Who Speaks for a Religion?

The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is a small and "virulently homophobic, anti-Semitic" religious group that regularly stages protests at the funerals of U.S. soliders killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Why? Because the WBC believes that U.S. soldiers are fighting to promote tolerance of homosexuality. To make their point, members of the church may fly 1,000 miles or more to stage protests with signs reading, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "Planes Crash, God Laughs," "Pray for More Dead Soldiers," "God Hates Fags," and "You're Going to Hell."

By and large, most people try to ignore the WBC, hoping they'll tire of their crusade and melt back to obscurity. Certainly, few people suggest that the WBC represents Christianity at large or even a sizable segment of the Christian population. But, what if it did? What if the WBC were a m

ainstream Christian organization? Would this make the word of its founder, Fred Phelps, the word of Christ and of the Christian world? Certainly not. Yet, many of these same people believe that when a handful of radical Islamic clerics espouse their conception of Islam that it must, by definition, be the word of Islam.

The point is simple: any world religion is complex and multivocal. There is can be no one true interpretation--that is, when it is mere mortals who must do the interpreting. Yet, it is often the case that the interpretation that receives the most notice, especially among non-believers, is the one which is most virulent or the most fanatical. When we add into the mix an understanding that the interpretation of religious "texts" does not occur in a vacuum, but is instead influenced by an array of political, social, economic forces, it is easy to see that we must be very careful about ascribing universality to any view of any religion.

Social Constructivism and ‘Jihad Cool’

Last night (May 10, 2010), on the way home from class, I listened to a story on NPR’s Talk of the Nation (“Help Young Muslims Resist ‘Jihad Cool’). The story (interview) was interesting on many levels, but what I found particularly interesting—and relevant to our just-concluded discussion of social constructivism—was how some young, Western-educated, and relatively affluent and privileged Muslims, such as Faisal Shahzad, are being drawn into radicalism and “terrorism.” The speaker, Asra Nomani, argued, in essence that certain mosques and leaders in the Muslim community are constructing a reality that defines the West, and the United States in particular, as inherently dangerous and threatening to Islam. The West, as Nomani put it, “is the dark path.” She continues:

“We're hearing it in our mosques. I can tell you that in my mosque in West Virginia, I heard it every Friday from these sermons that would be spoken by PhD graduate students, by engineering professors, folks who were getting all of the advantages of our open society and yet, on Thursday night downloading from Saudi websites sermons that basically said, don't imitate the path, the disbelievers, meaning the West. And this is exactly that slippery slope that ends up with something like this Times Square bomb attack - attempt.”

In this socially constructed reality, it becomes easier to understand the type of “how-possible” questions that social constructivists, such as Roxanne Doty, speak of. Consider, for example, how it is possible for a privileged young man (Shadzad is the son of a vice marshal in the Pakistani Air Force) to load a car up with explosives and park it in Times Square with the intent of killing dozens of people. How is it possible, in other words, for individuals to come to an understanding that such actions are reasonable and justified? The answer should already be clear. To repeat: it is possible because, through an increasingly potent discourse, the West has become an almost demonic entity that must be destroyed, regardless of the personal costs.

We can also see how this discourse (seemingly) limits or narrows the type of choices available to “true believers.” On this point, Nomani notes (in an earlier article she wrote for the Daily Beast) that, for talented young Muslims, there are few nonviolent avenues for protests to lure them away from the temptations of “jihad cool.” To Neal Conan (Talk of Nation’s host) this made little sense. As he succinctly put it, “there are a million ways to express protest in this country.” Conan is certainly right, but the (social constructivist) point is that, within the reality of the anti-Western discourse, nonviolence protest is not a viable option; indeed, it is hardly an option at all.

Not surprisingly, Nomani seemed to recognize this—in responding to Conan’s remark, she emphasized the importance of constructing an alternative discourse, one that “educated” and “empowered” Muslim youth to see the world differently and to “take advantage of those non-violent ways.”

There is also a larger point here (social constructivists tell us). For it is not only a radicalized Islamic discourse that creates certain social constructed realities: the entire social world is a product of various discourses, some mainstream and some extreme. In the United States, we have created equally powerful discourses that shape our perceptions--create our "realities"--that few of us question or even think about.

--------------------------

A transcript of the story, “Help Young Muslims Resist ‘Jihad Cool’” is available on the NPR website at this address: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126672350&ft=1&f=5

Asra Nomani’s original article, “The Would-Be Bomber’s Wife” is available on the Daily Beast webstie at this address: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-05-06/the-would-be-bombers-wife/

The Sea Shepherd: A Global Policeman?

Today, most of the world considers killing (and eating) whales to be morally repugnant (although this certainly not the case for centuries leading up to the mid-20th century. Indeed, until the mid-1900s, whales were considered by most countries a “free resource, a gift from nature, available to anyone who would hunt and kill them.” Over the past several decades, however, attitudes and international norms have changed considerably. Part of this is due to over-whaling and the understanding that many species of whales were being driven to the brink of extinction. Part is also due to an understanding that whales are sentient and highly intelligent beings. Whatever the motivation, the distaste for whaling led to widespread international efforts to protect the species. These efforts began in the 1970s and eventually led to international agreements to regulate whaling, including the imposition by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) of a moratorium on commercial whaling (in 1986).

While most countries complied with the spirit of the moratorium, one major whaling country did not: Japan. Japan exploited a loophole in the agreement, a loophole that allowed countries engage in whaling for the purposes of scientific research. There remains a great deal of debate over Japan's use of this loophole--it is not entirely clear whether Japan's continued "slaughter" of whales violates the moratorium. But, even if it does, another issue immediately arises: there are no sanctions--no enforcement mechanism--that can prevent countries from engaging in commercial whaling.

This is where the Sea Shepherd comes in. Sea Shepherd is a non-governmental organization, which has taken up the role of enforcing international law, or, as the organization puts it on its website, its "primary mandate is to assume a law enforcement role as provided by the United Nations World Charter for Nature." Over the past couple of years, a major part of this effort has been directed at the Japanese whaling fleet (an effort made famous by the cable television series, Whale Wars).

From the standpoint of IR, the activities of the Sea Shepherd are interesting and represent a relatively new development. Traditional versions of international relations theory--i.e., realism--have assumed that only states matter. Yet, Sea Shepherd's activities demonstrate, albeit in a very limited way, that non-state actors have the potential to play a much larger, more significant role, and in ways that have not been anticipated. In this case, for example, we have a non-state actor enforcing (or attempting to enforce) international law against the Japanese whaling industry and by extension, against the Japanese state. On this point, it is sufficient to note that Japan's national government is the ultimate target of the Sea Shephard, since it is the government that permits its whalers to conduct "scientific research" and it is the government that defends this practice.

Of course, Sea Shepherds' "enforcement capacity" is insufficient to stop whaling, but this partly because of insufficient resources. If Sea Shepherd were vastly richer--and able to deploy larger and better ships and able to pay its crew members--it likely would have a much stronger impact. At the very least, it might be able force a rethinking of the Convention--it would force members of the IWC back to the bargaining table.

The point, I should stress, is not to extoll the activities of Sea Shepherd (there are many critics, including other environmental NGOs, such as Greenpeace, which disagree with the organization's tactics) or condemn Japan; rather, my point is to highlight the potential and growing role of non-state actors in world politics.

NOTE TO POLS 427 STUDENTS: This is a "quick-and-dirty" sample of a journal entry. It is useful noting that this entry was not based on single news story, but on a series of stories. In addition, my entry originally derives from the few episodes of Whale Wars I saw last year. In addition, to make the entry more substantive, I had to do a bit of research: I went to the IWC website, the Sea Shepherd website, and a few others. Better entries will often--but not always--require that you expand your reading beyond a single story.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and Comparative Analysis

Normally, one wouldn't expect to find an opportunity to connect the comparative method to the US military's "Don't Tell, Don't Ask" policy, but a recent article in the military's academic journal, Joint Forces Quarterly, show us how comparative analysis can be used in the most unexpected places.

According to this article (which is discussed in a recent LA Times column by Megan Duam--I will post the link below), the author relies at least somewhat on comparative analysis to show that having openly gay soldiers in the military does not have demonstrably negative impact on unit cohesion (which is the primary argument against allowing gays to openly serve).

Col. Om Prakash, the author, points out that countries such as Australia, Britain, Canada and Israel, which have lifted bans on gays in the military, have seen "no impact on military performance, readiness, cohesion or ability to recruit or retain"; instead, the don't ask, don't tell policy "forces a compromise in integrity" that is ultimately "damaging to the unit cohesion its stated purpose is to preserve."

I have not read the original article, so I cannot say how well Prakash carries out his comparative analysis, but, clearly, a good part of his argument is premised on comparisons.

Here is a link to the article by Megan Daum: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-daum8-2009oct08,0,6727164.column

The Subculture of Fundamentalism

The conservative backlash against President Obama has, I think, many sources, but one source is clear: the subculture of religious fundamentalism. This point is made clear in a recent interview of Frank Schaeffer on the Rachel Maddow show. Schaffer is a former founder of the "religious right." As Schaeffer explains, the religious right constitutes a distinct sub-culture in American society.

There are undoubtedly very clear, very powerful values and beliefs that shape how members of this culture see the world; these values and beliefs, more importantly, have a direct impact on behavior. One might say that they dictate, to a large extent, what people say and do. How else, for instance, can one explain the fact that one in three conservatives in New Jersey believe that Obama is the anti-Christ?

As students of political science and of comparative politics, the point is not to ridicule or condemn such beliefs, but, instead, to understand where they come from, why they thrive, and how they impact the world. As a comparativist, we can start to answer some of these questions by looking around the world. For instance, we can see if there meaningful parallels between fundamentalism in the US and fundamentalism in other countries. Identifying such parallels may help us understand better why fundamentalist ideas take root and how they spread. In particular, a little comparative thinking allows us to see how fundamentalism relates to other social, political and economic processes. Looking around the world also allows us to see what happens when fundamentalists occupy positions of dominance in the political and social system--as in Iran. We are also forced to confront uncomfortable questions, such as this: Despite differences in religious beliefs, would an American fundamentalist regime be meaningfully different the Iranian theocracy?

.

Here is the link to the interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPwGV1h4lW8

South Korea and Global Sex Trafficking

The following is an excerpt from a longer article, which will be published this fall in the Korean Quarterly.

South Korea clearly does not fit the profile of most major source countries for sex trafficking. For South Korea is the world’s 13th largest economy and a member of the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). Its real per capita income, according to the World Bank, is just under $27,000—about the same as Greece and Italy. In mid-2009 (at the height of the global recession), moreover, the country’s employment rate was only 3.9 percent, one of the lowest in the industrialized world at the time. Significantly, too, in terms of the United Nation’s Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM), South Korea ranks fairly high: 26th in the world, which is comparable to Germany, Israel and Greece and one of the best in Asia (behind only Japan, Hong Kong, and Singapore). Yet, as I just suggested, South Korea is a major source of trafficked and smuggled women in the global commercial sex trade. The major destinations, not surprisingly, include some of the wealthiest countries and regions—the United States, Japan, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe. But, other significant destination countries include those with a level of development very similar to South Korea, such as Hong Kong and Taiwan, and countries that are much poorer: Vietnam, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan.[i]

Minimally, there are tens of thousands of Korean women involved in global sex trafficking at any one time, and perhaps hundreds of thousands over the past several decades. In the United States specifically, there are likely at least five to ten thousand sexually exploited Korean women in total, and as many as 20,000 (perhaps more). Unfortunately, it is impossible to provide a precise estimate. It is also important to note that, rather than decreasing as the country has become richer, sex trafficking (including smuggling for sexual exploitation) from Korea, by all accounts, is steadily growing. There are several reasons for this, which I will talk about shortly. First, though, it is also worth emphasizing that South Korea is not only an important source of global sex trafficking, but is also a significant destination. Since the 1990s, in particular, thousands of women primarily from the Philippines, Russia, China, and Central Asia, have been “imported” into South Korea to work as prostitutes near US military bases for American soldiers (since the mid-2000s, though, the US military command has attempted to stamp out this practice through an anti-human trafficking campaign). At the same time, wealthy and middle class Korean men are increasingly fueling the demand for foreign sex workers in South Korea,[ii] for just as American men demand easily exploited, “exotic” foreign women, so do Korean men.

South Korea, however, is not unique. There are a number of countries that are both major sources of and destinations for global sex trafficking (it is also important to recall that all countries have their own, internally generated source of sex trafficking). Still, it is likely that South Korea stands alone as the most prosperous “supplier” of sexually exploited women to the rest of the world in general, and to the United States more specifically.

...

---

[i] Dong-Hoon Seol and Geon-Soo Han, “Korean Migrant Women in Entertainment Business in the United States, Japan, and Australia,” Report prepared for the Bombit Women’s Foundation (Seoul, South Korea, 2009).

[ii] Dong-Hoon Seol, “International Sex Trafficking in Women in Korea: Its Causes, Consequences and Countermeasures,” Asian Journal of Women’s Studies 10, no. 2 (June 30, 2004).

Sticks, Stones, and . . . Socialism?

"Sticks and stones will break your bones, but words ...?" They can derail health care reform. While the debate over health care reform rages, one particularly invidious and pervasive tactic has been to label the government's efforts "socialism," even Nazi socialism (a charge leveled by Rush Limbaugh). It's still an open question whether this attempt to delegitimize health care reform by labeling it socialism will work, but one thing is sure: it's had an unequivocal impact on the overall debate. I bring this up because, in the social sciences, there is a tendency to discount subjective (or more accurately, intersubjective) forces--such as words and ideas--but it is clear that intersubjective forces are driving the debate today. Many of these ideas, of course, are completely baseless or are so hyperbolic they should be funny. But we know that, to many Americans, they are deadly serious.

So it is with the concept of socialism. The Obama administration clearly is not advocating socialism; instead, it is advancing a form of publicly funded health care, wherein the government is not even involved in the direct delivery of medical care (as it is, say, in Britain). In this regard, it might not even be accurate to call the administration's efforts "socialized health care." But, for the sake of argument, let's say that it is socialized health care. The question becomes, why is this so wrong? Certainly, to many critics of the Obama administration, it really doesn't matter what you call it: any government involvement in the health care system is necessarily bad; not only that, it is un-American. The logic here seems to be that the government itself is evil--maybe a necessary evil--but evil nonetheless. The government can do no right, so it should do nothing at all.

This is an odd position. After all, the same vicious opponents to socialized health care, generally speaking, have no problem at all with socialized national defense. Nor do they have a problem with socialized police and socialized courts, or socialized retirement (i.e., social security), and so on. Ironically, many don't even have a problem with socialize medicine, as a large number of the most outspoken critics are clearly taking advantage of Medicare. And, of course, legislators who are against socialized health care have no problem with their own government-provided health care plans.

All these contradictions fall by the wayside, though, through the intersubjective and subjective power of a simple word: socialism.

Hard Times Ahead for CSUs

The recently approved budget is going to result is some very hard times for the CSU and for CSLA specifically. Already, dozens if not hundreds of course sections are being cut throughout the university, lecturers are being effectively laid off, fees are being increased, and thousands of students will find that they will not be able to enroll in courses they need to graduate (for example, the POLS department is cutting both of its upper division theme courses). Students who already take 5, 6 or seven years to graduate, may find that it takes even longer from now on. What is the solution? The easiest one, of course, is for California's overall economy to improve: as the economy improves funding will likely, although not necessarily, be restored to previous levels. But, here's the rub: the boom and bust cycles are almost certain to repeat, and for every "bust" the situation for the CSUs (and UCs) gets worse.

The longer term solution must be a more stable source of funding for the system of higher education in the state. The California Faculty Association has proposed on solution--California AB 655, which will impose a tax on the oil extracted from California and devote the associated revenue to the state's three public higher educations systems. I do not how viable this proposal is, either politically or economically, but creative solutions are definitely needed. The consequence of doing nothing is the inevitable decline and decimation of public higher education in California, which in turn, will have far reaching repercussions for the state.

Who is Korean? Migration, Immigration, and the Challenge of Multiculturalism in Homogeneous Societies

“I don’t know,” opines a 31-year old Korean woman. “I have always believed that Korea is a single-race country. And I’m proud of that. Somehow, Korea becoming a multiracial society doesn’t sound right.” This is not an unusual view. Indeed, the large majority of Koreans would likely agree that Korean society is inextricably tied to and defined by a unique Korean identity, one based on an uncompromising conflation of race and ethnicity. The strong tendency among Koreans to conflate race and ethnicity has important implications, the most salient of which is this: it has served to create an exceptionally rigid and narrow conceptualization of national identity and belongingness. To be “truly” Korean, one must not only have Korean blood, but must also embody the values, the mores, and the mind-set of Korean society. This helps explain why overseas Koreans (from China, Russia, Japan, the United States and other countries throughout the world) have not fit into Korean society as Koreans. They are different, “real” Koreans recognize, despite sharing the same blood. At the same time, those who lack a “pure blood” relationship, no matter how acculturated they may be, have also been rejected as outsiders. This rejection, more importantly, has generally led to severe forms of discrimination.

This is arguably most apparent with “Amerasians,” who, in South Korea, are primarily children born to a Korean woman and an American man, usually a U.S. soldier. It is important to note here that it was only in 1998 that non-Korean husbands gained legal rights to naturalize, while non-Korean wives have long had this right. At the same time, up until 1994, most “international marriages” in Korea were between a foreign man and Korean woman. According to the ethno-racial and patrilineal logic of belongingness in South Korea, then, Amerasians have been viewed as decidedly non-Korean interlopers who belong, if anywhere, in the land of their fathers. The ill treatment of Amerasians was, as Mary Lee and others have argued, exacerbated by a patriarchal and hyper-masculine sense of national identity: Amerasian children were associated with the “shame” and “humiliation” of a dominant Western power conquering and abusing Korean women for sexual pleasure. Not surprisingly, then, Amerasians have been ostracized from mainstream Korean society; they were not only subject to intense and pervasive interpersonal and social abuse, but also to institutional discrimination—Amerasian males, for example, were barred from serving in the South Korean military, which is mandatory for every other Korean male and is “an institutional rite of passage which enables access to citizen rights” (emphasis added) (This law was revised in 2006 so that “mixed-blood” Koreans could voluntarily enlist for military service.) In concrete terms, the discriminatory treatment of Amerasians has resulted in unusually high school drop out rates (and much lower levels of educational achievement overall), significantly higher rates of unemployment and underemployment, and much lower pay.

This is a full-length article. The rest can be viewed online on Japan Focus.

Why California is Not too Big to Fail

California is big, very big. If it were a separate country, it would be one of the largest economies in the world: somewhere between the 8th and 10th largest, depending on the year and source you look at. In 2007, California’s gross state product was $1.812 trillion, number one in the country. In terms of population, California is the largest state in the U.S. with about 38 million people, or about one-eighth of total U.S. population. California is also a pretty large employer: in 2009, the state had, on its direct payroll, 244,061 active employees. By these measures, California is certainly “bigger” than, say, AIG, which has received something like $173 billion in US taxpayer money. Hundreds of other banks, insurers and even a few manufacturers (all much smaller than California) have received bailout funds as well, ranging from a few million dollars to tens of billions of dollars. Despite California’s immense size, however, there is almost no prospect that it will receive federal “bailout” funds to help it out of its current budget mess—a deficit that exceeds $26 billion (really, pocket change in light of the amount of money AIG has received).

All of this raises the obvious question, “Is California too big to fail?” This is a question many pundits have also asked and answered: most answer that California, in fact, is not too big to fail. I think they are right, but they are asking the wrong question. The right question should focus more on the “power” of California as a state. And, as an economic and political actor, California has precious little power. It is important at this point, however, to take a small step back. When I speak of “power” I do not mean the power that comes from just being big. Indeed, that’s a small aspect of power, especially from the standpoint of political economy. Instead, when I speak of power, I’m borrowing from the ideas of Susan Strange, who talked about structural power and, more specifically, four dimensions of structural power: security, production, finance, and knowledge. I don’t have time to discuss all these dimensions here (to learn more, take my POLS/ECON 426 course), so let me just say that in terms of structural power, California is quite small.

As an economic and political actor, for example, California doesn’t have much productive power in its own right: “California” doesn’t produce things in the way that Chrysler or GM do (two economic actors that received bailouts); rather, it’s the companies that are based in California that produce things. Similarly, while banks and large financial institutions have power because they control “credit” (the lifeblood of an economy), California’s financial power is very limited. The state does provide security, which is why police, prison system, and the courts are much more protected than other players in the state, but this isn’t enough to protect the budget as a whole. Finally, the state does have a university system, which produces “knowledge,” and this is not unimportant: but “knowledge” comes from a wide variety of sources, both inside and outside of California, so even here the state is a relatively small player.

Without structural power, the state is basically at the mercy of larger forces. This is why California is not too big to fail.