Mirrors and Windows
On Boundaries Fmntiets are an invention of the mind. We set boundaries for ourselves and others by what we choose to see as reality and by what we choose to value. But men and women are social creatures, and individual behavior is subjected to the control of widely shared social values. These bound...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
International Institute of Islamic Thought
1994
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/a9a9f9f1ae7d4502a91a66018e037d92 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | On Boundaries
Fmntiets are an invention of the mind. We set boundaries for ourselves
and others by what we choose to see as reality and by what we
choose to value. But men and women are social creatures, and individual
behavior is subjected to the control of widely shared social values. These
boundaries that define the limits of acceptable behavior also tend to
reflect and reinforce limits on acceptable thinking.
How are such social values developed? How do they change over
time? The intelligentsiaartists and intellectuals-create mirrors through
which we see outselves and windows through which we perceive reality.
It is these mims and windows that define the boundaries of the mind.
The intelligentsia's roleboth as makets of a cultual outlook and product
of the milieu-is central to my view of what is happening in the world
generally and in the Muslim societies of the Middle East particularly.
These important questions will appear throughout this essay like a leitmotif.
The intelligentsia needs a space offreedom in which it can perform
its dual tole and shape the boundaries by which we define ourselves.
Are such boundaries important? They cettainly are. Shared values reflected
in predictable behavior not only are the basis of all social organization
but are at the core of "cultural identity"a hackneyed expression
that nevertheless remains essential to anyone who lives in a group.' Yet
individuals within a group are not clones, interchangeable units within a
collectivity. Each petson interacts with others in an expanding series of
circles starting with high intensity vis-his the immediate family circle
and with decreasing intensity to the limit of the group(s) with which the
individual identifies ...
|
|---|