In "The age of global tribes", Amin Maalouf presents two themes; religious beliefs as the primary identifier in now a days and globalization. He discusses these in parallel, demonstrating that they affect and shape each other. He approaches the problem of faith by attempting to assess how it had become that specific facet of personal information that everyone seems to be securing to presently through a series of questions resonating around the source or reason behind this global drive back again to faith. He provides some possible answers attributing this happening, as he calls it, for example to the fall of Communism and Marxism and how their goal of obliterating faith back terminated, hence making religion the only real refuge for the oppressed.
The author's position is clear through this chapter, for although, he's individually not against religious affiliation and he believes that religion is usually going to be a present factor no subject how dynamic the formula of life got, he still stands against spiritual affiliation being the primary or only form of identification and declares that we are in a need for an other aspect of association He phone calls upon a separation of "church and id" and declares that if religious affiliation were to be substituted, it ought to be with something more "humane" rather than the contrary.
When addressing the problem of globalization, Maalouf represents its ability of propagation and exactly how in the face of such a strong phenomenon, religion is being chosen as the shield and desired as a refuge since it seems to be comforting and rewarding both urging needs of spirituality and personality.
This is a very interesting section from his publication, as it discusses an extremely real and present phenomena, the struggle between identity and globalization. One could take such a issue casually dismissing it as a natural a reaction to change, but what one must realize is the fact like any challenge ever fought, it's the lessons the particular one learns while preventing that are usually more valuable than the results itself. We, as individuals should take into account this ongoing issue, one that we are involved in without even being conscious of. We take it for awarded that people know who we could and where we stand however when faced with a crisis, things shift substantially and we interestingly find ourselves on sides we might not need known even existed. That's what this excerpt invoked in me, while reading it, particularly when the author reveals the thought of how one is actually closer to his contemporaries than to his ancestors, elaborating this through the two types of heritages that he calls vertical and horizontal. Our horizontal heritages appear to impact us more than we realize, this is something to earnestly reflect after and understand since we do by behavior or denial tend to hold ourselves with regard mainly if not entirely of the vertical's level perspective. For this battle to end, most of us should discover a way to mingle these two phases of the heritages within us to be able to achieve inner peace. This should be studied on an individual level; every part should "heal" itself for the complete to be able to achieve tranquility.
Globalization like any other phenomenon is a medium; it has both good and bad in it. Why do we take it as a behavior to scorn upon the things, means or mediums as opposed to the persons who use them to do bad? These mediums aren't bad or good by nature but they contain the potentiality to be one or the other, depending on who's with them. They are really in circumstances of neutrality until used, and therefore the results if bad should therefore be attributed to the person rather than vice versa. The author in this section tries showing the good that globalization may bring for the reason that it can certainly help lead the world's attention to a global personal information. The only aspect that we all should maintain as primary of our own identities, is our mankind, that's the kind of lineage that people should firmly identify with, that's what most of us have in common, that's what most of us are regardless of what.
Admitting that common bond will in no way make us less of the individuals that we have been.
How does union come to imply "loss"? Exactly why is it ok to participate in a certain group but instantly its threatening if it's on a common level? On the contrary, I think it is in my opinion to be motivating and strengthening to participate in such a widespread lineage, especially the one that is as certain so that real as humanity. Because coming to think about it, anything else on earth is taken more recently by words or activities, which makes it a complex and unstable foundation for motives and motives are participating and one can never have the ability to know these for sure but humanity is the only real aspect of ourselves that is undisputed; one cannot pretend to be a human being! Needless to say, history is filled with types of certain heroes that lacked mankind in them as shown by their activities and thoughts but these I insist stay an exception.
I find myself sitting on Maalouf's part in his require a universal identity, the one which we all participate in by the virtue of our own humanity and by which most of us enjoy our fundamental rights and one where our dignity is revered and conserved. For universality cannot can be found without such concepts. Human being dignity should be managed above all. Sadly, realistically speaking we stand in a world very far from reaching this view anytime soon whether it is due to politics systems, materialistic notions or simply apathy, I genuinely don't know. But I do hold conviction to 1 thing that is certainly in order for us to embody such a perspective, we will have to get started on with ourselves first, this must be fought on an individual level as soon as we've all dealt with it, we'll recognize that the battle is already won.
