Ritröð Guðfræðistofnunar - 01.09.2008, Blaðsíða 23

dream were to come true, and that religion were to disappear. Would that
end the divisions within humanity? And the violence that ensues from
them? Certainly not. Such divisions are ultimately social constructs, which
reflect the fundamental sociological need for communities to self-define,
and identify those who are “in” and those who are “out”; those who are
“friends”, and those who are “foes”. The importance of “binary opposition”
in shaping perceptions of identity has been highlighted in recent years, not
least on account of the major debate between different schools of critical
thought over whether such “oppositions” determine and shape human
thought, or are the outcome of human thought.
A series of significant “binary oppositions” are held to have shaped
western thought - such as “male-female” and “white-black”. This binary
opposition leads to the construction of the category of “the other” - the
devalued half of a binary opposition, when applied to groups of people.
Group identity is often fostered by defining “the other” - as, for example,
in Nazi Germany, with its opposition “Aryan-Jew”. At times, this binary
opposition is defined in religious terms - as in “Catholic-Protestant”, or
“believer-infidel”.
As is well known, the binary opposition “Catholic-Protestant” came
to be perceived as normative within Northern Ireland. Each side saw its
opponent as “the other”, a perception that was relentlessly reinforced by
novelists and other shapers of public opinion. Media reporting of the
social unrest in Northern Ireland from 1970 to about 1995 reinforced
the plausibility of this judgement. Yet this is a historically conditioned
oppositionalism, shaped and determined by complex social forces. It is not
a specifically religiousphenomenon. Religion was merely the social demarcator
that dominated in this situation. In others, the demarcators would have to
do with ethnic or cultural origins, language, gender, age, social class, sexual
orientation, wealth, tribal allegiance, ethical values, or political views.
This clearly points to religion, at least in theory, as a potential catalyst
for rage and violence in some contexts. In concurring, Dawkins makes a
significant concession in recognizing the sociological origins of division and
exclusion. “Religion is a label of in-group/out-group enmity and vendetta,
not necessarily worse than other labels such as skin colour, language, or
21