By: Abhijit Bagal
October 12, 2004

Continued from :
Biases in Hinduism Studies: PART-I

A look at Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia

Sankrant Sanu, a software entrepreneur from Seattle, Washington, who worked for Microsoft for several years, wrote an article on September 24, 2002, examining the academic influence on the mainstream portrayal of Hinduism in America. Microsoft Corporation's Encarta Encyclopedia was used as the reference in this study and the sections on Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity were reviewed. Microsoft Corporation claims that Encarta is the “Best-selling encyclopedia brand.” Encarta is widely used as a reference source in American schools. In particular, because of its widespread use amongst children, one would expect Encarta's coverage of religions to be even-handed, sensitive and unprejudiced. In a world of religious conflict, it becomes particularly important that children are given balanced viewpoints of mainstream beliefs and practices of all religions. Here are some of the important findings and comments described in the words of Sankrant Sanu:

We have used Encarta Encyclopedia 2002 (US edition) for our reference, though a casual look at Encarta 2003 suggests that the articles on the major religions have remained the same as Encarta 2002.

Selection of Authors:

 Encarta provides the following names and biographical information for the authors of the three Encarta articles in question:

• Christianity. Professor Jaroslav Pelikan, B.D., Ph.D. Sterling Professor Emeritus of History, Yale University. Author of The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Historical Theology, and other books.

• Islam. Associate Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies, Yale University. Dallal, Ahmad S., B.E., M.A., Ph.D. Author of An Islamic Response to Greek Astronomy: Kitab Ta'dil Hay'at al-Aflak of Sadr al-Shari'a.

• Hinduism. Doniger, Wendy, M.A., Ph.D., D.Phil. Mircea Eliade Professor of History of Religions and Indian Studies, University of Chicago. Author of The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology, Siva: the Erotic Ascetic, and Dreams, Illusion, and Other Realities.

Emic or Etic?

The first observation we make is that scholars who profess those faiths have written the articles on Christianity and Islam; this is not the case with Hinduism. While the topic of emic (insider) and etic (outsider) study is often debated within academia, we would expect Encarta to choose uniformly either the emic or etic view of the major religions. In the Encarta article on Christianity, Professor Jarsolav Pelikan strongly defends the emic viewpoint:

“Like any system of belief and values -- be it Platonism, Marxism, Freudianism, or democracy -- Christianity is in many ways comprehensible only “from the inside,” to those who share the beliefs and strive to live by the values; and a description that would ignore these “inside” aspects of it would not be historically faithful. To a degree that those on the inside often fail to recognize, however, such a system of beliefs and values can also be described in a way that makes sense as well to an interested observer who does not, or even cannot, share their outlook.”

The same logic, apparently, does not apply to Eastern religions. In general, though not always, we would expect the “emic” view to be more sympathetic than the “etic” view, particularly when the “emic” author is a practicing member of their faith.

How the article describes Rama and Krishna, considered as incarnations of God (as Vishnu):

Hinduism:

“Most popular by far are Rama (hero of the Ramayana) and Krishna (hero of the Mahabharata and the Bhagavata-Purana), both of whom are said to be avatars of Vishnu, although they were originally human heroes.”

To understand this representation, let us draw up a hypothetical quote on Christianity to parallel the quote on Hinduism.

Christianity^*: Jesus Christ is said to be the “Son of God” though he was just a human.  

The article appears to speak with the certainty of divine knowledge! Let us see how a similar issue, the divinity of Jesus is treated in the article on Christianity;  

Christianity:
 

“The ultimate mystery of the universe, called by many different names in various religions, was called “Father” in the sayings of Jesus, and Christians therefore call Jesus himself “Son of God.” At the very least, there was in his language and life an intimacy with God and an immediacy of access to God, as well as the promise that, through all that Christ was and did, his followers might share in the life of the Father in heaven and might themselves become children of God. “

Difference in approach and attitude in the articles on religion can be found in the description of subtle concepts:

We take two -- jihad and ahimsa, in particular, both of which may be somewhat familiar to the lay reader.

Islam:

“Many polemical descriptions of Islam have focused critically on the Islamic concept of jihad. Jihad, considered the sixth pillar of Islam by some Muslims, has been understood to mean holy war in these descriptions. However, the word in Arabic means "to struggle" or "to exhaust one's effort," in order to please God. Within the faith of Islam, this effort can be individual or collective, and it can apply to leading a virtuous life; helping other Muslims through charity, education, or other means; preaching Islam; and fighting to defend Muslims. Western media of the 20th century continue to focus on the militant interpretations of the concept of jihad, whereas most Muslims do not.”  

Hinduism:

“The most important tenet of sanatana dharma for all Hindus is ahimsa, the absence of a desire to injure, which is used to justify vegetarianism (although it does not preclude physical violence toward animals or humans, or blood sacrifices in temples).”  

In both cases, the authors treat subtle subjects in the respective religions. In the article on Islam, the author presents a sympathetic view of Jihad, and attempts to favorably influence Western perceptions. In the article on Hinduism the author adds decidedly unfavorable editorial asides seeking to “correct” possibly favorable perceptions by introducing “contradictions.” The tone of the article again is of a higher entity looking down on lowly customs and illogical “native” interpretations (as in (“ahimsa”…“is used to justify”). This is an illustration of the very different viewpoint (dare we say “agenda”) from which the article on Hinduism is written. While the articles on Islam and Christianity attempt to uplift the reader to a refined understanding of those religions, the article on Hinduism attempts to denigrate instead.  

To understand what we mean by this let us see how Encarta would present Christianity and Islam, if it were to use the same logic and attitude as used in the article on Hinduism.  

Christianity^*:

“The most important tenet of Christianity is love (although it does not preclude burning heretics and witches at the stake, the Crusades, Christian colonization and the Jewish Holocaust).” 

Islam^*:

“Muslims claim that Islam is a religion of peace (although it does not preclude suicide bombing or other terrorist acts).” 

To be really clear, we are not suggesting that such descriptions of Christianity or Islam should have been in Encarta -- they would be decidedly negative portrayals. Unfortunately, this tone of portrayal prevails in the article on Hinduism.

In fact, the Encarta article on Hinduism has more references to “blood” and “animal sacrifices” than it does to Yoga. Yoga, arguably the most popular contribution of Hinduism to the West is mentioned in two places -- both insignificant.

About Hindu religious teachers:

“In more recent times, numerous self-proclaimed Indian religious teachers have migrated to Europe and the United States, where they have inspired large followings. Some, such as the Hare Krishna sect founded by Bhaktivedanta, claim to base themselves on classical Hindu practices.”

As is consistent with the tone of the article, notice the deprecating use of “self-proclaimed” and “claim to”, words rarely used in similar ways in the other articles.

How the articles end:

The article on Hinduism ends with a bang -- something that can aptly demonstrate the deep-seated prejudice and even, perhaps, a political agenda. After failing to have links for “yoga” or “Indian philosophy” in the Encarta article, at the very end Encarta discovers the power of links. 

Hinduism:

For information on religious violence in India, See India.  

This is the appropriate ending for the article on Hinduism? We first surmised that this might be due to some current events (even then it would not be an appropriate ending for an academic article on Hinduism, other than motivated by considerable prejudice). But we find the same ending, for the same article, as far back as Encarta 1999! As a crosscheck, let us look at the other articles on religion.  

Christianity:

“For additional information, see articles on individual Christian denominations and biographies of those persons whose names are not followed by dates.”  

Islam:

[No link suggested at the end]  

Given the thread of negativity that permeates the Encarta article on Hinduism, it comes as no surprise when, in the end, it suggests the topic of “religious violence” as additional reading. If the articles of Christianity and Islam were written with the same intent, this is what the last links could look like.  

Christianity^*:

For additional information about burning witches at the stake, see Witch Hunt.  

Islam^*:

For terrorist violence, see International Terrorism.  

Again, we do not suggest these endings be used, nor does Encarta do so. They are provided for the purpose of illustrating the underlying attitude in choosing such endings -- an attitude that pervades the article on Hinduism.

Choice of Authorship and evidence of prejudice:

One aspect of authorship is the broad acceptability of the author in the religious community they purport to represent. In general, it is more likely for emic authors to be acceptable, though not universally so. A research on the web shows that while Professors Pelikan and Dallal are not regarded as controversial, Professor Doniger has come in for considerable criticism for her lopsided portrayal, and unsubtle understanding of Hinduism. While Hindus, in general, are known for their tolerance of criticism (which is probably why the Encarta article has survived, without protest, for several years), we wonder why Encarta, as a mainstream encyclopedia, would deliberately choose to continue with authors that are highly controversial within the communities they write about. Note that, particularly in Hinduism, this could be very true for supposedly “emic”, but in reality, non-practicing, authors as well.

While there is some evidence of prejudice on the part of Encarta's author on Hinduism, it is not clear whether prejudice also exists in Encarta as well. Certainly, as the ultimate editorial authority, Encarta cannot evade responsibility for the situation, at the very least in the selection of authors and editorial oversight over prejudiced treatment in a sensitive topic like religion. However, Encarta may well have, knowingly or unknowingly participated in an environment of bias.

Conclusion and Recommendations:

In this article, we compare the treatment of different religions in Encarta. We find that there are significant differences in the treatment of Hinduism vs. the treatment of Islam or Christianity in both the selection of content and the attitude displayed in the writing -- resulting in a distinctly negative portrayal of Hinduism vs. the other religions. We conjecture that the reason for this difference is related largely to the difference choices in the selection of authors -- whether they are emic or etic and their area of interest or specialization in the religion they study. We also find that Professor Doniger, the author of the Encarta article on Hinduism is controversial within the Hindu community.

The authors of the article on “Islam” and “Christianity” have a mature and balanced viewpoint and they represent their religions in a way that the vast majority of adherents will find appropriate and positive. We commend Encarta for their choice of authors in portraying these religions in a sympathetic way. Unfortunately, the same balance and sympathy is not visible in the article on Hinduism. While Professor Doniger is certainly free to pursue her specific areas of interest and scholarship in Hinduism, we do not believe that her article represents the mainstream of Hindu thought in both the selection of content and its interpretation, which would be appropriate for a widely read source such as Encarta.

Given that Professor Doniger's specific interests and attitudes strongly influence the article, it would be insufficient to simply remove a few of the most glaring examples of negativism, while leaving the rest of the article unchanged. We recommend instead that an article written by someone “emic” to the community, who can represent Hinduism in a positive, mainstream viewpoint, promptly replace the article on Hinduism in Encarta.

We also recommend that further research be done to study the instances, causes, effects and resolutions for the prejudice in the study of Hinduism in America.  

* These statements have been provided here for the purpose of analogy only.

To be continued.......

Abhijit Bagal