On courage, constructivism, Jewishness and a film
Went to the movies tonight. And saw an amazingly powerful movie: the Counterfeiters. (Oh, before that I took an econ midterm — Booooooring). I wont reveal much about the film, but just say that it was one of the most thought-provoking films I’ve seen about the holocaust. Particularly, I thought, because it focuses a lot on individual choices. How and why does a person make the choices he/she does when it comes to matters of life and death and ideals? Definitely recommended!
The film made my friends and I engage in a heated debate over dinner (I love sushi more than Popey loves Olivia). When can something be justified because the person behind that action truly believes in the goodness of it?
That again (via mysterious detours) lead us into a discussion on Jewishness. I ended up stating (and I’m actually quite happy with that statement) that I believe in two things: biology and constructivism. Everything will, according to my revolutionary theory, be one or the other. Jewishness (as ‘Christianess’ and ‘Muslimsness’ and ‘atheistness’ and all other believes, as well as nationalities, taste in movies, ‘evil’ and ‘goodness’ and most other things) fall into the latter category (i.e they are purely social constructs). That goes against what many Jewish people and many Muslim people believe. That is, they believe you are a Jew or Muslim by birth and that you cannot revoke that . I completely disagree and am still waiting for someone to ‘prove’ (or just logically explain) to me that there’s is anything inherently Jewish about Jews or inherently Muslim about, well, Muslims. I simply don’t understand (maybe that’s the problem?) what exactly it is that is passed down through either the mother or the father’s blood line? Is it the genes? If not, why can it not be revoked? I’m really trying to understand, but I just cannot accept that something is the way it is (and can never be changed) just because a group of people think that is so. Either it must be a biological fact (i.e Jews and Muslims have different genes than other people) or it must be something that is just a point of view (i.e it can be changed and will be true or not according to whom you ask).
I’m in no way diminishing the faiths or the believes or traditions connected to either religion. (I hope religious readers will not find my writing offensive — it’s certainly not meant to be!) My point is solely that religion is something you choose. Most things are! I would be truly offended if someone came by and told me he found out I was Muslim because my grandfather was, or that I was Jewish because my mother’s mother was (or that I was marxist because my father was). Hmm, I’m ranting on. But it really was an interesting discussion (and one that Richard Dawkins also discusses in his excellent book ‘the God delusion‘. The same discussion can be applied to “ethnicity” all over the world (fx Tutsi, Hutu, Mende, etc. How is being Jewish by blood different from being tutsi by blood? In fact, that will be the continuation of our discussion).
Ahh, how I love a good discussion! Compare it to econ and stats and my life suddenly seems rather sad…
Thought I would post on the fun, fun party at Clea’s the other day. It involved drinking whiskey ’til 6 in the morning and discussing the upcoming election in Spain and other exciting stuff. But I’ll stop here.
If you’re reading this, please do cross your fingers for me on Monday when stats exam goes down.
Tamba
March 8th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Well Jakob,
According to what I know, there is no such a thing as being Muslim by blood in Islam….you’re either a Muslim or not. You can be a Muslim and not practice but still believe in Islam, though! Then, you would be an “Inactive Muslim” – someone who believes but currently not living by Islamic teachings.
But if you don’t believe or believe&practice Islam you can’t claim that you’re a Muslim because your family or ancestors are (In that case, you can probably say “I come from a family of Muslims”). Islam for Muslims is only a religion that knows no nationality, ethnicity or racial group.
Hope that clarifies part of the dilemma, at least.
Shadi
March 9th, 2008 at 2:31 am
Thanks for that clarification Shadi! (Shadi always speaks wisely!). I was just reading an article on the Guardian and found this quote: “Being Jewish is obviously an ideological rather than a biological condition.” from a commentator. Interesting… (heck the whole article here: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/mike_marqusee/2008/03/israels_jewish_critics.html scroll down to the comments)
March 12th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Jakob,
As you well know, in the Jewish tradition, religion is derived from the
mother. Jewish mother = Jewish child.
That does not mean that the mother actually passed “Jewish genes” onto her child. If Judaism was genetic, it could be passed on just as easily by the father.
So you are right. The “Inheritance of Religion” is constructed socially.
That does not mean it is not “real.” It is “real” because we ascribe reality to it.
In general, the concept of religion as derived through lineage and heritage plays various roles both within religion and outside of it. I don’t have time to comment on the first. Any text on the anthropology of religion would have something to say about this.
As for the second point - its interesting to consider the impact of “time-space compression” on our need to find out “who we are” ethnically and religiously. Time-Space Compression, as described by David Harvey, theorizes that in our increasingly globalized and mechanized world, everything has become disposable (even values). People have lost their moorings and thus search for stability in the home, the family, religion, etc.
Thus the concept of religion as derived through lineage and heritage might play an important social role in our increasingly globalized world.
This discussion does not even begin to consider the potential for “us” versus “them” mentality that religion can create. That is a beast of its own.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Very interesting comment, Eddie. And good points! However, I can’t help to think f the caste-system in India when I red your (and many others’) comments. So many of the points you raise could be applied to the caste system. Does that mean we should consider that real? Interested to continue the discussion,
Jakob