Scan barcode
wanderinggoy's review against another edition
1.0
In the first 24 pages, the author makes the same groundbreaking statement - that one individual can belong to more than one group, i.e. has a multi-layered identity, and that reducing a person to one group only creates division and violence - SEVENTEEN times. It’s all he has to say.
hades9stages's review against another edition
4.0
“Most people are other people” “Their thoughts are someone else’s opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.” - Oscar Wilde
“The illusion of density, particularly about some singular identity… natures violence in the world. … The neglect of plurality of our affiliations and the need for choice and reasoning obscures the world in which we live.” - Amartya Sen
do i agree with everything discussed in this book? not really. but still, it’s one of the most thought-provoking books i’ve read on identity. it’s really good :) especially the first few chapters which are a little more encapsulating.
beyond that point it’s pretty repetitive saying the same things over and over but with different evidence/ examples/ case studies etc. it’s a bit much towards the end.
“The illusion of density, particularly about some singular identity… natures violence in the world. … The neglect of plurality of our affiliations and the need for choice and reasoning obscures the world in which we live.” - Amartya Sen
do i agree with everything discussed in this book? not really. but still, it’s one of the most thought-provoking books i’ve read on identity. it’s really good :) especially the first few chapters which are a little more encapsulating.
beyond that point it’s pretty repetitive saying the same things over and over but with different evidence/ examples/ case studies etc. it’s a bit much towards the end.
diederik's review against another edition
4.0
This book could have been a lot shorter as Sen repeatedly makes the same statements. But those statements and insights are will worth the read! Identity and Violence gives a good look in the kitchen of human nature in respect to (false) identity and how this will affect behavior and though.
brannigan's review against another edition
3.0
This book lives up to half of its title - there's a lot on identity, very little on violence. It seems to be more concerned with ethnic conflict in the abstract, which isn't the end of the world but a little misleading if, like me, you're reading it for an essay on the ethnic roots of aggression.
I'll give it a solid but unexceptional three stars, because I must admit it's a decent and readable introduction to the constructivist/modernist approach to identity. Still, it doesn't add much to the debate; you're best hearing it from the horse's mouth and going straight to Gellner's Nations and Nationalism.
There are also a few undeniable limitations to Sen's theory: he seems to focus too much on religion as a category of identification, and though he rightly criticises faith schools for cementing illusory divides, he fails to give due considerations to the 'totalitarian' nature of religions (most overtly in Islam), which seek to impose religious doctrine on all aspects of life - educational, political, social, etc. By classing religion as just one of many equally valid identities a given person has, Sen is denying what is the reality for many people. This focus on religion also leads to some strange conclusions: Sen seems to imply that the 1971 carnage caused by the partition of Pakistan was more justified than the 1940s Hindu-Muslim riots in India, because in the former case the differences were linguistic and political, not religious. Does this mean political and linguistic differences are legitimate causes for conflict?
Another mild annoyance is tedious repetition. The Emperor Ackbar anecdote wears thin around the fourth or fifth iteration, and yes, we get it - India has a lot of Muslims. Still, Sen presents a nicely accessible argument that's concise enough for me to get through in half a day. Worth a read if you can get it from a library, but probably not a great addition to your personal bookshelf.
I'll give it a solid but unexceptional three stars, because I must admit it's a decent and readable introduction to the constructivist/modernist approach to identity. Still, it doesn't add much to the debate; you're best hearing it from the horse's mouth and going straight to Gellner's Nations and Nationalism.
There are also a few undeniable limitations to Sen's theory: he seems to focus too much on religion as a category of identification, and though he rightly criticises faith schools for cementing illusory divides, he fails to give due considerations to the 'totalitarian' nature of religions (most overtly in Islam), which seek to impose religious doctrine on all aspects of life - educational, political, social, etc. By classing religion as just one of many equally valid identities a given person has, Sen is denying what is the reality for many people. This focus on religion also leads to some strange conclusions: Sen seems to imply that the 1971 carnage caused by the partition of Pakistan was more justified than the 1940s Hindu-Muslim riots in India, because in the former case the differences were linguistic and political, not religious. Does this mean political and linguistic differences are legitimate causes for conflict?
Another mild annoyance is tedious repetition. The Emperor Ackbar anecdote wears thin around the fourth or fifth iteration, and yes, we get it - India has a lot of Muslims. Still, Sen presents a nicely accessible argument that's concise enough for me to get through in half a day. Worth a read if you can get it from a library, but probably not a great addition to your personal bookshelf.
ammarakh's review against another edition
3.0
Amartya Sen tries to emphasize the multifarious nature of identity in this book. Any attempts to accentuate a singular identity, he opines, are not just a gross misrepresentation of human identity but a potential catalyst for violence. He mostly focuses on how the idea of an all encompassing religious identity undermines other identities. Also, he explains the inherent fault in the popular counter fundamentalism approach that seeks to give voice to “moderate” religious views but fails to see how such an approach undermines other civic identities and thus further divides people along religious lines, instead of bringing them together. He believes that we all need to embrace the fluid nature of our identity. He realises that there are certain constraints in choosing any identity we want but believes that we still have the freedom to choose. If we refuse to acknowledge this freedom, he warns, we might end up with a regressive identity. He gives the example of religious fundamentalism that often turns violent, in this context.
I found most of the arguments quite compelling but felt the chapter on colonialism was rather problematic. But then Amartya Sen is an economist and it is perhaps too much to expect him to be on par with any political philosophers on a topic as replete with tough problems as postcolonialism.
All in all, I quite liked this book and would like to read his other works which focus more on economics.
I found most of the arguments quite compelling but felt the chapter on colonialism was rather problematic. But then Amartya Sen is an economist and it is perhaps too much to expect him to be on par with any political philosophers on a topic as replete with tough problems as postcolonialism.
All in all, I quite liked this book and would like to read his other works which focus more on economics.
surbhibee's review against another edition
3.0
This is my first Amartya Sen book and I wish I had started with the likes of The Argumentative Indian instead; my impression of Sen's writing prowess would've certainly been better had that been the case. Identity and Violence seeks to explore very pertinent issues including religious fundamentalism and globalisation and succeeds in touching upon many historical anecdotes. However, the gist of the book is that violence is fostered by a singular sense of identity that ignores one's other affiliations. this thesis statement is repeated far too often and even parts of a short 200 page book as this begin to feel hackneyed.
this is a good book for speed reading for many ideas on perceptions of Western civilization are cogently presented (I read my copy in 3 hours, admittedly having skimmed through many pages.) A finer editing job would've made it all the more readable.
this is a good book for speed reading for many ideas on perceptions of Western civilization are cogently presented (I read my copy in 3 hours, admittedly having skimmed through many pages.) A finer editing job would've made it all the more readable.
fishsauce's review against another edition
3.0
Many good ideas, and much food for thought, but incredibly repetitive and didn't go into specific examples with sufficient depth. Felt more like a really long abstract than a book.