<=
b>The Question of Identity, Nationalism and Religi=
on:
<=
b>
<=
b>Prospects for Co-existence and Dialogue
We are grateful= to PASSIA and to the organizers of this conference for giving us the opportunity to s= hare our different perspectives on an issue which is vital for our societies and= for the whole world. I have been asked to present a paper on the above mentioned topic. But rather than "a Christian perspective" as mentioned in = the request, I prefer to say "the perspective of a Christian". I am s= ure you understand the difference, keeping in mind that a Christian perspective= can vary from one author to another according to the intellectual trends he has= in mind.
I will present the subject under four headings:
1.&n= bsp; The cultural context of the identity issue.
2.&n= bsp; Some reflections on identity and its components.
3.&n= bsp; On some characteristics of identity= .
4.&n= bsp; Civil/national/religious identity.<= /span>
1. The cultu=
ral
context of the identity issue
Four aspects of= this context are briefly mentioned:
(1)&= nbsp; The context of globalization:= In our contemporary world, we witness to a paradoxical fact. On the one han= d, globalization seems to restrain national identity and to level the different cultures into one informal reality, to the advantage of a western style globalization, which makes many people feel uncomfortable. On the other han= d, the feeling of identity among groups, cultures and peoples is constantly growing in different parts of the world. How to put together these two contradictory realities is an intellectual exercise, more important than ev= er. This task is not purely academic; it is rather an existential matter that encompasses individuals and groups, whoever they are (ethnic, national, religious or other).
(2)&= nbsp; The postmodern context: It seems that, in postmodern culture, the question of identity is an irrelevant one. Emphasizing on the individual and considering the social in itself as = an alienation of the individual, it is obvious that identity, as identificatio= n with a certain collective component, is an oppressive reality. We are not going = to discuss such a philosophical issue[1]. However, we cannot but assert that, any way, the individual has to live in society a= nd this society has to be organized. From that perspective, the question of identity has to be faced in one way or another, because it is a way of bein= g in society and a way of relating to others.
(3)&= nbsp; The growing role of religion = in our contemporary societies: André Malraux, the famous French intellectual, predicted that the twenty first century would be a religious = one. We are witnessing to the fulfillment of just such a prophecy, in spite of t= he simplistic predictions of the scientist nineteenth century. More and more, religions a= re playing a fundamental role in the life of many societies in the world, which constitutes an additional and important reason for the discussion of the question of identity.
(4)&=
nbsp;
The Arab and Palestinian cont=
ext:
If the question of identity is vital in the rest of the world, it has speci=
al
significance for the Arab world and for the Palestinian people. In fact,
identity is endangered in the Arab world due to foreign projects that aim at
melting down the Arab identity and driving it out of contemporary history.
These projects go under different names such as the new or bigger
For all these r= easons, it is imperative to address the question of identity because it is a question = of existence and presence and belonging. The search for identity is a search f= or the self, and without it the individual cannot identify his real place, role and mission in society and in life. Our presentation offers a brief journey into the world of identity and attempts to explore and collect its scattered ingredients hoping this will be helpful to our discussions.
2. Some refl=
ections on
identity and its components
The question of= identity is not merely an academic exercise, but rather an existential one, which involves the entire personality in its search to profile what it is, starti= ng with something called "I" in order to reach a more extensive space called "We", in front of a "They". Is it possible to put together the different terms of an identity, which makes it possible to say what we are? We will try to do it descriptively, passing through a first st= ep and, then, a second one, we will try to put the different elements of an identity together.
- Identit=
y: a
descriptive approach:
Instead of givi= ng an academic definition of identity, I would rather describe it as it is found = in reality.
In Arabic, the = term ‘identity’ [hawiyyah] is derived from the pronoun ‘he’ [huwa]: Who is he? It could change in order to refe= r to the addressee in the direct form and become ‘Who are you’? or t= he addressee could be included in the plural form, ‘Who are we’? W= hen we meet a stranger the question that comes to mind is ‘Who are you’? The answer starts with a name. ‘I am Joseph’. In the East, it is known that names are not neutral but rather reveal a human trait that our parents hope to see in us and which may stay with us all our lives= .[2]
This primary an=
d personal
definition is not enough and it entails many other questions. In the Eastern
tradition, we use four names starting with the first name followed by the
father’s name, which adds a new element to my definition, putting me =
in
intimate relation with a home, family (restricted or extended family includ=
ing
uncles, aunts and so on). The third name highlights our biological relation
with our grandparents some of whom might have lived during the Ottoman Peri=
od,
the British Mandate or under the Israeli occupation. Finally, we come to the
fourth and last name, which is the family name that either relates us to a
geographical location [e.g. Anabtawi from Anabta], or clerical
dynasty [e.g. Khoury, meaning cleric in Arabic], or a profession [
But this ‘=
;I
am’ does not exist as an isolated island. ‘I am’ is not q=
uite
‘I am’, but it is also ‘we are’. Your neighbor might
lean over in the bus and ask you, “Are you a Christian?” I am
therefore either a Christian or a Moslem. If I were a Christian, then I am
either Greek Orthodox, Catholic, Syrian, or Armenian. Likewise, an audacious
taxi driver in
What remains is= to put all these scattered ingredients together in order to form a unified and harmonious body, otherwise you will always remain a cluster of disorderly p= arts that has no head or tail, as the saying goes, or a creature with ten heads = with each thinking on its own, or a group of taverns hidden behind the wall which are in constant struggle with one another, opening at times and closing at other times depending on the weather and the occasions. At any rate, if you remain like that, you will not be able to find your place in life and ident= ify the natural space in which you breathe and move and act. Those who have no identity have no life, no future, no past nor present. They are a burden on themselves and on their society.
- Compone=
nts of
identity:
What are the ma= in components of identity? Some underscore the element of race like, for insta= nce, the Aryan race in the Nazi ideology. This is a illusionary component since there is no ‘pure’ race, to use a Nazi term, especially in the = East where there is an amalgam of races. Others stress religion as a component of identity or denomination or sect. As a matter of fact, this is what is happening now in the world, including the Arab world, resulting sometimes in religious extremism and intolerance. Others emphasize language or ideology = as components of identity. All these components are legitimate but they all le= ave room for suspicion or controversy or criticism.
I believe that = national identity is above all a conscience, a deep awareness of a group of people w= ho see in it a platform for meeting, uniting together and belonging. But conscience, awareness are related to subjective feelings, and we can say th= at feelings are fleeting and are therefore inappropriate to form an objective unifying element for a group, a people or a nation. This is true but there = are several objective factors that turn emotions and feelings into a fixed, effective, objective and collective reality. What are these objective facto= rs?
To answer this = question I would like, may be to your surprise, to quote from the Palestinian Declarat= ion of Independence[3] for I think it helps us find an answer to the question:
"In
the land of heavenly revelation to mankind, the Palestinian people were bor=
n,
grew and progressed. Their national and human existence created a clear and
uninterrupted organic relationship among the Palestinian people, the land a=
nd
history. Through legendary and epic-like steadfastness in time and place, t=
he
Palestinian people wove their national identity together and elevated
themselves to the level of a “miracle.” In spite of the conflic=
ts
this charming and vital geographical locale of this ancient land had caused
between forces and civilizations, depriving its people from attaining polit=
ical
independence, the perpetuity of Palestinian adherence to the land gave it i=
ts
identity and breathed into its people the spirit of the nation. Bolstered by
dynasties of civilization, pluralism of cultures, inspired by their temporal
and spiritual heritage, the Palestinian people continued throughout history=
to
develop themselves and achieve full unity between man and land. In the step=
s of
prophets on this blessed land, minarets and church belfries raised their
prayers of grace to God, singing songs of mercy and peace".
This passage shows that the components of identity include land, people and h= istory and the experience resulting from their interaction. These component= s do not exist in isolation from each other; rather they interact and interrelat= e in time [history] and place [geography][4]generating a successive range of experiences through which the Palestinian peop= le have formed their national identity. In addition, the passage describes the components or constituents of these experiences that are inspired by the special properties of the land: the spiritual element [heavenly reve= lation] and the meanings it carries [tolerance, coexistence, inter-religious dialog= ue],and the cultural element [civilization, cultural pluralism] and the mean= ing it carries [pluralism], the temporal element [historical experience]= and its meaning [the land was given an identity and it breathed in its people t= he spirit of the nation], the spatial element [limits of confrontation between civilizations and forces] and what it means [organic relation betwe= en people and land and history]. The passage explains the accumulative histori= cal experiences that resulted from the integration between the land, the people= and history, shaping the character of the Palestinian people and their communication with the Arab world [regional dimension] and the wh= ole world [global and human dimension].[5]
We conclude from all this that identity is a result of all these factors put together: land, people, history, and the multitude of experiences that brou= ght them together, and which in the end form a conscience, an awareness we call= a national identity.
3.
On some characteristics of identity
After having named these essential elements of identity, we must now enter into t= he details. There are some binary oppositions that may help us understand some characteristics and the features of identity. We will now talk briefly about each of these binary oppositions.
-
Closed versus open identity
Identity revolves around two concep=
ts:
closed identity and open identity. Closed identity refers to individuals or=
groups
of people who are self-sufficient, isolated and put themselves in a state of
animosity and contradiction with others. As a result, they become sectarian=
or
factional, with all the negative repercussions that this might entail.[6]
This is what the Lebanese writer Amin Maalouf calls “killing (or fata=
l)
identities.”[7] We h=
ave
seen examples of such identity in the Balkans and all the tragedies that
occurred there. It seems that such examples are being lived out in the East=
as
well (like what is happening now in
On the other hand, open identity develops itself by communicating with all the components of the society and interacting with them to form together a comm= on identity. Open identity develops itself through communication with groups of people on the basis of that identity, on either the individual or on the collective level, and it cannot be developed in isolation from the other, whether as individuals or as groups. In this case, the other is no longer perceived as threat but as enrichment. Being closed implies rigidity and a = slow death; openness implies receiving and sending and thus it is renewed life a= nd constant development of identity.
-
Isolated versus relational identity
In its essence, identity is relationship because it is linked with otherness.[8] Identity connects ‘I’ with ‘you’ with ‘heR= 17; and with ‘we’ in creative interaction.[9] The individual cannot develop his identity except in relation to the other,= and this urges us to shun what we consider destructive logic, namely, ‘ei= ther me or him’, and arrive at a more rational and positive logic of ‘you’ and ‘I.’[10] Such logic is based on a number of human and spiritual values: the values of developing complementary relations instead of competition, cooperation inst= ead of collision, inclusiveness instead of exclusiveness, and enrichment instea= d of impoverishment. In an atmosphere like this we move from conflicting and war= ring identities to interconnected and complementary identities.
This relational identity surpasses mere tolerance and goes towards coexistence or living together to reach at the end a real and inner communion with one ano= ther.[11] In tolerance people live near each other without actual communion and individuals may live in a state of alienation from one another. In contrast= , coexistence or communion means that individuals communicate with each other in depth sharing one another’s life. In coexistence or communion we open our i= nner perspectives to one another and participate in the richness that is innate = in us. Coexistence or communion is the march of the individual in the other and the march of individuals for each other. This may also go as far as formula= ting a joint testimony and calling for noble and sublime meanings of identity, i= n a world that is eager for such unified existence.
-
Colliding versus dialoging identity
Samuel Huntington’s book Clash of Civilizations is well known to all.= [12] The book divides the world into closed cultural areas which inevitably lead= s to war, clashes, and conflict. In fact, this has become the strategy of some c= ountries in the world today, on all continents and in all civilizations and religion= s. But this destructive trend has its counterpart, namely, a dialoguing trend which is based on the fact that all civilizations are interactive, taking f= rom and giving to each other. Such dialogue between civilizations generates creative and rich repercussions.
We should say that we cannot develop our identity except through dialogue with= the other. Dialogue is a human and social state by which individuals and groups transcend themselves and enter into a negotiating relationship with the oth= er, searching for a common identity that allows for “one existence.” This means “moving from exclusion to inclusion, from rejection to acceptance, from stereotyping to understanding, from distortion to respect, from condemnation to mercy, from enmity to friendship, from competition to complementary modes, from rivalry to brotherhood,”[13] and from belligerence to dialogue. In fact, dialogue is an adventurous and arduous task whose consequences are unpredictable, but it is primarily a hu= man process.[14]
-
Static versus dynamic identity
Identity is not rigid; it is rather dynamic and vital like any other human condition. Dynamism does not here mean self-denial. Dealing with identity requires deep-rooted originality that is aware of the developments that challenge identity. Its roots deepen as it responds to the challenges, calls and developments that take place on the local or on the international level. Returning to origin is imperative and urgent, but if this return to origin becomes rigid, it turns into fundamentalism that does not address history, = but addresses only itself. Thus ideologies represent a threat to dynamic identity because they have rigid meanings that epitomize reality and thrust it into narrow f= rames, disabling it in keeping abreast of life developments.
The Palestinian Declaration of Independence we referred to above uses dynamic v= erbs like ‘was born’, ‘developed’, ‘created’, ‘inspired’, ‘continued’, etc. All these verbs are v= erbs of action that indicate vital communication, negotiation with history and constant enrichment of the meaning of identity, keeping it in a state of cr= eativity and development both on the individual and collective levels. Identity rema= ins an incomplete state urging us to look for the missing components and respon= ding to its demands. Thus identity is continuous birth.
-
Unilateral versus multi-lateral identity
“I am plural,” says Edward Said.[15] Every society is culturally, religiously and socially pluralistic. Pluralis= m is a characteristic of human societies and it is “God’s sign manif= ested in human beings and in creation”.[16] It is a characteristic of Arab societies and the Palestinian society in particular, which served as a point of passage and a center for successive human waves that left behind pluralistic and varied groups of people.
In the past, traditional societies lived in isolation behind insulating walls = and were therefore unable to interact with their components on both the local a= nd international level. But nowadays the situation is different because of the changes that have taken place in human societies (means of communication, emigration in all directions, and travel for the purpose of studying, etc.). This resulted in unprecedented interaction among human societies and changed the rules of pluralism and the way of dealing with it. Dealing with plurali= sm and administering it have become unavoidable when we talk about living iden= tity and whatever social and political regulations deriving from it. One of the common slogans that became popular is ‘unity in multiplicity’ w= hich governs modern societies of the world.
Here, we find ourselves facing different options regarding pluralism:
(1) The first option is to eliminate what is plural. It is an option based on t= he interest of the one at the expense of the many. It tries to absorb pluralism into a unilateral social concept. Pluralism in this sense is regarded as a threat that should be done away with.
(2) The second option is the elimination of the one to preserve the many. It is= a choice that focuses on the many at the expense of the one, and it may gener= ate a desire to create social and political entities for all the groups of the many. The one is regarded here as a threat to the many. It is a choice that leads to division.[17]
(3) The
third option, however, is the choice of the one and the many at the same
time. It is the option that seeks, on one hand, to manage the many in a way
that does not contradict the one, and, on the other hand, to save the one
without damaging the many. It is an option that preserves both the one and =
the
many. It calls for acceptance of pluralism and managing the many without
causing division. This is one of the main issues in the modern world and
especially in the Arab world. It is an urgent matter because events happen =
so
fast and the gates of hell are already open before us (
All this reflects on our understanding of identity and how we deal with it. We = can no longer perceive identity in a unilateral way; we have to deal with it in= an inclusive way. All parties are assimilated in it and become part of its mak= e-up with its own genius, excluding marginalization or elimination.
-
Local versus universal identity
It has been said that Fyodor Dostoevsky was the most Russian author and, at the same time, the most universal one. He was universal as much as he was Russi= an, combining the local and the universal in rare harmony in the world of literature. This example introduces us to the issue of local or national identity and the universal or human identity, because we belong at one and = the same time to a people and to humanity at large.
This is an existential matter in today’s world in light of globalization t= hat seeks to attain one common model for identity. Globalization constitutes a = real challenge that we cannot avoid or be indifferent to. It requires thoughtful action to rescue national identity, on the one hand, and preserve its human= and international character, on the other hand, taking into account that no peo= ple can live in isolation from other peoples.
Here
we should distinguish between universality and globalization hoping that we
might emerge from the crisis that globalization has created for us. Globali=
zation
has taken on an ideological dimension that has its own features, symbols and
projects. It is Western globalization in general and American globalization=
in
particular that wants to dominate the whole world. This model of globalizat=
ion
has met with much resistance not only in the Arab world but also in the res=
t of
the world including
4.
Civil/national/religious identity
Which identity? Civil, national or religious identity...? The acute question is largely debated today in an atmosphere of tension and even aggressiveness, especially in the Arab and Islamic world. We will present some reflections = on this issue, in the hope that they will open the way to serene and fruitful discussion.
As we said above, we have been witnessing over the past few decades a religious revival which can be perceived in the various main religions of our world a= nd almost everywhere. These developments in the international arena led to the emergence of religion as a decisive element in forming national identity. In that atmosphere, a shift has often taken place from a national identity to a religious and even to a confessional one, giving way, in some areas, to blo= ody conflicts, massacres and ethnic cleansing. In such a situation, the questio= n of the role of religion in the formation of identity should be seriously quest= ioned.
Also, it has to be said that, in the Eastern areas and cultures, religion has its roots in the deepest part of the Eastern human being and forms an integral = part of his inner self, commanding his way of life on the personal, spiritual, social and cultural levels. That is why many Eastern intellectuals react emotionally and aggressively to the word "secularism", understood= as a synonym for atheism. In that respect, religion plays an important role in shaping the national identity because religion is deeply rooted in the East= ern character.
How can one put together religious and national identity...? That is the question w= hich is not necessarily a dilemma. The answers are various: Some exclude religion from the definition of identity, emphasizing on the national element; other= s, on the contrary, exclude nationalism to emphasize the religious component; others are more conciliatory, when they try to comprehend religion in their nationalistic definition of identity, or to comprehend nationalism in their religious definition of identity. We are still very far from a consensus and discussion on such topics is very emotional and acute.
I would like to present, not a solution, but some remarks which may help to further discussion:
= (1)&= nbsp; First of all, are we really = facing a dilemma: either religious or national? Is this the real question? I am not sure. We might alternatively imagine that the borders are not between relig= ion and nation, but between a closed and an open nationalism, between a clos= ed and an open religion. In that respect we have to return to the binary oppositions mentioned earlier. It is obvious that a closed nationalism may = lead to chauvinism, fascism or racism, as has happened in some contemporary ideologies. The same can be said about closed religion, which may lead to discrimination, fanaticism and fundamentalism. The difference, in my opinio= n, is between two frameworks (the closed and the open one), rather than betwee= n a religious and a nationalistic option. In this way, the question is "wh= ich nationalism are we talking about?", an open or a closed one? The same = can be said about religion "which religion are we talking about? An open o= r a closed one? The question refers to all religions. There are closed and open religious models in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and other religions. In each religious group we find contradictory religious models w= ith some calling for being closed and others for openness, some calling for exclusion and others for inclusion, some encouraging communication while ot= hers call for isolation. In the heritage of each religion we find many seeds for this style or for that. The divisive limit between closed and open strategi= es does not pass between religions but through the very heart of each of us wh= atever our religion may be. Thus the urgent question today is, “What religion for what humanity today? What God to what humanity?” The question tha= t I would like to pose to every believer is, “What God do you believe in?= Who is your God? Is He the God of elimination or absorption, the God of mercy or condemnation?”[18].
= (2)&= nbsp; The second remark concerns <= i>religion and state. The topic is up for fiery discussion, putting face to face, = in an exclusive way, secularist and religious people. Here, we can say that a clear distinction is necessary between religion and state. Otherwise= , we remain in confusion, which is neither advantageous for religion nor for sta= te. There are some who use religion for political purposes, and others who use politi= cs for religious purposes, and when religion and politics mix both become corr= upt because politics corrupts religion and religion corrupts politics. Accordin= g to the secular Christian experience, every time this confusion existed, it led= to disasters (for instance, the Inquisition), where religion and state were both losers.= But distinction does not mean separation, which is not possible in a religious society. It is important to distinguish between religion and politics. Distinction does not mean separation and combination does not mean mixture either. How can one put together distinction without separation, combination without confusion? That is the question and it is not an easy o= ne to answer. Between separation and confusion, we have to find the real borde= rs in order to preserve the independence of the two entities without separating them. Here, the third term mentioned in the title can be helpful, and that = is "the civil", which many intellectuals are talking about today. Here, we= may find the lead, which enables us to find the way to put together these two realities. I do not have it, but it can be found by a ever deeper discussio= n to find the way for a civil society where religion is not excluded.
= (3)&= nbsp; The third remark is a direct consequence of the two previous ones, and that is the necessity for a serene and fair dialogue between secularist and religious intellectuals, which is = more necessary than ever. These are not necessarily two irreconcilable parallels= . There must be a way to put them together, not on the basis of unacceptable compromises, but on the basis of a deeper level of thinking. The two partne= rs have to learn from each other. Religious people have to learn from the secularists the historicity of the Word of God and the secularist people ha= ve to learn from the religious the importance and the validity of revelation. = They have to learn from each other, at the same time, the importance of time and= the importance of eternity, the importance of the absolute of God and the relativism of history, and, in the last instance, the relationship between = God and the human being[19]. That requires from religious people, the promotion of their authenticity without fundamentalism, and from secularist people the promotion of their secularity but without secularism. Does this mean squaring the circle, as t= he French say? ... I do not believe so!
Conclusion:
Identity/'you-entity'/'we-entity'
I resort to these terms coined by Father Peter DuBrul sj in a lecture he delivered at one of the conferences of the Al-Liqa' Center[20], because I believe these terms could shed more light on the topic of identit= y.
As we
pointed out, ‘identity’, in Arabic hawiyyeh, is a compou=
nd
word derived from the third person singular pronoun ‘he’ [hu=
wa],
an unknown unidentified person,[21]
while ‘you’ [anta] refers to a living and identified per=
son
with whom I establish personal and dynamic relations which change his image=
of
me and my image of him. The disparity between a person whom I call
‘he’ and another I call ‘you’ is huge, and this is =
what
Father DuBrul calls ‘you-entity’ (anta-wiya, in Arabic).
‘You-entity’ opens the door for a larger space of mutual relati=
ons
while the ‘he-entity’ imposes limits and conditions on these
relations. This can be summed up in the term “face culture” whi=
ch
the letters of the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs and the Pastoral Plan of the=
Catholic
Churches in the
I conclude saying that the Palestinian people constitute a real laboratory wh= ere the issue of identity can be deepened, for our sake and for the sake of the whole world.
PASSIA, on the 19th of May, 2007
Fr Rafiq Khoury
[2] See the Palestinian intellectual W. Edward Said who relates the conflict he= had inside himself between his western name ‘Edward’ and his Arabic name ‘Said.’ See his book Out of Place: Memoirs, New York 2000, pp. 3-19.
[3] The translation is a personal and not an official one.
[4] For this reason the Israeli occupation forces strive to split these compone= nts from each other by distorting history and changing the geographical feature= s of the land in order to eliminate their vital and organic relations.
[6] See Father Rafiq Khoury, “Sectarian Trends and the Future of the Palestinian People,” in Openings of a Time to Come, Al-Liqa= 217; Publications, 1996, pp. 37-51.
[8] See Father Rafiq Khoury, “Terms of Entry into the World of Otherness,” in The Incarnation of Eastern Churches in the Arab Ten= t: A Palestinian Approach, Al-Liqa’ Publications, 1998, pp. 293-305.
[9] Edward Said says in his book After the Last Sky, “when I start= ed writing this book, I found myself moving from one pronoun to another, from ‘we’ to ‘you’ to ‘they’ in order to be = able to determine the identity of the Palestinians.” Quoted in Fakhri Sali= h, “Edward Said and the Image of the Palestinians,” in Masharef Magazine, number 8 (April 1996) p. 43.