changing lebanese axioms.
---before i begin to discuss a topic that's been on my mind for a while, and which is still underdeveloped (so bear with some of the inconsistencies. i've found it oddly difficult to put these thoughts in written words, considering how smoothly it has come verbally ...), i just want to mention that i finally watched bosta yesterday, a movie i kept putting off till now. although it isn't my "cup of tea" (now where did that phrase come from?), i MUST state that aalia, a character in the movie, is fundamentally and faultlessly beautiful. her beauty is one that never dies. and no, that isn't a line i use.
oh well. that's that ... on that.
---
in this post, i would like to deal with a specific subtopic: the assumptions of sectarianism, since a larger discussion of sectarianism (its unstable feedback, the misplaced belief that sectarianism leads to security, ...) requires much more time and thought. although i have the will to eventually discuss these topics here on this blog, i do acknowledge that my ideas concerning the topic need to mature.
i will start by stating the obvious: reality is complex. hence, simplified models of this reality are required in understanding such a reality. models are abundant in various fields - from the social sciences to mathematical sciences - but what is usually ignored in popular discussions of such models is that they developed from a set of clearly stated assumptions - a.k.a axioms. it is imperative to keep these in mind, lest the model be mistaken for reality.
for example, one such model that all individuals have taken for granted is arithmetics. we all know that 2 follows 1 and 3 follows 2 ad infinitum, but even this simple and life-changing system is based on a set of 5 axioms. euclidean geometry as taught in high-school is also based on 5 axioms and changing at least one of these axioms has led to non-euclidean geometry; one side-effect of this is that it is no longer necessary for the sum of angles in a triangle to equal 180 degrees ... something many take for granted.
in summary: with the same reality, different assumptions lead to different models.
enter lebanon. popular analysis of lebanese sociology - as opposed to more rigorous treatment (which does exist) - assumes that sectarian behavior is hard-coded in our genetic and social makeup. this is the lebanese social axiom # 1: individuals within sects speak with one voice.
the resulting model, which aims at explaining lebanese dynamics in terms of concrete sectarian blocks, does not mesh well with reality. even sectarian based representatives do not agree within individual sects, let alone the individuals who actually count - the lebanese citizens. it is obtuse to state that maronite # 1 has the same visions and beliefs and wants and needs as maronite # 2, simply because they are maronites (this thought process is a symptom of the confusion between correlation and causality). unfortunately, this model leads to a colored perception of reality, and its adherents constantly look for "evidence" within the lebanese scene in order to corroborate this model. when various politicians - claiming to represent their sect - argue, these sectomaniacs (pundits who insist on sectarian classifications) claim that this antagonism is currently inherent to the individuals within the sects. this leads to petty levels of analysis in terms of concepts such as the "christian political arena" and "the muslim political vision" (you know, i have to be fair to both religions by mentioning them both!). such incoherent analysis is not new; it is also prevalent within scientific circles that pride themselves on the use of the scientific method (one of the more famous examples of this comes from the pre-relativity days when renowned scientists erroneously insisted on the existence of "aether" in their attempt to explain the behavior of light.). in short, sectomaniacs spend their time molding reality to fit their model, as opposed to molding their model to fit reality.
classical examples of this model are "maronites want _____" and "sunnis want _____" (fill in the blanks), which are comments not based on any rigorous analysis, but rather, as my grandmother loves saying, on "haki niswen." of course, sectomaniacs state that since politicians discuss their points in terms of sects, their model is validated; this ignores the notion that local politicians are attempting to consolidate their power base by perpetuating the semblance of an existential threat (oddly enough, sectarian-based representation does anything but provide security.)
maybe, just maybe, it is time for certain groups of people to deal with the lebanese social scene with a new set of axioms. lebanese social axiom # 1 does not result in a reality-related model, and is based on misplaced simplicity; it can in fact also be argued that the propagation and insistence of such a model is directly related to the currently exponential rise in tensions (due to "positive" feedback), which creates an even more immediate need in re-evaluating the model and the underlying assumptions. we'll never know until we try, and unfortunately, time is running out.
ciao.
---
posted by Lazarus, 2:12 PM
4 Comments:
I like your analysis, but how about if instead of people behaving as members of their own sects, they behave as "not members" of other sects. For example, person A being not Shiite, is scared of the rise in power of what he perceives as Shiite political entities, leading to a reaction in a group of people, who see themselves as being not (person A and his likes)... leading to the perception of people acting in a sectarian way agressively, wheras they are only being defensive... Ok I admit I havent thought this thru for more than 30 secs, but it seemed interesting at the time...
By
R, at 2:26 AM
maybe. i think that relates to the concept of such sectarian division creating the notion of an "existential threat," which in turn increases sectarianism.
By
Lazarus, at 7:52 AM
First. Isn't Aalia played by Nadine Labaki the video-clip director (future movie-director) ?? You know, the famous "akhasmak ahhh" video...
Obnoxious of me, but I just need to clarify that arithmetics and euclidean geometry (with their axioms) were never intended to represent reality. And you can't question the axioms. They don't represent reality, but they define the problem domain (along with the definitions ofcourse). Now scientists can use these to describe the real world. They can question the applicability of a certain problem domain to a certain phenomenon, but can never question the axioms.
So to prove that actually Lebanon is not a "sectarian problem domain" where the "sectarian axioms" apply, it is sufficient to find evidence of ONLY ONE case where they don't apply. Piece of cake.
However, if you adopt the "statistical majority sectarian problem domain" whose axiom #1 is "most individuals within sects speak with one voice" then I think it applies unfortunately. Should we try to change things? Yes. But we cannot do that by simply saying it is not true.
By the way, you say "popular analysis of lebanese sociology [etc..]". I don't know any sociology studies going on in Lebanon (or about Lebanon). I couldn't find any books. Do you know of any? It's not that strange that a country constantly at war doesn't, but if anyone knows about some, please tell me.
By
Anonymous, at 10:22 AM
sam,
i agree with some of your points. however, it should be mentioned that the axioms euclid used in his "elements" were based on "intuitive appeal," and were not just created out of thin air. it is also apt to note that euclidean geometry was dealt with (at least some aspects) by greek mathematicians before euclid; his work is genius in that he placed it in an axiomatic framework which was self-sufficient. i do agree that you cannot question axioms per say as long as they lead to no contradiction. the main point of these examples, which might not have been clear, is that changing assumptions even in the slightest, could have revolutionary effects on the resulting model.
i like your modification to the axiom; i do concede that there is a collective nature to sectarianism. my irk isn't with social confessional lines, which i think needs some time to blur, but rather political confessional lines, especially considering that this system was placed in the 1800's (see makdisi's book on sectarianism). in this post i did not attempt to provide a solution, and did leave it on the abstract level; i need time to gather my thoughts properly on it :). the first solution that comes to mind however is the removal of the political confessional system. of course, that's easier said than done.
as for sociology-related studies, some recent ones are civil and uncivil violence by khalaf and "Dilemmas of Democracy and Political Parties in Sectarian Societies" by richani. those are just the first two that come to mind. an older study, and much more interesting with respect to sectarianism, is one by diab - which has been mentioned and referenced in books dealing with social psychology of intergroup conflicts. after all, the lebanese scenario is not unique.
By
Lazarus, at 11:09 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home