Not Just about Tolerance
Published in Koran Tempo
(Indonesia) on 23 August 2010
by A. Bakir Ihsan (link to original)
(Indonesia) on 23 August 2010
by A. Bakir Ihsan (link to original)
Translated from
by Nadia Bulkin.
Edited by Heidi Kaufmann.
"Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect towards those who are different from us …" (Barack Obama, August 13, 2010).
Diversity does not only need tolerance. Respect for differences is a different road that harmonizes pluralism. Obama’s words giving support to the construction of a mosque near ground zero, which is opposed by some American citizens, is a response that overcomes differences.
Respect toward Muslims as a minority (different) in America is a brave step in the middle of the trauma of the 9/11 tragedy and in a country that continues to stigmatize Islam as a threat. "As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country," Obama continued.
Obama’s statement, communicated during the iftar welcoming Ramadan at the White House, represented an ideal discourse in the context of majority-minority relations. Majorities are truly a pillar for minorities to hang all their hopes on. Even in Indonesia, where the majority is Muslim, the voice and commitment for respecting differences should be heard clearly in the midst of religious diversity.
Valuing differences is a must in all religions. Historically, religion is presented as “that which is different.” The transformative mission of religion represents a response to a discriminatory social reality. Because of that, its presence offers equality that gives shelter for all social classes.
The latent problem of religion within the context of this equality is more about true hierarchy that is not subject to complaint against itself. This theological hierarchy has the potential to legitimize discrimination in all its forms, including hegemony that is legitimized in the name of holy texts.
This problem does not belong only to religion. Democracy, whose original mission was also emphasizing equality, faced the reality of social classes that were structurally bound by a value system (Leslie Lipson, 1964). Nevertheless, democracy is always capable of opening and correcting itself because the domain of its legitimacy is a citizenry that is relative, not God who is absolute.
Religion is faced with theological legitimacy so as to give birth to many interpretations that are sometimes “different” from each other. The existence of literal and contextual groups confront each other by interpreting religious holy texts that then impact aspects of religious diversity. At this point, sociopolitical problems occur that often create conflict. Conflict represents the actualization of differences based on domains of interpretation, not based on the essence of the religion itself.
It is as though violence is legitimized in the name of interpretations of the verses of God. Truth is always understood as a reality that is final, binary, linear and denies truths that are different. As a consequence, there is no place for that which is different. Here tolerance becomes important, as the basis for the creation of harmony.
Respect
Nevertheless, tolerance is not everything. Even if it is considered to be the answer key to discriminatory practices, tolerance can trap people in ambiguity and ambivalence. Moreover, in an indirect way, tolerance has the potential to nurture domination by the majority.
Harmony and stability are more guarded because minorities are not brave enough to be different. Minorities subordinate themselves to the majority. At this point, tolerance takes the shape of minority helplessness. As a consequence, all forms of discrimination toward minorities, including harassing statements, cannot be responded to in kind by minorities. In fact, in certain cases, deviation from minority rights is considered natural by the majority group. The attitude of silence, let alone tolerance, toward the hegemony of the majority represents agreement with the deviation from minority rights.
This tendency thrives alongside the symptoms of a majoritarian democracy. Democracy is construed to be a site of freedom that of course would give more advantages to the majority group and constrict space for minorities. Minorities become a threatened reality in the name of a majoritarian democracy — even though minorities essentially have the same rights to live together in diversity without subordination, let alone hegemony.
Because of this, strengthening majority-minority relations requires the will of all parties, especially the majority group, to move from the domain of tolerance to respect (partiality) toward those who are different (minorities). In a wider scope, there needs to be a greater allocation of space for minorities in the areas of the economy, politics and law, as well as society and culture so that they can actualize themselves as equal citizens.
A strong social and political commitment is required to respect those who are different (the others). If not, minorities will continue to be crushed by the illusion of equality and freedom in the name of democracy. This proves that tolerance within a democracy is not enough to nurture harmony.
Diversity does not only need tolerance. Respect for differences is a different road that harmonizes pluralism. Obama’s words giving support to the construction of a mosque near ground zero, which is opposed by some American citizens, is a response that overcomes differences.
Respect toward Muslims as a minority (different) in America is a brave step in the middle of the trauma of the 9/11 tragedy and in a country that continues to stigmatize Islam as a threat. "As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country," Obama continued.
Obama’s statement, communicated during the iftar welcoming Ramadan at the White House, represented an ideal discourse in the context of majority-minority relations. Majorities are truly a pillar for minorities to hang all their hopes on. Even in Indonesia, where the majority is Muslim, the voice and commitment for respecting differences should be heard clearly in the midst of religious diversity.
Valuing differences is a must in all religions. Historically, religion is presented as “that which is different.” The transformative mission of religion represents a response to a discriminatory social reality. Because of that, its presence offers equality that gives shelter for all social classes.
The latent problem of religion within the context of this equality is more about true hierarchy that is not subject to complaint against itself. This theological hierarchy has the potential to legitimize discrimination in all its forms, including hegemony that is legitimized in the name of holy texts.
This problem does not belong only to religion. Democracy, whose original mission was also emphasizing equality, faced the reality of social classes that were structurally bound by a value system (Leslie Lipson, 1964). Nevertheless, democracy is always capable of opening and correcting itself because the domain of its legitimacy is a citizenry that is relative, not God who is absolute.
Religion is faced with theological legitimacy so as to give birth to many interpretations that are sometimes “different” from each other. The existence of literal and contextual groups confront each other by interpreting religious holy texts that then impact aspects of religious diversity. At this point, sociopolitical problems occur that often create conflict. Conflict represents the actualization of differences based on domains of interpretation, not based on the essence of the religion itself.
It is as though violence is legitimized in the name of interpretations of the verses of God. Truth is always understood as a reality that is final, binary, linear and denies truths that are different. As a consequence, there is no place for that which is different. Here tolerance becomes important, as the basis for the creation of harmony.
Respect
Nevertheless, tolerance is not everything. Even if it is considered to be the answer key to discriminatory practices, tolerance can trap people in ambiguity and ambivalence. Moreover, in an indirect way, tolerance has the potential to nurture domination by the majority.
Harmony and stability are more guarded because minorities are not brave enough to be different. Minorities subordinate themselves to the majority. At this point, tolerance takes the shape of minority helplessness. As a consequence, all forms of discrimination toward minorities, including harassing statements, cannot be responded to in kind by minorities. In fact, in certain cases, deviation from minority rights is considered natural by the majority group. The attitude of silence, let alone tolerance, toward the hegemony of the majority represents agreement with the deviation from minority rights.
This tendency thrives alongside the symptoms of a majoritarian democracy. Democracy is construed to be a site of freedom that of course would give more advantages to the majority group and constrict space for minorities. Minorities become a threatened reality in the name of a majoritarian democracy — even though minorities essentially have the same rights to live together in diversity without subordination, let alone hegemony.
Because of this, strengthening majority-minority relations requires the will of all parties, especially the majority group, to move from the domain of tolerance to respect (partiality) toward those who are different (minorities). In a wider scope, there needs to be a greater allocation of space for minorities in the areas of the economy, politics and law, as well as society and culture so that they can actualize themselves as equal citizens.
A strong social and political commitment is required to respect those who are different (the others). If not, minorities will continue to be crushed by the illusion of equality and freedom in the name of democracy. This proves that tolerance within a democracy is not enough to nurture harmony.