Being part of a violent community in revolt can be addictive--it can be fun. This book offers a fascinating inside look at present-day political violence in Pakistan through a historical ethnography of the Muhajir Qaumi Movement (MQM); one of the most remarkable and successful religious nationalist movements in postcolonial South Asia. The MQM has mobilized much of the "migrant" (Muhajir) population in Karachi and other urban centers in southern Pakistan and has fomented large-scale ethnic-religious violence. Oskar Verkaaik argues that urban youth see it as an irresistible opportunity for "fun." Drawing on both anthropological fieldwork; including participatory observation among political militants; and historical analyses of state formation; nation-building; and the ethnicization of Islam since 1947; he provides an absorbing and important contribution to theoretical debates about political--religious and nationalist--violence. Migrants and Militants brings together two perspectives on political violence. Recent studies on ethnic cleansing; genocide; terrorism; and religious violence have emphasized processes of identification and purification. Verkaaik combines these insights with a focus on urban youth culture; in which masculinity; physicality; and the performance of violence are key values. He shows that only through fun and absurdity can a nascent movement transgress the dominant discourse to come of its own. Using these observations; he considers violence as a ludic practice; violence as "martyrdom" and sacrifice; and violence as "terrorism" and resistance.
#1057413 in Books Princeton University Press 1996-08-05 1996-08-25Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 9.00 x 1.04 x 6.00l; 1.29 #File Name: 0691029121416 pages
Review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Give us LibertyBy Nathan StoneThe nature of freedom is one that is still debated; over two thousand years after the Greeks first uttered the idea and set it in writing and almost 250 years after the Revolution. Is freedom really the individualistic and atomistic power that some would say today? Barry Shain says no and marshalls rigerous evidence and arguments to support his thesis that the Founders' idea of freedom was 180 degrees different from the definition of the modern world.14 of 38 people found the following review helpful. MIABy Along Red River of the NorthShain's thesis advocating Protestant communitarianism as the sole basis for American independence and constitutionalism builds a strawman/bogeyman out of modern liberal individualism; and claims that solipsistic slackers did not exist in colonial and revolutionary America; so let's discount liberalism as part of our founding DNA.These debates about the founding ideologies of the USA; championing some over others; are increasingly tiresome. The historical consensus embraces the conclusion that by the 1760s there were several streams; undercurrents; or sources (pick your metaphor) of thought that shaped what Jefferson called; "an expression of the American mind;" or "the harmonizing sentiments of the day."1) English common law - rule of law; trial by jury; habeas corpus2) dissenting Protestantism - increasing pluralism spurred by huge immigration and the Great Awakeningled to increasing Arminianism and individualism; along with more questioning of religious and political authority and a weakening of established churches.3) republicanism - classical (Aristotle; Cicero) stemming from the English Civil Wars/Revolution (Sidney); Cato's Letters Franklin - "only a virtuous people are capable of freedom"4) Lockean liberalism - social compact theory; Glorious Revolution; English Bill of Rights; Act of Toleration5) Enlightenment/Scientific Revolution rationalismAll of these religious and political ideas crisscrossed the Atlantic world - both ways; and overlapped; intertwined and reinforced each other into a variety of syntheses influenced by history; region; race; class and gender. In addition; a freer "public sphere" (via newspapers; pamphlets; broadsides; coffeehouses; taverns; clubs/debating/mutual improvement societies) with a freer press (after the Zenger case) created more fertile ground in America for ideas to be debated by ordinary folks (commenting on and criticizing governance) to be turned into actions regarding the nature of liberty; government and relations between church and state.Last; but not least; how can a book subtitled "The Protestant Origins of American Political Thought" omit the political thoughts and influences of the two most creative Protestant "planting fathers" in colonial America: Roger Williams and William Penn? They did not just philosophize or speculate (ideologically or theologically) about what constituted a good society or good government. They actually created them: William's "lively experiment" and Penn's "holy experiment." For all of their flaws or failings; they worked; contra Shain's thesis.9 of 33 people found the following review helpful. Mr. Shain -- the new Plato?By CLShain seriously argues that the ideals of the American Revolution lacked political individualism. In reality; he sees the principles forwarded by the Founders opposing 'political theories that gave priority to 'the liberty; rights; or independent action of the individual'' (Shain 21). He sees the primary political goal of the revolution as cementing the communal power to determine the consciousness of the individual. But suddenly; out of nowhere; he observes that 'shortly; after the War of Independence (which ended in 1783); however; some of the nationalist elite began to turn away from communal ethical goals' (Shain 113). Surprise; surprise! Could this sentence be the source: 'And thus every man; by consenting with others to make one body politic under one government; puts himself under an obligation to every one of that society; to submit to the determination of the majority; and to be concluded by it' (Locke Par. 97). Or maybe this one: 'I mean not to exhibit horror for the purpose of provoking revenge; but to awaken us from fatal and unmanly slumber' (Paine; Common Sense). And how does Mr. Shain explain the evolving American Romantic? He characterizes a whole literary movement from Melville; Poe; Thoreau; Emerson; to Twain and Crèvec'ur as 'a small group of exceptional Americans' (113).Coming from an existentialist background; I reject Shain's argumentation as profoundly as Marx opposed Hegel ' but; of course; the other way around. I think his argumentation is inconsistent and weak. Even the Puritans had a sense for individualism (see e.g. the poetry of Anne Bradstreet or the experiences of Mary Rowlandson). Mr. Shain defers too much in order to argue his Aristotelian logic. There is; furthermore; no philosophical discussion about determination vs. free choice. Names like Althusser or Nietzsche do not appear at all in his bibliography.
