The Afghan perspective on Afghanistan

By Lidija Knuth, Research Fellow for the International Program

In the seventh year after the fall of the Taliban, two Afghanistans exist. One is characterized by civil and military efforts of the international community in the country, which include billions of money pumped into reconstruction and development as well as military successes against Taliban cells. These stories emphasizing positive news, are largely told from the perspective of foreigners consisting of diplomats, development workers and soldiers, and would surprise the majority of Afghans. The other Afghanistan of 30 million people in whose name the war is being fought is often forgotten. The population feels disappointment, bitterness and pessimism. Indeed the vast intervention to rebuild a country devastated after decades of war has benefited only a small handful. Afghanistan is moving towards a new crisis. The prevailing fear is that the war is in danger not of being lost or won against the Taliban, but in the perceptions of Afghans. There is a sense of alienation among the population towards the foreign troops as well as the international development community. The initial optimism that existed after the fall of the Taliban has decreased slowly and steadily. It is no wonder that, after years of help and support from the international community, the promises to bring peace and development to the country sound increasingly hollow. The Afghan reality is one of: 40 % unemployment, wide spread poverty and undernourishment, increasing insecurity, and an unremarkable outcome despite huge amounts of development aid spent.

Having said this, one thing is certain- the international community will have to find a long-term solution because more foreign troops and more strategic attacks and bombs against the Taliban and splitter groups are increasingly and unavoidably killing innocent civilians, and in the long run won’t bring the desired peace to the region.

When Are You?

By S. P. Udayakumar, Research Fellow for the Kirwan Institute

Khan Abdul Wali Khan, a Pakistani statesman, was once asked how he saw his identity. He said he had been a Pakistani for the past 50 years, a Muslim for the past 500 years, but a Pathan for the past 5000 years. Evidently, his ethnic identity was the most important for him. It is common knowledge now that a pure ethnicity is an illusion in today’s world. So the question of “who are you?” cannot be answered in a simple and straightforward manner anymore in our complex, complicated interdependent global society.

The moment we think of our ethnic identity, we impulsively turn to our past as it is our history and heritage that define it. In a world where pure ethnicity is problematic, historical rendering of identity and single and linear narratives are also equally tricky. Does that mean we should be content with the broad human identity that answers the question “what are you?”

There are people who argue that we are all born for a purpose and hence the secret of your success and happiness on the Earth depends on your answering the question “why are you (born)?” or “how are you (living)?” and so forth.

In my opinion, none of these questions actually answers our existential predicaments in the world today. Considering the interdependent nature of our societies, inter-relatedness of all the planetary issues such as climate change, population explosion, poverty, etc., and the inter-reliant futures we all face, the right question to ask would be “when are we?” A Pakistani futurist and friend, Sohail Inayatullah, posits it is our common and collective futures that should define our identity and not our past or present. So, when are you?

The Geography of Opportunity: Building Opportunity in Massachusetts

The Kirwan Institute recently completed a new report for the state of MA assessing the geographic of opportunity for Massachusetts neighborhoods.
To see our new report, please follow the link below:

The Geography of Opportunity: Building Opportunity in Massachusetts
Full Report (large file 29MB) and Summary Report
Jason Reece and Samir Gambhir (January 2009)

Confronting Racism and Apathy

By Cheryl Staats, Research Assistant at the Kirwan Institute

Despite the intense stigma that the label of ‘racist’ carries, racism continues to pervade our society, including many not-so-subtle manifestations. A recent study published in Science magazine sought to understand why blatant racism persists in spite of the strong condemnation that accompanies overt prejudice by considering how individuals respond when they witness an incident of racism. Using an experimental design with multiple conditions, an inconsistency emerged. While participants anticipated feeling upset and taking action when witnessing a racial slur, in reality they experienced less emotional distress than they had predicted, often reacting with indifference.

While professed egalitarian values led participants to foresee feeling distressed when witnessing a racial slur, the spontaneous responses they exhibited often failed to align with these values. Researchers concluded that, “despite current egalitarian cultural norms and apparent good intentions, one reason why racism and discrimination remain so prevalent in society may be that people do not respond to overt acts of racism in the way that they anticipate: They fail to censure others who transgress these egalitarian norms.”

Two points:

1) Studies such as this focus largely on racism at an individual level. Declaring that the racism that continues to exist in society may be a byproduct of individuals’ actions (or, in this case, inactions) ignores the larger structures, policies, and practices that affect people’s lives. Recognition of interpersonal racial bias within a larger context of institutional forces provides a more comprehensive view of how and why racism subsists.

2) This study provokes questions regarding the causes that underlie this failure to react to a racial slur. Why is it that people who may have the best of intentions are apathetic when the situation arises? The authors speculate that some of this hesitation can be attributed to the expense of mental and emotional energy necessary to address the situation, or that participants may have reconstrued the slur as a joke or harmless comment in an effort to counteract the negative emotions activated by the slur. I would assume that other factors influence the decision for inaction outside of an experimental setting, including feeling unequipped to adequately address race or uncertain about how the other individual may respond. Regardless of the justification, this study reminds us that we need to deliberately act on our egalitarian values in order to bring those principles to fruition.
- - -
Full text of article: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/323/5911/276

Race, Public Policy, and the White House Council on Women and Girls

By Angela Stanley, Research Associate at the Kirwan Institute

On March 11, 2009, President Obama signed an executive order creating the White House Council on Women and Girls. According to the president, “the purpose of this council is to ensure that American women and girls are treated fairly in matters of public policy.” Acknowledging that women and girls have unique experiences and challenges that also need to be addressed helps the process of moving toward more targeted public policy interventions. For those of us interested in studying race, addressing intersections such as race and gender helps us gain a more holistic approach to better understanding and contributing to the field of research and scholarship on race, ethnicity and social justice.

More information about the White Houses Council on Women and Girls can be found at the following locations:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-Announces-White-House-Council-on-Women-and-Girls/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Signing-of-Executive-Order-Creating-the-White-House-Council-on-Women-and-Girls/