Some Remarks
Let’s just look at a few comments.
From Flemming Rose:
Dictatorships in the Middle East and radical imams have adopted the jargon of the European left, calling the cartoons racist and Islamophobic. When Westerners criticize their lack of civil liberties and the oppression of women, they say we behave like imperialists. They have adopted the rhetoric and turned it against us…Yet multiculturalism that has all too often become mere cultural relativism is an indefensible proposition that often justifies reactionary and oppressive practices. Giving the same weight to the illiberal values of conservative Islam as to the liberal traditions of the European Enlightenment will, in time, destroy the very things that make Europe such a desirable target for migration.
From a review of Todd Gitlin’s new book:
Todd Gitlin, a founder in the early 1960s of the radical Students for a Democratic Society and now a professor at Columbia University, is appalled by the obscurantism of the academic left…The left, he argues, took a wrong turn when it abandoned knowledge as its guiding light on the grounds that knowledge, as argued by theorists like Michael Foucault and Edward Said, was merely a masked form of power, and illegitimate power at that…Gitlin recounts a conversation with a committed feminist who, like her fellow postmodernists, thought, as did the premodern scholastics, that there was no reality other than that constituted by “discourse.” For the postmodernists who dominate many of our humanities departments, it is as if the scientific revolution never occurred. “The category of ‘lived experience’ was, from her point of view, an atavistic concealment; what one ‘lived’ was constituted by a discourse that had no more – or less – standing than any other system of discourse.” When asked, the feminist was unable to provide a reasoned justification for her own commitments. They could only be asserted as a matter of power and will.
Well – peachy. Since feminists tend to have less power than, say, guys wielding machetes or truck-antenna whips or AK-47s, that’s not a great position to find oneself in. It’s also vacuous, and lazy.
But her problem was more than personal. If, as Michel Foucault told the Berkeley faculty in 1983, “There is no universal criterion which permits us to say, this category of power relations are bad and those are good,” then there is no way to prefer a liberal society to fascism, communism, or Islamism. What that means, by extension, is that, as in the 1930s, many leftists either sympathize with an authoritarian alternative to liberalism or have a hard time explaining why a liberal society should be defended against its enemies.
Or both.
From an article on the Euston Manifesto:
There are cracks in the façade of European leftism that should give us all some hope…Perhaps the most noticeable fissure in the masonry of group-think is a new initiative promoted by old British leftist Norman Geras, who supports the war in Iraq and democratization in the Middle East. Together with a young columnist named Nick Cohen, Geras is leading a new movement dubbed the Euston Manifesto…
That made me snort with laughter when I read it. Hang on! Norm isn’t all that old, and Nick isn’t all that young. It’s not as if Norm is ninety and Nick is seven; it’s not even as if Norm is eighty and Nick is twenty. Get a grip.
The sudden success of the British initiative suggests that there is an untapped vein of rational progressivism in Europe. It is looking for a way to throw off the stifling blanket of doctrinaire thinking that always labels Israel and America the enemy, forgives oppressive and even murderous behavior in minority communities under the relativistic guise of multiculturalism, and excuses terrorism as the only weapon of “resistance” available to the oppressed…But, with a rising generation willing to wake up and rethink some of the received rigidities, there’s reason for hope.
It’s not really a generation thing, that I can see. There are plenty of young multicultis, and plenty of ancient creaking universalists, so this isn’t yet another round of hip new cohort overthrows dreary old windbags. Oldies can be clever, yoof can be damn silly. Relevance, m’lud.
Perhaps someone can explain the difference between:
“”There is no universal criterion which permits us to say, this category of power relations are bad and those are good,” “
and
“We stand against all claims to a total — unquestionable or unquestioning — truth.”
The latter is from the Euston Manifesto, para 15.
The difference between saying ‘this category of power relations is bad’ and saying ‘I have total, unquestionable truth’ needs explaining?
I don’t know. Maybe my antiwar position is blinding me, but do these folks really believe, in their heart of hearts, that we have the right, or the ability to simply “impose democracy” on the Middle East? I’m sorry, I don’t find this position at all tenable. Maybe I’m just an old leftist, but color me skeptical, for one thing. I think its the same old power politics with a veneer of neo-White Man’s Burden slopped on.
Wow great! I’m part of “a rising generation willing to wake up and rethink some of the received rigidities,”. At my age, I can tell you on waking, sometimes I am pleased about parts that are rigid. Other times and different parts, not so. I have never been the recipient of received rigidity, so I’ll have to leave that one for someone else.
I’m with you, Brian. I take a very pragmatic perspective, though, not an ideological one. Not that I disagree with your accusation of imperialism, but I think it’s better to focus on the ability than the right. Maybe if it were possible to spread Enlightenment values (freedom, human rights and dignity, self-determination) militarily, it would be morally permissable – even required! But it isn’t possible. Democracy simply cannot be imposed by external forces: For a democracy to work, the people have to want it and fight for it for themselves. There is not a single case in the past few centuries of a democratic republic being created through external imposition by military force, and I feel comfortable in predicting that the next few centuries won’t see any either.
Certainly the shambles in Iraq won’t be a counter-example, whatever the Bushies and other outright liars and/or deluded optimists say. Yes, there are many good people in Iraq who embrace Enlightenment values and hope for democracy, but they are sadly a tiny minority, outnumbered and out-gunned by the Islamists. Iraq is a non-functioning disaster zone now, not really a nation at all: But I predict that when all the smoke clears, the resulting nation will be a parody of democracy at best. Most likely it will be an overt theocracy that won’t even pretend at democracy very much, although perhaps the Iraqi government (when there is one worth the name) will temporarily try to maintain some illusion of represenation while the majority party theocrats consolodate their power and attempt to stabilize their rule.
If the U.S. *really* wanted to bring democracy to the Middle East, the Bush administration would have found ways to encourage and support the pro-democracy, pro-freedom, pro-enlightenment faction in Iran who wanted to oust the mullahs. Instead, our military adventurism in Iraq has only reinforced the once-slipping hold of Iran’s Revolutionary Council, and will eventually result in Iraq being a carbon-copy of Iran. Since (1) it was patently obvious to any thinking person who regularly reads international news that this would be the result of invading Iraq, and (2) the Bush administration made the situation worse rather than better through execution of the invasion and occupation that can only be described as grossly at odds with their stated goal of establishing a democracy there, it is clear that the goal of the Bush administration was never really to establish democracy nor to stabilize the region.
What is not as clear is the actual goal of the war in Iraq. Personally, I can’t help but think that the record profits posted by the major oil conglomorates in the past few years ought to provide a major clue…
Brian: “Maybe my antiwar position is blinding me, but do these folks really believe, in their heart of hearts, that we have the right, or the ability to simply ‘impose democracy’ on the Middle East?”
Do we have the ability? I hope so, but I suspect not.
G: “Yes, there are many good people in Iraq who embrace Enlightenment values and hope for democracy, but they are sadly a tiny minority, outnumbered and out-gunned by the Islamists. “
Oh, they are a MINORITY, OUTNUMBERED and OUT-GUNNED, so we should ignore them…?
Opinion polls in Iraq, and other evidence, does NOT suggest that those wanting democracy are a tiny minority. Even if they did constitute less than 50% of the population, does that mean that we should stand aside and ignore what happens to them?
Theocracies routinely and demonstrably abuse numerous (so called) universal human rights. Do we simply ignore this? And argue that they have to sort it out themselves?
Sorry OB, I have to call you on this:
“”There is no universal criterion which permits us to say, this category of power relations are bad and those are good,” “
and
“We stand against all claims to a total — unquestionable or unquestioning — truth.”
These ARE the same. Foucault was not against working for justice, or exploring right and wrong, or basing action on evidence. He was certainly not a Derridean ‘il n’ya pas de hors-texte’ unending-interpretation type. He just liked using long words. His ‘universal criterion’ is the ‘total truth’ that the EM, and you, reject.
Now, someone bring up the old ‘what about Iran, he was in love with the Ayatollahs’ line… He went to Iran, he met young, educated, enthusiastic people who told him about their vision of Islam as a liberatory force. He believed them. Then it all went to shit. He recognised that. Then he died.
As far as I can see, so far all discussion of “We stand against all claims to a total — unquestionable or unquestioning — truth” have ignored the “unquestionable or unquestioning” part. Which qualifications surely are what the sentence is all about?
Things that never happened no.553475.
Foucault to Ayatollah “There is no universal criterion which permits us to say, this category of power relations are bad and those are good,”
Ayatollah to Foucault “The prophet told me that god’s will is the universal criterion to which all mankind must submit and which permits me, in particular, to say which category of power relations are good and which are bad. Upon reflection I see that you are right. God must have lied to me.”
Point?
What nobody seems to have noticed is OB’s laughable belief that th Euston Manifesto was a success. It’s in the article she cites and the way she cites it and it’s totally ignored.
I just went to the Euston Manifesto site to check out how much of a success it was. It’s here if you wanna check it out for yourself: http://eustonmanifesto.org/
I must say that 1578 signatures (as of 15:15 BST) doesn’t strike me as much of a success. That’s not 1578 from the british left, oh no, that’s 1578 worldwide, including some not from the left (read the comments of the signatories). It strikes me that for something which got quite a bit of media coverage (Nick Cohen being a founder certainly helped), it has been a dismal failure.
Is this yet another example of the warmonger apologists bending the facts to suit their own ideological standpoint?, he asks rhetorically
>Point?< Given that the central core of Islam rests on the 'fact' that there are god given universal criterion that permit all that then follows for them, it does not matter whether F did not notice that, (strange)or, even worse, (stranger)he did, because at one and the same time he ends up dismissing as none existent the most powerful tool of the enemy while telling us we are not permitted to use the same. As far as the Euston Manifesto clause is concerned, it stands against the thing F says does not exist i.e. that there are universal criterion….etc. F denies it, the clause stands against it, and therefore says it does exist. (Or at least, people who act as if it does, which in practical terms is as good as). If the manifesto took the same view as F, it would not need the clause for it would be standing against something it would be saying was not there. But that is exactly why the left have such difficulty. They are with F.
Mr. McGuiness: Your position is ridiculous. It ignores G’s points above that we cannot simply swoop in and “help” the democrats come to power? Nobody is saying we need to “ignore” the secularists, but invasion, death, and destruction certainly don’t help their cause.
Is your assumption that we have the duty to begin a campaign of total war to liberate, by force, every dictatorial regime in the world?
Dave, about Foucault – but I wasn’t making any claim about Foucault, and I don’t think either Siegel or Gitlin was either; the claim was about the anonymous committed feminist and what she took from a lecture of Foucault’s.
By the way, tom p and anyone else who’s interested, I’m not particularly a warmonger. I had massive reservations about the Iraq war, and I’ve never actually said anything in support of it. I was never sure what to say, so never said anything.
I don’t think supporting ‘democratization in the Middle East’ necessarly translates to supporting military impostion of democracy in the Middle East. In fact I’m pretty sure it doesn’t.
Maybe I misread the review, but it seemed to be offering a direct quotation from Foucault, produced either by Gitlin or the reviewer, to amplify the criticism of the anonymous feminist. Which is to say, using Foucault as a stick with which to beat his less intellectually agile followers, without considering what in fact he may have meant in the first place.
Ah. Well, interpretation ain’t an exact science, and I can’t be sure, but I read it as beating the followers rather than Foucault – beating them partly for their habit of using Foucault and others as a kind of talisman to lend magic to their own pronouncements. Using Foucault as a kind of flag.
Brian:
“Impose democracy”. What are you talking about.? Was that what we doing when people lined up to vote in the face of threats that we don’t have in the West. There was a pretty substantial turnout as I recall. I doubt that you’d prefer that we impose a monarchy restore the Baathists to power or have no government at all. There had to be a transition, and holding elections was a reasonable way of having it occur.
Of course if the Iraqis don’t want democracy, they can always vote to reject it.
Dave, Foucault was not against working for justice? I guess that depends on what you mean by justice.
Would you care to produce some evidence that Foucault thought injustice was a good idea?
Actually, for my part, I did mean to take you up on this –
“He went to Iran, he met young, educated, enthusiastic people who told him about their vision of Islam as a liberatory force. He believed them. Then it all went to shit. He recognised that. Then he died.”
He didn’t recognise that fast enough; not before rudely dismissing the objections of a pseudonymous Iranian woman who tried to tell him (via Le Monde) what “Islam as a liberatory force” was meaning right then for women.
Allen: Ah, the glorious, mythical purple finger.
You betcha. Invading another country with hundreds of thousands of troops, and destroying said country’s infrastructure certainly amounts to imposing something.
Of course, as most of the electors voted for radical Shia parties, I really don’t see us as successfully imposing “democracy.” In fact, for women, the situation has reported become far, far worse. But, by golly, those purple fingers are inspiring, are they not?
And, you still don’t answer my main question: Are you calling for eternal war, an unending crusade? Your position would require that, of course. Or, is the reason for the “democratization” or Iraq really the…other…things (power politcs, oil, pure juvenile pique on the part of dear Leader?) IOf you admit the latter, then I have even less respect, because I certainly don’t trust the Party of War and it’s state apparatus to properly distinguish among states needing liberation and states that just have goodies we want to grab. Empire loses focus on those kinds of issues.
I honestly can’t believe there are intelligent people out there who still believe the talking points of how we are “liberating” Iraq.
“as most of the electors voted for radical Shia parties, I really don’t see us as successfully imposing “democracy.””
But that is democracy. It’s just not liberal democracy. That’s part of the problem: a lot of people think democracy is synonymous with liberal democracy, and don’t realize it isn’t until much too late.
Exactly, OB.
Even steeping outside of morality, it’s the whole results in the real world thing:
Why in the heck should MY tax dollars (a trillion, I’ve heard) be used to 1. profit a few croneys of the current regime; 2. help install a repressive theocracy that offers, frankly, less personal space than the horrors of the Baathist regime.?
And, again, I don’t see an answer to the “Total war, all the time” query, because there are an awful lot of repressive regimes out there. I hope Allan and his wife are busy breeding new soldiers for the neverending wars of liberation. Remind me again why the neocon philosophy is considered “conservative”? It’s pure French Revolution to me.
Dave,
Didn’t Foucault say something about “justice” being a token of ideology, that the courts should be closed down, and that the only justice is that which is administered by the masses.
Brian,
What’s mythical about the purple finger? They were real, and many people had to brave threats to get the purple finger. I wouldn’t disparage the purple finger.
As far as all war all the time, unfortunately the war has been going on for some time now, oh maybe a thousand years or so, give or take a few hundred years, with some periods of truces intermixed, but it’s been there. ever since the armies started marching out of the Arabian Peninsula. We can’t simply ignore it until it’s too late.
If the reason for the war was oil, then we could have avoided it and gotten plenty of oil simply by bribing Sadaam. Besides what might we think that the Russian special forces were helping to send out of Iraq to Syria just before the war?
As far as raising new soldiers, would you rather raise soldiers, or victims?
In that case, OB, I apologise for incorrectly calling you a warmonger.
It was because of your support for this jumped-up apologia for the Iraq War that I thought you were, but I should’ve checked out the facts first.
That still doesn’t make the manifesto into anything that even vaguely resembles a success though