--- Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Omar Kusturica wrote: > > "In places where social conditions, regimes, > ideologies, borders, even > states change more frequently, it is much more > difficult to locate that > stable framework within which you were formed and > within which you > happily take stances on things. (Not to mention that > Taylor' terms sound > very academic; most people define themselves through > subjective > preferences, i.e. what I like and what I don't like, > rather than "what > is good, what I endorse and what I oppose" and so > on) The things are > further complicated if you have changed several > geographical locations." > > > My experience has been quite the opposite. What I > have seen is that > when people experience massive upheaval, the first > things to go are > 'what I like and don't like' and what endures are > exactly the sorts of > things Taylor talks about. What I saw was people > holding on dearly to > tribal/national/familial/religious 'frameworks' as > ways of helping > orient themselves in chaotic times. What about in > the former > Yugoslavia? What would be more important, being > Croat or Serb, or > Orthodox or Muslim, or liking coffee or tea? > Ultimately Taylor comes up > short, but with the point that people rely on > accounts of the good, he > is spot on. *There is a few issues here. First, I haven't read Taylor's book and I don't know what Taylor is talking about beyond a few passages that were quoted here and a couple of reviews that I haven't seen. But I am also not sure how being Croat or Serb or (Bosnian or Yugoslav) Muslim gets to be opposed to the subjective preferences for coffee or tea. These former identities are also subjective, especially in the context of the former Yugoslavia where everybody was educated and ideologically formed on more or less the same socialist /secular/ cosmopolitan grounds. It may be true that in times of crises and danger people tend to cling back to national/familial/religious 'frameworks' (I omit 'tribal' as being pretty irrelevant to the context), but this is due to subjective and pragmatic considerations rather than the firmly held belief that the sectarian accounts of what is right and what is wrong are objectively true. As to the purely subjective preferences for this or that food or drink, if you come spend some time in China you will find that people who want to get to know you often ask questions such as: "which food do you like ?" or "what do you like to drink?" It seems that in Chinese culture such subjective preferences are considered an important component of personal identity. (Although, of course, not as important as family and nation.) When Taylor solemnly speaks about endorsing or opposing things, I doubt that he has such trivial preferences in mind. Your objection seems to focus on the remark I placed in the brackets, but one of my points was that people are not exhaustively defined by the physical/political/cultural space they happen to currently inhabit. If you think, for example, that my sympathies for Islam spring solely from the fact that I was growing up in the former Yugoslavia, you will be off the mark. The Bosnian Muslim identity (to the extent it exists) is national rather than religious, and most Bosnian Muslims feel little connection to Islam worlwide. My current opinions on issues like Islamism, Zionism and the like are more motivated by the experience of living in Israel. Not sure if this answers your objection, but then I am not too sure what the objection was. We can continue this discussion tomorrow. O.K. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html