(originally posted 12 March. reposted here)
Going back to the 'cartoon controversy' - there was an interesting article on it by Karren Armstrong in the Guardian on saturday
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1728649,00.html
She made the very good point that what was involved was not just one set of sacred values, but two. Of course there was the sacredness which Muslims attribute to the prophet, but on the supposed 'other' side there was also the sacred value of free speech, which being considered by some people in some societies to be unassailable or inviolable, is in practice just as 'sacred' as any religious concept.
"The sacred symbolises that which is inviolable, nonnegotiable, and so central to our identity that, when it is injured in any way, it seems to vitiate the deepest self."
The notion that these issues were 'central to our identity' explains how passions were raised, and then easily inflamed. People on both sides seemed to feel there was a need to 'defend' their values, indicating an underlying assumption that these values were under attack, and implying they are somehow in opposition to those held by the others. This idea of an 'attack' on core values, things which define a society and its people, is what is being ascribed to in the oft repeated catchphrase of a 'clash' of civilizations or cultures.
Of course, what has to be admitted from the start, is a true clash of cultures is indeed possible. If two cultures have differing opinions not merely on how people should behave, but on how they should be made behave, then there is indeed going to be a conflict as soon as these cultures interact, and one with little hope of reconciliation. What is important and necessary however is the element of coercion, the idea that the values are not something to be aspired to but also imposed on others, and hence makes it logically impossible that the two different value systems can co-exist. People can't be forced to do two different things.
But what must also be realised is for there to be society at all some values must be imposed on its members. As I mentioned before, true freedom is freedom only to do the things that matter, not a licence to do anything. In western society no one doubts that people should be forced to obey certain laws, and prevented from and punished for breaking them. The value of an individual's freedom of action does not extend to the freedom to steal and kill others. This imposition of values is not merely a relativist preference, but a prequisite for there to be this society at all, and something to be defended without compromise, if it is indeed under attack.
But is it? Are there immovable tenets of Western society in conflict with another, different, 'Islamic' society? First of all it is not clear what this supposed supra-entity of Islamic society is supposed to be exactly, nor for that matter, the Western one. Both 'societies' encompass a multitude of different races, religions and political systems - and in many areas overlap. And the fact that they overlap shows that they cannot be so incompatible.
The conflict, if any, comes not from a clash of radically different cultures, but radical elements within those cultures. It is fundamentalism in cultures, not their founding values, that is the main cause of conflict, and a source of concern for all those involved.
For me 'fundamentalist' implies not merely taking a set of values extremely seriously, but imposing those values on others. There is a switch in emphasis from the personal to the communal. Values are no longer sacred rules which grant the individual merit if he/she obeys them, but rather which grant merit if the individual contributes to them being obeyed. Fundamentalists are extroverted in that they get involved in the affairs of others. Of course, to some extent we are all fundamentalists to the extent that we would help or at least support the upholding of the law even if we ourselves were not affected by the particular crime. But the pragmatic reason for this is that as part of a society which does better if criminality is kept down, we are all affected by any crime. If the criminal gets away with something this time, then it might encourage others to act similarly, and next time we might be the victim. So there are valid practical reasons for sometimes imposing our values on others, even if it doesn't directly concern us. But the element of 'fundamentalism' I'm trying to get at is when this imposition has no practical value, and is done for idealogical reasons.
It would seem religious values are the most susceptible to this. Perhaps because in a way punishing or preventing immoral acts is seen as doing a service in the name of the religion, and hence providing kudos in the eyes of the deity (which has to be a good thing in such matters). But to me this is the ultimate in arrogance. Any notion of a deity implies something at least more powerful than oneself, and if one has to act on its behalf, then it suggests the deity needs the help of the individual, something which is not only arrogant, but ultimately illogical. If a God needs me to act on His behalf, then He is not much of a God. In addition it causes problems for the whole notion of moral guilt. If a person is to be judged by his actions, then how can he be judged if his actions are forced by others? In the example of the cartoons of the prophet - does the prophet need to be protected from people drawing his caricature? Those who follow him may not want to offend him - but surely it only makes logical sense to be sure that they don't, or condone those who do. To imply a deity needs to be protected from offence is in my view more a slur on the deity than the offence itself.
But I think the people protesting against the cartoons were not driven by mere demands that their values not be broken. Aside from an inflaming radical element I think that the majority around the world were demanding rather that their values be respected, which is something else. Given the tensions in the world I think a large part of the anger was (I hope) due mainly to a perceived attack on what they hold dear, not anger that others don't act the same way, and hence not a sign of ideological imperialism.
Of course secularists can impose their values ideologically as well, meaning doing so when there is no practical reason or tangible benefit. It may be an imposition of values to force all women to wear a headscarf, but in my view it is also an imposition to forbid them to do so if they wish. In my opinion, the laws banning religious symbolism in France do not serve a clear purpose, except to target religion per se, and this is an ideological manoeuvere, not a practical one. An article of clothing is only banned if it is a a religious symbol - but unless they can be shown to have a clear negative impact on society (as for example a swastika might be, given its connotations) there is no reason to ban them as such, even in limited areas such as public buildings. In this case I think it is even counterproductive, since symbols are only significant to society at large if they are made so. Turbans and headscarves, skull caps and crucifixes only have significance to those who don't wear them if they are hyped to believe them as meaningful symbols, symbols that say something to them. Otherwise how could they matter? Banning them, drawing attention to them, ironically draws attention to them and makes them bones of contention. On an aside, from a technical point of view it could be argued that since symbols are only symbols to those who believe in them, then judging someone else's symbols is impossible. To you it might be a crucifix, if I am not a Christian it's just a piece of wood. And if it is to me a piece of wood - how can I justify banning it?
So in all areas, we can have fundamentalism, and in all areas I think it is dangerous. It is dangerous because it replaces how society needs people to behave with notions of how they should behave which are divorced from practical concerns. And if they are not defensible on practical grounds, then they are not defensible at all.
Without this fundementalist attitude, quite different views on how people should live can be accomodated under an umbrella society of how they at the very least must live. This is what happens anyway in all societies, most of all in modern democratic ones, where differing opinions are tolerated as long as they don't interrupt the functioning of that society.
The onus of toleration is perhaps more on the majority,since they are the ones with the power to do most damage, but a minority has also to be careful never to define themselves in opposition to others, as is a often a natural reaction of solidarity when times get hard.
This is not to blame any minority for being different, and imply they must 'integrate', but rather to say that that difference must be compatible with the society formed by everyone together. Compatible in the sense of not preventing its functioning, and radical extremists aside, that so far seems to be the case. Sadly even perceived difference, and perceived self-isolation can quickly lead to escalating tensions. Europe stands with the worst of them in terms of how it has often tolerated minorities, and as the perhaps very worst in what it eventually led to. The West has taught the world some terrible lessons, but that means we have also had the best opportunity to learn from them.
No comments:
Post a Comment