One of the interesting things about the discussion on Anna’s recent post was the way in which an attempt to understand gets fairly quickly disabled by recourse to some stereotypical narratives, which usually dichotomise complex problems [either home-grown terrorism occurs because of something inherent in Islam, or it occurs because of economic alienation]. That’s not exclusive, by any means, to the culture warriors of the right, though over the last few years, they’ve probably had a lot more success in framing these dichotomies. The left wing counter “economic alienation” is usually, at best, only true in very broad terms (which accordingly reduces its power as an explanation), and at worst, just wrong and ideologically inspired. Another example of this, and one that I think is very interesting, is the way the situation in Turkey is presented as a contest between Islam and secularism. As Amartya Sen observes:
Turkey is a country with a very rich history and a variety of past experiences that have shaped the attitudes of modern Turkish people. As in any vibrant society, there are many schools of thought in Turkey, and the fact that they don’t agree with each other does not indicate that there must be a bloody battle between them, driven by some imagined “clash of civilizations.” Those who want to see the disagreement between secular politics in Turkey and more religion-oriented politics there just as a clash between Islamic values and Western (or Judaeo-Christian) values make a huge mistake. These differences relate to views on appropriate political and public practice — not to what religion is appropriate. Indeed, most of the secularists in Turkey are themselves Muslims.
There’s another fascinating (and much longer) article in New Left Review by Cihan Tugal which makes a similar point, and elaborates on it with much historical detail and understanding. Just as America is a country with a constitution which entrenches the separation of church and state but has a lively religious culture, Tugal points out that Turkey is moving towards a similar institutional balance. In the American case, it’s arguable that religion is too prominent in politics, and you can make a similar argument with regard to the shifts since Islamism became a powerful force in Turkey. But the underlying dynamics are very similar - despite the fact that it’s Christianity in one instance and Islam in another. I think what this points to is that we need to see beyond simple dichotomies that might be useful for constructing political argument, but actually obscure understanding - and action.
I’d recommend a read of both articles.
Oh Mark. That is not true at all. The debate that Anna has started up has barely begun. The warhorses are just marching into position. But yet I can see that beyond the stereotypes that you deplore there is among those who have commented a mutual respect and a desire to have a substantial engagement of ideas so that they can share something and learn something together.
Give them a chance. This may become one of the best threads you have ever hosted at LP.
I’m not saying it can’t rise above those dichotomies, GregM, but they do have a habit of turning the discussion into a fairly useless point-counterpoint, and I think that was evident at one part of the thread. I’m not judging it as a whole, I should emphasise. I’m aware that some of the commenters do want to learn and engage, and that’s a great thing.
Cihan Tugal’s essay encouraged a recollection of the fascinating SBS documentary of a few months ago; “Kill the Messenger”, about the suppression of Sibel Edmonds , an FBI whistleblower who had discovered some unpalatable facts about the US, Israeli, Saudi and Pakistani nexus controlling the Middle East. In drastic ways, John Ashcroft, alleged religious crank and former Bush AG. went to such extraordinary lengths to shut down Edmonds that you must wonder how serious that being suppressed was.
What was suppressed appears to the sheer size and power of the US military government industrial complex’s grand-game politics in the entire mid east region. Matters discussed in the celebrated “Playboy” article featuring Lockheed-Martin, concerning stratagems for future miltary hardware dominance and thus continuing global hegemony, relate to the above.
Noted also in Cihan Tugal’s article references again to globalisation, neoliberalism, Brussells and the IMF as origins of forces underlying the problems in Turkey and the likely trajectory of its continuing emergence.
Had me thinking of eleven years of Howard, things like AUSFTA and changes to our politics in Australia, which operate against the interests of the many here.
Paul have a good lie down and get some sleep. When you get up in the morning read what you have posted then rewrite it and it will, maybe, make some sense.
Well Greg, your adhominem took up a whole three or four lines, but I can’t see what it adds in the way of any specific critique of what I wrote, or what Mark provided for discussion as to the thread.
Since you have access to sublime knowledge I’m denied and are not prepared to share this esoterica beyond insults: can I then ( humbly, in the presence of prescience ), ask you what YOUR reading of Tugal’s essay might add, as to my observations shared in good faith, or issues Mark raised?
You HAVE read Tugal’s essay, Greg?