thanks for flagging up those links - will check them out!

http://www.thedailystar.net/magazine/2008/11/04/cover.htm

http://www.thedailystar.net/magazine/2008/12/02/history.htm

What do you think?

“I’m wondering if we can include non-secular societal attitudes here, which is not always tied to a ’state apparatus’ and ‘authority’.”

yes desi that is indeed my point. glad you brought it up to emphasise it.

Families, which Ashik doesn’t like my criticism of, are strong institutions – which may not have state authority but that’s pretty much the big authority in the lives of those in their clans. Historically this has been the case in many places before the rise of the nation-state as the dominant model of social organisation., which is now ‘globalised’. As i’ve said in the post and elsewhere, it’s the social institution and its dynamics that interest me.

Unlike some people, im not obsessed with simply criticising state apparatus. you dont have to be legally constituted as a group to have the same damaging psychology and power. Legal constitution and legitimacy obviously has other impacts but from the perspective of what i’m talking about, a tight group of friends can effectively display similar social characteristics. Social dynamics, power and organisations.

It so happened that this particular discussion simply started off about secularism as that was Ala was talking about, and i thought id take the chance to say something about secularism given the discussions around it are so muddied.

So the relationship between the group and member, the peer pressure, the social ostracisation threats etc, the social psychological dynamics are worth studying and absolutely essential to understanding human social groups.

how can you be secular if your family isn’t basically - with great difficulty. and even if your parents are okay, there is the wider family to contend with (parents usually don’t want to have to confront their own extended family networks, and get their kids to lie about what it is they are doing when talking to Auntie XYZ)

and exactly as you say, each nation has a different context and in bangladesh and in much of india still, what your family/extended family/society think has a major hold upon you, from which the State is CERTAINLY not going to save you.

actually this is a really interesting thing - because it sheds light on the problems of India’s so-called secularism. Which again i’m glad you brought up. This to me isn’t secularism in the way i would understand it to be useful - because it does not apply to you on the level of an individual - but on the ‘group/communal’ level. so given your group/community is not secular, and isnt allowing YOU as an indivual to define your religion but is doing the defining for you, and then presenting you up to bolster the figures of ‘their community’ to the State and demanding separate laws which effectively means the right to determine what law applies to you based on how THEY defined you. Outrageous, and ridiculous ( and shouldn’t be called secularism but something else) this gives communities (which are defined on a religious identity) huge powers over their offspring as members of those pre-defined religious communities. so you as an individual are treated like x if you come from community x. that’s terrible, unless community x has no control over you. And the assumption is that ALL individuals in Community X of course freely agree with community x, and want that law applying to them. (Ha!)

Given that these religious communities are created by procreation and the assumption is that you are of the faith of your family, India is effectively propagating group discrimination by birth system. (ooh look, its just another caste category called religion) Its pretty hard to escape as an individual, and its the same in Bangladesh. Unless i want to shout apostasy, the law will treat me as a Muslim woman and that is that. So you’re fucked either which way. This is why i will not live in bangladesh.

Chokri, I cannot believe you linked to my comment as an example of discussions ‘veering off course’! Just kidding– I know I do it often, particularly when (I think) the discussion is heated, banal, trite, whatever.

But back to your post:

“as i was explaining my take on the ’secular’ or what we ought to keep in mind in thinking about religion, the state, power and the ’secular’ : it’s all about thinking of the power of religious institutions and their intertwingling (good word) and interdependence with State apparatus and authority.”

I agree with you, but I am wondering if we can include non-secular societal attitudes here, which is not always tied to a ’state apparatus’ and ‘authority’. It is true that state apparatuses and authority often shape social mores, but on a day to day basis for most people, they live by the rules of their society and are impacted by those the most, not so much as state authority (I’d like to point out that this depends on the political situations of each nation-state). If most of the people around me are not secular, EVEN IF THE LAWS ARE SECULAR, I still bear the brunt of religiosity or whatever and not benefit from secularism. The Indian situation, I think, is a case in point.

It’s only in fashion when it’s not against you. For some reason those who favour the uplifting of oppressed women in Islam suddenly get cold feet when that ‘oppressed woman’ decides to, well, marry someone white! Suddenly all the xenophobia gets upfront.