True liberalism is essential if we are to create a new disposition between Muslims and the west
Madeleine Bunting Monday October 15, 2001 The Guardian
Since I wrote a critique of liberal fundamentalism, I have been overwhelmed by emails from all over the world, many from Muslims. What was most striking about these was how much they appreciated recognition of the middle ground where they actually live. Many are based in the west or work for western companies, and move between two cultures continuously; they have no sympathy for violent Islamic fundamentalism, but resent the west's intolerance, lack of respect and assumption of moral superiority. They are left with little room in a world dangerously polarising after Bush's "you're with us or against us". That middle ground is where all true liberals should live. The imperative is twofold: how cultures can coexist, rather than unleash destruction; and how to serve the cause of progress. Only in dialogue with those who are different from ourselves do we enrich understanding of our shared humanity.
This is not "soft liberalism" or "limp-wristed" (curiously macho metaphors) or moral relativism. There are universal values, but they are open to different interpretations in different contexts. Only a handful (the right to life, freedom from torture and degrading treatment) can be asserted without qualification. Suttee and the Taliban's treatment of women are in this category and are indefensible. But few issues are so clear, especially when it comes to women; why is wearing a veil degrading, when living in a culture where pornography is tolerated is not? Human rights conflict all the time and cultures resolve them differently: is freedom of speech to be protected, even if it leads to loss of life or racial discrimination? Does the right to own property override others' rights to a decent living?
No one culture has evolved the perfect formulation of human values. Any good liberal must agree with that. The limitations are apparent of the liberal model of an individual pursuit of happiness. Can that guide us through an environmental crisis and grotesque economic inequality? What liberal hasn't pondered how to reinvigorate social solidarity, or revitalise concepts of the common good? These are familiar symptoms of the crisis in western thought. Because we are at war, we do not have to abandon our capacity for humility and self-criticism, nor the search in other cultures for the inspiration for new thinking.
This last is what the liberal fundamentalist rejects, satisfied he or she has nothing to learn from deep engagement with other cultures. Lurking in that is a rigid belief in universal values established in the 18th century in the American and French revolutions. It is a dangerous trap to conflate liberalism as a political doctrine with liberalism as all-encompassing rationalist principle. The former is the best method of politically organising pluralistic societies that humanity has evolved. The latter is a homogenising cultural imperialism.
Liberal fundamentalism has too often discredited the precious human rights tradition. All societies fall well short of the UN Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR), but it was western, liberal countries that divorced political and civil rights from economic and social rights and elevated the former as a cold war weapon.
The politically motivated promotion of some rights over others has deeply irritated many Muslims who accuse the west of hypocrisy, and are alienated by a language of rights and individualism which doesn't reflect their ethical tradition's emphasis on responsibility and the collective good.
The UNDHR attempted to accommodate both perspectives by synthesising individual rights and communal values, which the world has been interpreting ever since. But the US turned its back on this, preferring to stay with its narrower formulation; it abused the rest of the world for not following its lead.
It may seem strange to debate the nature of liberalism during a humanitarian catastrophe in Afghanistan. But crisis and conflict have had a crucial role in formulating our conception of justice, as Francesca Klug points out in her book on the history of human rights, Values for a Godless Age. HG Wells sent a letter to the Times in 1939, with a draft declaration, arguing that it was important that people knew why and what they were fighting for: "At various crises... it has been our custom to produce a declaration of the principles on which our public and social life is based, a restatement of the spirit in which we face life." The Daily Herald set aside a daily page to debate his declaration; it was translated into 30 languages and dropped over occupied Europe.
If there is to be a new disposition between Muslims and the west after this war - and there needs to be - there's no better time to start thinking about it than now.