Amartya Sen

Identity and Violence

When we hear of a conflict, we want to know who the two sides are - we need to categorize people in order to work out the reason for the conflict. But In Identity and Violence:The Illusion of Destiny Amartya Sen warns us that we need to take care when attaching labels to people in this way, since the labelling itself can easily become a reason for violence.

Sen's argument is that no person is defined by a single label. Each of us is a member of many different communities. But it is all to easy for those who wish to gain power to focus attention on a single membership - in particular that of religious belief. Sen sees this splitting the world into 'them and us' as a tendency which is responsible for a great deal of the conflict in the world and one which must be resisted.

Sen looks at several different aspects of this process in the world today. The rise of fundamentalist Islam is an obvious example. There is also a chapter on the West v anti-West split, and the dangers of countries losing much of value in the attempt to separate themselves from western influence. Sen also has a warning for those with the best of intentions, that multiculturalism shouldn't become a federalisation of people into different groups.

Sen pushes his main message a lot, and the book seems a bit repetitive at first, but it gets more interesting as it proceeds, benefitting from his wide knowledge. My feeling is that Sen has something very important to say, and I certainly intend to read more of his works.

Amazon.com info

Paperback 240 pages
ISBN: 0393329291
Salesrank: 41690
Weight:0.49 lbs

Published: 2007 W. W. Norton

Amazon price $10.85

Marketplace:New from $8.00:Used from $6.86

Buy from Amazon.com

Amazon.co.uk info

Paperback 240 pages
ISBN: 0141027800
Salesrank: 9668
Weight:0.4 lbs

Published: 2007 Penguin Books Ltd

Amazon price £6.99

Marketplace:New from £3.64:Used from £3.86

Buy from Amazon.co.uk

Amazon.ca info

Paperback 240 pages
ISBN: 0393329291
Salesrank: 52247
Weight:0.49 lbs

Published: 2007 WW Norton

Amazon price CDN$ 14.60

Marketplace:New from CDN$ 8.57:Used from CDN$ 8.57

Buy from Amazon.ca

Product Description
"One of the few world intellectuals on whom we may rely to make sense out of our existential confusion."—Nadine Gordimer In this sweeping philosophical work, Amartya Sen proposes that the murderous violence that has riven our society is driven as much by confusion as by inescapable hatred. Challenging the reductionist division of people by race, religion, and class, Sen presents an inspiring vision of a world that can be made to move toward peace as firmly as it has spiraled in recent years toward brutality and war.

Product Description

"One of the few world intellectuals on whom we may rely to make sense out of our existential confusion."—Nadine Gordimer

In this sweeping philosophical work, Amartya Sen proposes that the murderous violence that has riven our society is driven as much by confusion as by inescapable hatred. Challenging the reductionist division of people by race, religion, and class, Sen presents an inspiring vision of a world that can be made to move toward peace as firmly as it has spiraled in recent years toward brutality and war.

Unfolding the causal link between identity and violence ****
I thought Sen accurately nailed the problem on the head - strong identities lend themselves to violence. This is an inherent problem with identity. When you form strong attachments with like-minded people, you must by necessity be exclusive. The dark side of exclusivity is that people often times treat the 'other' as the 'enemy.' This is not to say that identity per se is evil or even anti-social. Quite the contrary. As Robert Putnam correctly points out in Bowling Alone, there is enormous positive value in forming close-knit communities, not the least of which is that it forces you to be less selfish. There is no selfishness like being a loner. So far, so good. I think where Sen's book runs into trouble is his critique of Sam Huntington's seminal book - The Clash of Civilizations. Huntington's thesis is that the world is no longer driven by ideological struggle (communism vs. free capitalism) but now by civilizational struggle (the prime example being Islamic vs. Western). Sen objects to this civilizational paradigm as being too reductionistic and instead advocates seeing people as belonging to a complex web of associations, with civilizational/religious ties being one of many. As Sen puts it, a Christian and a Muslim will be less at odds with each other if they realize that they share other identities, like gender, class, profession, interests, etc. There are several problems with Sen's argument. (1) Huntington's thesis does have its flaws, as all meta-theories invariably do (for instance, India, as Sen points out, is not singularly an Hindu civilization), but I think it's pretty much on the mark with Islamists and many others. So Huntington's book is descriptive, not prescriptive. Sen's book is prescriptive, but tries to come off as descriptive. (2) Sen is convinced, wrongly, that it is only a small cadre of self-appointed leaders who have whipped up the general population and imposed, quite artificially, these civilizational/religious identities for their own power-hungry reasons. No doubt there are people who cynically use identity for their own gain (the Chinese Politburo immediately comes to mind). But I think it is Sen who is now reductionistic, kinda insulting to non-elites, and frankly conspiratorial. (3) Sen seems to think religious identity should have the same force, no more and no less, than any of several identities. But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of religion. Religion, by definition, demands ultimate allegiance. I think this is difficult for Sen as a self-confessed secularist to understand. (4) Sen is absolutely wrong in his insistence that singular identities cause violence while multi-form identities lend themselves to peace. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of violence. Strong, singular identities may be the avenue through which violence is exercised, but there is something twisted and evil in the heart of man that will use any platform, any paradigm to destroy and kill. The real question should be: what kind of exclusive identity will nevertheless embrace the alien `other'? (Aside: as a Christian, may I say that if the core of your identity is a man who died for his enemies, that will lend itself to the most embracing kind of strong identity.) This is unrelated to Sen's argument, but may I grip about his prose a bit? First, I found Sen's syntax to be unnecessarily complicated. Second, Sen is incredibly repetitive. He basically says that same thing over and over and over again. How many ways can you extol the benefits of complex identities? Pluriform, variegated, sundry, multitudinous identities? If you find yourself looking at the same entry in your thesaurus over and over again, maybe it's time to find something new to say... I want to conclude by saying that I really enjoyed Sen's book overall. He made many incisive points, such as arguing against the idea that democracy is the province of 'Western' thinking. Sen rightly rejects that kind of misguided and patronizing cultural relativism. I thought his foray into Muslim history was really interesting and informative. And here, Sen made a very interesting point that one cannot condemn violence or even terrorism as being strictly anti-Muslim, as Islamic thought is not, nor cannot be, settled on the subject. As for Sen's earnest plea for a civil society in which religion has a diminished role, I think Sen betrays too much his own narrow secularist vision. I don't think an enlarged role of religion in the public sphere necessarily means a less rational world. Prof Sen, why should they have to be at cross purposes? A thought-provoking read throughout!

Unfolding the causal link between identity and violence ****

I thought Sen accurately nailed the problem on the head - strong identities lend themselves to violence. This is an inherent problem with identity. When you form strong attachments with like-minded people, you must by necessity be exclusive. The dark side of exclusivity is that people often times treat the 'other' as the 'enemy.' This is not to say that identity per se is evil or even anti-social. Quite the contrary. As Robert Putnam correctly points out in Bowling Alone, there is enormous positive value in forming close-knit communities, not the least of which is that it forces you to be less selfish. There is no selfishness like being a loner.

So far, so good. I think where Sen's book runs into trouble is his critique of Sam Huntington's seminal book - The Clash of Civilizations. Huntington's thesis is that the world is no longer driven by ideological struggle (communism vs. free capitalism) but now by civilizational struggle (the prime example being Islamic vs. Western). Sen objects to this civilizational paradigm as being too reductionistic and instead advocates seeing people as belonging to a complex web of associations, with civilizational/religious ties being one of many. As Sen puts it, a Christian and a Muslim will be less at odds with each other if they realize that they share other identities, like gender, class, profession, interests, etc.

There are several problems with Sen's argument. (1) Huntington's thesis does have its flaws, as all meta-theories invariably do (for instance, India, as Sen points out, is not singularly an Hindu civilization), but I think it's pretty much on the mark with Islamists and many others. So Huntington's book is descriptive, not prescriptive. Sen's book is prescriptive, but tries to come off as descriptive. (2) Sen is convinced, wrongly, that it is only a small cadre of self-appointed leaders who have whipped up the general population and imposed, quite artificially, these civilizational/religious identities for their own power-hungry reasons. No doubt there are people who cynically use identity for their own gain (the Chinese Politburo immediately comes to mind). But I think it is Sen who is now reductionistic, kinda insulting to non-elites, and frankly conspiratorial. (3) Sen seems to think religious identity should have the same force, no more and no less, than any of several identities. But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of religion. Religion, by definition, demands ultimate allegiance. I think this is difficult for Sen as a self-confessed secularist to understand. (4) Sen is absolutely wrong in his insistence that singular identities cause violence while multi-form identities lend themselves to peace. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of violence. Strong, singular identities may be the avenue through which violence is exercised, but there is something twisted and evil in the heart of man that will use any platform, any paradigm to destroy and kill. The real question should be: what kind of exclusive identity will nevertheless embrace the alien `other'? (Aside: as a Christian, may I say that if the core of your identity is a man who died for his enemies, that will lend itself to the most embracing kind of strong identity.)

This is unrelated to Sen's argument, but may I grip about his prose a bit? First, I found Sen's syntax to be unnecessarily complicated. Second, Sen is incredibly repetitive. He basically says that same thing over and over and over again. How many ways can you extol the benefits of complex identities? Pluriform, variegated, sundry, multitudinous identities? If you find yourself looking at the same entry in your thesaurus over and over again, maybe it's time to find something new to say...

I want to conclude by saying that I really enjoyed Sen's book overall. He made many incisive points, such as arguing against the idea that democracy is the province of 'Western' thinking. Sen rightly rejects that kind of misguided and patronizing cultural relativism. I thought his foray into Muslim history was really interesting and informative. And here, Sen made a very interesting point that one cannot condemn violence or even terrorism as being strictly anti-Muslim, as Islamic thought is not, nor cannot be, settled on the subject. As for Sen's earnest plea for a civil society in which religion has a diminished role, I think Sen betrays too much his own narrow secularist vision. I don't think an enlarged role of religion in the public sphere necessarily means a less rational world. Prof Sen, why should they have to be at cross purposes?

A thought-provoking read throughout!

The Illusion of Incomprehension ***
Amartya Sen's ideas and opinions in this book are eminently agreeable. However, this book comes across as either a hard-selling rebuttal to the nay-sayers to Sen's theories about identity, or repetitive professing to a reader who doesn't get it. If I eat a peanut every time Sen criticizes Samuel Huntington and the Civilization theory, I will weigh a thousand pounds. With this book and the repeated attempts to nullify Civilization theory, Sen makes it much more important than it will or should be. Amartya Sen continues to educate and continues to make smart and rational arguments that question conventional conservative wisdom. If this is your first Amartya Sen book, you will definitely get the party line in the signature format. However, if you are looking for more insights than what you have already received from the author, this book may not be the right one to spend time on.

The Illusion of Incomprehension ***

Amartya Sen's ideas and opinions in this book are eminently agreeable. However, this book comes across as either a hard-selling rebuttal to the nay-sayers to Sen's theories about identity, or repetitive professing to a reader who doesn't get it.

If I eat a peanut every time Sen criticizes Samuel Huntington and the Civilization theory, I will weigh a thousand pounds. With this book and the repeated attempts to nullify Civilization theory, Sen makes it much more important than it will or should be.

Amartya Sen continues to educate and continues to make smart and rational arguments that question conventional conservative wisdom. If this is your first Amartya Sen book, you will definitely get the party line in the signature format. However, if you are looking for more insights than what you have already received from the author, this book may not be the right one to spend time on.

Wise Counsel ****
I am compelled to write a review of this book for one reason - much of the harshest criticism of the book appears to me to miss its fundamental aim. The criticism of Mr Sen seems to be reduced to two issues the first being that he is a relativist and the second being that he is somehow an apologist. This criticism of the book is entirely based on the false premise that Mr Sen in some way is arguing that we should somehow learn to love the extremist. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr Sen's basic argument in this book is not about how we should learn to accomodate extremism but rather how we should learn to defuse extremist tendencies arising from religious identity or cultural identity. Perhaps the most telling section of the book and to my mind the core argument is that in dealing with the rise of islamic fundamentalism western governments should address their islamic citizens as citizens of the state and members of the civic community rather than as members of a religious community. He argues that Britain in particular is mistaken in reacting to terrorism in particular or cultural isolationism in particular in seeking to use the moderate religious leadership as allies within the community to the exclusion of all other forms of engagement . The argument is that if the state uses the moderate religious leadership as its principal path of discourse with the community then the state is giving credibility to the extremist religious leadership if only by making it the obvious haven for those who feel themselves most disenfranchised and separate from the state in which they live. Simply put, if the government that you hate is being helped and assisted by the moderate leadership then you will cease to engage with that moderate leadership and find yourself more definitely and irrevocably aligned with the extremist fundamentalist leadership. Mr Sen's argument is that rather than seeking to interact with the islamic community through the medium of their faith one should seek to interact and engage with them through the medium of their civic life thereby engaging them and empowering them in the process of the state itself. The flip side of this argument, the one which most of the negative reviews here appear to concentrate on is that we must not see people simply as stereotypes of their religious or cultural identities. This argument may be relativist but it is also true. Mr Sen's argument is that if we reduce the individual to a single all encompassing identity based on religion or race then we lose the ability to engage with them on a civic basis. Mr Sen's book is compelling and important one that should be read more widely to show us how we have erred and given credence to the extremists by failing to realise that a man with a grievance should be seen first and foremost as a man and should be dealt with, addressed and engaged on that basis. How anyone can have a difficulty with this is beyond me.

Wise Counsel ****

I am compelled to write a review of this book for one reason - much of the harshest criticism of the book appears to me to miss its fundamental aim. The criticism of Mr Sen seems to be reduced to two issues the first being that he is a relativist and the second being that he is somehow an apologist.

This criticism of the book is entirely based on the false premise that Mr Sen in some way is arguing that we should somehow learn to love the extremist. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Mr Sen's basic argument in this book is not about how we should learn to accomodate extremism but rather how we should learn to defuse extremist tendencies arising from religious identity or cultural identity.

Perhaps the most telling section of the book and to my mind the core argument is that in dealing with the rise of islamic fundamentalism western governments should address their islamic citizens as citizens of the state and members of the civic community rather than as members of a religious community. He argues that Britain in particular is mistaken in reacting to terrorism in particular or cultural isolationism in particular in seeking to use the moderate religious leadership as allies within the community to the exclusion of all other forms of engagement . The argument is that if the state uses the moderate religious leadership as its principal path of discourse with the community then the state is giving credibility to the extremist religious leadership if only by making it the obvious haven for those who feel themselves most disenfranchised and separate from the state in which they live. Simply put, if the government that you hate is being helped and assisted by the moderate leadership then you will cease to engage with that moderate leadership and find yourself more definitely and irrevocably aligned with the extremist fundamentalist leadership.

Mr Sen's argument is that rather than seeking to interact with the islamic community through the medium of their faith one should seek to interact and engage with them through the medium of their civic life thereby engaging them and empowering them in the process of the state itself.

The flip side of this argument, the one which most of the negative reviews here appear to concentrate on is that we must not see people simply as stereotypes of their religious or cultural identities. This argument may be relativist but it is also true. Mr Sen's argument is that if we reduce the individual to a single all encompassing identity based on religion or race then we lose the ability to engage with them on a civic basis.

Mr Sen's book is compelling and important one that should be read more widely to show us how we have erred and given credence to the extremists by failing to realise that a man with a grievance should be seen first and foremost as a man and should be dealt with, addressed and engaged on that basis. How anyone can have a difficulty with this is beyond me.

A prayer for freedom of identity *****
Sen is so eloquent it's overkill. To a global but divided world he speaks of identity as a multi-layered matter of personal choice: "The same person can, for example, be a British citizen, of Malaysian origen, with Chinese racial characteristics, a stock broker, a non-vegitarian, an asthmatic, a linguist, a bodybuilder, a poet, an opponent of abortion, a bird-watcher, an astrologer, and one who believes that God invented Darwin to test the gullible." (p. 24) Sen notes several popular ways of dealing with identity. One he calls "identity disregard", and another is "singular affiliation". In "identity disregard" we dismiss all shared identity, and treat each person as an economic self-interest group of one. As some proponents of this view argue, "If it's not in your interest, why have you chosen to do as you did?". Sen notes that this assumption, "makes huge idiots out of Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela, and rather smaller idiots out of the rest of us." (p. 21) "Singular affiliation" on the other hand, defines people by their membership in one (only one) of their many social circles. This can be an externally imposed label, as in stereotypes of what Westerners are, or in can be self-imposed general conformity -- as when Oscar Wilde said, "Most people are other people. ... Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation". Feeling both social and an individual, Sen launches his excellent exporation of identity in the modern world. He visits the great "West VS Non-West" divide, where he dispenses with the usual hoopla: "... in disputing the gross and natsy generalization that members of the Islamic civilization have a belligerant culture, it is common enough to argue that they actually share a culture of peace and goodwill. But this simply replaces one stereotype with another, and furthermore, it involves accepting an implicit presumption that people who happen to be Muslim by religion would be similar in other ways as well." (p. 42) In many corners of the world Sen shows the subtle handicaps which delimited identy can impose. He mentions South African doctor and anti-apartheid activist Mamphela Ramphele, who describes the impact of polarized identity on the AIDS crisis: The "mistrust of science that has traditionally been controlled by white people" hampers medical efforts; open discussion of the problem is often suppressed by "the fear of acknowledging an epidemic that could easily be used to fan the worst racial stereotyping". (p. 92) Always sounding magisterial, Sen wades into the home-town issues of British multiculturalism, political correctitude, and the struggles of "globalism vs anti-globalism". He distinguishes between the desire for ethnic groups to leave one another alone, and the desire for a freedom to choose among many cultural options. To those who urge funding schools for each religion he is blunt: "It is unfair to children who have not yet had much opportunity of reasoning and choice to be put into rigid boxes guided by one specific criterion of categorization, and to be told: 'That is your identity and this is all you are going to get'." (p. 118) To people who believe their identity is more a fate than a choice, Sen affirms we can do better: "We have to make sure, above all, that our mind is not halved by a horizon". The book's opening dedication sounds almost like a Buddhist vow to seek enlightenment: "To Antara, Nandana, Indrani, and Kabir with the hope of a world less imprisoned by illusion".

A prayer for freedom of identity *****

Sen is so eloquent it's overkill. To a global but divided world he speaks of identity as a multi-layered matter of personal choice: "The same person can, for example, be a British citizen, of Malaysian origen, with Chinese racial characteristics, a stock broker, a non-vegitarian, an asthmatic, a linguist, a bodybuilder, a poet, an opponent of abortion, a bird-watcher, an astrologer, and one who believes that God invented Darwin to test the gullible." (p. 24)

Sen notes several popular ways of dealing with identity. One he calls "identity disregard", and another is "singular affiliation".

In "identity disregard" we dismiss all shared identity, and treat each person as an economic self-interest group of one. As some proponents of this view argue, "If it's not in your interest, why have you chosen to do as you did?". Sen notes that this assumption, "makes huge idiots out of Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela, and rather smaller idiots out of the rest of us." (p. 21)

"Singular affiliation" on the other hand, defines people by their membership in one (only one) of their many social circles. This can be an externally imposed label, as in stereotypes of what Westerners are, or in can be self-imposed general conformity -- as when Oscar Wilde said, "Most people are other people. ... Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation".

Feeling both social and an individual, Sen launches his excellent exporation of identity in the modern world. He visits the great "West VS Non-West" divide, where he dispenses with the usual hoopla:

"... in disputing the gross and natsy generalization that members of the Islamic civilization have a belligerant culture, it is common enough to argue that they actually share a culture of peace and goodwill. But this simply replaces one stereotype with another, and furthermore, it involves accepting an implicit presumption that people who happen to be Muslim by religion would be similar in other ways as well." (p. 42)

In many corners of the world Sen shows the subtle handicaps which delimited identy can impose. He mentions South African doctor and anti-apartheid activist Mamphela Ramphele, who describes the impact of polarized identity on the AIDS crisis: The "mistrust of science that has traditionally been controlled by white people" hampers medical efforts; open discussion of the problem is often suppressed by "the fear of acknowledging an epidemic that could easily be used to fan the worst racial stereotyping". (p. 92)

Always sounding magisterial, Sen wades into the home-town issues of British multiculturalism, political correctitude, and the struggles of "globalism vs anti-globalism". He distinguishes between the desire for ethnic groups to leave one another alone, and the desire for a freedom to choose among many cultural options. To those who urge funding schools for each religion he is blunt: "It is unfair to children who have not yet had much opportunity of reasoning and choice to be put into rigid boxes guided by one specific criterion of categorization, and to be told: 'That is your identity and this is all you are going to get'." (p. 118)

To people who believe their identity is more a fate than a choice, Sen affirms we can do better: "We have to make sure, above all, that our mind is not halved by a horizon". The book's opening dedication sounds almost like a Buddhist vow to seek enlightenment: "To Antara, Nandana, Indrani, and Kabir with the hope of a world less imprisoned by illusion".

The Illusion of Great Intellect? *
Mr. Sen's great contribution to the ongoing debate about our response to terrorism is to add to the confusion. This book makes a simple point: a cat is not a cat because it is also a mother/ father, a baby, a hunter, a prey, a mammal, a quadruped, and various other things. If we consider it only as a cat, we tend to oversimplify things, which is a great tragedy from an intellectual point of view. Mr. Sen makes this point across many pages, using facts and information selectively, performing marvelous feats of intellectual contortion, and using his argumentative powers with terrific verbosity. Gradually you start getting tired of trying to understand the argument, and take refuge in his intellectual reputation. If Mr. Sen says so, then it must be so. Unfortunately, it is not so. Mr. Sen himself has used categories and grouped identities repeatedly in his works. An identity is of course a construct, a definition, which helps us work with an idea. If we abandon these, it will become very difficult to handle complex ideas - we will be reduced to monkeys who are great at dealing with percepts, but not with concepts. What is the point of this book, one may ask? The book may merely be an attempt to deflect attention from radical forms of Islam, which often lead to terrorism. In this apologist work, Mr. Sen does not bother to ask the Muslims as to how do they see themselves, what do they see as their defining identity. However, Mr. Sen has no love lost for traditional forms of Islam, if practiced in the West, as he carefully spears the multi-culturalists to death with his eyes carefully trained on the Western audience. For instance, according to him, cultural diversity can be enhanced if individuals are 'encouraged' to live as they value living. It is clear to him, however, that young Muslim women are unlikely to value living behind a veil freely, as that would merely constitute 'an automatic endorsement of past traditions'. Mr. Sen fails to see that following traditions may itself be an implicit and integral value in a particular culture. It is also difficult for Mr. Sen to see that what is considered 'sexual freedom' by a particular society, may be considered as 'sexual perversity' in another society. Indeed in the same society, people would have differing views. In such a situation, who are we to arbiter what is right for a group of people in their personal lives? He also makes various vacuous arguments. For instance, both Aurangzeb and Dara Shikoh were Muslims. Aurangzeb was 'rather intolerant', whereas Dara Shikoh was interested in Hindu Upanishads. Aurangzeb killed Dara Shikoh (in a fight over the throne). Aurangzeb's great-grandfather was also a tolerant Muslim. Therefore, there is great diversity among Muslims. Therefore, it is wrong to treat all Muslims as belonging to the same mindset. No one would argue against that. However, after making this kind of obvious arguments endlessly, Mr. Sen slyly insinuates that we should not link hundreds of terrorist incidents (where Muslims were directly involved) with radical Muslims, as Muslims have multiple identities, which he has already proved! It is really quite a pity. One would wish that Mr. Sen could put his great intellect to more worthwhile use, such as helping us understand why people group together in monolithic blocks or get radicalized enough to want to kill others who do not subscribe to their views. A hardcover edition of this book has also been published by Penguin India under the banner 'Allen Lane'. While the binding of the Penguin edition is good, the typeface is a little difficult to read. Also the paper is almost like newsprint, and tends to absorb ink (if you like making notes in the margins). The book is a slim volume, easy to carry. Buy this book if you would like to argue it out with Mr. Sen. Or if you want to appear to be politically correct, never mind the cost to your intellect.

The Illusion of Great Intellect? *

Mr. Sen's great contribution to the ongoing debate about our response to terrorism is to add to the confusion.

This book makes a simple point: a cat is not a cat because it is also a mother/ father, a baby, a hunter, a prey, a mammal, a quadruped, and various other things. If we consider it only as a cat, we tend to oversimplify things, which is a great tragedy from an intellectual point of view.

Mr. Sen makes this point across many pages, using facts and information selectively, performing marvelous feats of intellectual contortion, and using his argumentative powers with terrific verbosity. Gradually you start getting tired of trying to understand the argument, and take refuge in his intellectual reputation. If Mr. Sen says so, then it must be so.

Unfortunately, it is not so. Mr. Sen himself has used categories and grouped identities repeatedly in his works. An identity is of course a construct, a definition, which helps us work with an idea. If we abandon these, it will become very difficult to handle complex ideas - we will be reduced to monkeys who are great at dealing with percepts, but not with concepts.

What is the point of this book, one may ask? The book may merely be an attempt to deflect attention from radical forms of Islam, which often lead to terrorism. In this apologist work, Mr. Sen does not bother to ask the Muslims as to how do they see themselves, what do they see as their defining identity.

However, Mr. Sen has no love lost for traditional forms of Islam, if practiced in the West, as he carefully spears the multi-culturalists to death with his eyes carefully trained on the Western audience. For instance, according to him, cultural diversity can be enhanced if individuals are 'encouraged' to live as they value living. It is clear to him, however, that young Muslim women are unlikely to value living behind a veil freely, as that would merely constitute 'an automatic endorsement of past traditions'. Mr. Sen fails to see that following traditions may itself be an implicit and integral value in a particular culture.

It is also difficult for Mr. Sen to see that what is considered 'sexual freedom' by a particular society, may be considered as 'sexual perversity' in another society. Indeed in the same society, people would have differing views. In such a situation, who are we to arbiter what is right for a group of people in their personal lives?

He also makes various vacuous arguments. For instance, both Aurangzeb and Dara Shikoh were Muslims. Aurangzeb was 'rather intolerant', whereas Dara Shikoh was interested in Hindu Upanishads. Aurangzeb killed Dara Shikoh (in a fight over the throne). Aurangzeb's great-grandfather was also a tolerant Muslim. Therefore, there is great diversity among Muslims. Therefore, it is wrong to treat all Muslims as belonging to the same mindset.

No one would argue against that. However, after making this kind of obvious arguments endlessly, Mr. Sen slyly insinuates that we should not link hundreds of terrorist incidents (where Muslims were directly involved) with radical Muslims, as Muslims have multiple identities, which he has already proved!

It is really quite a pity. One would wish that Mr. Sen could put his great intellect to more worthwhile use, such as helping us understand why people group together in monolithic blocks or get radicalized enough to want to kill others who do not subscribe to their views.

A hardcover edition of this book has also been published by Penguin India under the banner 'Allen Lane'. While the binding of the Penguin edition is good, the typeface is a little difficult to read. Also the paper is almost like newsprint, and tends to absorb ink (if you like making notes in the margins). The book is a slim volume, easy to carry.

Buy this book if you would like to argue it out with Mr. Sen. Or if you want to appear to be politically correct, never mind the cost to your intellect.

Unique identities? ***
I was very interested in this book when it came out, as it sounded like a more considered exploration of my own view: that it simply isn't adequate to refer to someone as a "muslim", or a "christian" or a "jew". I've been banging on about identity for a while - a hardline muslim may well feel that their relationship to God is the defining factor about their lives... but I simply don't believe them. When they are at the football match, or deciding what to have for tea, or kissing their partner... I don't believe that faith crosses their mind. And it felt to me that if we want to encourage people towards progressive, rational, basically liberal approaches to ethics then we need a public discourse which doesn't put people in tiny boxes. This, of course, is very difficult, when terrorist acts happen to be very newsworthy, and the people carrying out those terrorist acts happen to be muslim. At least the term 'Islamist' has arisen - hopefully enabling mainstream muslims to view those fundementalists in the same way liberal christians would view, I don't know, Branch Davidians. This book is a relatively short discussion of the illegitimacy of ascribing single identity to groups. Be it Huntingdon 'Clash of Civilisations', or communitarian sociologists who suggest that individuals 'naturally' discover their own community identity. It's also, not so explicitly, about the illegitmacy of claiming single identity. Sen's states very clear the importance of reason, and choice, in identity (although within limits - clearly a Jew in Nazi Germany couldn't go swanning about saying "never mind my jewishness, I quite like Wagner"). Despite short, it's not the easiest book to read. The concepts are clear, it's more that Sen summarises his argument in pretty much every chapter, and even within chapters. This is useful in clarifying the argument, but because he's quite descriptive and evocative in his language, can mean that you (if you're like me) get bogged down in a couple of passages. What it doesn't solve, for me, is what we do when people do chose a single identity. Or more that, while we accept that people are free to ascribe different important to their complex and contradictory identities - some identities do have a basic 'core' that may be positive, or negative. Being a football fan will tend to involve taking an interest in football. In this, how do we criticise those aspects of faith which appear to have a negative impact? A muslim may not declare jihad every time he goes to the post office, but is that because he isn't being a very good muslim? Obviously that goes for all faiths which declare "revealed truth" from scripture, but then pick and choose from the scripture.

Unique identities? ***

I was very interested in this book when it came out, as it sounded like a more considered exploration of my own view: that it simply isn't adequate to refer to someone as a "muslim", or a "christian" or a "jew". I've been banging on about identity for a while - a hardline muslim may well feel that their relationship to God is the defining factor about their lives... but I simply don't believe them. When they are at the football match, or deciding what to have for tea, or kissing their partner... I don't believe that faith crosses their mind. And it felt to me that if we want to encourage people towards progressive, rational, basically liberal approaches to ethics then we need a public discourse which doesn't put people in tiny boxes. This, of course, is very difficult, when terrorist acts happen to be very newsworthy, and the people carrying out those terrorist acts happen to be muslim. At least the term 'Islamist' has arisen - hopefully enabling mainstream muslims to view those fundementalists in the same way liberal christians would view, I don't know, Branch Davidians.

This book is a relatively short discussion of the illegitimacy of ascribing single identity to groups. Be it Huntingdon 'Clash of Civilisations', or communitarian sociologists who suggest that individuals 'naturally' discover their own community identity.

It's also, not so explicitly, about the illegitmacy of *claiming* single identity. Sen's states very clear the importance of reason, and choice, in identity (although within limits - clearly a Jew in Nazi Germany couldn't go swanning about saying "never mind my jewishness, I quite like Wagner").

Despite short, it's not the easiest book to read. The concepts are clear, it's more that Sen summarises his argument in pretty much every chapter, and even within chapters. This is useful in clarifying the argument, but because he's quite descriptive and evocative in his language, can mean that you (if you're like me) get bogged down in a couple of passages.

What it doesn't solve, for me, is what we do when people *do* chose a single identity. Or more that, while we accept that people are free to ascribe different important to their complex and contradictory identities - some identities do have a basic 'core' that may be positive, or negative. Being a football fan will tend to involve taking an interest in football. In this, how do we criticise those aspects of faith which appear to have a negative impact? A muslim may not declare jihad every time he goes to the post office, but is that because he isn't being a very good muslim? Obviously that goes for all faiths which declare "revealed truth" from scripture, but then pick and choose from the scripture.

The dangers of 'plural monoculturalism' *****
Sen argues that British policy on multiculturalism is undermining individual freedom (that it represents 'plural monoculturalism'). It represents a classic debate on whether identity is (a) monolithic and (b) ascribed or chosen. For Sen, it's not the specific identity that matters but its context. Meanwhile, others highlight those individuals who accept their identity as given (not chosen). Of course, this always gets complicated when a national identity is involved. I agree with Sen's argument, though, that defering community cohesion to the community spokespersons lessens the wider campaign of civil society.

The dangers of 'plural monoculturalism' *****

Sen argues that British policy on multiculturalism is undermining individual freedom (that it represents 'plural monoculturalism'). It represents a classic debate on whether identity is (a) monolithic and (b) ascribed or chosen.

For Sen, it's not the specific identity that matters but its context. Meanwhile, others highlight those individuals who accept their identity as given (not chosen).

Of course, this always gets complicated when a national identity is involved. I agree with Sen's argument, though, that defering community cohesion to the community spokespersons lessens the wider campaign of civil society.