Paper Short Abstract:

In this paper, I argue that the concept of negative value can be useful for theorizing patterns of interreligious relations Gondar, Ethiopia. I explore value neutrality, value difference, value conflict, and social conflict as moments in the process of relations across religious boundaries.

Paper Abstract:

In this paper, I argue that the concept of negative value can be useful for theorizing patterns of interreligious relations in Gondar, Ethiopia. I explore value neutrality, value difference, value conflict, and social conflict as distinct moments in the process of relations across religious boundaries. To understand movement between these moments, it is useful to examine how values (positive and negative) become visible in the sometimes convoluted semiotics of social interaction. Using ethnographic examples, I will argue that value difference defines relations when distinct emblems of value are vividly juxtaposed (mosque/church, cross/hijab, prayer call/ liturgy), while value neutrality is common when signs of sameness overshadow value difference (arguably the most common pattern). Value conflict becomes salient when value signs articulate in a way that suggests potential subversion of one value by the other. Finally, value conflict can become a social conflict when actors publicly perform a value subversion (that is, perform actions widely interpreted as realizing your own values and subverting the values of the other). Performances, of course, transform contexts and frames of interaction. Performed value subversion can transform the positive values of one group into a threateningly negative value to another group. This analysis shows that value difference does not necessarily create conflict, but under certain conditions, it can play a role in patterns of conflict and coexistence in religiously plural social environments.