mysophobia 潔癖

Nastiness Diagnosis. Anthropology. Religion. Gender. Justice. A Personal Notepad For the General Public.

Pluralism quotes (Furnivall, Lijphart, and more)

In Burma, as in Java, probably the first thing that strikes the visitor is the medley of peoples -European, Chinese, Indian, and native. It is in the strictest sense a medley, for they mix but do not combine. Each group holds by its own religion, its own culture and language, its own ideas and ways. As individuals they meet, but only in the market-place, in buying and selling. There is a plural society, with different sections of the community living side by side, but separately, within the same political unit. Even in the economic sphere, there is a division of labour along racial lines (Furnivall, pp. 304).

Furnivall in his essay Tropical Ecortomy :

“I. The plural society has comeintoexistence because theonly factorcommon to all groups and members has been the economic factor. Trying to cure its defects by purely economic measures is like casting out devils in the name of

Beelzebub. The first problem is to find some principle transcending material ends, some moral principle, that all can accept as valid.

“11. The economic factor predominates because the colonial power, exercis- ing political control, is primarily concerned for its economic interests. The second problem is then to dissociate as far as possible economic and political control; to find some moral and not solely material authority.

“111. The predominance of economic forces is prejudicial to social and in- dividual welfare because these forces sacrifice social to individual demand. The third problem, accordingly, is to devise some machinery for the organiza- tion of demand.

“IV.The plural society is inconsistent with political welfare because it is unable to stand alone for lack of a common social will. Thefourth problem therefore is to devise some means of creating a common social will.”

The plural society has been defined by Furnivall as one lacking in social will. According to him, under modern conditions all tropical countries tend to be plural societies. That is, a European or “Western” power creates a superstructure that leads to the destruction of the former established pattern of social relationships. The cultural homogeneity of society (as it existed before Western contact) is replaced by a culturally and racially heterogeneous society. The one common feature that all groups in the plural society share is the desire for economic advancement. Hence arises the lack of a common social will.

(quoted by Lloyd Braithwaite 1960)

Since its initial presentation in the 1960s, Arend Lijphart’s theory of consociational democracy has gained extensive attention in the social science literature. Unlike earlier political theories which suggest that subcultural segmentation precludes stable democracy, Lijphart’s model posits the variable of coalescent elite behaviour to explain how divided states are able to achieve and maintain stable democracy. However, despite its application to numerous cases, the consociational model has not been deployed with much success. Controversy surrounds the designation of particular cases as consociational democracies. Furthermore, the proper scope of the consociational universe is subject to debate; virtually every case that can be located within the universe can also be argued out of it. This article suggests that the problem of the disorderly consociational universe lies within the construction of the theory of consociational democracy and not within the cases that theory has been used to describe. An examination of the constructs of the theory reveals that the inconsistencies exhibited by the cases are attributable to the faulty and imprecise concepts upon which consociational theory is based.

consociational democracy, 黎巴嫩與馬來西亞比較像,土耳其與印尼比較像。

黎巴嫩黨派以宗教族群為分裂confessionalism,Shia, Sunni, Maronite, Druze 政治上互相聯盟,在75-90內戰以前被稱為是”東方的瑞士”而貝魯特則被譽稱為”東方的巴黎”. 1924-40的法國統治,讓基督教Maronite成為統治黨,雖然穆斯林為多數。海岸是Sunni的天下,而Shia集中在南部。整個黎巴嫩因為南方以色列國的建立與大量巴勒斯坦難民的進入,開始對於少數基督徒的統治與西方長期的軍事介入不滿,最後導致內戰。當然,伊朗一直在黎巴嫩的南方協助Hezbollah壯大,而要特別註明的是,Hezbollah是一個類似慈濟的團體,只差在他有軍事武裝,在國家邊境為國防安全以及認同自由而戰,卻因為反對以色列而被西方列為恐怖份子團體。正式政治化後,Hezbollah已經成為國會第三大黨(在基督徒的FPM與穆斯林的AMAL後面),受到人民的肯定。老早十九世紀,英國人就在慫恿Druze而法國人就在慫恿Maronite彼此挑播離間,而導致鄂圖曼帝國時代這塊土地上就有內戰。黎巴嫩山的成立,就是1932法國人故意把領土擴張讓國土可以to divide and to rule故意把穆斯林與基督徒放在一國,然後讓基督徒統治穆斯林。一次大戰後法國佔有黎巴嫩與敘利亞,而30年代獨立運動結果,雖然一部份想要跟敘利亞共唯一國,大部分人還是決定黎巴嫩自己獨立。法國人在1946年終於離開黎巴嫩後(當初心不干情不願),黎巴嫩就由基督徒統治。根據Lebanon’s unwritten National Pact of 1943總統一定要是一個Maronite,首相則是要遜尼派穆斯林,然後國會主席則是一定要是一位什業派,然會副首相與國會副主席要是希臘東正教的。1950年代是冷戰的延續,Maronite跟西方站在一起,而左派與泛阿拉伯主義則與蘇聯站再一起。比如總統支持西方,首相支持Nasser埃及來反對蘇伊士運河危機(英法以色列)。然後巴解組織興起與Maronite內戰,阿拉伯人選擇與前者站在一起。Maronite又有西德、比利時在後面撐腰,從羅馬尼亞進口武器,於是內戰十五年。

2010 The CIA World Factbook estimates that the population is 59.7% Muslim and 39% Christian, with other religions and non-believers accounting for the remaining 1.3%. A study conducted by the Lebanese Information Center and based on voter registration numbers shows that by 2011 the Christian population fell to 34.35%, while the Muslims rose to 65.47%. 但是1990年基督徒只有25%而穆斯林至少有68%

File:Lebanon sectors



In the late 1980s, Turkish politics was subject to a war of cultures which was caused by the rise of the separatist Kurdish movement, which had rejected the homogenous Turkish identity and turned to violent action, the Islamist groups that included severe critics of the official policy of secularism, together with the Alevis, which condemned the state’s propagation for Sunni-based Islam.


multi-legal, marital laws, 但是日常生活中確實有結合在一起,不是Furnivall說的那樣


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


This entry was posted on January 5, 2014 by in 【Voices of Muslims】.
%d bloggers like this: