On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 17:05:32 -0400 Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu>
writes:
> Jeffrey Fisher:
> > i agree that these muslims ("muslims"?) are no more mainstream in
> their
> > understanding of islam than are christians who bomb abortion
> clinics,
> > but this parallel only reinforces my point: christian identity and
> a
> > specific form of christian ideology is absolutely critical to the
> > anti-abortion terrorists. the fact that most christians don't
> agree
> > with their tactics or even necessarily their conclusions on
> abortion
> > doesn't make them any less christian in their ideological
> foundations
> > -- even if it does make them "less christian" from a mainstream
> point
> > of view.
>
> >
> > i agree, but this is exactly the point i've made on this list
> several
> > times -- it's not the study of the bible or the qur'an that will
> help
> > us understand, because their religious ideologies are ultimately
> > grounded outside the text. but that doesn't make them any less
> grounded
> > in christianity (or islam) UNLESS you want to reduce the
> expression of
> > a religion to consistency with some particular interpretation of
> the
> > scripture. i think that would be a mistake.
>
> That brings us to the role of legitimating ideology in social
> movements.
> Weber and also to a some extent Marx (esp. in The 18th
> brummaire...),
> view the relationship between culture, religion, ideology etc. and
> material interests of a social movement or interest group as that of
> "elective affinity" - interest groups pick up ideologies, religious
> beliefs etc that best legitimate their particular interests. If the
> group successfully dominates the political and economic area, that
> belief also becomes the dominant ideology. Thus, Weber argues,
> Protestantism gained popularity among the merchant classes because
> it
> provided a better legitmation of their economic interests
> (accumulation)
> than Catholicism, and gained political dominance with the rise of
> the
> merchant class. Of course, by that time the merchant class did not
> need
> religious sanction anymore, but "their" religion trickled down to
> the
> petit bourgeois masses and thus outlived its original legitimating
> function.
>
> Alexander Gerschenkron makes a similar argument about Marxism, or
> rather
> its Soviet variety. Bastardized version of Marxism was espoused by
> Soviet leaders to gain legitimacy for their radical social programs,
> which were alien to the peasant masses. The leaders picked those
> elements of Marxist ideology that best resonated with the peasant
> weltanschauung - especially communalism, religious eschatology,
> personality cult and nationalism.
>
> Similar argument can be made about Islamism. As I understand it,
> the
> main dividing line among the Islamic reformers for the past century
> or
> so has been between modernists and traditionalists. The modernists
> (mainly professionals) favored remaking Islamic societies along
> Western
> lines and were opposed almost from the start (i.e. Napoleonic
> reforms of
> the Egyptian society) by the traditionalists. The modernists gained
> upper hand after the successful reform program of Kemal Ataturk -
> whose
> model of military state was emulated in the Middle East (Nasser,
> Gadafy,
> and yes, Saddam Hussein). But what often lost in translation is the
> fact that these folks were also the sworn enemies of the traditional
> Islamists.
>
> As long as the modern-secular model championed by Ataturk seemed to
> be a
> successful vehicle for advancing the interest of Arab nationalism -
> it
> was espoused by Arab intellectuals. But war in Afghanistan changed
> that, as the US threw its support behind the most traditionalist and
> reactionary forces in Islam - and these forces prevailed in
> Afghanistan.
Secular Arab nationalism and pan-Arabism was already in trouble even before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It suffered a severe body blow with the 1967 war which ended with the humiliation of Nasser by the Israelis. The Iranian Revolution which took an Islamist turn under Khomeini also had a great deal to do with the growing popularity of Islamism.
> So from that point of view the US - or rather the
> political myopia of Reagan and his handlers - share the lion
> responsibility for the rise of the so-called "Muslim terrorism."
I would agree with that. The Reaganites built up Islamism to tie down the Soviets in Afghanistan. They also promoted it to weaken leftist forces in the Arab world. Anwar Sadat, as you may recall, freed a lot of the Islamist militants who had been imprisoned by Nasser, specifically in order to weaken the Nasserites and leftists in Egypt. Unfortunately for him, the resulting blowback resulted in his own assasination by Islamist militants.
>
> The anti-western ideology espoused by these folks is directed mainly
> against Arab modernists rather than the West itself, and the US
> serves
> manly as a "punching boy" to make the traditionalist more attractive
> for
> Arab audiences.
Also, it's useful to keep in mind, that many of the strongest supporters of secular Arab nationalism have been religious minorities in the Arab world. Thus, Arab nationalist ideology, in the first place, was in large degree the creation of Christian intellectuals in Syria and Lebanon towards the end of the 19th century. In the 20th century, the Ba'athists in Syra, were mainly Alawites (a Muslim sect considered to be heretical by most other Muslims) and Druse. In Iraq, the Ba'athists were mainly Sunni, while a majority of Muslims worldwide, are a minority within Iraq.
It should take just a bit of reflection to figure out why secular Arab nationalism should appeal to such minorities rather than Islamism. Indeed, radical Islamism is often antithetical and even hostile to Arab nationalism because it proposed to achieve political integration on the basis of a shared Muslim religious identity (which can traverse national and ethnic lines) as opposed to a shared Arab national identity. Islamism has followings in many non-Arab, Muslim societies like Turkey, sub-Sahara Africa, Indonesia, and even parts of China.
>
> Of course, US-sers do not want to think of themselves as being a
> mere
> tool of someone else's machinations, so they invented the myth of
> the
> clash of civilizations, Muslim hatred of our so-called "values,"
> etc. -
> just to show that Us is the main target and not a side show.
>
> The bottom line is, however, that religion and culture is merely a
> window dressing - costumes borrowed from the past (as Marx aptly
> described it in the 18th brummaire) to give new legitimacy to Arab
> nationalism. That also explains why Islamism is now espoused by
> many
> members of the Arab professional class who used to support
> Western-style
> secularism.
>
> Wojtek
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!