History Of Caste

[dhu]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->...
Although I would not call the dialogue between these traditions “a sham,” I do agree that something has gone wrong. I think you are not far off the mark when you suggest that the problem lies in “a refusal to discuss what are the differences” between the traditions. The problem, I think, is an inability to acknowledge and to appreciate difference. Let me explain.

1. When we look at the history of the Christian West, a peculiar stance towards differences among human beings appears to be dominant. This stance makes difference into deviance from a standard. Difference in itself becomes problematic, because the only way to describe it is in terms of its shortcomings vis-à-vis a standard.

In the Middle-Ages, this stance can be seen in the dealings of the Church with heretics. The beliefs of dissenting groups were conceived of as deviations from the dogma of the Church. In the writings of this period, heretics were clubbed together with lepers as the representatives of the devil, who went against God’s will. After the Reformation, the different Christian confessions saw each other in the same manner. Each confession thought it embodied God’s will, while the others were false deviations from that will. In the modern West, this attitude towards difference as deviance from a standard can be seen in various domains of life. The psychological diversity among human beings, for instance, is classified in terms of “abnormal psychology.” At some level, each sub-cultural group in contemporary western societies still has the feeling that other groups are somehow wrong and that the world would be a better place if all human beings lived like this particular group.

The peculiarity of this stance towards difference is striking. It is as though we can strip all individual human beings from their particular characteristics and that we will thus discover “man” as he is supposed to be. We all become deviations from this standard “man.” But, of course, such an embodiment of the human species is not to be found in nature. Just as there are different whales, gazelles, and toads—each with their own particular features—so there is a variety of individual women and men, here on earth.

2. This stance towards difference has brought in its wake a particular conception of society. It is assumed that differences necessarily create difficulties for living together. Difference is bad, while the standard is good. After the 9/11 attacks, Bill Clinton voiced this belief in a speech, when he said that the terrorists are those who emphasize difference, while we (‘the civilized people’, one supposes) should emphasize the commonalities among human beings. This kind of statement makes sense only if one considers differences as obstacles to living together peacefully. Again this idea has a long history in the Christian West: in the fifteenth century, several theologians were searching for the common core of beliefs all humans shared, since they believed this core would provide a foundation for world harmony. Some of them put this in terms of looking for Adam. If we found “man”, as God had originally meant “man” to be, peace and harmony would follow, these Christians thought. In much the same way, the Enlightenment philosophers embarked on their “search for man.” Again, they hoped this would lead to a harmonious world without the predicament of difference.

The bottom line is that the Western culture has always believed that a society needs a common core of beliefs shared by all its members. If it does not have this common ground, a society is bound to fall apart, so the assumption goes. For the medieval Church, unity was to be guaranteed by a common belief in Catholic dogma. For the post-Reformation advocates of toleration, the unity of a society divided into different confessions had to be established in a common set of ecumenical Christian beliefs. For the contemporary liberals, a plural society needs to be united by a shared belief in the liberal system and its legal framework of equal rights. 

Thus, when you notice the problem in the Hindu-Christian dialogues that they have been obsessed with the search for a common ground, rather than discussing the differences between these traditions, you bring to the surface a deeply held assumption of the Christians. The assumption that difference is an obstacle to living together well permeates these attempts at dialogue. After all, what is their goal? To resolve the differences between the two parties through rational and critical discussion, of course (for a general critique of this understanding of intercultural dialogue see S.N. Balagangadhara’s forthcoming “On the Very Idea of an Intercultural Dialogue”). The trouble with these dialogues is that they cannot truly acknowledge difference, let alone appreciate profound differences as a source of vibrancy in society. Because they aim at peaceful coexistence, the best they can do is to ignore difference and look for sameness.

3. Here lies one of the crucial differences between Asia and the West. If we look at various Asian traditions, it seems they have never shared this stance towards difference. They have acknowledged the variety among human beings as another expression of the diversity of nature. This is not necessarily a celebration of diversity (although it can also be that), but rather a factual stance: there are different whales, gazelles, toads and also different human beings. Difference is not deviance from a standard, but just the way things are. This also extends to the diversity of cultural traditions. Just as there are many different men and women, so there is a plethora of paths they can follow to find happiness in life, these Asian cultures seem to say.

This attitude has also brought about a particular way of organizing society. The lack of the conception of difference-as-deviance entails the absence of the idea that a society needs a common standard, if it is not to fall apart. When we take the example of South India, for instance, we see that many different groups have lived together quite peacefully for long periods of time without sharing a common core of beliefs. Different Hindu traditions have coexisted with several Christian denominations, Muslims, and other groups. This society has not fallen apart in spite of the absence of a common framework. Note that this characterization of the plural societies in Asia takes a negative form: they do not need a common ground; they do not conceive of difference as deviance. This shows the lack of knowledge we have of the way pluralism works in Asian societies.

4. ..
The West’s notion of difference-as-deviance has caused many terrible things—from the persecution of heretics to the marginalization of “abnormal” men and women. ...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->