{"id":1921,"date":"2020-05-27T12:56:59","date_gmt":"2020-05-27T12:56:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.itisaras.org\/projectdhaara\/?p=1921"},"modified":"2020-06-04T13:24:06","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T13:24:06","slug":"powerful-socially-constructed-realities-of-the-present-nationhood-and-terrorism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.itisaras.org\/projectdhaara\/2020\/05\/27\/powerful-socially-constructed-realities-of-the-present-nationhood-and-terrorism\/","title":{"rendered":"Powerful Socially Constructed Realities of the Present: Nationhood and Terrorism"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Riya Mohan<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIf you look at it closely, every individual is a separate entity, state and
culture. The macro state is a federation of citizens who accept to live under
the same law.\u201d \u2013 (Bangambiki Habyarimana, Book of Wisdom) <\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The acceptance to live under the same \u2018nation<\/em>\u2019 or the \u2018idea of nation<\/em>\u2019 itself is one which disguises\nthe idea of an individual being a \u201cseparate entity, state and culture<\/em>\u201d. While the nation here is a\nreality, the idea of that nation is merely a constructed notion of that reality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Don\u2019t we all live in the world of socially constructed realities, where the reality or the comprehensive\nunderstanding of it is constructed on the basis of shared assumptions among a particular group or\ncommunity? People have long debated on the idea of gender being socially constructed, while\nlabelling sex as biological (a reality). Still, recently even patriarchy has been seen as a socially\nconstructed idea which has become so deep-rooted in every society that uprooting it has become\nextremely difficult. It is so appalling to see how patriarchy isn\u2019t even a reality \u2013without any tangible\nexistence \u2013yet, so powerful. It was so powerful that women from different communities and nations\nhad to come together to fight against this mere \u2018idea of reality\u2019 which was being manifested in cruel\nand brutal ways. The agitations against the Muslim Women\u2019s Bill (1986), the abolition of sati (1987),\nthe white and the black feminist movements in the United States are all efforts to rebel against this\nidea of patriarchy. Interestingly, what was this \u2018patriarchy\u2019, against which many women have\nrebelled in their own unique ways? And, why had it become so powerful? The very reason why it had\nbecome so wearying was due to it not being something tangible and therefore, easily eliminable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interestingly, the ideas of gender and patriarchy being socially constructed realities are quite well\nknown. However, rarely does one ponder upon the idea of nationhood and terrorism also being\nsocially constructed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The word \u201cterrorism\u201d has become extremely popular in the 21st century. Almost every nation and\nindividual use it as part of the mundane vocabulary. We do see the Prime Minister of India, Narendra\nModi addressing the entire nation in \u2018Mann Ki Baat<\/em>\u2019 on the issue of terrorism. \u201cTerrorism is the\nbiggest threat to humanity. Not only is it a threat to India but also to countries across the world\u201d.\nEven India\u2019s former foreign affairs minister, Sushma Swaraj described terrorism as \u201cnot bred in some\nfaraway land, but from across our border\u201d. Donald Trump went one step ahead to label Iraq as\n\u201cHarvard for terrorism\u201d. However, the point here is, what is terrorism? Even though people across\nthe globe, the media, the ministers, etc., all use the term, and even though terrorism is percolating\nto every nation, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism as such.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

And, the idea of it also being socially constructed stems from the fact that terrorism doesn\u2019t exist in\ntangible terms in a way that arms and ammunitions do. In the absence of an internationally agreed\ndefinition of terrorism, every nation has constructed the \u2018essence\u2019 of it quite differently through\nshared assumptions. This, then bring us to the point of different nations having their own\ninterpretations and frameworks of what terrorism is and how it works, each of which is reflected in\nthe interpretation given by Narendra Modi which is quite different from that given by Donald Trump.\nHowever, the absence of an international definition doesn\u2019t mean that there are no legal definitions\nfor it. The Supreme Court of India for instance, has adopted P. Schmid\u2019s denotation of terrorism as\n\u201cpeacetime equivalents of war times<\/em>\u201d in Madan Singh vs State of Bihar 2013 case. These legal\ndefinitions are essential for the purpose of execution. But, do people really have a definition to live\nup to? The answer is an absolute \u2018no\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The idea of terrorism being constructed doesn\u2019t mean that it doesn\u2019t exist i.e. it isn\u2019t a reality and\nmerely formulated in the minds of the people. Undeniably, it does exist. The only point of argument\nis that it isn\u2019t tangible and yet, can manifest in tangible and behavioural ways. Interestingly, the\nmanifestation of this constructed reality is mostly seen in real and violent ways, such as killing a\nmass of people due to another constructed reality \u2013nationhood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nation is a reality, with all its frontiers and boundaries. It is real with states, cities, districts, villages,\ntown and physical features like rivers, mountains, etc. However, nationhood is a construct. It\u2019s in our\nmind, yet so powerful an idea. It becomes so powerful that it starts dictating the lives of soldiers\nwho feel obliged to die for their country and kill the \u201cenemies\u201d. This social construct has become so\npowerful in India that standing for the national anthem even in places like cinemas is appropriated\nto define one\u2019s patriotic identity. It has become so powerful that labelling of left-wing youth as \u2018anti-\nnationals\u2019 has become a mundane thing in India in the current times. However, the debate here isn\u2019t\nabout whether these constructed realities are ethical or not and right or not. What is important to\nconsider here, is how these ideas which people in India and elsewhere constantly live with are\nmerely constructed and yet are so powerful and dictating.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And, as Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann rightly stated in their book, The Social Construction of\nReality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge<\/em> that \u201cSocial order is not part of the \u201cnature of\nthings\u201d, and it cannot be derived from the \u201claws of nature.\u201d Social order exists only as a product of\nhuman activity, so as long as people come up with their own understanding of these ideas of\npatriarchy, gender, nationhood and terrorism, these ideas will continue to evolve and add different\nconnotations, merely because they are socially constructed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Every individual has their own socially constructed realities. Different social orders ascribe meaning to one thing differently. From ideas of gender to nationhood and terrorism, difinations are variegated. Are these social realities tangible or just appear to be?
\nClick on the link below to find out more.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":1934,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":true,"template":"","format":"quote","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[1159,1161,1166,91,1155,1164,1151,590,1160,1171,1158,1172,1162,606,528,1152,1169,965,1173,1156,1153,1170,362,1168,1157,1154,1163,1167,1165,116,107],"class_list":["post-1921","post","type-post","status-publish","format-quote","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-society","tag-abstract","tag-communities","tag-countries","tag-culture","tag-donald-trump","tag-foreign-affairs-minister","tag-gender","tag-identity","tag-individual","tag-madan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar","tag-mannkibaat","tag-mind","tag-muslim-womens-bill-1986","tag-narendra-modi","tag-nation","tag-nationhood","tag-p-schmid","tag-patriarchy","tag-patriotic-identity","tag-reality","tag-social-construct","tag-social-reality","tag-society","tag-state","tag-sushma-swaraj","tag-terrorism","tag-the-abolition-of-sati-1987","tag-the-white-and-the-black-feminist-movements","tag-vocabulary","tag-war","tag-women","post_format-post-format-quote"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.itisaras.org\/projectdhaara\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1921","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.itisaras.org\/projectdhaara\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.itisaras.org\/projectdhaara\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.itisaras.org\/projectdhaara\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.itisaras.org\/projectdhaara\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1921"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/www.itisaras.org\/projectdhaara\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1921\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1969,"href":"https:\/\/www.itisaras.org\/projectdhaara\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1921\/revisions\/1969"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.itisaras.org\/projectdhaara\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1934"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.itisaras.org\/projectdhaara\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1921"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.itisaras.org\/projectdhaara\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1921"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.itisaras.org\/projectdhaara\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1921"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}