Here’s three on’s are sophisticated
There is sophistication and then there is sophistication.
In this age of terror fueled by the ideology of Islamic extremism, some old insights of the liberal historiography of the roots and nature of Nazism remain relevant. In works published in the 1960s and 1970s, two of Nazism’s preeminent historians…made a similar point about the political significance of ideological fanaticism…This underestimation, the refusal or inability to understand that Hitler meant what he said was thought to be a mark of political sophistication in the 1930s…The great classic of the postwar years which did take Nazi ideology seriously, Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism, took specific issue with this liberal and left-wing reductionism. Arendt…redefined the meaning of political sophistication so that it came to mean a willingness to pay very close attention to the ravings and rantings of political fanatics. In so doing, she implicitly reversed the meaning of sophistication and naïveté.
I’ve been there. No doubt most of us have. It’s the old ‘behind the mask’ thing, the old appearance and reality thing. Ideas are just the frosting, just the superstructure, just the defense mechanism, just the wishful thinking, just the presentation of self; the reality, underneath, is money or sex or power or status. Sometimes that’s true, of course; there are oceans of pious platitudes offered up to veil the greed or self-aggrandizement or strategy that is really at work. But that doesn’t mean it’s always true, nor that the safest bet is to assume that it’s always true. Some ideas are a lot more dangerous than mere self-interest or lust.
It remains difficult for political and intellectual elites in liberal democracies to give fanaticism the causal impact it deserves…The traditions of liberal historiography of the Nazi era have powerfully addressed the problem of underestimation. Frank and frequent talk about what the radical Islamists are saying should not be primarily the preoccupation of right of center politicians and journalists…[I]n order that the history of radical Islam not again be the history of its underestimation, liberals should foster a kind of political sophistication that rests on the lessons of this most famous previous case of underestimation of political fanaticism.
It’s not all that sophisticated to fall asleep at the switch.
Excellent post.
Directly against the required thought model of modern liberal politics, in my opinion.
Sorry, am I missing a pun, or is the headline to this post not written in English?
Is ANYONE really paying attention to what Ahmenidjad is saying?
And does anyone beleive him?
I do, and it is incredibly scary…
Come to that, what about the islamic government in Khartoum?
Actually GT I’m more scared by thinking that they DO believe him but, in the case of China and Russia for example, still see their short-term commercial interests + the opportunity to thumb their noses at the USA and Europe as a better option.
Speaking of not seeing what’s in front of our noses am I the only Brit who foresees freezing to death when Putin cuts off our gas supplies in a couple of years?
Exactly. Moreover there is an asymmetry amongst certain members of the “left” in this disbelief of what people say.
They disbelieve George Bush and Tony Blair because they believe that their motives are far worse than they claim.
They disbelieve Hamas, Hezbollah, Hizb ut Tahrir etc. because they think that their motives are better than they claim.
Re. Chris Whiley’s comment…
We just pay Putin more for a couple of years, whilst we re-open a coal-mine or three.
We’ve still got gazillions of tons of the stuff, after all…..
Longer-term, we buy nuclear power stations from the French.
Not actually a problem.
MKJ has hit the nail right on the head, about beliefs and claims.
Nice one.
dave wondered if the headline is in English. Not only is it in English, it’s in the allegedly best form of that language possible: as composed by Shakespeare, from King Lear:
“Is man no more than this? Consider him well. Thou owest the worm no silk, the beast no hide, the sheep no wool, the cat no perfume. Ha! here’s three on’s are sophisticated: thou art the thing itself. “
I think “here’s three on’s are sophisticated: thou art the thing itself” means “we three are adulterated whereas you are no more or less than a man”.
Well spotted, Paul!
Sorry, I knew that title was very cryptic, and it wasn’t meant to be a trap or a quiz or anything. But I do adore that line, in fact the whole speech; it’s one of the (many) bits of Lear that make my hair stand on end – that make me feel, as Emily Dickinson put it, as if no fire can ever warm me, as if the top of my head were taken off. So I used it.
To put it another way, if that line isn’t in your blood, maybe it’s time to read (or listen to or see) Lear again!
Quite true.
In France there are still people who see (and teach!) nazism in a purely historical context and not at all an ideological one. As if WW1 could by itself explain the Holocaust!
Which probably explain how indescriminate people are in their use of the word “fascism”. (One of my pet hatred!)
I have to say I’m not over keen on the Fascism analogy. Using the F-word shouldn’t be some sort of litmus test for how seriously you take the problem.
In fact, if anything, it’s a crutch used by those who don’t know quite enough about the problem to attack it in its own terms.
Fred Halliday gives a convincing demonstration of what a really informed contribution looks like here:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization/left_jihad_3886.jsp
After which he can end with the passing comment that “the habit of categorising radical Islamist groups and their ideology as “fascist” is unnecessary as well as careless”.