Relation between authoritarianism and the construction assignment

Relation between authoritarianism and the construction  assignment Words: 668

On the other hand, religion has a connection with authoritarianism, since it is a dominating group in certain countries and communities. However, religion can be against the “evil other” but in some cases it could be as oppressive as the “evil other”. So, what is the relationship between authoritarianism and the construction of the “evil other” and how does this relate to religion? One of the main characteristic of authoritarianism is to submit any inferior group in a society under the power or obedience of a superior group.

For instance “evil other” is the superior group in a certain community; therefore, authoritarianism has a strong relationship in the construction of “evil other”. As an illustration, the government in Arab society is defined as “evil other” because of its desire to take control over women. It is a value to note, females in this country are degraded because the government and the authority, usually dominated by men see the women weak and incapable to take control over situations.

Don’t waste your time!
Order your assignment!

order now

Hence, men in Arab society are the “evil other” discriminating women to do Jobs and take position as egger authority, “this evil enemy designation may be placed on a real group or an imaginary group, but either way, the enemy acquires an unreal and impossible stigma- they become an evil with allegedly supernatural powers” (Lowlands 42). This quote explains that somehow the “evil other” possess an unexplainable power that lead them to do what they do.

In other words, women in Arab society treated as objects, is the consequence of the men that abuse their power, because they think what they’re doing is right and that’s why men have the strength for, to control society. Furthermore, religion is related to authoritarianism, because in some cases it takes over society to submit an inferior group under obedience of god, goddess or certain belief of a supreme power. “Whatever group becomes the demonic other, religion often encodes in term of an evil other, an evil enemy’ (Lowlands 42).

Lowlands explains that the practitioner of a certain religion convert their message against the “evil other” and often they see the evil enemy as inferior and demonic. However, there are situations when a particular religion takes an unfair action against what they call the “evil other”. For example, the religious terrorism which is things happen, but they can also blame our misfortunes on devilish others and punish them by killing them either individually or exterminating the whole lot of them at once” (Lowlands 270).

According to this quote the religious terrorism kill people in name of the religion because they see them as evil or because they want to accomplish a certain goal related to their belief. In relation to how this terrorism religion sees the evil Mark P Wore wrote in Sociology of Religion: A substantive and Transcriptional Approach “Devilish others have been known to possess things that we would like to have for ourselves such as land, oil, diamonds, minerals and other valuable resources” (Lowlands, 270).

At the end, the terrorists might kill people because they want to have power, money and/or have control over a certain land; therefore they use the definition of evil or enemy as excuse to possess those valuable things. In conclusion, in society there’s always going to be a dominating group targeting an inferior group to have authority over it. As a result, different authoritarianism are created by people depending what is the purpose or goal they want to achieve.

So, the dominating group could be reflected in a religious group like the Islamic Extremism or as supreme authority like the Arab society. Consequently, Religion has a connection with authoritarianism and “evil other”, because three definitions has the characteristics of being superior in front of a group or society. Words Cited Lowlands, George. The Sociology of Religion: The substantive and Transcriptional Approach. California: Pine Forge Press, 1964. Print.