Viviana Gomez-Sanchez (Article review)

Van Der Ven, Johannes A. 2006 The Multicultural Drama: Religion's Failure and Challenge, Australian Ejournal of Theology, Issue 7.
The idea of a mono-cultural society and the acceptance of multiculturalism in western civilisations is one of the answers given by Samuel Huntington in order to explain how we could stop conflict between major religions and civilisations, such as Islam and Christianity. According to Van Der Ven’s analysis it is important to first delve into history to gather how western civilisation dealt with various minorities. This can also help to have a better understanding of the relationship between major cultures and minorities. Huntington, as outlined by Van Der Ven, applied four interaction models: 1) syncretism, 2) oppression, 3) tolerance, and 4) religious freedom in a human rights framework (Van Der Ven, Johannes A. 2006). Firstly, western civilisation is a product of the syncretism and polytheism of the Greek and Roman eras, but this contradicts Huntington’s statement of western civilisation functioning as monoculture. It is also argued that polytheism and monotheism could succeed and function simultaneously. Secondly, Van Der Ven agrees that even though forceful assimilation in politics and religion is virtually non-existent in the West, there are other forms of oppression. Most of these are ways of manipulation in families and religion groups in order to make the ideas that were previously resisted in the past seem acceptable and ‘practice-friendly’. Thirdly, Van Der Ven used Thomas Aquinas’ statement to argue that the rites of people with unfamiliar faiths - specifically Jews and Muslims - must be tolerated for the greater good and to avoid an even greater evil. He bolsters this by arguing that this can be achieved if different religious forms were tolerant of others, thereby preventing discord between societies (Van Der Ven, Johannes A. 2006). Finally, there’s the question: can minorities be respected as well as tolerated? He mentioned that preferably ‘religious freedom should not feature in the category of individual human rights but also in the collective right’. Out of the four interaction models Van Der Ven believes that only the fourth model allows freedom, equality and reciprocity among all groups in society.

Benjamin Barber, Jihad versus McWorld Ground-breaking article 1992, Atlantic Monthly
The article made by Benjamin Barber (Jihad vs McWorld) show us two potential political prospects of the future and how neither of them carries democratic objectives for societies (Benjamin Barber, 1992). On one hand the ‘retribalization of large swaths of humankind by war’, the conflict between cultures, people against people and a Jihad in the name of many conceived faiths against non-believers or others. On the other hand, the run and spread of economic and ecological forces which constantly demand a global unity and uniformity. Music, new technology, fast food and so on are also fascinating the world in order to take countries in what he mentions as a ‘commercially homogenous global network’. McWorld remains active in four imperatives explained by the author: market imperative, resource imperative, information technology imperative and ecological imperative (Benjamin Barber, 1992). The resource imperative refers to in many cases the erroneous distribution of mineral and other resources in the planet which leads to many wealthy nations to become more resource dependent and other nations to desperation. These imperatives lead to different scenarios and some are more powerful than others. The market appeals to the democratisation of capitalism, the enforcement of contracts and regulation of trade and currency relations only to mention some. The resource imperative leads in many cases the erroneous distribution of minerals and other resources in the planet which leads to many wealthy nations to become more resource dependent and other nations to desperation. As well as the first two imperatives the informational and ecological imperatives have also appeal to the enforcement of national borders and the absence of democracy. Jihad on the other side transmits different doctrines. First, the fortification of local identity and community along with the value of solidarity which in more cases means obedience to the authority, support in wars against outsiders and in some cases the self sacrifice of individuals in the name of the group or community. These two ‘possible political futures’ explained and interpreted by the author show how their functions and virtues opposed. One relies on ‘parochial’ aversion and the other one on the globalization of markets. Also, one creates ethic frontiers and the other creates ‘national border porous’ (Benjamin Barber, 1992). However, again both prospects do not contribute in the development of citizen’s participation to live in a real democracy. Alternatively, the author does not believe in the violent and cruel vision of Jihad or in the boring and tedious McWorld. He believes in the ‘desire for self-government, participation, accountability, consent and representation (Benjamin Barber, 1992). He also believes that democracy grows from bottom up instead of growing from the top down by domination and imposition (Benjamin Barber, 1992).

Zuckerman, Phil, 2003, Religion is socially learned, Ch.3 in Invitation of the sociology of religion, New York, Routledge, pp.47-60.
In order to understand how individuals become part of different religious belief systems, a sociological perspective is used by Zuckerman. Sociologically speaking, individuals unconsciously acquire most of their behaviour, customs, and sets of beliefs from the society where they live. Thus, most of the things we know, feel, and do are socially internalised (Zuckerman, 2003). Also, most of things socially learned by individuals in societies come from family, particularly from parents. For that reason individuals commonly become religious or become part of a religious system if their parents have motivated them to do so since childhood (Zuckerman, 2003). Furthermore, in some cases people not only learned religion through family but also through interaction with friends and even religious conversion through marriage (Zuckerman, 2003). People learn and practice their religious experience and cultural belief in formal and informal ways. Most of these experiences are expected to happen in a person’s life in the same exact way they were socially learned and accepted by their culture and religion forms. They follow the same religious path and make the same religious choices made by their social network (Zuckerman, 2003). If religion is socially learned how can religious experience be possible? As well as religion itself, religious experiences are described by sociologists as socially learned. As previously mentioned, religious experiences are influenced by culture and society, so specific religious experiences are accepted and expected by a given culture. In conclusion, “Religious identity and conviction are not generally so much a matter of choice or faith or soul-searching as a matter of who and what one’s parents, friends, neighbours, and community practice and profess” (Zuckerman, 2003).