I've been told that a more accurate translation of the connotations of
the Persian language phrase we usually see translated only as "The
Great Satan" is"The Great Epitome of Superficiality and Hypocrisy."
American culture is much more than that of course, but this epithet is
clearly grounded in others' actual experience of our country and
popular culture. How can we take this to heart while standing tall in the dignity and nobility of modernity?
I'm primarily interested in the most intelligent and legitimate
framing of the positions of Islamism. Sure, there are probably lots of
reactive xenophobic forms of Islamism that can be easily criticized and dismissed. But so what? We're served much more by understanding the legitimate concerns and needs expressed by Islamists.In this and future posts I hope to consider the healthiest and most highly
evolved responses the West can offer to those legitimate needs and concerns. Recently, I've been reflecting on development and
decadence.
Anyone with a rigorous liberal education deeply appreciates the greatness of the Enlightenment project that enabled Western cultures to transition beyond the limitations of traditional ethnocentric structures of thought, values, and perception. (They have made possible the discriminating mind with which I am even able to ask nuanced questions!)
What often tends to be less obvious are the violence and devastating consequences of the still-incomplete transition into modernity.
When rational and modern modes of knowing first emerged, they struggled to throw off the limitations that constrained perception and awareness (just like every other new evolutionary mode of knowing has done in order to define and affirm itself.) Naturally, this process matures through distinct phases. At first, there's always a tendency to throw away some baby with the bathwater of the previous cultural value structures. Over many years, a synthesis gradually, in fits and starts, begins to emerge.
The transition to modernity has been particularly momentous and difficult. It has required 400 years of wrenching cultural change (encompassing, among other things, the Reformation, the Hundred Years War between Roman Catholics and Protestants and the rise of constitutional democracies) for European societies to value the wisdom of separating church from state. And the transition to modernity is still not complete anywhere, even in the Western democracies. In America a pitched battle is raging between traditional moderns (conservative Christian family values) and pluralistic moderns (liberal, progressive values and openness.)
In the Middle East, modernity is distrusted by most of those who feel responsible for preserving the sacred traditions, the crucial "conveyor belt" of traditional amber codes which make civilization possible. They have concluded that modernity is either (a) a demonic force to be resisted, or (b) its Western expression is pathological and needs to be re-shaped before it can become a healthy option in Islamic societies.
[Note: Some Muslims say they want to participate in redefining modernity so that it can nest harmoniously in their traditions. This is, at least theoretically, a completely legitimate position, in my view.]
It seems to me that one aspect of what Habermas has called the "incomplete project of the Enlightenment" is that modernity still hasn't completed the process of transcending and re-including the confirmist amber structures and assertive, even violent red energies that course so powerfully through Islamic legal traditions. So, at least as a thought experiment, I want to consider the virtues of these excluded dimensions. What are they?
- Embodied soul. Somatic feeling integration seems to suffer during the transition to modernity. I was struck by how the Iranians with whom we met for the most part comported themselves with more self-discipline, awareness, nobility, dignity, and feeling presence than our American delegation. Posture, presence, eye-contact, and subtle energy integration often tend to suffer among those transitioning into modern cultures. We're processing much more complexity, and too often in the process lose whole-being integration, seeming scattered and self-indulgent. This isn't attractive, and looks like a symptom of degeneration, rather than development.
- The sacred. During the transition to modernity, religious life has tended to recede, becoming merely exoteric observance, losing its mystical heart. This looks like profound spiritual bankruptcy—and hypocrisy when accompanied by talk of higher social values and human rights.
- The conveyor belt. Modern and postmodern culture often loses sight of the fact that traditional values are what civilize people enough to make modernity possible. The traditionalists fighting many key cultural battles feel like they're defending the very survival of traditional virtue, nobility, and sanctity against a profane modernity that doesn't care if it destroys the foundations of civility.
In what respects are the Islamicists right about the pathology of Western modernity? There's a grain of truth in their key complaints, isn't there?
- Exploitation. Our economic policies have promoted capitalistic competition that gave us fundamental advantages we've exploited. They've been disadvantaged while we were enriched.
- Immorality. Our popular culture seems to worship individuality, personal fulfillment, and narcissism. Our media seems to export craven self-indulgence, sensationalism, and pornography—which look to traditional code-holders like patent "immorality"from which their own sacred culture and conveyor-belt must be protected.
- Colonialism. Our international image has been compromised by our naive interventions in other nations' politics. We're also tainted by our cultural and historical association with colonialism. All this is compounded by American monolingualism and ignorance of other (particularly Islamic) cultures and traditions.
For all these reasons, and more, we are not seen for the nobility of modernity, but as if merely self-indulgent, cynical, and profane.
An even more adventurous thought-experiment: let's imagine a negotiation among the competing perceptual and value structures at play in world politics. What would be the terms on which "the health of the whole spiral" could be protected and promoted? How can modern and postmodern cultures co-exist with traditional cultures without compromising or threatening either? What are the appropriate compromises between modernity and tradition that allow for mutual cooperation and tolerance?
For example: If it preserves a workable world for traditionalists (keeping intact their vital civilizing functions that lead people beyond brute selfish impulsivity into deferring personal gratification on behalf of higher values), am I willing to give up (for example) the interpretation of speech and press freedoms that facilitate the widespread availability of pornography? (Perhaps!)
What other cultural compromises might be appropriate? What kind of societies and world could be a nurturing environment for both (a) the stability and order needed for the traditional amber religious and patriotic conveyor belt AND (b) the openness, transparency and freedom needed by individualistic moderns and postmoderns? This is worth considering in depth.
As we lined up at Heathrow, my immersion in Iran began. Except for the other members of my delegation, pretty much everybody on the airplane seemed to be Iranian. These handsome people were all dressed in neutral colors, carrying a varying assortment of luggage, from plastic bags to leather attachés, and the women’s faces were all framed in scarves. 
I'm so delighted to have gotten online! Many technical and circumstantial glitches here, so I'm not sure if/when I'll be able to follow up this post. 
Recent Comments