Bridge Building Dialogue:
Globalisation: Challenge and Opportunity for Religions
Yogyakarta March – May 2008
Summary of Workshop III: Globalisation, Religious Symbol and Identity
Yogyakarta, May 10-11, 2008
There were over 30 participants in this workshop, including representatives from a wide spectrum of 15 Muslim organisations and educational institutes, 13 Christian organisations and educational institutes, 3 Buddhist organisations, 3 Hindu organisations, and six NGOs. Students from the CRS and ICRS were also present.
This third workshop focused on another impact of globalisation om religions: the importance of religious symbol and identity. Globalisation, which vigorously intensifies religious, political, and cultural exchanges, and incorporates the people of the world into a single global society leads to a paradoxical fact with regard to the religious symbols and identities. On one hand, the rapid growth of more sophisticated information and technology as well as multinational movements would seem to create uniformity and a mixture of cultures, beliefs, thoughts and so forth. But this invites resistance from particular religious groups who feel obliged to defend their own identities, drawing a distinct line between “us” and “them”. This becomes evident when we look at how religious communities use their distinctively religious symbols when dealing with the problems of globalisation. As a result, inter-symbolic interactions sometimes ended up in social tensions. The question is how religious communities are supposed to respectfully and positively express their authentic symbols and identities in this pluralistic global village?
The discussion began with more attention on the philosophical and theoretical accounts of identity and hybridity that may be categorized into three views. First, identity is natural and fixed, therefore is not “hybridizable”. We are supposed to take different identities. This argument is mainly based on the notion that plurality is a divine work and is beyond human capacity to change it. Everything in this world is in its divinely ordered place and function and any attempts to change it will cause disharmony or conflicts. Secondly, there is no need to hybridize identity since it is already hybrid, not fixed, and changeable in nature. Even the supposedly fixed identity is actually a crystallization of human experiences and therefore it is a product of historical process, and as such is dynamic and not fixed. Thirdly, there is another kind of identity which is beyond the boundaries of particular identities, i.e. universal humanity which is in fact inherently inclusive in all religious teachings.
Those three theoretical and philosophical accounts of identity colored the discussion on some concrete issues pertaining to religious symbols such as a variety of head covers, shari’ah, and church rituals. A question emerge whether some of the symbols are “value laden”, implying that the symbol has to be maintained at all cost if we want to maintain the value, while others are not, and can thus be changed or adopted easily. Some insisted that there are elements in these religious symbols which represent certain religious values and therefore are subject to already prescribed and sacred religious doctrines. This line of thinking which divides the changeable and the unchangeable was criticized by other participants in favor of an idea that symbols, including religious ones, are in a continuing (historical) process of change and, therefore, looking at the more substantial meaning of the symbols is more important rather than preserving the outer, non substantial ones. Meanwhile, others suggested a creation of new symbolic categories which possibly will unite different religious identities. Similarly, there was a question of whether the category itself (such as halal [the allowed] and haram [the forbidden]) is still suitable within the framework which acknowledges the centrality of human experience in creation of symbols and identities. Or, should we think of a different category (for example, “good” and “bad”, or even “comfortable” and “not-comfortable”?).
The idea of a hybrid identity was objected by some participants not only because of the wish to preserve the supposedly fixed identity. But also, for some, symbols and identities are not something which are merely superficial and thus can be changed or replaced easily. It is something which is internalized through one’s own experiences and deeply attached. This is at the same time a critique of the attitude that takes symbols and identities as a superficial way of identifying one’s self. In this sense this actually agrees with the idea that symbols and identities are grounded in (historical) experience. Fixed or hybrid identity is rejected if they are superficial but accepted if they are deeply grounded in one’s self through experience.
Globalization, seen as a rapid inter-symbolic exchange, contributes to conflicts among religious peoples when religious symbols are comprehended exclusively and are meant to negate other different symbols. Instead of revealing the positive strengths of symbols, this will only bring into existence negative ones, and eventually separate the different religious communities. In order that religious symbols are able to unite different religions in a continuing struggle against the negative impacts of globalization, there are some strategies that religious communities can deal with in relation to their religious symbols. At a personal level, each religious community should embed in substantial, spiritual meanings of their own religious symbols and behave according to these moral, authentic standards and values when using their symbols in their every day experiences. On a more institutional level, inter-religious dialogue helps each religious community understand other religious symbols in a better way, rather than in their biased own perspectives. To avoid “collision” between different symbols, which could create conflicts, a negotiation between different religious symbols is a good way to figure out the boundaries of each religious symbol.
The workshop revealed that all religions in fact share a common concern on the relation between globalisation and religious symbols and identities, i.e. globalization provides a threat as well as an opportunity for religions. It is a threat when religious symbols and identities become barriers among different religious communities; but it is an opportunity when religious symbols and identities are understood and expressed in a constructive and positive manner by which all religions, despite the differences in their symbols and identities, come together to fight against the perceived injustice or negative impacts of globalization.
At the end of this last workshop, when discussing possible follow-ups of the three workshops, the participants agreed that the communications between different (inter and intra) religious communities have been very useful and should be continued after the workshops and the coming conference. Yet they also agreed not to form any formal coalition or common forum, so as not to create an additional “identity” or flag which may become another barrier of communication. The most important is the existence of a space where they can discuss and share their perspectives on particular issues in the future, trying to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
