here's the paper #1 again: Does the clash inevitably exist?
Does the Clash Inevitably Exist?
The clash of civilizations is a theoretical construct fueled by prominent figures such as scholars, politicians, and even branded “terrorists” determined to conquer the enemy. But how much of this so-called “clash” is actually true? Is this contested duality on an inevitable trajectory to clash forever or is the static representation of the clash bound to evolve into a further nuanced dialectic that will yield different results? Perhaps even the antagonisms between the west and Islam can co-exist when the common thread of humanity overcomes the religious, cultural and political divides. A foreseeable co-existence may seem impossible to those determined to perpetuate the clash, but if the tempocentric biases are stripped away which bind the clash from past to present, and radical viewpoints dependent on branding the enemy dissipate, the future may write a new trajectory. Contrasting viewpoints do exist between the West and Islam but the limitations only arise from a-historical, racist, reductionist, ethnocentric, tempocentric, and normative biases corrupting both sides. Is the west, “obsessed with commodification” and are “all aspects of modern life based on ‘Darwinist modernity which is against God, nature, and the human being?” (Hammond, p.108). Perhaps to some extent, but like many arguments supporting the clash this is a generalization. This modernity, which Benjamin Barber describes as “McWorld” rooted in profits, commercialism, secular universalism, and globalization is just as much a generalization as “Jihad” presenting the Islamic front as a “fundamentalist opposition” rooted in ethnic/religious hatred. Elements of the “the clash” theory however are rooted in valid examples that demonstrate a divide. In Osama Bin Laden’s “Messages to the World” his incredible rhetoric formulates quite a surprisingly persuasive argument, considering many of his examples are rooted in religion but at times factual validity. He asks: “is it in any way rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a century that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?” (Bin Laden, p.164). With one side seen as the modern oppressor, and the other as a backward religiously rooted “fundamentalist” world how can a clash be overcome? The real problem arises when viewpoints fall under an all or nothing mentality, which of course perpetuates the clash and here lies the grave danger of inevitable conflict. Religious conflict, as Bin Laden sees it, the fight for Islam presents difficult obstacles that deepen the polarization. He states: “do not expect anything from us but Jihad” (Bin Laden, p.164) but that is a threat only in response to killing and colonialism. If the Middle East conflict achieved some sort of peaceful resolution and the United States stopped being 21st century imperialists perhaps Osama Bin Laden would reconsider? Still reductionist, but A less polarized theory is Mahmoud Mamdani’s perspective in “Good Muslim, Bad Muslim” which proposes a division between moderates and radicals rooted in history, that has been manifested by political encounters over the course of time. The political antagonisms between Islam and the West cannot be ignored in any version of the clash theories, but Mamdani manages to demonstrate how the roots of Muslim rage stem from colonialism and the Cold War, in a more effective causal manner. East & West, Islam, and the rest are rooted in the common thread of humanity. When civilizations are willing to embrace the qualities that unify mankind and make us all equal, such basic human rights and freedom, perhaps the future can challenge our notions of the clash. Perhaps historians such as Lewis and Huntington and fresh faces to follow will propose new theories for the future, challenged by the realization that the clash is construct- it’s a way in which the civilizations view themselves and the world. It’s a self-binding, marginalizing framework that cannot be eliminated until the theory is disposed or adapted to one which is not static and bound to specific historical events. Time is not static, the human evolution and condition is not static, and therefore the “clash of civilizations” has an undeniable flaw- it does not have to be permanent. The symbiotic relationship between Islam and the West resonates in far more realistic fashion than a polarized clash. Benjamin Barber highlights a hybridity theory that does not force the choice of one side over the other: “Caught between Babel and Disneyland, the planet is falling precipitously apart and coming reluctantly together at the very same moment” (Barber, p.4) The two worlds rely on each other and cannot be separated as everything is interconnected and therefore interdependent, especially with the forces of globalization progressing at such alarming rates. This more realistic symbiotic relationship views Islam and the West as a dialectic- a debate intended to resolve a conflict between two contradictory or seemingly contradictory ideas or elements. Yet are they truly contradictory or have they been cornered into a trajectory of an inevitable clash by radicals, pessimists and fundamentalists? Modern society has an obligation to challenge these “clash notions” and to re-steer the trajectory of these civilizations to ones not built on the premise of opposition and threat, but rather on the belief in co-existence. The media virtually only perpetuates the clash supporting first versus third world divides, stereotyping Islam as a fundamentalist religion and Arab states in the news more often than not as “oil” states supportive of terrorism. Civilizations do not all have to share the same world-view, uphold the same religious beliefs, but rather recognize the commonalities across different cultures, that make it possible to live side by side. History might challenge the belief that widespread peace is a true possibility as bloodshed and war have consistently plagued humankind, however it is a duty to recognize that the origins of all civilizations come from the same cloth, that Islam and the West belong both belong to humanity. As a result, reaching total agreement, seeing an eye for an eye in the dialogue between these two civilizations, or across an array of civilizations for that matter, may not happen in the near future; however they don’t have to exist as a dichotomy. Such a marginalized perspective which upholds the position of a clash, places Islam and the West as polarizing forces: black versus white, Us versus Them (the enemy) and is far too reductionist and normative to provide a full picture that resonates realistically. The West can be developed and Modern; Islam can remain rooted in religion and still embrace elements of modernity perhaps more readily when the west stops colonial oppression. As Emily Dickenson said “dwell in possibility” if we embrace possibility and take action, the world can only profit from more civil co-existence and peace that perhaps will rewrite the “clash of civilizations” paving the road to a unpredictable future.
A Recent 2009 NYU Graduate with a B.S in Media, Culture, & Communication from NYU's Steinhart; fusing studies in communications, impact of technology, politics, and business alongside personal interest in social activism, I create this blog for a Wagner Course. Further compelled by personal involvement in the Palestinian and Israeli conflict i was drawn into researching refugee populations for my final Blog project in the Wagner Course: "Globalizing Social Activism and The Power of the Media." It was a perfect framework to look more closely at how technological advancements and media influence have given voice to the global refugee crisis, and what role the media plays in shaping public agenda concerning global crises. Having done former comparitive research on Western and Arab media, Middle East Conflict coverage,and theories of globalization this felt like a natural progression.
2 comments:
Paper #1
here's the paper #1 again:
Does the clash inevitably exist?
Does the Clash Inevitably Exist?
The clash of civilizations is a theoretical construct fueled by prominent figures such as scholars, politicians, and even branded “terrorists” determined to conquer the enemy. But how much of this so-called “clash” is actually true? Is this contested duality on an inevitable trajectory to clash forever or is the static representation of the clash bound to evolve into a further nuanced dialectic that will yield different results? Perhaps even the antagonisms between the west and Islam can co-exist when the common thread of humanity overcomes the religious, cultural and political divides. A foreseeable co-existence may seem impossible to those determined to perpetuate the clash, but if the tempocentric biases are stripped away which bind the clash from past to present, and radical viewpoints dependent on branding the enemy dissipate, the future may write a new trajectory. Contrasting viewpoints do exist between the West and Islam but the limitations only arise from a-historical, racist, reductionist, ethnocentric, tempocentric, and normative biases corrupting both sides.
Is the west, “obsessed with commodification” and are “all aspects of modern life based on ‘Darwinist modernity which is against God, nature, and the human being?” (Hammond, p.108). Perhaps to some extent, but like many arguments supporting the clash this is a generalization. This modernity, which Benjamin Barber describes as “McWorld” rooted in profits, commercialism, secular universalism, and globalization is just as much a generalization as “Jihad” presenting the Islamic front as a “fundamentalist opposition” rooted in ethnic/religious hatred.
Elements of the “the clash” theory however are rooted in valid examples that demonstrate a divide. In Osama Bin Laden’s “Messages to the World” his incredible rhetoric formulates quite a surprisingly persuasive argument, considering many of his examples are rooted in religion but at times factual validity. He asks: “is it in any way rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a century that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?” (Bin Laden, p.164). With one side seen as the modern oppressor, and the other as a backward religiously rooted “fundamentalist” world how can a clash be overcome? The real problem arises when viewpoints fall under an all or nothing mentality, which of course perpetuates the clash and here lies the grave danger of inevitable conflict. Religious conflict, as Bin Laden sees it, the fight for Islam presents difficult obstacles that deepen the polarization. He states: “do not expect anything from us but Jihad” (Bin Laden, p.164) but that is a threat only in response to killing and colonialism. If the Middle East conflict achieved some sort of peaceful resolution and the United States stopped being 21st century imperialists perhaps Osama Bin Laden would reconsider?
Still reductionist, but A less polarized theory is Mahmoud Mamdani’s perspective in “Good Muslim, Bad Muslim” which proposes a division between moderates and radicals rooted in history, that has been manifested by political encounters over the course of time. The political antagonisms between Islam and the West cannot be ignored in any version of the clash theories, but Mamdani manages to demonstrate how the roots of Muslim rage stem from colonialism and the Cold War, in a more effective causal manner. East & West, Islam, and the rest are rooted in the common thread of humanity. When civilizations are willing to embrace the qualities that unify mankind and make us all equal, such basic human rights and freedom, perhaps the future can challenge our notions of the clash. Perhaps historians such as Lewis and Huntington and fresh faces to follow will propose new theories for the future, challenged by the realization that the clash is construct- it’s a way in which the civilizations view themselves and the world. It’s a self-binding, marginalizing framework that cannot be eliminated until the theory is disposed or adapted to one which is not static and bound to specific historical events. Time is not static, the human evolution and condition is not static, and therefore the “clash of civilizations” has an undeniable flaw- it does not have to be permanent.
The symbiotic relationship between Islam and the West resonates in far more realistic fashion than a polarized clash. Benjamin Barber highlights a hybridity theory that does not force the choice of one side over the other: “Caught between Babel and Disneyland, the planet is falling precipitously apart and coming reluctantly together at the very same moment” (Barber, p.4) The two worlds rely on each other and cannot be separated as everything is interconnected and therefore interdependent, especially with the forces of globalization progressing at such alarming rates.
This more realistic symbiotic relationship views Islam and the West as a dialectic- a debate intended to resolve a conflict between two contradictory or seemingly contradictory ideas or elements. Yet are they truly contradictory or have they been cornered into a trajectory of an inevitable clash by radicals, pessimists and fundamentalists? Modern society has an obligation to challenge these “clash notions” and to re-steer the trajectory of these civilizations to ones not built on the premise of opposition and threat, but rather on the belief in co-existence. The media virtually only perpetuates the clash supporting first versus third world divides, stereotyping Islam as a fundamentalist religion and Arab states in the news more often than not as “oil” states supportive of terrorism. Civilizations do not all have to share the same world-view, uphold the same religious beliefs, but rather recognize the commonalities across different cultures, that make it possible to live side by side. History might challenge the belief that widespread peace is a true possibility as bloodshed and war have consistently plagued humankind, however it is a duty to recognize that the origins of all civilizations come from the same cloth, that Islam and the West belong both belong to humanity.
As a result, reaching total agreement, seeing an eye for an eye in the dialogue between these two civilizations, or across an array of civilizations for that matter, may not happen in the near future; however they don’t have to exist as a dichotomy. Such a marginalized perspective which upholds the position of a clash, places Islam and the West as polarizing forces: black versus white, Us versus Them (the enemy) and is far too reductionist and normative to provide a full picture that resonates realistically. The West can be developed and Modern; Islam can remain rooted in religion and still embrace elements of modernity perhaps more readily when the west stops colonial oppression. As Emily Dickenson said “dwell in possibility” if we embrace possibility and take action, the world can only profit from more civil co-existence and peace that perhaps will rewrite the “clash of civilizations” paving the road to a unpredictable future.
Post a Comment