Ambon conflicts

I refer to The Jakarta Post's editorial on Aug. 2, 1999: "..., it would be natural for adherents of those two faiths to be involved in conflicts of any kind, religious or otherwise."

Natural? The idea of naturalness of conflict is essentialist, and to hold an essentialist position in the face of the irrefragable evidences for antiessentialism is intellectually indefensible. (Remember the early 1980s here? Smoking may cause cancer? Indonesians laughed in my face. We've progressed, haven't we?

Tragically, though, there is a logic to this "natural" conflict. Doctrines of chauvinism (which are ipso facto philosophically idealist) are fastened in insularity -- not to put too fine a point on it, in ignorance (consider the recent concern about an edition of the Bible in a local language. What reason but controlling access to nonsanctified perspectives?) These doctrines of chauvinism include violent chauvinism such as almost all religions, certainly including Christianity and Islam.

Now, I agree with the editorial's proposal that provocation ... provokes. However, the propensity for violence must exist -- and it does. In times of relative economic stability, the inherent contradictions will lie dormant -- but when such as the present economic crises impacts upon people's psychological well-being, and those people do not have objective modes of intellectual practice to fall back upon, violence is easily provoked.

It is not natural, but a consequence of fostered insularity and inequality of resource distribution.

MARK BLAIR

Jakarta