A dangerous idea called exclusivity

There is something about the idea of exclusivism that is attractive to a lot of us. It provides individuality, a sense of uniqueness to our personality, our identity. Not only that, it gives the incentive to protect and elevate the qualities of whatever that seems deserving of a more superior position in society. To a certain extent, it could be said that exclusivity is not the most compatible maxim with striving for equality, since it poses challenges to being accepting and respectful towards the great differences of our world.

Exclusivism may be good in some other areas as it promotes competitiveness that may result in creativity and innovation.

However, it is also one of humanity’s most dangerous ideas that continues to tread on thin ice. Or as the philosopher John Stuart Mill would put it, “But society has now fairly got the better of individuality; and the danger that threatens human nature is not the excess, but the deficiency of personal impulses and preferences.”

In the case of identity politics, the hands that juggle with the power of shaping narratives may potentially alter the social, political and economic dynamics in a nation. As we know it, the rhetoric formed favours certain parties to retain their position and influence, while silencing the voices of opposing forces. The dangerous tool that they most often use is establishing the “exclusivist mentality”. A great example of this would be the implications of ethno-nationalistic values on the Malaysian society.

With the insane muddle that constitutes our state of nations, it is about time we recognize that exclusivism is the crux of the matter when it comes to our peculiar discourse of race and religion.

It was a viral content that caused me to be further intrigued by this concept – a Facebook video of the assistant secretary of Hindraf Perak expressing his dissatisfaction about a so-called “harmony” seminar conducted at the Raja Melewar Teacher Training College in Negri Sembilan. What was apparently the big problem was that the speakers who were invited to articulate their thoughts on Hinduism and Buddhism in a religious dialogue were in fact, Muslim converts.

To him, there seems to be some sort of ulterior motive by the institution that aims to inspire interfaith hatred. He also professed his disgust at the fact a non-believer was talking about the religion, but what I found ultimately most disturbing was his statement that such a gesture deserves capital punishment based on Hinduism.

There is obviously something very wrong about the entire situation from both ends of the spectrum in its dissection, but in the end, it still points back to the problem of exclusivism.

First and foremost, we are not given the content and perspectives that transpired in the “harmony” event, whether it was laden with hatred for other religions that are not Islam or that it was a plain illustration of the values and principles of these religions in comparison to Islam. Technically, there is absolutely no knowledge of what could have been said that classifies as an “interior motive” (as he puts it) to incite interfaith conflicts and yet, there is a feeling of conviction to make such accusations.

Could it be a misguided assumption that stems from insecurity and inferiority that is made by the constant belittling created by institutionalized racism? I am begged to think that it is such. So much so, there is that incessant need to protect the sanctity of religion by refraining people who do not subscribe to it, from providing their opinions.

Secondly, what was even more flabbergasting was the need to use extremist teaching as a defence mechanism. Not only does is it a violent and intolerant countermeasure, but it is hypocritical because it defeats the very purpose of wanting to combat extremism and fascist approaches to religious freedom.

Such responses seem to be validated and encouraged, which is indeed perplexing, worrying because it paints a bad picture of a lacking progressiveness and fellowship that we strive to claim as being central in religious identity.

More specifically, it contradicts the very promise of individual liberty and national unity in diversity.

We should be concerned that the vacuum made by religious polarization is being filled with the desperation of extremist ideologies. A lot of us still seem to think that this case is only focused on what is coined as “global religions” when actually, such a dilemma is being faced by all faiths, especially in times when revivalism takes on a darker veil of instilling oppression and suppression in an effort of establishing a monolithic institution, the element of coercion brings us further apart from each other.

Even once in a while, I get remarks like, “Netusha, you should not talk about Islam because you are not Muslim. It is not your religion, so you do not have the right to talk about it” or “As long as you are a non-believer of a religion, you should stay away from such conversations”.

I think that such reasons are not sufficient in evading dialogue on religious pluralism, which is essential in a multicultural society – not just in Malaysia, but any other nation for that matter. The heart of solution to such misunderstanding is by embracing inclusivity wholeheartedly.

In an interview with Islamic scholar, Reza Aslan about his controversial book, “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth”, he is confronted with the question of the validity of his arguments about the founder of Christianity in spite of his wide, and considerably secular knowledge about the history of religions. He coyly responded, “I do think it is perhaps a little bit strange that rather than debating the arguments of the book, we are debating the right of the scholar to actually write it.”

This perfectly illustrates that the lack of inclusive discourse in religion remains overshadowed by a sense of exclusivity.

Seemingly, we are becoming less receptive to the notion of reaching a universality of values and principles which can be done through friendly and intellectual comparative discourses – yet, here we are, dangerously dancing with this dangerous idea. – October 22, 2015.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.