Understanding Oppression and Violence

I had wanted to post this before I went to class, and having returned, have no recollection of whether I did or not.

Samina..if you haven`t checked it out already, and if it`s of any interest to you, there`s tons of articles regarding the women`s movement in Pakistan, as well as profiles of Fahmida Riaz and an article by Dr. Nawal El-Saadawi (one of my favorite writers) in the current section of `Books and Authors` at www.dawn.com.

Ciao!

Ms. Shah:

OK, seriously now, at least as far as this one point is concerned (and I`ll lay off the snide remarks and sarcasm), I think we are talking at cross-purposes here in that we are starting out from two irreconcilable premises here.

There exists a difference between the average male versus average female wage in the US. Neither one of us contests this basic point.

However, I argue that this wage-gap disappears when you don`t look at just the raw averages but you include in factors such as years of education, years of uninterrupted work experience, whether or not the woman has children (and how many children), and any other ``relevant`` (relevant in the sense of pertaining to actual work related matters, so years of uninterrupted experience is relevant here but hair colour is not).

So, I argue, that having children for a woman puts her at an inherent disadvantage income and career prospects wise since it means that she has to interrupt her career path (even if only for a relatively brief time) and her job is no longer her top priority. The same factors work against men who wish to devote a significant part of their time and energy to their family and children.

Compared to, say, Pakistan or Ireland, for most women in the US there are minimal societal pressures to get married young and to have several children as soon as possible. Thus, I contend, it is essentially a freely exercised choice on their part as to whether or not they have children.

Furthermore, many women who want to have children/family/life-outside-of-work choose careers that make a lesser demand on their time (i.e., the ``mommy track``) BUT that consequently pay less, thereby further exacerbating the wage differential. This same logic applies to men who choose less demanding careers as well.

Your argument here is that while these `intervening variables` may explain the wage differential, women should not have to pay an economic price for being mothers. Women, or men, who wish to have children and/or a real family life should have the same financial rewards as those who do not wish to have children and that the difference in worker productivity should be absorbed by the state and/or the employer.

Is this a correct statement of your position?

If this is your position, then we have a positive versus normative issue here. I am arguing that given the realities of the US marketplace, there is no evidence of systematic discrimination against women in the market. Once all relevant factors are accounted for, the wage differential shrinks to between 2 to 5 cents on the dollar, still present yes but hardly enough to warrant a wholesale condemnation of the system. Furthermore, if you look at women in the age group 25-35, there is NO wage differential once we factor in relevant variables.

Why should we factor in ``relevant`` variables at all? Because otherwise our results are gibberish. If a 45 year old male with an MBA from a top 25 school is making 10 times as much as a 20 year old high school dropout female, is this discrimination? Of course not. The salary differential can, and should, be explained by the work experience, education, etc, variables.

Similarly, for a man and a woman who are superficially identical in terms of qualification but the man is childless and the woman has two children, I would realistically expect the man to be earning more than the woman (on average of course, individual results will vary). Why? Presumably the woman has taken maternity leave, might have taken on a reduced workload, might have left the work force for a few years, might have taken part-time jobs, etc, etc, etc, all factors that affect earning potential.

So, unless we change to an equalitarian system, I do not expect to see this change. Realistically also there are limits to how much social engineering we can do. Taller men with a bushy head of hair and an athleticish build make substantially more than short, balding overweight men who may have exactly the same paper qualifications. Furthermore, they tend to be overrepresented at the senior management level (recall Scott Adamss ``boss hair`` jokes?).

Is this also unfair? Probably but how does one propose to rectify this? Tax taller men more? Force firms to pay shorter men more across the board? File a class action lawsuit on behalf of all men under 5` 9``? Have senior management quotas arranged by height, BMI and hair criteria? Insist that high-paying firms hire more shorter men? For some problems, I would argue, the remedy is worse than the problem.

If, however, you know of large-scale studies that show conclusively that women with exactly the same educational qualifications (adjusted for ``quality`` as, whether this is ``fair`` or not, a Masters from Harvard is worth more than one from UMass Boston), years of full-time experience, no children and no breaks in their career path make substantially less money than equivalent men, I would be very interested in reading them. These studies would really prove than I am wrong.

Regards.

Fuzair Sahib

re: ``...Did your Afro-american statistician friend explain regression analysis to you and, more importantly, why all of the detailed studies on male: female compensation ratios are wrong? I mean, by all means, lets ignore facts that contradict our most cherished views! After all, physical reality is a social construct, no? ...``

Indeed she did. She also read the NYTimes piece and said that she readily accepts the results as credible. In fact, many of the female professors (of varying generations, races and political persuasions) over here have been discussing the study and seem to find it valid and accurate in representing some of the issue they have faced or are facing at the present.

But, do tell them how they are wrong. Explain it to them as well.



Even Kinder Regards,

Re: Ms. Shah

My posts have been rude and evasive? What do you call yours? You, among many things, insist on saying that by attacking SOME women`s views, I demean, etc, ALL women. I love your logic and analytical ability. Is this what they teach you in whatever advanced basketweaving program you are in?

I only criticized a very small group of women academics/writers/publicity-hounds and I, deliberately, used language that was aimed at rubbing them (and you apparently) the wrong way.

As far as consistency is concerned, Ms. Shah, might I remind you that ``A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds`` (Emerson). However, you have been admirably consistent in your foolish persistence in defending the indefensible. If ever a lost cause needed a passionate defender, its yours.

However, I shall be the bigger man (oops, there I go being offensive again) and apologize for criticizing you and all that which you hold dear. I realize that you have great a deal of your self-worth and fragile ego invested in all this rubbish and you need it to reaffirm yourself. My wholehearted apologies for having bruised you.

Kindest regards.

PS: Did your Afro-american statistician friend explain regression analysis to you and, more importantly, why all of the detailed studies on male: female compensation ratios are wrong? I mean, by all means, lets ignore facts that contradict our most cherished views! After all, physical reality is a social construct, no?

hobbyty...no thanks are required, but nevertheless appreciated.

I don`t think I was trying to explain the article..just to sort out what I understood from it. I`m sure you do understand his article clearly :)

And how I wish I was on vacation...that won`t happen for another three weeks..until then...you all get to suffer my responses here at the chowk.

Ana

Thank you for taking time to respond. I regret having claimed some of your vacation time. I appreciate your effort at explaining Mr. Rizvi`s work to me. I assure you I understand his ideological position clearly.

Enjoy the rest of your vacation and do read to familiarize yourself with the possibility that a number of points of view can be valid and meritorious.

Samina

I think I may have come across that in one of my lit. classes..perhaps even when I was sleeping through Foucault!

Renaissance literature..ah memories!

Maaaan, am I getting payback more than `dugna` for rebelling and refusing to engage in intellectual `conversations` with my father!!!

Spring is finally in the air, the sun shines brightly over somewhere in the west coast of the USA, a scatterbrained student who has two weeks to research and write two long papers (one on the Kashmir conflict) sits and ponders on the burning questions posed by Chowkwallahs...

Hobbyty: I think we can be in agreement that if there are oppressed and subjugated, then there are oppressors and subjugators as well. One cannot exist without the other. And perhaps it would be difficult for critical readers, such as you perhaps (?), to believe that Rizvi does not want us to view the world in such binary opposition constructs, given that there are various ways of reading, and perceiving. As a not very good critical reader, here`s my take on what Rizvi might be suggesting: It is dangerous for us to view such oppositions as absolutes..because once you have an absolute view, dialogue ceases. This may be overstating the point, or being utterly obvious to the point of being ridiculous, but there it is. For us to say for example that the lack of justice that exists in the so-called third world is an East-West issue, and deal with it solely in that respect is denying ourselves of digging into other avenues to try and figure out how everything connects and leads to the injustices being perpertrated and suffered which will then hopefully lead us to how to repair such injustices.

I know I haven`t explained this all too clearly, but I think this is what Rizvi is getting at.

I was thinking (a troublesome task!)of a course I read for not too long ago, about genocide. We were reading Holocaust literature, and there is this inescapable thing, in some of the fiction, of the lines being blurred between who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed. In some of the fiction, those who were prisoners in the concentration camps, in order to survive, participated in the oppression and murder of other prisoners. It speaks to the fact that in a world devoid of logic, of morality, as the concentration camps were, that everything is turned upside down, there are no clear definitions of anything. And I`m not comparing the world of today to concentration camps, but the violence that is being perpetrated throughout the world has definitely turned everything upside down, and there are no clear definitions.

Yes, the so-called third world (forgive me, but I automatically resist such classifications) has struggled with moving from a traditional to a post-traditional society, but then again, I cannot agree with what you say about the `entire` third world wanting to be like the first world. Some of the inhabitants of the so-called third world want to see a just society, others may want a melange of the traditional and the modern. Does the desire for material wealth, and the devouring of fried chicken and burger necessarily imply that we want what the first world has?

I think that terms such as tradition, post-tradition are problematic in themselves. Yes, in moving forward, we should take our pasts into consideration, but how many of us have a real understanding of what our `tradition` was or is? I`ve read posts on one of the boards where it was implied that Pakistanis don`t have a heritage which I thought at first was pure behooda thinking, but I`ve also met some Pakistanis who in their extreme negative feelings towards India, deny anything in their heritage that is remotely Indian, which also seems behooda to me.

Language has this double-edged sword of being liberating yet limiting. Rizvi doesn`t really provide us with an answer or a solution, just more questions, which is what I think was perhaps part of his goal with this article.

I`m not familiar with Popper or Weber or any of the intellectuals you`ve listed other than by name, and I`m sure they would be useful in learning more about conflict resolution. I don`t know if I`ve addressed any of your questions or points..it`s just that I`m not the best of critical readers myself, especially when braindeadedness is slowly rearing it`s ugly head. :)

Fuzair,

re: ``... I think you owe me a (slight) apology, even though you did retract, but sans apology, your earlier claim that I was ``Ms. Shah.`` If I wanted to ridicule you, I wouldn`t bother trying to hide behind another name...``

While I readily apologize under most circumstances, I don`t think our conversations merit one, quite frankly. Your posts have been uniformly, screamingly rude and evasive. You`ll live without one and offend again, I`m sure of it.

``I did read some Foucault (I generally prefer Nozick, tad too Libertarian though usually, Rorty and even Rawls) a few years ago and while some may say that Foucault got his politics confused with his sex life, I think he had some great contributions to make as we are all prisoners of our own discourse and all criminals are indeed anarchists. BTW, thats one of the reasons why I`m in favor of the death penalty AND for greatly expanding its scope as well.``

Well, consistancy is a grind, isn`t it?

``Oh, geez! I just realized something! Other than my pathological misogyny and a sneaking fondness for Free Trade, I am a stinking libero-progressive after all! Excuse me while I go shoot myself.``

Well, perhaps Shammi and a few other interactors might miss you; better not load up that revolver. Btw, do you have a license for that gun? Furthermore, what kind of punishment should be proscribed for attempting to harm one`s self, Mr. Unpredictable?

``Apologies to the rest of the interactors on this board. Ms. Shah and I have a private ongoing feud and she started this round of it by calling me names!``

My apologies as well. However Fuzair is incorrect when he writes that I called him names. Ahh, how the patriarchy dissembles...

Ana,

Speaking of Foucault and sexuality/theory, I learned a fascinating fact in my Renaissance Lit course; did you know that hetero/homosexuality was a recent construct? That is, sexuality was open and unclassified and subsequently enforced/punished until the late 19th century...

Fuzair sahib writes:

....while some may say that Foucault got his politics confused with his sex life, I think he had some great contributions to make .....

We are amused (apologies to long gone Queen Vic) by this observation whether it was meant to be amusing or not.

Perhaps someone should write about the politics of one`s sex life..I`m afraid I can`t volunteer because at least a couple of my pieces are in Chowk`s trash pile, never to be resurrected. Khuda ka shukr hai I haven`t developed a new complex to add to the old ones!

from being dull and unamusing..it`s back to dull and serious again...ciao!

Re: Ms. Shah

I think you owe me a (slight) apology, even though you did retract, but sans apology, your earlier claim that I was ``Ms. Shah.`` If I wanted to ridicule you, I wouldn`t bother trying to hide behind another name.

I did read some Foucault (I generally prefer Nozick, tad too Libertarian though usually, Rorty and even Rawls) a few years ago and while some may say that Foucault got his politics confused with his sex life, I think he had some great contributions to make as we are all prisoners of our own discourse and all criminals are indeed anarchists. BTW, thats one of the reasons why I`m in favor of the death penalty AND for greatly expanding its scope as well.

Now, being prodeath penalty shouldn`t come as a great surprise to you but let me also tell you that I am Pro-Choice (none of my business if a woman wants to have an abortion, but I do feel somewhat queasy about very late term--well into the third trimester--abortions) AND in favor of much stricter gun control (why should it be easier to get a gun license than a driver`s license in most of the US? And who really needs an automatic weapon anyway?) AND a single-payer national health insurance program (it is a disgrace that the richest nation in the world has so many tens of millions w/out any health coverage) AND a greatly expanded Earned Income Tax Credit (actually, I think a Negative Income Tax would be better but that would never pass Congress).

Only reason why I`m telling you these things is to ask if they come as a surprise to you? Did you have me pegged in a different hole?

Oh, geez! I just realized something! Other than my pathological misogyny and a sneaking fondness for Free Trade, I am a stinking libero-progressive after all! Excuse me while I go shoot myself.

Apologies to the rest of the interactors on this board. Ms. Shah and I have a private ongoing feud and she started this round of it by calling me names!

Regards.

Ana

Thanks for the response. I take your point about what Mr. Rizvi says he is doing in his article. Do you think it is correct that language construes and constructs social reality? If it is true, how would you evaluate the language Mr. Rizvi uses?, What is your evaluation of the social reality he constructs: ``Oppressed``, ``Subjugated``, etc., - must we not agree that if there are oppressed that there are also ``oppressors`` and ``subjugators`` - and who might these be? - In concluding his piece Mr. Rizvi claims that he does not wish for readers to view the world as a ``East Vs West`` or ``Rich Vs Poor```` construct - but would you agree that is certainly difficult (were one to maintain that Mr. Rizvi`s work has internal cohesion, internal logic) for critical readers to do.

I, too find the concepts of social change, fascinating and I agree that educators are indeed agents of change - but I am also interested in the direction of change, even as I am aware of ``unintended consequences`` and conscious that language construes and contructs social reality. Of course we can not agree on the need and direction of change unless we first become aware of such a need and become conscious of our pasts.

``As for the post by the author whose name is unknown to me...`` I wrote this post and have presented more than two times on two privious boards. I find the work of Karl Popper, AbdolKarim Saroush, Robert Bellah, Peter Bergen, Daniel Bell, Thomas Kuhn and max Weber, to be compelling. The post you are having a problem with is based on the work of Soroush, popper and Weber.

``I guess I`m having a problem with the traditional vs. the modern. Like for example...

Didn`t man (are women included too?!) have rights in the traditional scheme as well? And man (okay..i`ll include women myself) is just as duty-bound in the modern scheme as he (they) were in the traditional one. I`m still trying to figure this particular article out..I`m not sure I agree with all of the assumptions.

OK -that`s good - first an agreement - lets not be unnecessarily prickly about the use of the word ``man`` or the omission of the word ``woman``. I have used man in the sense of ``mankind`` - any other sense of the word does not apply - I want us to be clear on this. I`m not interest in gender wars, though I would readily agree that patriarchial constructs have and are still percieved as ``oppressive`` by many persons.

``Didn`t man (yes, women are included) have rights in the traditional scheme as well?``

Certainly, in the Muslim tradition, the language asserts ``rights`` - the rights of the father or mother or son or daughter in the family, but I a persuasive case can be made that these are not so much ``rights`` as they are ``duties`` ``obligations, of one to another. A subject (not Citizen - as it`s definition itself includes the carriage of rights) is characterized primarily by the duty of the subject to the sovereign - The religious adherent is characterized primarily by the duty of the adherent to his or her, creator. In the post traditional society, it is the ``demand`` for the carriage of ``rights`` and not ``duties`` that has resonance. You did not object to the omission of the word ``women`` in my post from a sense of duty (though many see the deliverance of such an admonition as a ``duty``) but rather from a sense that a ``right`` - to be acknowledged - has been abbridged.

Ana, The transition from a traditional to a post traditional society is what characterizes the struggle of the entire Third world - The entire Third world recognizes that it has to make changes - it wants to be ``like`` the First world, the peoples who inhabit the Third world want the kinds of lives for themselves and their children, that they see in the First world - The kinds of lives and the kinds of scoial orders people of the third world live in - is rejected by the peoples of the third world - they want democracy instead of dictatorship, they want material wealth or material want and deprivation - they want greater predictablity and stability than they have now - they are tearing down walls, fences to get to the first world - devouring ``burger`` and ``fried chicken`` like it was going out of style - responsible intellectuals and leaders must ask themselves, why? they must answer these questions and then they must act on the answers - this makes the discussion of social change not only facsinating but imperative. There is a redcognition that traditional societies must transition to post traditional - but how? In the West they had the luxury of time and ``obliviousness`` to the agents of change - we don`t - we know that change in values and the intellectual foundations of those values is the engine that will enable this transition - now we ``negotiate`` the creation of the intellectual foundations of that transition -We recognize Tolerance, Pluralism, religious pluralism, pluralism of salvation, freedom of conscience, political representation and equality before the law, as elements of that intellectual foundation - yet we recognize that make changes enduring, they must be connected to our past, our tradition - we must ride into the post traditional on back of our tradition, our pasts -

``Still trying to figure this article out...`` Please, do feel free to discuss items which you are not clear about. I think such a discussion will also help me better understand these works. Are you clear about ``velayat`` and ``vekalat`` ? Do you see why the concept of ``velayat`` is a traditional concept? and why ``Vekalat`` is a post traditional utility? Do you see the relationship between these two concepts and that of duties and rights? What do you think about the discussion of values and ethics and it`s relationship with modernity or rather it`s relationship with the language of modernity, scientism. What do you think of the language? of the social constructs it seeks to examine - you will note an absence of the language of ``liberation`` - yet, are the doors of discovery and illumination it seeks to open, not ``liberating?`` - What are the implications? Are you familiar with Popper`s ``Logic of Scientific Discovery``, ``Open Society and it Enemies`` and ``All lLife is Problem Solving``? What do you make of my critique of the ``reflexive`` human or as others have said, the ``instinctive`` human?

``Ought`` human beings be``reflexive``, ``instinctive``? why? Do you think the reference to Dionysius appropriate, in this regard?

If you have an interest in conflict resolution, the works will serve you well. I think you will be rewarded by learning more about the language of modernity, it`s eclipse and - above all you will be rewarded by Popper`s conception of the dynamic of social change. I look forward to discussing and learning more about these issue with you.

Anyone check out today`s NYTimes article on operation disinformation; a policy of planting false articles in international papers? Could someone post it?

reply samina Shah #18:

``....a hydra headed interactor (Aamir) who amasses more nicks than a jihadi does virgins.``

LOL. Is he upto seventy-two then? Fast work, 12H!

hobbyty..

I`m not quite sure how valuable my reflections are, and how they can actually help you--but I`ll give this a go, and perhaps others can pitch in as well.

What Rizvi seems to be suggesting here is a need for a change in the discourse, the discourse that has mainly been manipulated (perhaps overstated, but nevertheless true) by the power elite through media and other means in order to `oppress` and `subjugate` a people. He believes this can be done through education, and advocates for an education that can help us understand the root causes of oppression and violence, education that is not controlled by the elite to serve their own purposes, but rather education that would empower and liberate those who have been demonized by global media for example, or the power elite. He gives the example of Shariati. Other examples of those who have previously (and still are) been demonized are Northern Ireland and Palestine. He is not trying to legitimize violence, but rather try to understand the forces behind violent acts.

In your initial response to this post, hobby, you had suggested that Rizvi sahib could be just as manipulative. But he is in dialogue with Freire, which creates openings for further dialogues through education, through understanding of who is an `oppressor` and who are the `oppressed`. Clearly this would involve educators as agents of social change (and all of us are educators in one sense or the other).

As for the post by the author whose name is unknown to me...I guess I`m having a problem with the traditional vs. the modern. Like for example...

*Whereas in the traditional view, duties define one’s relationship with others and to God, in the modern or post traditional view, it is the demand for “rights” that tend to characterize such relations. Man was duty bound in the traditional scheme and is a rights-carrier in the modern. The rights-carrier is an altogether Different set of values than that of duty bound. Whereas the former envisions society as a market place where the aim is satisfying the members, the latter, envisions society as a temple whose purpose is to please the Creator. Indeed, the dichotomy may be represented as that between notions of Valayat (guardianship) and Vakalat (representation). Valayat becomes an even more problematic when the element of religion is infused in it. *

Didn`t man (are women included too?!) have rights in the traditional scheme as well? And man (okay..i`ll include women myself) is just as duty-bound in the modern scheme as he (they) were in the traditional one. I`m still trying to figure this particular article out..I`m not sure I agree with all of the assumptions. And one thing I`d like to know, is who wrote it?

Ana,

Sorry, misunderstood (must slow down)-I would also love to read work by and about South Asian women from the Subcontinent and diaspora-you are absolutely right on!

Ana,

I`m Saminashah. There is a nick named ``Shah`` and this is a nick of a hydra headed interactor (Aamir) who amasses more nicks than a jihadi does virgins. You might want to look out for them; please ask me, Sadna, or Tahmed if you`re unsure.

``Ms. Shah`` is someone doing a parody of me-the ``Ms.`` part means that the interactor has some homework on my poisonality (pun intended)-so my comments only come under my nick...``Ms. Shah`` you`re on your own to contribute info that reaches the quality of mine...it`s not easy being Samin!

Best

Asim Hayat

``Re : Mashhood Rizvi, working under the guidance of Prof. Anita Ghulam Ali, Minister for Education, Sindh, Pakistan and one of the most respected educationists of Pakistan. I am also the Editor-in-Chief of Pakistan`s first progressive magazine on education and development - EDucate! educating for social change

Great self praise indeed!Modesty what art thou!``

…..i think he means that anita ghulam ali is one of the most respected educationists, not him….

Ana:

I invite your comments on the ideas and tenor the post below - any reflections you may want to present on the ideas in this post and Mr. Rizvi`s would help me.

The relationship between values and social change

Values, may be thought of as being of two kinds, those for the sake of which we live (Guiding values: Goodness, justice, generosity, courage, transcending social life, nationality, even history – they are eternal) and those values which exist for the sake of living (Serving values: rules of etiquette, pleasantries, moral obligations, respect of law). Serving values admit exceptions or degrees.

In the context of our discussion about transitions, values and ethics, it is clear that socioeconomic development and secularism in the West were organic developments. They occurred over time, were unplanned and within a context relevant to the West. Developing or traditional societies are at a distinct disadvantage in this regard, because we unlike the West that preceded us in this historical development are acutely aware of creating socioeconomic development and it’s attendant auxiliaries. This awareness has provoked forms of resistance and rejection amongst us that did not inhibit the West.

As societies have transitioned towards socioeconomic development, changes occurred in the serving values that predated the transition and in those serving values that were created by the process of transition. That is to say, old habits and traditions undergo change. A change in values precedes or is at least coterminous with socioeconomic changes. (think of Weber ``Capitalism and the Protestant Ethic``)

One of the most influential and least acknowledged authors of the modern era was Dr. Bernard Mandeville. His “The Fable of the Bees: An Inquiry in to the Origin of Moral virtue” (originally published in1705) in his story, society, like a beehive, was divided in to two groups: The hardworking, righteous, noble, productive workers and idle, gluttonous, pompous slothful and deceitful nobility. One day the idle nobility decided to become truly noble by emulating the good workers and this caused the downfall of society. Mandeville was commenting on the profound social changes he observed in his day; social changes that encouraged traits that had been censured by the ethical philosophers of his day: selfishness, profiteering, ostentation and boasting. According to Mandeville, these ``private vices`` contribute to ``social equilibrium``. He argues if everyone were to follow traditional maxims of frugality and asceticism, the whole of society would fall apart. Do you see the influence of this work in the work of Adam Smith or Hume, or in Bentham’s Utilitarianism? In “enlightened self interest”? Surely, who needs religion, the sinner or the saint? It is the ignorance of their virtue and their wickedness, that allows the role of equilibrium to be played; this “Invisible/hidden hand” that ensures no designers or planners, this “obliviousness” (Ghaflat), according to the much revered scholar Abu Hamid Al-Ghazli. Is it not a fact that the transgressors and the sinners carry half the weight of public affairs by entering into a genuine but undeclared contract with the upright and the righteous members of society? In the same vein, would we deny, “In the enterprise of existence disbelief is inevitable”?

In many ways, even fundamentally, the modern world is the ethical inverse of the old, traditional world. What were once “sins’ are today harnessed as fuel for the engines of “progress”. The secularization of ethics, the rationalization of happiness by utilitarianism, the centrality of humanity and the transposition of vices and virtues constitute the serving values that have preceded the birth of socioeconomic development. Certainly what has occurred has been a lowering and rearranging of the system of values. Yet this is not the entirety of the story. With new knowledge, a new understanding of religious faith can also be realized.

“once the needs of the body are met, the hunger of the soul may be more apparent”. The God of those struggling for subsistence is the God of the oppressed, not that of the mystics. He is a God that vanquishes the oppressors, facilitates survival, pays off debts and grants wishes. Is this the conception of God that we should have? When primary needs are met, the opportunity of cultivating a deeper knowledge and contemplation of religion can be realized in hope that God the savior; the benefactor will shed those garbs to assume those of the beloved. Indeed what makes our course of action imperative is that we are no longer “oblivious” – we can no longer sin in our ignorance, for we are aware of our shame and aware that we are in a contract, that in conscience and in reason, we must no longer, honor.

The ethics of poverty associated with the traditional order have been replaced by the ethics of prosperity. Flight from the world has been replaced by generating happiness in the world. Both the Sunni Al-Ghazalli and the Shi’a Feiz Kashani, after extensive inquiry concluded: “it should be generally admitted that poverty is better and safer than affluence because the poor have less of an interest in the worldly affairs and to that extent, they will be more inclined to prayer and pious reflection” (“The Book of Poverty and Religion” – “Ihya’ al-ulum al-Din” – Al-Ghazalli and “Mahaja al-Baiza” – Feiz Kashani). Security of the faithful in this scheme lies on the shores of poverty and a warning is sounded against seeking wealth:

“In the sea there are treasures aplenty,

Stay on the shore if you seek safety``

Weakness brings security. This traditional view arises out of the highly visible social inequalities that are present in our societies even today. The affluents of that time, like the affluent in our traditional societies today, were more rebellious, indulgent and sinful. Sa’adi challenged Al-Ghazalli thus: The power of generosity, of worship, of unblemished property and clothes and of secure life and of an unburdened heart all belong tot he affluent. Leisure cannot be combined with poverty, nor security amidst destitute…many an innocent soul who has fallen victim to sin and corruption because of poverty, bidding farewell to good reputation forever”. Al-Ghazalli countered: …patient poor over the grateful rich…the rich will never attain the elation of the poor…and that even if they are equally parsimonious, the poor would be superior…” Which is morally superior, you decide. But if the world today is flawed, it would be difficult to argue that it is not patient and not poor, the failure is that it fails to be rich and to be grateful.

To summarize, we have identified two sets of ethics, Traditional ethics and the ethics of prosperity and a secular ethics; the ethics of science. In fact objective secularism is in reality the scientification of society (elmania al-ijtima) and the rationalization of society (Aqlania). The values of objective secularism are the values of science. Science is truth seeking. Skepticism, criticism, tolerance, competition, ambition are the values of both science and socioeconomic development. Yet, this does not mean that science is the only actor on the stage, it does not mean that there are no other means of arriving at knowledge or the sole method for the discovery of the truth. While science makes no claim it is not “theory laden”, what else could be more impartial, objective, open to criticism than science?

Authoritarianism and despotism are also dependent on serving values, even as they pretend to be guiding values. A change in values must precede social transformation. If security was in poverty in an economic sense, does it not apply in a political sense? Is this not the essence of arrested development? Here as well some are confused, objective secularism is not an end, it is a means in the present stage of development. Democracy is the end in the present stage of development. Yet, can Democracy be an achievable goal with out objective secularism? While the fact that no such event has been witnessed yet, does not exclude it prom the realm of possibility, the probability is not encouraging. We are secure in our assertion that a change in serving values precedes social transformation.

Whereas in the traditional view, duties define one’s relationship with others and to God, in the modern or post traditional view, it is the demand for “rights” that tend to characterize such relations. Man was duty bound in the traditional scheme and is a rights-carrier in the modern. The rights-carrier is an altogether Different set of values than that of duty bound. Whereas the former envisions society as a market place where the aim is satisfying the members, the latter, envisions society as a temple whose purpose is to please the Creator. Indeed, the dichotomy may be represented as that between notions of Valayat (guardianship) and Vakalat (representation). Valayat becomes an even more problematic when the element of religion is infused in it.

For me, one of the most potent arguments against Valayat of a religious nature (and anything other Vakalat would by definition be Valayat) is that it assumes a God-like character; an abomination to all believers. That is to say fallible humans assuming God-like character in the making of mundane and management decisions; surely an abomination. Can fallible humans lead divine governments? Is this not an affront to all believers? Is this not tyranny and a subversion of guiding values?

Objective secularism is the scientification and rationalization of society. Can politics evade this encounter? The answer is obviously no. Can religion evade a similar encounter? The short and immediate answer is that religion and science are different realms. While politics can only confine itself to the stage of the temporal, the stage of religion is the Eternal.

Thus a secular (objective) democracy as a form of governance is not simply “secular” or a democracy characterized by elections. This must be a polity that is susceptible to criticism, checks and balances, where in everything and all public officials are subject to criticism, human appraisal or accountable.

INNOCENT DIE BOTH BEFORE GUJRAT BANDH & AFTER



http://newslinks.rediff.com/n?ev_midday&&1&&www.chalomumbai.com/asp/article.asp?

Gujarat bandh begins, 3 killed in Baroda

By: A Chalomumbai Correspondent



February 28,2002



[]

The VHP-initiated Gujarat bandh in protest against the attack on the Sabarmati Express on February 27 began with reports of fresh incidents of stabbing in Baroda city early this morning.

Some unidentified persons in Karelibag area stabbed an auto-rickshaw driver to death and a cleaner of a truck was injured after he was assaulted in the Pani gate area of Baroda early morning, police sources said here.

Meanwhile, the indefinite curfew, imposed in Godhra town after the attack on the train on Wednesday, continued on the second day today without any relaxation. No untoward incidents were reported during the curfew so far, police said.

As many as 40 persons were arrested by the police in connection with yesterday`s attack on the train in Godhra. At least 58 people, including 25 women and 15 children, were killed and 43 others injured when a violent mob set on fire four coaches of Sabarmati Express carrying ``Ramsevaks`` from Ayodhya which also sparked violence at Baroda and Anand Railway Stations killing two more persons yesterday.

An autorichshw driver was stabbed to death by some unidentified persons in Karelibagh area and a cleaner of a truck injured after being assaulted by some persons in Panigat area of Baroda, police said.

Incidents of stabbing were also reported from Lunavada of Panchmahal district and curfew was clamped on the town after four shops and a religious place were set afire by an uruly mob past midnight, Godhara police said.

Indefinite curfew was also imposed in six police station areas of Baroda city, police added. Meanwhile curfew continued in Godhra town where the situation was peaceful today, police said.

In Ahmedabad city a truck was set on fire by a mob in Amraiwadi area. A 50-year old autorikshaw driver, who was injured in stabbing in Meghani nagar area succumed to injuries late last night.

Meanwhile, the bodies, that have been identified, were being handed over to the relatives, mostly from Ahmedabad and Mehsana district.

2ND.brave bold & really beutifull (unlike the teflon t.v. soap opera bold & beutifull) showed the non muslim that Muslimmah as much Liberated as there male counterpart ...what the propogandist of anti-Islam know about equality of sex

Checkpoint blast kills 3 Palestinians, wounds

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Israelis

February 27, 2002 Posted: 10:30 PM EST (0330 GMT)





JERUSALEM (CNN) -- A Palestinian woman with explosives strapped to her body blew herself up in a suicide attack at a West Bank checkpoint, wounding at least two Israeli police officers and killing two other Palestinians in her car, Israeli military sources said.

The woman, who got out of her vehicle before setting off the explosion, died almost instantly, the sources said.

The attack is the latest incident of violence at Israeli checkpoints, where Palestinian militants have used ambush tactics to kill Israeli soldiers. And it comes at a delicate time, with Saudi Arabia pushing a plan that would provide for the Arab world normalizing relations with Israel, in return for an Israeli withdrawal to its borders before the 1967 Six Day War.

VIDEO

CNN`s Jerrold Kessel reports the mainly positive reactions to Saudi Arabia`s Crown Prince Abdullah`s Mideast peace proposal (February 27)



Play video

(QuickTime, Real or Windows Media)









CNN`s Brent Sadler says Palestinians are learning the lessons of war from Hezbollah`s fight in southern Lebanon (February 26)



Play video

(QuickTime, Real or Windows Media)







MORE STORIES

EU official, Saudi prince discuss Mideast peace plan











The military sources said Wednesday`s attack was carried out during a routine stop at the checkpoint of Maccabim, near the Green Line, which separates the West Bank from Israel.

The Israeli army said the injuries to the Israeli police were not life-threatening.

In a separate incident, Israeli troops ``thwarted an attempted terrorist attack`` and shot and killed three gunmen who crossed from Egypt into southern Israel Wednesday, the Israel Defense Forces said. An Israeli soldier was lightly injured in that incident, they said.

The IDF said Israeli troops operating in the border area stumbled onto the gunmen after noticing tracks. The statement said the gunmen opened fire and the IDF troops responded.

Earlier, the Palestinian Red Crescent Society said one Palestinian man was killed and another injured in a overnight shooting west of the Balata refugee camp near Nablus on the West Bank.

The Israeli army said its troops had encountered a ``number of armed Palestinians`` and opened fire. The troops hit the gunmen, the statement said.

Wednesday`s suicide attack appears to be the second involving a Palestinian woman. In late January, Israeli authorities said a Palestinian woman set off a bomb on a crowded street in West Jerusalem, killing herself and an 81-year-old Israeli man.

And it is the latest in a series of attacks at Israeli checkpoints. Six soldiers were killed in one such attack near Ramallah last week. The Israeli military has responded with punishing attacks on the Palestinian infrastructure, and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announced Thursday that Israel will create buffer zones intended to provide security for Israelis.

Monday, at a checkpoint near Nablus, Israeli soldiers fired on a car that they said tried to run a military checkpoint. According to the Palestine Red Crescent Society, a Palestinian man was rushing his pregnant wife to the hospital. He was shot and killed in the incident. The 22-year-old woman was wounded -- suffering a gunshot wound to the back -- but later delivered a baby girl.

Also Monday, Israeli soldiers killed a Palestinian woman who rushed toward them wielding a knife at a military checkpoint near the West Bank town of Tulkarem, Israeli military sources said.

Re : Mashhood Rizvi, working under the guidance of Prof. Anita Ghulam Ali, Minister for Education, Sindh, Pakistan and one of the most respected educationists of Pakistan. I am also the Editor-in-Chief of Pakistan`s first progressive magazine on education and development - EDucate! educating for social change

Great self praise indeed!Modesty what art thou!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Whoa there, Samina!

*Ana feels that there`s a long history that she`s obviously unaware of, and feels like she`s been duped somehow!!! *

And I agree...women activists from either side of the border. :)

Hobby ji makes somewhat more sense in #5, but I still don`t get how this article suggests that the wealthy are being demonized. Obviously there are contracts, social and otherwise that exist, and binary oppositions such as rich vs. poor don`t give the whole picture. If anything, Rizvi is saying that these oppositions don`t provide us with enough to understand oppression and violence. Where is the one-sidedness in this article?

It`s not my aim to slam or oppress (!) anyone here, just healthy dialogue. :)

My apologies to Mr. Rizvi

Ms. Shah,

Actually, ``Ms Shah`` is probably not Fuzair...Goddess help us, that post would have had a million references to ``shrieking`` ``hysterical`` ``those women, but not these women`` evasiveness to it...no, this ``Ms. Shah`` has some deftness with parody activist phrases (wake up, you killed poor Mr. Rizvi`s piece on bechara Chomsky wallah, etc.) On the other hand, ``Ms. Shah`` did mock poor Hobbyty-in an effort to make me (moi!) look like a jerk, unless Ms. Shah secretly agreed with my contention on the over abstract quality of Hobbyty`s language....then of course, Ms Shah could be one of the Shah women on Chowk....that note to Ana was a cute touch...if it were ali or stuka there`d be an behen or ma reference, so I`d hazard that its not-no theres a quality of busybodyness...who is that clever? I mean, yes, the content of the post was rote, but the manuvering reflects a very mad, wacky mind, capable of causing great confusion in the chappal section of a masjid...I know who it`d better not be-and if its YOU, I`ve been practicing my roundhouse kicks!

Hey Fuzair,

Using my part of my nick; I knew it`d come to that...so I guess I`m honored...but dudely, if you`re going to parody me, at least have a modicum of intelligence gleaming in send up...if not, then you sound, well, like you...but good for you-you are aware of Foucault! We support your educational endeavors!

Mr. Rizvi,

Thanks for the piece. Would you care to comment on the latest scandal on the US government`s Bureau of Disinformation? Just heard an interview with a former CIA official who worked in the analytical thinktank of the org; he`s outraged.

Chowk Editors,

Thanks for this piece; keep them coming. Could you publish anything submitted from women activists in Pakistan?

Hobby ji makes somewhat more sense in #5, but I still don`t get how this article suggests that the wealthy are being demonized. Obviously there are contracts, social and otherwise that exist, and binary oppositions such as rich vs. poor don`t give the whole picture. If anything, Rizvi is saying that these oppositions don`t provide us with enough to understand oppression and violence. Where is the one-sidedness in this article?

It`s not my aim to slam or oppress (!) anyone here, just healthy dialogue. :)

I`ve been called by Ms. Shah, and it would be rude of me not to respond to the call..although I don`t know how to respond to something that is so totally incomprehensible. And we thought Homi Bhabha and Gayatri Spivak were difficult to understand! At least, even in their incomprehensibility, one can experience some moments of clarity.

Hobby ji...you owe the readers of this board the same respect you expect from Rizvi sahib. Is it that he was too simplistic for you? Or is it that you failed to understand that his presentation was certainly not exhaustive. If you think he owes us more than he said, then please, as Ms. Shah suggests, present your ideas in a clearer, less vitriolic manner, so that we can keep a healthy dialogue going.

In case most of us don`t realize this, this article comes from the EDucate! educating for social change magazine that he is the editor-in-chief of. As far as exploitation goes, what evidence is there if any that what Rizvi`s advocating for will be any more exploitative than what already exists right now?!? Puhleeeeze!

Ms. Shah

``radical public discourse?`` - is this form preferred because it is ``radical?`` - Isnit preferred because ``radical`` is the general ``good?`` Is ``good`` relevant in this discourse? are conceptionsof values relevant to the ``good``? Mr. Rizvi takes on very serious issues for all, but he does so in so one sided a manner that one is forced to ask if he done the subject matter a service.

``Wake up! we are living in the world where 5% are controlling the rest of the population..You don`t have to be Mr. Foucault to understand that.``

I`m not disputing that a minority control or have access to resources a majority have not availed themselves of. But it would be a disservice to not point out that there exist a contract between these points of view - that they rely on one anothers conception of the other, to justify themselves. If one is poor or uneducated (oppressed) is the right thing to do to reject wealth and education? or to seek it? Is it the right thing to do, to demonize persons or groups who are educated and wealthy?

``I quietly watched you destroy Mr. Rizvi`s previous interview with Chomsky with your braindead attitude...better not do it this time..``

My attitude is ``braindead`` and yet I can destroy Mr. Rizvi`s work? Not only am I on Mr. Rizvi`s side in the understanding of oppression and violence, I am also his side in seeking to understand more fully these notions and only by understanding them more fully, to dimish their influence and effect on society. Criticism of our line of thinking in this matter must be a priority.

No, Ms. Shah, this not about my ``braindead`` attitude. Mr. Rizvi and he is not alone in this, has not felt the need to deal with notions of values and their relationship with change/transitions in the depth the issue requires, in my judgement. This entire piece revolves around, is centered on values - yet many post modernists do not wish to engage this question for it brings into play that most heinous of conceptions, religion, tradition, and the nature of and agents of enduring change. In Europe and what we know as the ``West``, the changes from a ``traditional`` to a ``Modern`` and ``post traditional`` society, have been evolutionary, more or less voluntary, unplanned. Yet these luxuries are not afforded the majority of us, we have no refuge to seek in ``obliviousness`` and the certainty of ``unintended consequences`` marks our efforts. This ``consciousness`` is not without it`s own trials; a rejection of tradition and continuity is like throwing the baby out with the bath water and risks the better understanding of the relationship of change and values.

I suggest that we regard Mr. Rizvi`s work is a body of objective knowledge and refine it by offering valid, constructive criticism.

If it is true that we arrive at cogent, relevant answers by formulating very precise questions - that is to say, the questions themselves contain the kernel that will form the answers - should we not try to formulate such questions from this work?

HobbyTY...Thanks for rewriting what Mr.Rizvi said in his article. We shouldn`t lose track of what he is saying instead of just analysing it for the sake of analysing in a manner which appears mere gibberish...Well you should try to write some coherent ideas if you really want to participate in any form of radical public discourse...You don`t have to be a super post modernist in order to have simple understanding of the exisitng atrocities inflicted upon most of the world`s population. Why do you get into mere semantics instead of reading the writing on the wall...Wake up! we are living in the world where 5% are controlling the rest of the population..You don`t have to be Mr. Foucault to understand that. I quietly watched you destroy Mr. Rizvi`s previous interview with Chomsky with your braindead attitude...better not do it this time... Any thoughts on this Ana?

Dear Mr. Rizvi:

Unfortunate indeed are innocents upon whom you will be unleashed. Oppressed, exploited, unrecognized, victimized, etc., etc.,. Young minds under your ``astute`` guidance can look forward to building a world view in which it not they but others who have ultimate power over them, who ``exploit`` them. Under you tutelage, young minds shall remain innocent of the realization that the world is perceived in dualities and dichotomies, by agreement amongst one another.

``...the inhuman categorization of people, the rights to privilege, the self-proclaimed superiority of western values, functional inequality, the quest for greed, the concentration of power and wealth, morally and environmentally abusive consumerism, and the value of each human soul. Perhaps it is for this reason that, despite the seductive power of the media and perpetual educational indoctrination - which has tried to devalue or confuse their messages``

Exactly what is ``inhuman`` about categorizing people? Has it been done by ``inhuman`` persons, or is it an effort to organize? You said you were a ``progressive`` - but you express yourself like a ``Parisian Khalqi`` - ``Quest for greed,`` is that the same as financial security or independence? ``Self-proclaimed superiority...`` as opposed to waiting for someone else to proclaim it for them?? Is not the sensibility you express in this work, ``self-proclaimed?``

``Such responses provide indisputable evidence of the reflexive human will and hope to be free, regardless of relentless assaults from the managers and instruments of thought-control.``

Ah, yes - rage, Dionysius, rage! You show your true colors, Hegel and Foucault will not be obscured regardless of Shariati and the references to the Iranian revolution. Indeed what use reason and restraint and civilization, when ``reflexive`` humans are to be realized. Those poor, poor, innocent students. They are about to be introduced to exploitation in far more profound manner than the ethic of earning a living and bearing responsibility for your own ``happiness.`` Who needs ``happiness`` when rebellion realizes the self. ``Thought control,`` ``Social Control`` - control, control - what ever happened to self control?????? rebel?

``Many would think that I am trying to legitimize violence...`` where would they get that silly idea from? could it be statements like: `` I strongly believe that whilst considering violence, we must consider greater acts of violence and subjugation. We have continued to treat violence as a problem instead of realizing that it is actually one (of many) symptoms of a huge problem - the strangulating problem of social control.`` -Foucault, through and thru - and unbalanced - Control, Order is not a social evil, but reasonable persons do agree that it is a matter of degree, you on the other hand, reject it completely, in your writing, that is.

``I vehemently urge that the struggle between justice and tyranny cannot and should not be reduced to `rich vs. poor`, `white vs. black` or, for that matter, `West vs. East`.`` Just ``Oppressed , exploited, subjugated Vs Oppressors, etc.,?

Sir, the issues you raise deserve more balanced attention than you have given it here. We all want a ``just`` society, we know that such a society would be a far more ``fair``, less restrictive, more moral, more egalitarian society - one in which ``meaning`` can be sought, pursued, even deposited - I wonder if the ideological purity you have infused this work with (No Popper or Hayek or Van Quine), is a service or disservice to the piece, and your readers.

``Where there is oppression, there will be resistance`` Chaiman Mao

Mohsin Hamid`s book ``Moth Smoke`` also somehow
comes to mind.

Ras

A good and insightful article. The vision for a `just` world is there, but those of us wearing blinders of power, hate etcetera don`t seem to get it. I`m taking a course in resolving international conflicts this Winter, and we`re talking about whether peacemaking or peacekeeping are possible in a world without justice (and I`m not referring to courts and man-made laws here).

I`d like to see more articles like this..on understanding the roots of oppression and violence, and how very important a role education plays in this.

Perhaps the structures of education need to be changed as well..so that we don`t see it as being controlled by our oppressors, or by the state (which can also be oppressive). I remember as a child growing up, how incredibly problematic (and sometimes untrue) our history texts were for example...good article Mashhood! Hoping to learn more about your magazine.