Ambon conflicts

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