankesh used to get a number of threats. “We used to rubbish them,” she said, adding that unless authorities take an active interest in cyberbullying of women, woman-journalists cannot work with freedom.”
Speaking on the emerging employment situation in the country, Ghose said that “a large number of women are falling out of work in India and it is a worrying fact. For various reasons, including the post-pandemic situation, more and more women are leaving the workplace.” She also pointed out that “some of the male editors are wary of employing female journalists since the MeToo incidents and revelations.”
Patronage has brought in some degree of patriarchy, she said, but added that “at least it gives the young girls some space to work.” Unlike their male colleagues’ female journalists, who have a family, have to go back home at the end of the day to take care of ‘home’ while their male colleagues are free to chase the story in many places. However, Ghose said she was fortunate to have worked with supportive male editors like Vinod Mehta and Dilip Padgaonkar, who had encouraged her to ‘go out and do’ her stories. But, she said, when she started out, she was assigned ‘soft’ stories while her male colleagues were given ‘hard’ stories.
Ghose said television and magazines have played an important role in bringing women journalists to the forefront, she said. “Television journalism has given visibility to female reporters, and the newsmagazines gave them opportunities to write long-form pieces,” said Ghose, who has already published two in her trilogy of biographies of Indian prime ministers. Her biographies of Indira Gandhi and Atal Bihari Vajpayee are already out. Her novels, The Gin Drinkers and Blind Faith and the nonfiction book, Why I am a Liberal? have attracted readers’ attention.
Ghose, who has won the Best Anchor Award from the Indian Television Academy, said the standard of Indian television journalism has gone down.
“Though conditions for women journalists in newsrooms across the country have improved, patriarchy persists, as a woman has yet to become editor-in-chief of a mainstream media organization.” There are ‘informal spaces’ which are strictly male bastions, where a woman reporter cannot go in the field reporting,” she said. In the course of discussion, Ghose said the corporatization of the media has silenced many woman-journalists. She said there is some level of disparity in salaries and incentives between male and female journalists.
Dr K. Ravi Raman, member of Kerala State Planning Board, Prof. V. Mathew Kurian, Joint Director of KN Raj Centre, MG University, and Sabin Iqbal spoke at the function. Dr Shahina Javad proposed the vote of thanks.
VMMRC is observing this year’s Iinternational Women’s Day on 8 March 2022 with a focal theme, Breaking Patriarchy in Media: A Reality Check.
We are glad to have Mrs.SAGARIKA GHOSE, a well-known and award-winning journalist and writer (currently Consulting Editor, Times of India) who will be in conversation with a senior journalist Mrs. SARASWATHY NAGARAJAN (Deputy Editor, The Hindu) on 8 March 2022.
The programme is arranged through a Zoom Meeting on 8 March, Tuesday at 7.00 PM (IST)
വക്കം മൗലവി സ്മാരക ഗവേഷണ കേന്ദ്രം (VMMRC), ഇൻസ്റ്റിറ്റ്യൂട്ട് ഫോർ ഗ്ലോബൽ സൗത്ത് സ്റ്റഡീസ് ആൻഡ് റിസർച്ചുമായി ചേർന്ന് നടത്തുന്ന “പൊതുമേഖലയും സ്വകാര്യവൽക്കരണവും: ലൈഫ് ഇൻഷുറൻസ് കോർപറേഷൻ ഓഫ് ഇന്ത്യയുടെ ഭാവി” എന്ന വിഷയത്തെക്കുറിച്ചുള്ള പ്രഭാഷണത്തിന്റെ സൂം ലിങ്കും ഫ്ലയറും ഇതോടൊപ്പം അയക്കുന്നു.
മുൻ കേരള ധനകാര്യമന്ത്രി ഡോ. ടി. എം തോമസ് ഐസക് ആണ് മുഖ്യ പ്രഭാഷണം നടത്തുന്നത്.
26 ഫെബ്രുവരി ശനിയാഴ്ച 7 മണിക്ക് നടക്കുന്ന പരിപാടിയിൽ ഡോ. കെ. രവിരാമൻ അധ്യക്ഷനായിരിക്കും.
വക്കം മൗലവി സ്മാരക ഗവേഷണ കേന്ദ്രം മാതൃഭാഷാ ദിനത്തിൽ കേരളത്തിൻറെ പൊതുമണ്ഡലത്തിൽ അറിയപ്പെടുന്ന എഴുത്തുകാരും ചിന്തകരുമായി സംവദിച്ചു. അവരുടെ അഭിപ്രായങ്ങളും വീക്ഷണങ്ങളും ഇവിടെ അവതരിപ്പിക്കുന്നു. ചരിത്രകാരനായ രാജൻ ഗുരുക്കൾ, എഴുത്തുകാരും പ്രഭാഷകരുമായ കെ. സച്ചിദാനന്ദൻ, സുനിൽ പി. ഇളയിടം, ഉണ്ണി ആർ, എം എൻ കാരശ്ശേരി, എസ്. ഗോപാലകൃഷ്ണൻ, ഖദീജ മുംതാസ് ,ഫാ. കെ.എം. ജോർജ്തുടങ്ങിയവരുടെ പ്രതികരണങ്ങൾ വായിക്കാം, കേൾക്കാം.
ചരിത്രകാരനും കേരള ഉന്നത വിദ്യാഭ്യാസ കൗൺസിൽ വൈസ് ചെയർമാനുമായ രാജൻ ഗുരുക്കൾ എഴുതുന്നു:
“മാതൃഭാഷയിലാണു നമ്മൾ ജനിച്ചു വളർന്നത് . ഹൃദയത്തിലാണതിന്റെ സ്ഥാനം. ജീവിതവും സംസ്കാരവുമാണത്. ഭാഷ നാം ബോധപൂർവ്വം പഠിക്കുമ്പോൾ മാതൃഭാഷ സ്വാഭാവികമായി സ്വായത്തമാക്കുകയാണ്. നമുക്കു സ്വന്തമാണത്. ഒരുഭാഷ നമ്മെ പഠിക്കാനും ആവർത്തിക്കാനും സഹായിക്കുമ്പോൾ മാതൃഭാഷ നമ്മെ മനസ്സിലാക്കാനും നിരാകരിക്കാനും പഠിപ്പിക്കുന്നു. മാതൃഭാഷ നഷ്ടപ്പെടുന്നവർ സാംസ്കാരികമായി പ്രവാസികളാവുകയും സാമൂഹികമായി ഭവനരഹിതരാവുകയും ചെയ്യുന്നു.”
പ്രമുഖ എഴുത്തുകാരനും പ്രഭാഷകനുമായ സുനിൽപി.ഇളയിടം സംസാരിക്കുന്നു.
കവിയും സാമൂഹിക വിമർശകനുമായകെ.സച്ചിദാനന്ദൻ മാതൃഭാഷദിനത്തെക്കുറിച്ചു തൻറെ അഭിപ്രായങ്ങൾ പങ്കുവെക്കുന്നു.
എഴുത്തുകാരനും ചലച്ചിത്ര പ്രവർത്തകനുമായ ഉണ്ണി ആർ എഴുതുന്നു
“ചെറു ഭാഷകൾ വറ്റിപ്പോകുന്ന ഒരു കാലമാണ് നമ്മുടേത്. ലോകം എക ഭാഷയിലേക്കോ അല്ലെങ്കിൽ കുറച്ചു മാത്രം ഭാഷകളിലേക്കോ ചുരുക്കപ്പെടുമ്പോൾ മാതൃഭാഷാ ദിനമെന്നത് ഒരു ഓർമപ്പെടുത്തൽ മാത്രമല്ല.പ്രതിരോധത്തിനുള്ള ആഹ്വാനം കൂടിയാണ്. എൻ്റെ ഭാഷയിൽ തന്നെ എത്രയെത്ര ചെറു വഴികൾ ,എത്രയെത്ര പിരിവുകളും കുന്നുകളും ആഴങ്ങളും! ഇതൊക്കെയും മൂടുവാൻ വാ തുറക്കപ്പെടുന്ന ഏക ഭാഷാ അധികാരത്തിനോട് നമുക്ക് നമ്മുടെ ഭാഷയിൽ മിണ്ടിയും എഴുതിയും എതിരിടാം.” ഉണ്ണി ആർ
എഴുത്തുകാരിയും സാഹിത്യ അക്കാദമി വൈസ് പ്രസിഡന്റുമായ ഡോ. ഖദീജ മുംതാസ് സംസാരിക്കുന്നു.
എഴുത്തുകാരനും മാധ്യമ പ്രവർത്തകനുമായ എസ് .ഗോപാലകൃഷ്ണൻ സംസാരിക്കുന്നു.
മലയാള ഭാഷ എഴുതുമ്പോൾ വലിയ ആഹ്ലാദം അകമേ അനുഭവിക്കുന്ന ഒരാളാണ് ഞാൻ. നവംനവങ്ങളായ ആശയപ്രകാശനങ്ങൾക്ക് വാഹനമാകുവാൻ ഭാഷ ഉപകരിക്കുന്ന വേളയിൽ ഉളവാകുന്ന ഒരാഹ്ലാദമാണിത്.
ലോകമാതൃഭാഷാദിനമായ ഫെബ്രുവരി ഇരുപത്തിയൊന്നാം തീയതി മലയാളഭാഷയെ കുറിച്ച് ആലോചിക്കുമ്പോൾ എനിക്ക് തോന്നുന്നത് ഈ ഭാഷ യാതൊരുവിധ ഭീഷണിയും നേരിടുന്നില്ല എന്നതാണ് .
സർവ്വനാശഭീഷണി നേരിടുന്ന ലോകത്തിലെ ഭാഷകളിൽ പത്തുശതമാനവും ഇന്ത്യയിലാണ് . ഭൂമുഖത്ത് മനുഷ്യൻ സംസാരിക്കുന്ന ആറായിരത്തോളം ഭാഷകളിൽ നാലായിരവും നാശോന്മുഖമാണെന്നാണ് ലുപ്തപ്രായരായ ഇന്ത്യൻ ഭാഷകളുടെ സംരക്ഷണത്തിനായി അക്ഷീണം പ്രയത്നിക്കുന്ന ഗണേഷ് എൻ . ദെവി അഭിപ്രായപ്പെട്ടിട്ടുള്ളത്.
മലയാളഭാഷയിൽ ഇതിനുമുൻപുണ്ടായിട്ടില്ലാത്ത വിധത്തിൽ ഒരു നവോന്മേഷം ഉണ്ട് എന്നു കരുതുന്ന ഒരാളാണ് ഞാൻ.
ഒരു പക്ഷേ പാരമ്പര്യവിധിയാൽ സാഹിത്യമെന്ന് വിവക്ഷിക്കപ്പെടുന്ന മണ്ഡലങ്ങളിൽ ആയിരിക്കണമെന്നില്ല ഈ ഊർജ്ജദായകമായ വീണ്ടെടുക്കലുകൾ നടക്കുന്നത്. എന്നാൽ ഈ വീണ്ടെടുക്കലുകളുടെ പ്രതിഫലനം മലയാളിയുടെ സർഗ്ഗാത്മക കൃതികളിൽ ഉണ്ടാകുന്നുണ്ടുതാനും. മലയാളി എന്ന ഏകശിലയല്ല നമ്മുടെ ആധുനികമായ സ്വത്വബോധങ്ങളിലെ തരാതരങ്ങൾ. ഭാഷയല്ല നമ്മുടെ ദേശീയതയുടെ ഇന്നത്തെ മൂലമൂലകം. ഭാഷയുടെ അടിസ്ഥാനത്തിലാണ് എല്ലാ ദേശീയതകളും അടിസ്ഥാനപരമായി നിലനിൽക്കുന്നതെങ്കിലും, ഐക്യകേരളം അങ്ങനെയാണ് ഉണ്ടായതെങ്കിലും നിരവധി സ്വത്വലോകങ്ങളുടെ സംയോഗമാണ് മലയാളി എന്ന് നാം പേരിട്ടുവിളിക്കുന്ന ദേശവാസി ഇക്കാലത്ത്. ഭാഷ അതിലൊരു പ്രധാന ഘടകം മാത്രമായി നമ്മെ കോർത്തിണക്കുന്നുവെങ്കിലും.
ഞാനോർക്കുന്നു പണ്ട് നോവലിസ്റ്റ് കെ . സുരേന്ദ്രൻ കലാകൗമുദിയിൽ വായനക്കാർക്കുള്ള കത്തുകളിൽ എഴുതിയ ഒരു മറുപടി . അദ്ദേഹത്തിൻ്റെ സീതായനം എന്ന നോവൽ വന്നുകൊണ്ടിരുന്ന കാലമായിരുന്നു . തിരുവിതാംകൂറിലെ ഭാഷയിൽ സീത സംസാരിക്കുന്ന രീതിയിൽ ഇഷ്ടക്കുറവുകാണിച്ച് കത്തെഴുതിയ ഒരു അങ്ങാടിപ്പുറംകാരന് സുരേന്ദ്രൻ മറുപടി എഴുതി : ‘ ക്ഷമിക്കണം , അറിഞ്ഞില്ലായിരുന്നു രാമനും സീതയും വള്ളുവനാട്ടുകാരായിരുന്നു”
ഇന്ന് അങ്ങനെയൊന്നുണ്ടാകില്ല. മലയാളത്തിന് മാനകമൂലം ഇല്ലാതായി.
ഈ ഭാഷയിൽ ഉണ്ടാകുന്ന നവോന്മേഷത്തെ കുറിച്ച് ഞാൻ പറഞ്ഞത് നമ്മുടെ വൈജ്ഞാനിക മേഖലകളിലെ പുതിയ ചിന്തകൾ പ്രകാശിക്കപ്പെടാനുള്ള ശേഷി അത് നേടിയെടുക്കുന്നു എന്നതിലാണ് . ശാസ്ത്ര -ചരിത്ര രചനയിലെ പ്രപിതാമഹന്മാർ മണിപ്രവാളകാലം മുതൽ ഇങ്ങോട്ട് ചെയ്ത വലിയ സംഭാവനകളെ മനസാ സ്മരിച്ചുകൊണ്ടുതന്നെയാണ് ഞാൻ ഭാഷയിലെ നവോന്മേഷത്തിൽ ആഹ്ലാദചിത്തനാകുന്നത്. പുത്തൻ വിദ്യാഭ്യാസം തുറന്ന ചിന്താലോകങ്ങളുടെ വെട്ടത്തിലും , ഭൂതകാലവിജ്ഞാനക്ഷേത്രങ്ങളിലെ ഇരുട്ടിലും ഒരേസമയം തെരയാനും പുതിയ കാഴ്ചകളിലേക്ക് നോട്ടങ്ങളെ നീട്ടാനും കഴിവുള്ള മലയാളികളാണ് , മലയാളിയല്ല നമ്മുടെ ഭാഷകളെ , ഭാഷയെയല്ല , ഇപ്പോൾ ശക്തിപ്പെടുത്തിക്കൊണ്ടിരിക്കുന്നത് . ഒരു കാര്യം കൂടിപ്പറയാം . ഭാഷയെ ശക്തിപ്പെടുത്തുവാൻ ഉദ്ദേശിക്കപ്പെട്ടുണ്ടായ സ്ഥാപനങ്ങളിലൂടെയല്ല മലയാളികൾ ഇതുചെയ്യുന്നത്, അതിനുപുറത്തുള്ള ബഹുസ്വരതയിലാണ് എന്നതാണ് . ലോകമാതൃഭാഷാദിനത്തിന് എനിക്ക് പറയാനുള്ളത് ഇതാണ്.
എഴുത്തുകാരനും ചിന്തകനുമായ എം. എൻ. കാരശ്ശേരി സംസാരിക്കുന്നു.
എഴുത്തുകാരനും ചിന്തകനുമായ ഫാ. കെ.എം. ജോർജ് സംസാരിക്കുന്നു.
ആരോഗ്യവിദഗ്ദ്ധനും മുൻ വൈസ് ചാന്സലറുമായ ഡോ. ബി. ഇക്ബാൽ സംസാരിക്കുന്നു
നമ്മുടെ കുട്ടികൾ തെളിഞ്ഞ മലയാളഭാഷ മനസ്സിലാക്കാനും പഠിക്കാനും ഭാഷയുടെ സൌന്ദര്യം ആസ്വദിക്കാനും മലയാളത്തിലെ ആത്മകഥകൾ ചെറുപ്പം മുതൽ വായിച്ച് തുടങ്ങണമെന്നു ആരോഗ്യവിദഗ്ദ്ധനും മുൻ വൈസ് ചാന്സലറുമായ ഡോ. ബി. ഇക്ബാൽ പറഞ്ഞു. മലയാളത്തിലെ ആത്മകഥകൾ ചെറുപ്പം മുതൽ കുട്ടികൾ വായിച്ച് തുടങ്ങണമെന്നും മാതാപിതാക്കളും ബന്ധുക്കളും അദ്ധ്യാപകരും അതിനായി അവരെ പ്രോത്സാഹിപ്പിക്കണമെന്നും ഡോ. ഇക്ബാൽ പറഞ്ഞു.
Many assume that religion and politics are antagonistic realms of human engagement, and hence theological and political standpoints are seen as competing, if not conflicting, discourses. When religion becomes an ideology and enters the political arena, it engenders new discourses of power. The last century, as well as the present one, witnessed how religion has made inroads into the realm of politics, with all its attendant implications. But debating the theological and the political as antagonistic forces may impede us from comprehending the astonishing ways in which they interact and inform each other.
This is a critical subject of studies in different disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. Philosophers and political thinkers have also addressed these issues of religion and politics from different vantage points. Though the core values of religion may foster tolerance, reciprocity, and harmony, our life-world experiences have shown some trends operating in opposite ways. Where do we now find reciprocity and tolerance amid the growing uncertainties engendered by radical nationalism and cultural homogenisation? Reciprocity is, by and large, a social philosophy, a social ethic, and a way of beholding the world. At its core is tolerance, and it can connect and reconnect individuals and groups to and within a society, and the reciprocal exchange of culture constitutes the quintessence of all successful societies.
Italian philosopher Sabrina Lei attempts to explore the contours of reciprocity and tolerance through her writings, translations and lectures. While speaking on the theme “Religion, Cultural and Nationalism” at a programme arranged by Vakkom Moulavi Memorial and Research Centre (VMMRC), Kerala in association with the Institute for Global South Studies and Research (IGSSR), Lei said that “an “essential part of the identity of a nation, an individual of collective being, is constituted both by religion and culture. Even when theoretically these two notions could be studied and considered separately, in reality, and in the praxis of human life and civilizations, they seem to be very much closely interrelated.” “Religion is part of a culture and, at the same time, culture is both moulded and shaped by religion. However, the relation between culture and religion is very sensitive and quite problematic, if closely examined. Historically speaking, culture is influenced by a given religion, but religion, if intended only as part of the culture risks to be misunderstood.”
According to Lei, “religion, intended as a transcendent revelation, through which humanity is given a set of values and laws to be followed, in order to develop goodness and morality, should be considered by definition both inside and outside historical development. As a pure revelation, religion is above and beyond history, and it is a moment of separation or crisis between the past and the future of humanity. This is the reason why at the beginning of a new course of human history, in ancient times, there had been a religious revelation, as if an eruption from above history. Religion, however, is also inside human development, when it becomes part of human life,” she added.
Dr Sabrina Lei with her Italian translations
However, Lei would further argue that “religion, in the first sense (namely, when it is considered above and beyond history), is not part of a culture (and most of the time it comes across as against a given culture at the time of its revelation), but in the second sense (when it becomes part of human life), it is part of a culture. Unfortunately, religion is always under the risk of being assimilated by a culture. In order to be a source of constant positive inspiration in human life leading humanity towards goodness and morality, it becomes another aspect of identity and assumes a static and ahistorical feature.”
Lei stressed that “religion, as part of the identity of an individual, group or civilization, should be inclusive and open to historical development; otherwise, it will lose, in the long run, the capacity to inspire the real and positive change in the society.” “Culture and religion could be interpreted as part of the identity politics and as a means to strengthen the notion of radical nationalism. Culture and religion, in other words, could be adopted by radical nationalism as a means to strengthen, spread, and sustain the notion of identity previously explained.”
Lei said that the identity of a nation, as well as of an individual, “is never monolithic or static, but it is actually the outcome of an historical process of exchange, compromise and growth.” She said that “the systematic negation of change and historical development is a feature of classical metaphysical Greek thought, which interpreted sameness and identity as real, and change and otherness not only as unreal, but also as negative notions and symptoms of decadence.”
According to Lei, in our times, the term identity is widely used in relation to the notion of ‘identity politics’, a concept extremely complex and dangerous from the political point of view. Some contemporary thinkers, both in the West and the East, use the notion of identity “in an extremely uncritical way, maybe in some cases without being completely aware of its danger and pitfalls.” In sum, the notion of identity politics, as she pointed out, “is at the same time a product and a reaction to the notion of radical nationalism.”
Speaking on the subject further, Lei said that “between identity and difference, or between sameness and otherness, according to the perspective of radical nationalism or extreme forms of identity politics, the relation is always violent or rooted in violence.” She says: “The relation could be considered or named as ‘violent’ when the identity is identified with something universal, ahistorical (out of historical development) and as foundational. Instead, the difference or otherness should be read as its opposite: particular, historical (in the historical development as an accident), and contingent.”
Lei said that “according to a paradigm of historical evolution, which we could define as violent, the particular and the difference should be reduced to the unity of the identity by necessity.” Thus, as this identitarian paradigm insists, “the history of a civilization or a nation has reached the peak of its maximum level of development, when what is particular or contingent, namely the different, ceased to be something to be assimilated and become an element of disturbance to be eliminated.” She reminds that “by definition, then, difference becomes a threat to the stability of a given nation or civilization. This attitude, which is by itself a clear symptom of weakness and degeneration, has as its necessary outcome the rejection of dialogue, the absence of any exchange and the resistance toward the historical development.”
She proceeds: “History, consequentially, is re-interpreted, re-written and re-read according to this paradigm, which actually leads from both social and political point of views to a clash which seems to be inevitable. Instead, a true political praxis should be related to an ethical choice, which is, at the same time, a choice of freedom and a choice of responsibility. An ethical choice, before being a collective choice, or a communal choice, is and should be first of all an individual choice, an act of personal responsibility.”
Speaking on the notion of radical nationalism, Lei said that Karl Popper interpreted it as ‘tribalism.’ The passage from the Open Society and Its Enemies runs as follows:
Tribalism, namely, the emphasis on the supreme importance of the tribe without which the individual is nothing at all, is an element which we shall find in many forms of historicist theories. Other forms which are no longer tribalist may still retain an element of collectivism; they may still emphasize the significance of some group or collective—for example, a class—without which the individual is nothing at all.
Lei thus argues that “the tribalistic concept of human society could be rooted in the notion of a collective entity, in which every form of difference is disregarded and systematically deleted in different ways. The tribalistic society is a society where every individual loses their individualities due to a static concept of social dynamics and interactions.” “In other words, every individual in the tribalistic society knows their own place and could not escape from it. At the centre of a tribalistic society there is always a collective entity endowed with static features. The term ‘tribalistic’ however, should not make us think about a primordial or primitive form of society; it is rather a kind of society rooted in a narrow and static conception of identity. A tribalistic society is not a matter of the past, when human ways of life and civilizations was less complicated, but it has been a reality (a degenerated reality indeed) during the era of Western totalitarian regimes and could be again an outcome of a series of unfortunate human choices.
She says that a passage from Origin of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt, clearly registers the danger explained above: Totalitarian solutions may well survive the fall of totalitarian regimes in the form of strong temptations which will come up whenever it seems impossible to alleviate political, social, or economic misery in a manner worthy of man.
According to Lei, “the rise of radical nationalism is in most of the cases an answer to an internal crisis of a community or a nation, but this answer—extremely dangerous–depersonalises and, consequently deresponsibilises the individual as a person endowed with the capacity of thinking and choosing.”
Radical Nationalism is totally against multiculturalism
The term ‘multiculturalism’ implies the presence of two or more cultures inside a space which could be national, geographic, political and social. Lei says that “multiculturalism, at the national or geographical level indicates the presence of different cultures inside a space geographically circumscribed, which could be or not also politically organized. Instead, at both the political and social levels, multiculturalism is related to the impact of different cultures on the political and social spheres.” All these distinctions, however, could be brought into a central issue widely discussed today, that is, how is it possible, and if at all it is possible, that a multi-religious or multi-cultural society could reach the political unity? The main question: is multiculturalism a threat to the identity of a nation? This question raises other two fundamental issues, already discussed before:
1. Is identity monolithic?
2. The historical identity interpreted, is it possible to think it as a closed process, finished and completed for once and all?
The answer to these two questions is negative, and it involves the notions of identity and differences interpreted not in an oppositional relation but as complementary. In other words, identity is meaningful only in relation to the difference and the difference could be understood properly only in relation to identity.” “In other words, identity is inside the difference and difference is inside the identity. This means that in their semantic and dialogic relation these two terms could not be separated. Their relation stands on a series of paradigms which could not be reduced to a rational speculation, but are the outcome of a political and ethical choice.” Lei says that “the grammar of the language is first of all an ethical act before being political.”
Ambassador K.P. Fabian who chaired the session said that an essential part of a culture is “its respect for other cultures. However much one respects Indian culture and cannot respect other cultures, it definitely sends the wrong message and gives room for wrong notions and understanding. Even identities need not clash among themselves, though each identity has its constituency.” Warning the dangerous trends in patriotism, Fabian said that “one would love his/her country, but it should not be worship, which we do only toward the Almighty. The very word religion has not been understood correctly and carefully. Even textbooks are generating confusing meanings and interpretations,” Fabian said.
Sabrina Lei is currently Director of Rome-based Tawasul International Centre for Publishing, Research and Dialogue, Lei has been engaged in inter-faith dialogues and campaigns for peace and harmony for quite a long time. One of her major areas of pursuits is translation of classics and works of immense value from different cultures. Her Italian translation of Sree Narayana Guru’s Atmopadesa Satakam is one of her latest editions. Lei had already done translations of Selected Upanishads, works by Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Muhammad Iqbal, Yusuf Ali’s classic 1934 English Quran translation and over 50 other classics, poems, novels from South Asia and the Arab world.
Sabrina Lei and Ambassador K.P. Fabian are also on the International Board of Global South Colloquy, the platform of the IGSSR.
Prof P.K. Michel Tharakan, Chairman., Kerala Council for Historical Research, Canadian Sociologist Prof Joseph Tharamangalam, Dr Ravi Raman, Member of Kerala State Planning Board, Sameer Muneer, Prof M. Thahir, Sabin Iqbal and others participated. Honorary Chairman of IGSSR welcomed and Mrs. Shaheen Nadeem (VMMRC) concluded the session attended by scholars from Italy, United States, Canada, UAE, Oman, Maldives, and India.
