Imagine You Were Them
Many people in the West persist in making the “imagine you were them” argument as a justification for brutality. According to this posture, Radical Muslims are “justified” transpositionally: if you were them, you would also do “x”.
There are too many assumptions and implications that adhere to this argument to go over exhaustively, but let me attempt a few.
1. Let’s say we are talking about a true transposition, a Freaky Friday like exchange of minds, where my self-consciousness, what Bakhtin would call my “apperceptive background”, actually entered the body of a 20-something Muslim living in Adhamiya, Iraq. What would “I” do? Well, since I would have taken my apperceptive background with me, with all of my beliefs and assumptions and biases, I would most definitely not strap a bomb to my waist and blow myself up. Likewise, I would not grab an AK-47 and try to kill Americans, since my mind would still entertain an affinity for them. I would probably lay low, and try to get out of the country. Eventually, I would find a place with law and order; I would seek out a place that offered me personal safety, equality under the law, and economic opportunity so I could fashion a fulfilling and virtuous private life. For some reason, I don’t think this is quite the point the argument wants to make.
2. Let’s say that, instead of a transposition of minds, we are talking about empathy, a walk-a-mile-in-their-shoes appeal to our common humanity, where I try to get inside the head of a 20-something kid from Adhamiya to find out what makes him tick–a Giambattista Vico type of endeavor that seeks to understand a culture from the inside. Okay, let’s do that. What makes this kid from Iraq tick? Well, to start with, we must go all the way back to his formative years, to discover and–to the extent possible–understand his experiences and the lessons he’s derived from them. Concomitantly, we need to document and–again, to the extent possible–understand the organic history of his beliefs and desires. After all, human behavior is informed by beliefs about the world, along with conscious and subconscious motives and motivators. For instance, if I believe this rock is edible–or even better, if I truly believe it will be delicious–were I to become hungry I would most likely try to eat it. In this instance “hunger” is my motivator, “rock is edible and delicious” is my belief. Take note: in this scenario, me trying to eat the rock is a Logical Consequence of these two premises.
So, once we know the make up of the Iraqi, his beliefs about the world, his motivations, and the present situation he finds himself in, we can make reasonable statements about the logic of his behavior. If he is a true believer in his religion, and he believes it is his duty to defend Islamic territory, then yes, his violent reaction to an American invasion of Iraq is logical. If he has been told by someone he trusts that America is trying to occupy and dominate his territory, then yes, his persistence in an insurgency is a logical response to such a violation. If he truly believes that dying for his religion will purchase paradise for him and his family, if he believes that Muslims are on this earth to prove themselves worthy of Allah, then yes, his strapping a bomb to his chest and walking into a market is a logical response to the aggressive humiliation of an infidel occupier. If he truly believes that the only way to accomplish his deepest, most desired objective is to do “x”, then yes, his attempt to do “x” is logical.
But what have we gained by stipulating this? As I stated above, trying to eat what one believes is an “edible” rock is logical, too. But is it not also wrong? In other words, is there not some standard, some absolute standard, that we can use to judge not only Joe Jihadi, but also Joe America? Or are we left impotent in the face of competing values, of competing logics? Is there not some truth we can appeal to?
Why, yes there is. For instance, we can ask whether Joe Jihadis’ belief about American intent is “true”. We can also ask whether Joe Jihadis’ belief about his religion are “true”. But nobody wants to ask these questions.
Look, it is a relatively recent development in human intellectual history that ‘idealism’ is valued separately from the truth of the idea espoused. Nowadays, a man would earn the same moral credit by martyring himself for the sake of a falsehood as he would by martyring himself for the sake of truth. It is the willing, the striving–the authenticity within instead of the truth without–that earns great praise today. A man who, through mistaken belief, sees his liberators as enslavers, martyring himself while trying to smite them, receives praise and understanding, instead of anger and indignation. Great weight is put on the carrying of his beliefs to their logical conclusion, instead of the fact that his beliefs are wrong to begin with. But let me ask this question. Why should we give any weight to an error of belief? Why should we take counsel from a falsehood?
So, lost in the “imagine you were them” argument is the fact–The Fact–that the beliefs of those we fight are not worth fighting for. For the Muslim true believer, who seeks to spread Islam and defeat secularism, his beliefs are repugnant to civilization, and they should be destroyed and supplanted. For the Iraqi who fights America because he believes America is there to dominate and enslave, his beliefs are wrong–False. Fighting for a falsehood does not deserve any respect whatsoever. It should be shunned, and if at all possible, stopped. (Note: I can make these judgments without having to defend my own values as absolute. I can retain uncertainty about “x” and still know that “y” is false–or, alternatively, that “y” is wrong.)
If any here persist in making the “imagine you were them” argument, you have to do one of two things: 1) you have to believe yourself that America is in Iraq to dominate them–an interesting assertion in light of how hard it has been to convince Americans to stay there and finish the job; or 2) you must
defend the proposition that fighting and dying for a falsehood–the falsehood that America wants Iraq–is a worthy human pursuit.
Another interesting note: many assume that it is always contradictory to pursue peace by making war. This too is a false belief. But I tire.
There are too many assumptions and implications that adhere to this argument to go over exhaustively, but let me attempt a few.
1. Let’s say we are talking about a true transposition, a Freaky Friday like exchange of minds, where my self-consciousness, what Bakhtin would call my “apperceptive background”, actually entered the body of a 20-something Muslim living in Adhamiya, Iraq. What would “I” do? Well, since I would have taken my apperceptive background with me, with all of my beliefs and assumptions and biases, I would most definitely not strap a bomb to my waist and blow myself up. Likewise, I would not grab an AK-47 and try to kill Americans, since my mind would still entertain an affinity for them. I would probably lay low, and try to get out of the country. Eventually, I would find a place with law and order; I would seek out a place that offered me personal safety, equality under the law, and economic opportunity so I could fashion a fulfilling and virtuous private life. For some reason, I don’t think this is quite the point the argument wants to make.
2. Let’s say that, instead of a transposition of minds, we are talking about empathy, a walk-a-mile-in-their-shoes appeal to our common humanity, where I try to get inside the head of a 20-something kid from Adhamiya to find out what makes him tick–a Giambattista Vico type of endeavor that seeks to understand a culture from the inside. Okay, let’s do that. What makes this kid from Iraq tick? Well, to start with, we must go all the way back to his formative years, to discover and–to the extent possible–understand his experiences and the lessons he’s derived from them. Concomitantly, we need to document and–again, to the extent possible–understand the organic history of his beliefs and desires. After all, human behavior is informed by beliefs about the world, along with conscious and subconscious motives and motivators. For instance, if I believe this rock is edible–or even better, if I truly believe it will be delicious–were I to become hungry I would most likely try to eat it. In this instance “hunger” is my motivator, “rock is edible and delicious” is my belief. Take note: in this scenario, me trying to eat the rock is a Logical Consequence of these two premises.
So, once we know the make up of the Iraqi, his beliefs about the world, his motivations, and the present situation he finds himself in, we can make reasonable statements about the logic of his behavior. If he is a true believer in his religion, and he believes it is his duty to defend Islamic territory, then yes, his violent reaction to an American invasion of Iraq is logical. If he has been told by someone he trusts that America is trying to occupy and dominate his territory, then yes, his persistence in an insurgency is a logical response to such a violation. If he truly believes that dying for his religion will purchase paradise for him and his family, if he believes that Muslims are on this earth to prove themselves worthy of Allah, then yes, his strapping a bomb to his chest and walking into a market is a logical response to the aggressive humiliation of an infidel occupier. If he truly believes that the only way to accomplish his deepest, most desired objective is to do “x”, then yes, his attempt to do “x” is logical.
But what have we gained by stipulating this? As I stated above, trying to eat what one believes is an “edible” rock is logical, too. But is it not also wrong? In other words, is there not some standard, some absolute standard, that we can use to judge not only Joe Jihadi, but also Joe America? Or are we left impotent in the face of competing values, of competing logics? Is there not some truth we can appeal to?
Why, yes there is. For instance, we can ask whether Joe Jihadis’ belief about American intent is “true”. We can also ask whether Joe Jihadis’ belief about his religion are “true”. But nobody wants to ask these questions.
Look, it is a relatively recent development in human intellectual history that ‘idealism’ is valued separately from the truth of the idea espoused. Nowadays, a man would earn the same moral credit by martyring himself for the sake of a falsehood as he would by martyring himself for the sake of truth. It is the willing, the striving–the authenticity within instead of the truth without–that earns great praise today. A man who, through mistaken belief, sees his liberators as enslavers, martyring himself while trying to smite them, receives praise and understanding, instead of anger and indignation. Great weight is put on the carrying of his beliefs to their logical conclusion, instead of the fact that his beliefs are wrong to begin with. But let me ask this question. Why should we give any weight to an error of belief? Why should we take counsel from a falsehood?
So, lost in the “imagine you were them” argument is the fact–The Fact–that the beliefs of those we fight are not worth fighting for. For the Muslim true believer, who seeks to spread Islam and defeat secularism, his beliefs are repugnant to civilization, and they should be destroyed and supplanted. For the Iraqi who fights America because he believes America is there to dominate and enslave, his beliefs are wrong–False. Fighting for a falsehood does not deserve any respect whatsoever. It should be shunned, and if at all possible, stopped. (Note: I can make these judgments without having to defend my own values as absolute. I can retain uncertainty about “x” and still know that “y” is false–or, alternatively, that “y” is wrong.)
If any here persist in making the “imagine you were them” argument, you have to do one of two things: 1) you have to believe yourself that America is in Iraq to dominate them–an interesting assertion in light of how hard it has been to convince Americans to stay there and finish the job; or 2) you must
defend the proposition that fighting and dying for a falsehood–the falsehood that America wants Iraq–is a worthy human pursuit.
Another interesting note: many assume that it is always contradictory to pursue peace by making war. This too is a false belief. But I tire.
posted by John Aristides at 4/22/2006 05:05:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home