Europe and the Post-Modern Left
Found here. Some excerpts:
From a practical perspective, however, this missed an important point: in order to stand together to eliminate terrorism, the world must share a common view of a "good" society or else the very definition of terrorism itself will remain in play.
[...]
In the final analysis, the root cause of this clash of ideals, and the reason that Europeans find a choice between America and Islamofascism a bit of a toss-up, is that America and France (and Germany) are not philosophical allies. Indeed, the French are defending a specific European ideal from American depredation.
The thrust of this statement is incorrect. There is no equating the competition amongst the various Western political philosophies and the competition of the entire Western 'set' with Islam, for the position of both America and France is circumscribed by shared principles and values. These 'set' parameters do imply an alliance of sorts, because it is through this encapsulating membrane that we interact with Islamofascism.
We and the French are much closer to each other than either of us is to Radical Islam. To equate ideological competition within a civilization with civilizational competition itself is an error of the first order.
When he says, "Similarly, they may fear the Islamic Fascists and Baathists in the abstract but they have a greater fear of Anglo-American ideals in their concrete, McWorld reality. America is the bigger threat," he is correct only in the immediate sense. French intellectuals may hold such beliefs, but it seems to me this is indicative of philosophical condescension rather than true ideological prioritization. America is the bigger threat precisely because Islam has been dismissed by Continental intellectuals as a viable alternative. If, in the future, Islamic extremism can no longer be ignored, this dynamic will change, and we and the French will find ourselves standing and fighting on common ground and common principle.
Of course, this may be belaboring the point, for his overall argument is that post-modern leftism is a greater threat than Islam precisely because it has greater potency within our civilizational set--and I would agree with that, in the near term: Islamic philosophical tradition must overcome a significant language barrier before it can compete on our terms. However, because Islamic literalism is so contradictory to our system, in the long run it may pose the greatest threat of all. Demographic data suggest Islam could bypass this ideological game by breeding adherents instead of converting them. If this happens, the memetic competition within the West will be exposed for what it is: friendly fire in a much larger war. If Islam ascends, we are looking at a full-blown clash of civilizations--our spectrum, in all its diversity, versus theirs.
Nevertheless, as a treatise on the dynamics of sub-set competition, Wild Monk's essay is well worth reading.
From a practical perspective, however, this missed an important point: in order to stand together to eliminate terrorism, the world must share a common view of a "good" society or else the very definition of terrorism itself will remain in play.
[...]
In the final analysis, the root cause of this clash of ideals, and the reason that Europeans find a choice between America and Islamofascism a bit of a toss-up, is that America and France (and Germany) are not philosophical allies. Indeed, the French are defending a specific European ideal from American depredation.
The thrust of this statement is incorrect. There is no equating the competition amongst the various Western political philosophies and the competition of the entire Western 'set' with Islam, for the position of both America and France is circumscribed by shared principles and values. These 'set' parameters do imply an alliance of sorts, because it is through this encapsulating membrane that we interact with Islamofascism.
We and the French are much closer to each other than either of us is to Radical Islam. To equate ideological competition within a civilization with civilizational competition itself is an error of the first order.
When he says, "Similarly, they may fear the Islamic Fascists and Baathists in the abstract but they have a greater fear of Anglo-American ideals in their concrete, McWorld reality. America is the bigger threat," he is correct only in the immediate sense. French intellectuals may hold such beliefs, but it seems to me this is indicative of philosophical condescension rather than true ideological prioritization. America is the bigger threat precisely because Islam has been dismissed by Continental intellectuals as a viable alternative. If, in the future, Islamic extremism can no longer be ignored, this dynamic will change, and we and the French will find ourselves standing and fighting on common ground and common principle.
Of course, this may be belaboring the point, for his overall argument is that post-modern leftism is a greater threat than Islam precisely because it has greater potency within our civilizational set--and I would agree with that, in the near term: Islamic philosophical tradition must overcome a significant language barrier before it can compete on our terms. However, because Islamic literalism is so contradictory to our system, in the long run it may pose the greatest threat of all. Demographic data suggest Islam could bypass this ideological game by breeding adherents instead of converting them. If this happens, the memetic competition within the West will be exposed for what it is: friendly fire in a much larger war. If Islam ascends, we are looking at a full-blown clash of civilizations--our spectrum, in all its diversity, versus theirs.
Nevertheless, as a treatise on the dynamics of sub-set competition, Wild Monk's essay is well worth reading.
posted by John Aristides at 2/23/2006 11:45:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home