« Nice at 30 | Main | Bigger things to come? »
September 04, 2006
Internalization
I encountered something quite interesting recently which I thought might be worth sharing here. It is called “internalization” and it consists of the process through which a person or a society internalizes a disaster or foreign violation. In the personal sense, I am not qualified to make any judgments, but as far as the social and particularly historical examples, there are a few I can think of. The most interesting of these is the story of Alexander.
Anyone who has read one of the Arabic or Persian stories of Alexander notices an interesting phenomenon. In these stories, Alexander is not a purely Macedonian conqueror who has come and defeated the Achaemenid king and captured the throne, instead, he has been transformed as the legitimate son of the king, claiming his rightful inheritance. The story goes that Alexander’s mother was a slave of the king of Iran who was given as a gift to Philip of Macedon, while pregnant with Alexander from the Iranian king. He is born in Macedonia and grows up there, determined to claim the throne of his father (the Iranian king). As such, his attack on Iran and the killing of the king (his half brother, Darius III, the usurper in this story) is justified, since he is the rightful king.
It is noticeable, however, that the official histories of the Sasanian Empire and even the Avesta call Alexander with the titles of “the damned” and “the monster” which is more aligned with what we might think of him today, as a conqueror. It would be worth a research to see if the folk stories were formed as a reaction to these official tales and as a way of justifying the Iranian populations’ inaction during the conquests of Alexander.
In any case, the modern case I have found is even more interesting and regards the internalisation of the Mongol attack in Afghanistan. In this story, Timujin is the leader of a small band of Mongols who is not a major conqueror before coming to Khorasan (here meaning Afghanistan). However, upon his arrival in Afghanistan, he allies himself with the Pashtun tribes and conquers Kabul and Herat. Consequently, the Pashtun tribes in a Loya Jirga meeting, give him the title of Chingiz Khan and he likes it so much that he even “calls” his son Khan (here obviously the modern tradition of treating the title of Khan “lord” as a surname in Afghanistan and Pakistan is extended to the Mongol times). This is against the historical reality of the title being an old Turko-Mongoloid title and Chingiz Khan being Timujin’s title given to him in the Quriltai of Mongolia.
In this way, several ends are met: first, the Mongol attacks are internalised as a locally supported series of conquests to unite the region. Second, a local tribe, the Pashtuns, shares the “honour” of the invasions and thus localised the activities and gains historical recognition. Third, the territorial boundaries of Afhghanistan (in fact a mid-19th century formation) are given historical depth and tribal (Pashtun) identities.
It would be worth studying the role of the Hezara tribe (a remnant of one of the Mongol tribes in Afghanistan, today Persian speakers) in the formation of this myth and also their image in the story. Also, I would be very interested in whether the same process is in formation about the American invasion of Afghanistan and whether that is already in the process of being internalised.
Posted by Khodadad at September 4, 2006 12:43 AM
Comments
I have not heard of this idea being applied to history before, but it is interesting! Perhaps you are familiar with "Stockholm Syndrome" in which a kidnap victim comes to identify with her kidnapper (not sure if it ever happens to men, but possibly). Internalization seems similar to me.
In your examples of Alexander and Timujin, it seems that centuries may have passed before these internalized stories of the conquerors gained a wide audience. With respect to modern day Afghanistan, do you really think the process can begin so soon? Also, I think that the sociopolitical fabric of Afghanistan is still very much in flux. The American military presence is currently propping up the Bush approved government. However, things may be quite different in 10 or 20 years. I hope they will be better for the Afghan people, but I am not terribly optimistic.
On a related subject, I wonder how the survivors of the tsunami disaster will internalize that event?
Excellent Post!
Posted by: David at September 4, 2006 04:25 PM