For centuries, societies have always been confused about choosing the right mode of living. Individualism and collectivism are synonyms of each other, both being on the extreme ends. One explains how a society should live together to benefit each other using collective expertise while the other talks about the importance of individualism, the right of independence and self responsibility.
Individualism
Imagine a society where each person lives for his own benefits. Where all matters to an individual is his own development. Individualism is present in the society in which individuals are loosely tied to one another. They are expected to look after themselves as well as their immediate family. (Hofstede, Geert (1994), pg. 261).
In such a society every individual has its own separate entity and identity; he makes his own choices and decisions and is solely responsible for them. Each individual takes initiatives on his own and for his personal well being. Taking an example of the student, it is decision of an individual to work and study simultaneously or just concentrate on one thing. Working will defiantly provide him with extra money to fulfill his needs and wants but may also affect his grades. Only he himself is the decision maker and will face all the consequences.
An individualistic culture, any achievements is based on individual capabilities. To move up the hierarchy, one becomes as self centered and self dependent. It has been observed that most developed countries have individualistic approach to life. They have no peer or society pressure to do anything. It’s there own decision they make and stand by it. They learn from their mistakes and blame no one. In such kind of a society individual skills grow at a very fast pace.
Collectivism
Collectivism can be defined as a term where individuals work in groups and have no separate individual identity, separate values and objectives which could be totally poles apart from the individual goals. They are interdependent on each other and not an individual but everyone is shares responsibility of decisions taken. It gives more importance to combined aims and everyone works together to achieve them using join capabilities.
It is in the form of a society in which people ever since birth live in unified and interrelated groups, which along their lifetime protect and shelter them in place for absolute loyalty. (Hofstede, Geert (1994), pg. 260). In our daily lives we learn a lot from other people, their knowledge and abilities help us learn more and prevent us from making big mistakes. From childhood we are made to work in groups which stop people from thinking and eventually accept the decisions made by other people in the group.
Collectivism is a notion that represents millions of people in shape of a country and even a small group of two people like a marriage. It fades the right to make individual decision, choices and verdicts. In collectivism all the individuals are bound to accept the decision which may not be suitable for them. (Marcus, Gould, (2000)).
Conclusion
In my opinion individualism is the correct mode of living. In a society where each individual has a right to freedom of speech, he takes credit and responsibility for his decisions, actions and choices he makes. There is no peer or group pressure and everyone lives life according to their preferences.
References
Hofstede, Geert (1994). Cultures and Organizations – Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival. London: HarperCollins, Paperback edition
Marcus, Aaron and Gould, Emilie, West. Crosscurrents (2000): Cultural Dimensions and Global Web User-Interface Design.
Indigenous Sacred Ways
Indigenous people are described as “descendants of the original inhabitants of lands now controlled by political systems in which they have little influence” (Fisher, 38). Despite the liberation of thoughts and cultural diversity, many indigenous people still maintain a sacred way of life that is distinctively unique from all other religion. These enduring ways of traditional lifestyle which they call “Original Instructions” on how to live “were almost lost because of genocidal colonization, conversion pressures from global religions, mechanistic materialism and destruction of their natural environments by the global economy of limitless consumption” (Fisher, 38).
Most people in the world have heard of some of the global religions such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism and Buddhism. But few are perhaps familiar with the sacred ways and religions of Native Americans, Eskimos and Australian Aborigines.
Many indigenous sacred ways endured often in secret because of repression. In many native areas like Buryats in Russia and aboriginal Australia, sacred traditions were blended with the influence of colonists and missionaries. Non natives like those people from research, science and anthropology have difficulties understanding traditional ways, as a result, these ways are often misinterpreted.
Researchers of culture sometimes give wrong accounts towards sacred ways because they approach it from Western perspective and religious bias. Knowing that researchers of culture do not fully understand their sacred ways, indigenous people have at times given incorrect information “to protect the sanctity of their practices from the uninitiated” (Fisher, p. 40).
Their spirituality is the most distinct way of illustrating their sacred ways of lifestyle. Indigenous spirituality is a life way, a particular approach to all aspects of life (Fisher, p.41). They practice their spirituality through oral narratives and sharing of experience. They don’t have scriptures or written code of some sort unlike other known religions. Their life ways before however was only understood inside their community. Despite the hindrances to understand indigenous sacred ways of spirituality, contemporary world are now beginning to share their basic values. This is because of three reasons.
First, traditional elders in the hope to prevent industrial societies to destroy the earth that will cause planetary disaster are becoming more expressive to raise their concerns. Second, those from other religions begin to recognize the value and profundity of sacred ways that were often suppressed and discouraged by the organized religion before. Third, many as well are attempting to embrace sacred ways because their own culture lacks certain qualities like love for the earth that they find meaningful in human existence. Indigenous people still fear though at times that outsiders may unconsciously disrupt or alter their indigenous practices. Since their sacred ways are all that they have, they are afraid that this maybe ruined.
Though different indigenous people have common practices, it is important to see that their religion are quite distinct form each other. Some indigenous culture like Australian Aborigines still embodies a basic strategy of survival. Others though have been highly developed so cultural diversity manifest.
Cultural diversity happens when the location and areas where the indigenous people live is mix up with contemporary urban people. Cultural diversity varies in the degree of absorption and adaptation from the dominant religions and cultures in the area from which they live. While interaction with larger societies or colonial powers has been extremely detrimental to the indigenous people around the world, adaptation of the dominant religion have sometimes allowed the traditional people to survive (Fisher, p.42).
It gives them the opportunity to be educated and to find job in urban areas. The adaptation of newer religion will give their sacred ways more life and meaning.
Indigenous religions however maintain common characteristics. Their ways and concept in approaching the universe are common to many of them. Many indigenous religions hold the belief that everything in the universe, all forms of life are interdependent and interrelated. Their often symbol for interrelationship or unity is circle where life has no form of beginning and no endpoint. It can illustrate the ongoing cycle of birth, youth, maturity and death. It can also symbolize the shape of the earth, continuous return of seasons and the cyclical movements of the planets and stars in the universe.
Right relationships must be maintained to maintain the balance of existence within the circle of interdependence. To maintain circles one must develop right relationships with everything: spirits, people, creatures and the power within.
Many indigenous traditions worship a Supreme Being which they also believe that Creator is “All Powerful” yet too distant for humans to ask for help. Awareness of one’s relationship to the Great Power is thought to be essential but the Power itself remains unseen and mysterious (Fisher, p. 45).
So they conform or rely to what they think is more immediate and accessible like nature powers, animal spirit helpers and their ancestors who passed away. The ancestors can be very important as many traditions believe that a person is a composition of many souls. Continued communication with their dead ancestors is extremely significant for the indigenous people specifically the Africans. They believe that these unseen creatures will act as a mediator between people and the Creator. Old teachings about the spirit help people understand how to live and approach life in the society.
Their kinship with all creation is best explained on how they view nature. For them all aspects of material and tangible world are instilled with spirit and so therefore spiritually connected (Fisher, p.46). Everything is experienced as a family. Since the earth abounds with living presences, everything on earth or earth as a whole is considered as a Being- that “being” then must be loved, embraced and respected. They considered Earth as a Mother.
The land where you live, as they believe, is the Mother’s body and must be respected. Everybody has to some extent relationships with power. Everybody has the capacity to develop an appropriate relationship with spiritual energy. A person might experience this power from sacred sites where concentrated power spots were known. Power can be built up through continuous sacred practices (Fisher, p. 50).
Although people can interact with the unseen, and the natural world, for them it is thought to be best left to specially trained. They have what they call shamans who offer themselves as a intermediary between the physical and non-physical world. Shamans can be the “healers” as well. Native Ways can be summarized as:
- Everything for them is sacred.
- Circle of right relationships
- Native Mystical relationships
- Humans are care takers of the Earth
- Humans should consider their actions in light of seven generations in the future.
Since indigenous sacred ways is often oral tradition, indigenous people have the responsibility to preserve and tell the stories of the past from the future generations.
Unfortunately not all contemporary people appreciate sacred way of life. It is inevitable that the sacred practices will be ruined. Much traditional spiritual wisdom has been largely obliterated; slogan like “Kill the Indian and save the man” is a manifestation. Boarding schools initially tried to stop the native sacred ways specifically those of the American Indians, Alaska Indians, Australian Indians and Mexican Indians. Many traditions have been merged with the world religion. Indigenous people approach this with silence and temperament though afraid that their sacred ways will be totally ruined. They created secret societies that will continually preserve their traditions.
Reference
- Fisher, Mary Pat. Living Religions: An Encyclopaedia of the World’s Faiths. Published by I.B.Tauris. 1997. pp.38-63
Marxist Theory: India And Pakistan Over Kashmir
Theories have a very essential role in society. The processes of explaining various phenomena in the world become easier by using these educated assumptions. The reasons pertaining to the causes of conflict could also be analyzed by using various theories. These theories can also be used to identify the ways on how to address the conflict. This idea is exemplified by the Marxist Theory and how it is applied in the dispute between India and Pakistan and the conflict territory of Kashmir.
Marxist Theory
Marxist theory or philosophy pertains to the philosophical work that is strongly influenced by one of the most renowned personality in history, Karl Marx, a great German theorist and political activist. He became well known through his materialist approach theory.[1] He is also responsible for several social theories that deal with social conflict.[2]
The Marxist theory that deals with the conflict approach highlights the materialist understanding of history. The materialist perspective of history originated from the idea that the most essential factor that determines the kind of social life of an individual is based on the work that he or she is doing. The theory gives importance to the type of job that provides the basic necessities. Marxism deems that work is socially organized, and the existence of technological advancement tremendously impacts production and other aspects of the society. Marx also stresses that everything of value in society is the outcome of human labor. Hence, he looks at men and women who are engaged in labor as the makers of the society. They are responsible for forming the circumstances in which they live in.[3]
Marx separated history in three stages in terms of the society’s economic structure: feudalism, capitalism, and socialism. Majority of Marx’s works focus on the materialist theory of society and how it could be applied in a capitalist economy. Marx’s emphasis on capitalism is due the fact that this was the dominant type of economy during the 19th century in Europe which Marx used as a model. Marx elaborated the idea of capitalism by describing it in terms of private property. He believed that this is the core institution of such kind of society. Capital refers to money and other means of production like machines, tools, factories. Marx stated that these important resources are controlled by the minority of the population. This resulted in two opposing classes, namely: the bourgeoisie or the owners of the means of production and the proletariat or the workers. The proletariat’s only property is their labor which they use as a commodity and sell to the bourgeoisie to sustain their needs.[4]
According to the Marxist theory, the bourgeoisie gain profit by giving unfair compensation to their laborers. The owners would pay their workers less than what their work actually deserved; this is referred to as exploitative labor. The terminologies in this theory emphasizes the material forces of production or the means of production and the social relations of productions, which pertain to the division of labor, and its relation to social classes and their relationships.[5]
The abovementioned economic exploitation is also directly related to political oppression. This is observable through the capitalists’ capability to use their economic leverage in order to achieve control in the state. By placing themselves in the position of power, the capitalists manipulate the state so that it would adhere to their economic interests. A good example of this manipulation is through police power. The bourgeois could influence them to implement property rights and make sure that the contracts used would benefit them at the expense of the workers.[6] Simply put, they would legalize the unjust partition of property wherein the capitalist gains more leverage than the laborers.
Forms of oppressions are not always as blatantly done as the previous example. There are also subtle ways of this injustice. Religion could also serve the interest of the bourgeois by pacifying the people through the teachings of their faith. The capitalists can also pay intellectuals in order to convince society of the soundness of the existing economy that is grounded on the idea of bourgeois-proletariat relation. Generally, the capitalists’ economic advantage could affect the other areas in the society like its morality, ideologies, and even aesthetics such as arts and literature. Hence, the economic structure has a great impact in society, creating a superstructure that could modify other institutions such as the state, family, and educational system in order to support the kind of economy that they want to preserve.[7]
The power of the ruling class encompasses the economy as well as the ideology that the society follows. Since they control the social interaction of production, they also have the capability to impose the thinking of capitalism among the people. Thus, social institutions would function in their favor as they will reproduce and reinforce the economic structure of the ruling class. In all of these, Marx perceived that the unjust economic make-up of capitalism is the real basis wherein the superstructure composed of social, political, and ideological awareness is created.[8]
Contrary to most people’s belief, Marx was an optimist because he believed that, regardless of what stage in history an unjust economic structure might exist, it would eventually be abolished due to its own destructive tendencies. In the Marxist dialectic method, Marx explained that the existing social structure comes with its own destruction, referred to as the thesis. The unsoundness of this kind of social structure would trigger its own destruction. When that happens, it would pave the way for a social structure that is the exact opposite of the existing one, pertained to as the antithesis. The thesis and the antithesis would create a struggle wherein the outcome would be substantially different form of social structure called the synthesis.[9]
India and Pakistan Conflict
The tension between India and Pakistan is rooted from Britain’s decision to separate its previous Indian Empire. In 1947, the partition of the sub-continent took place which also marked the rivalry between these two countries. The hostility is brought about by various causes such as religion and history. The conflict is further aggravated by the long running territorial dispute over Jammu and Kashmir. As years pass by, the animosity worsened to the point that it escalated into the proliferation of nuclear arms.[10]
When India received its independence from Great Britain in 1947, the Indian subcontinent was divided. The existence of Pakistan originated from a proposal that there should be a separate homeland for Muslims. Thus, the partition took place, but the movement of Muslims, Sikhs as well as Hindus resulted in massive violence. This is because most of them transfer to the wrong side of the partitioned provinces. The reported casualties caused by this incident reached approximately half a million due to communal violence, while millions more were left homeless.[11]
Jammu and Kashmir
Jammu and Kashmir are regions characterized by their cultural distinctness. These territories were previously under the Sikhs during the 19th century. However, when the British defeated the Sikhs in 1846, they established a Hindu ruler, the Maharaja. The Maharaja took control of the Buddhist area of Ladakh, the Jammu region composed primarily of Hindus, the valley of Kashmir comprised mostly of Muslims, and other smaller Muslim Kingdoms.[12]
The partition created India and Pakistan, but it left the case of Kashmir uncertain. There was no clear decision on who would annex this territory. Two months following the countries’ creation, the Maharaja gave the national government of India the authority to control Kashmir. This triggered the war between India and Pakistan. The cessation of the war took place after the United Nations managed a ceasefire in July 1949. At the same time, Pakistan gained control of one third of Kashmir’s territory. India then gained the remaining territory but with a near independence status. Nevertheless, in 1956, India annexed Kashmir as a state despite the previous agreement. This incident immediately resulted in a riot within the Muslim population of the territory. Eventually, the war resumed in 1965 and another armed conflict between India and Pakistan broke in 1971 due to Bangladesh’s independence (formerly East Pakistan). The development of the conflict almost turned into a nuclear war. As both countries are not parties to the nuclear non-proliferation agreement, they were able to create nuclear arsenals despite the opposition coming from the international community.[13]
Both countries have different arguments as to why they should have the authority towards the regions of Jammu and Kashmir. For over 50 years, Pakistanis deemed that these regions should become part of their country because the majority of the states’ citizens are Muslims, especially in Kashmir. On the other hand, India claimed that they should have the authority over Jammu and Kashmir because the Maharaja gave this to them through the instrument of accession in October 1947.[14]
There have been promising updates towards the peaceful resolution of the conflict. In January 2004, the Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf had an agreement which involves normalizing the India-Pakistan relationship and making the necessary steps in the Kashmir dilemma. However, the agreement’s progress has been slow. There are also threats that violence might resurface especially with the change of leadership in both countries.[15]
Application of the Marxist Theory over the Conflict
As discussed earlier, Marxist Theory gives importance to the means of production, specifically the capital such as land and technological machineries. In the same manner, one of the causes of the conflict between India and Pakistan is also due to their competition over resources. This is greatly observable in their animosity towards each other due to the disputed territories of Jammu and Kashmir.
The regions of Jammu and Kashmir have been considered as “heaven on earth” and the “bio-mass state of India.”[16] The Kashmir valley’s fertile soil is advantageous for agriculture. The regions are also havens of various flora and fauna as well as different wildlife. Furthermore, aquatic vegetation and marine life are also abundant in these territories.[17] Hence, it is not surprising that India and Pakistan are fighting over these regions.
Marx’s assumptions with regard to the capability of the ruling class to impact society are also observed in this conflict. Even though Kashmir is dominated by Muslims, the Hindus are the ones who hold the position of power. The Hindus are considered as the ruling class in Kashmir as they are reigning terror and violating human rights of the Muslim population. This is proven by the findings of the Kashmir’s Council for Human Rights which concluded that India violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights General Assembly Resolution 217 A (111) December 1948 and breached Article 5 of this resolution: “no one shall be subject to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.”[18] In this situation, exploitative labor has turned a new face; instead of unfairly compensating the workers for their labor, the ruling class exploited the other group by humanely violating them to get what they want.
Marx’s dialectic theory of thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis is also applicable in the conflict of India and Pakistan. Due to the unjust social structure in terms of the economic, political, and social aspects of the regions, this existing arrangement would eventually self-destruct. The series of violent conflict that took place that are presently happening are just some of the indicators that this destruction is already evident. Nevertheless, the idea of synthesis is still possible, especially when a substantial and effective peace agreement is created in order to address the destruction that is currently happening.
The discussions above only prove that theories are indeed beneficial in explaining and understanding why certain events like the conflict between India and Pakistan take place. Moreover, employing the Marxist theory provides a clearer picture of the causes of the dispute. The real situation behind the conflict especially the people who suffer from it also becomes more noticeable and is given due consideration. Hence, the conflict is viewed from a different perspective that further emphasizes the real problem: its effect on society and human lives which must be immediately addressed.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BBC News. “India-Pakistan: Troubled relations.” (n.d.). Database on-line. Available from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/south_asia/2002/india_pakistan/timeline/default.stm, accessed 10 September 2008.
Enlexica. “Marxist Theory.” (2008). Database on-line. Available from http://www.123exp-
business.com/t/04254174403/, accessed 10 September 2008.
Kashmir Council for Human Rights. “Conclusions.” (1996). Database on-line. Available
from http://www.ummah.net/kashmir/kchr/concl.htm, accessed 10 September 2008.
McClelland, Kent. “Conflict Theory.” (2000). Database on-line. Available from
http://web.grinnell.edu/courses/soc/s00/soc111-01/IntroTheories/Conflict.html, accessed 10 September 2008.
News Batch. “India, Pakistan and Kashmir.” (2004). Database on-line. Available from
http://www.newsbatch.com/kashmir.htm, accessed 10 September 2008.
Reza, Ali. “Bio-diversity of Jammu and Kashmir.” (n.d.). Database on-line. Available from
http://www.kashmirnetwork.com/wildlife/biodiversity.html, accessed 10 September 2008.
[1] Enlexica, “Marxist Theory,” (2008) [database on-line]; available from http://www.123exp-business.com/t/04254174403/, access 10 September 2008.
[2] Kent McClelland, “Conflict Theory,” (2000) [database on-line]; available from
http://web.grinnell.edu/courses/soc/s00/soc111-01/IntroTheories/Conflict.html, accessed 10 September 2008.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] BBC News, “India-Pakistan: Troubled relations,” (n.d.) [database on-line]; available from http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/south_asia/2002/india_pakistan/timeline/default.stm, accessed 10 September 2008.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] News Batch, “India, Pakistan and Kashmir,” (2004) [database on-line]; available from http://www.newsbatch.com/kashmir.htm, accessed 10 September 2008.
[14] BBC News, “India-Pakistan: Troubled relations,” (n.d.) [database on-line]; available from http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/south_asia/2002/india_pakistan/timeline/default.stm, accessed 10 September 2008.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ali Reza, “Bio-diversity of Jammu and Kashmir,” (n.d.) [database on-line]; available from http://www.kashmirnetwork.com/wildlife/biodiversity.html, accessed 10 September 2008.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Kashmir Council for Human Rights, “Conclusions,” [database on-line]; available from http://www.ummah.net/kashmir/kchr/concl.htm, accessed 10 September 2008.