--- Begin Message ---
(http://www.foundationforpluralism.com/Images_Index/PluralismLogo.gif)
Foundation for Pluralism
Studies in Religious Pluralism & Pluralistic Governance
2665 Villa creek Dr, Suite 206, Dallas, TX 75234
_www.FoundationforPluralism.com_ (http://www.foundationforpluralism.com/) -
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
____________________________________
An Unconditional Commitment to Pluralism
Rohit Chopra, September 7, 2007
Mike Ghouse, President of the _Foundation for Pluralism_
(http://www.foundationforpluralism.com/) -- who I have known from the _South
Asian Journalist
Association_ (http://www.saja.org/) for several years has kindly given me
the opportunity to share a few thoughts on issues of pluralism, minority
identity, and belonging. I am not a citizen of the US nor a resident in
official
terms, but I have lived in the US for several years. I cannot vote but I
pay taxes and consider the US home; India, the country of my birth, being my
other home. As a graduate student and teacher in the US, I have had a
particular and undoubtedly privileged 'minority' experience. But I have also
shared experiences— from concerns about health insurance coverage to immigrant
procedures— with other inhabitants, minorities or otherwise, citizens and
non-citizens alike, which perhaps grants my reflections some broader
relevance.
In the years that I have spent here, one of the things I have appreciated
most about the US is its legal as well as social commitment to pluralism to
all
within its borders, expressed in the commitment to constitutionalism,
secularism, rule of law, and rights. That commitment is secured by both the
state and a dynamic civil society, often in tension with each other but, even
so,
functioning to ensure that the foundations of a secular liberal democracy
stay strong and viable. No society is perfect, and the US can be critiqued
strongly on various grounds with regard to domestic and international policy,
for instance, the violation of international law and the disastrous invasion
of Iraq. It is also patently problematic and biased to suggest—as
ultra-conservative ideologues would have it-- that some peoples and societies
are
intrinsically more enlightened and some inherently more regressive than
others.
But without getting into a fruitless score-keeping comparison about
societies, civilizations, peoples, or cultures, I would assert that the US,
viewed
on its own terms, fares very well in terms of its commitment to the
principle of pluralism, as members of South Asian minorities would surely
testify.
In American society, the principle of pluralism is manifest in a variety of
forms: from measures against discrimination when renting an apartment to
legal mechanisms to redress prejudice, from policies aimed at fostering
diversity
in educational institutions to initiatives to address historical injustices,
from an unstinting affirmation of freedom of belief and expression to a
generally deeply rooted sense of civil rights among the citizens of the US.
These ideas do not just exist on paper; they are living forces in social
life.
And, indeed, South Asians in the US have benefited tremendously from these
very values.
As an Indian citizen, I often note with sadness that for all the magnificent
achievements of India in sixty years of independence, our state and society
still have a ways to go in some of these respects. A member of one Indian
religious or ethnic group is unlikely to find housing in an area or building
peopled by members of another group, even in the Indian cities famed for their
cosmopolitan ethos. North Indians and south Indians would rather not live
in proximity to one another, vegetarians and non- vegetarians would rather
not live with each other, and Hindus and Muslims do not want each other in
their housing societies. The gap between the principles enshrined in the
Constitution and the living reality for vulnerable, weak, and disenfranchised
social
groups in India often seems insurmountable, from the stories that appear in
the press every day.
As South Asians living in the US, what might we do to make the value of
pluralism ours? In briefly reflecting on this issue, I will draw on some
ideas
of my teacher, Professor Abdullahi An-Na'im [link to
_www.law.emory.edu/aannaim_ (http://www.law.emory.edu/aannaim) ] , who has
extensively engaged with
and addressed these questions in his work. First, pluralism is already ours
in multiple senses: we practice it by virtue of living in a _multicultural
society_
(http://mikeghouse.sulekha.com/blog/post/2006/05/each-community-each-nation-is-a-bus.htm)
and accept it as a principle of society and state.
We also bring our own legacies of pluralism, from religious, intellectual,
and cultural traditions, into conversation with other American traditions.
Even when these dialogues are not explicit, the engagement is, in fact,
constant. The challenge is to take this rich multifaceted pluralism and to
deeply
embed it as a visibly living principle of community life, such that every
member of the community and the wider society can benefit from it.
That goal can be met by affirming an unconditional commitment to pluralism.
By definition, pluralism must be unconditional to be genuine, within, of
course, the boundaries of consistency with human rights principles.
Unconditional pluralism, so defined, means accepting others in their
otherness,
accepting them according to the terms by which they define themselves and not
force-fitting them into one's own framework. It means accepting a Hindu as a
Hindu, a Muslim as a Muslim, a Jew as a Jew, an atheist as an atheist, an
unbeliever as an unbeliever and it means respecting that choice. Indian
Muslims and
Sikhs are not Hindus as Hindu nationalist doctrine will have it. They are
Muslims and Sikhs and should be recognized and respected as such. Hindus are
not people of the book. All Hindus are not monotheists. Hindus should be
recognized and respected as they define themselves. Atheists and agnostics
are not inferior to believers and should be recognized and respected as such.
Equally importantly, pluralism also means accepting difference and diversity
within communities, for there are oppressive majorities within minorities
too. There are, similarly, minorities with majorities, even if they are not
marked or conspicuous. As Prof. An-Na'im argues, one's own freedom to be, to
believe, and to define oneself as a member of a community is fundamentally
linked to the right and freedom of others to do exactly the same. One
cannot, by definition, impose one's definition of freedom on another person or
group: such an action only serves the cause of of unfreedom and undermines
freedom . Finally, the commitment to pluralism must be an ongoing quest: it
is
not a project to be finished or a measurable one-time goal, but an activity to
be practiced in every possible setting, on every possible occasion.
In accordance with this paradigm, instead of labeling difference by the
terms seen in the worst forms of identitarian politics—for example, idolaters,
invaders, infidels, fanatics, the uncivilized, heathens, pagans, zealots
crusaders, etc .—our discussion of otherness would move to a different kind of
discourse. Our celebration of difference and sameness would also be a
celebration of the sameness and difference of others. Pluralism so practiced
will
empower minorities to move from the status of marked demographic segments to
proactive stakeholders in upholding and entrenching the values of
universalism,
difference, and diversity.
Rohit Chopra is Assistant Professor of Media Studies at Babson College. His
interests include the history of media and technology in colonial and
postcolonial India, internet communities, and identity politics in South Asia.
He
also runs the blog Anti-History / In Another Life.
_www.antihistory.blogspot.com_ (http://www.antihistory.blogspot.com/) ).
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- End Message ---
