A few weeks ago the socially conservative sociologist who blogs under the name “Inductivist” had an intriguing post up, Social conservatives and Muslims:
Social conservatives typically align themselves with the West against the Islamic world in the “clash of civilizations,” but it needs to be recognized that in some respects we have more in common with Muslims than Europeans and many secular Americans. Our fight with liberal degenerates is not limited to the U.S. If Europe had any cultural conservatives, I’d happily team up with them, but I think they’ve gone the way of the dodo.
The overwhelming majority of Muslims, by contrast, are traditional. We need to work with them to fight against liberal cultural imperialism in their countries. I wouldn’t wish the humiliation of gay marriage on my worst enemy.
This is not an exotic or shocking observation. The fact that Muslim Creationists in Turkey co-opt and borrow American evangelical talking points in toto witnesses to some common affinities. That there are commonalities of substance between American social conservatives and Muslims (the median Muslim is more “conservative” on social issues than the conservative American Christian, so I think it is redundant to refer to conservative Muslims). On many social issues I’m sure that the Inductivist would find much more fellow feeling with Muslims than someone like me; I support abortion rights and am not opposed to gay marriage (though unlike secular cultural Leftists I can understand and respect the pro-life and anti-gay marriage perspective).
But who would Inductivist rather have over for Christmas or Thanksgiving? Myself or Mahmud? Unlike many colored children of immigrants I have no objection to the idea that this nation’s core identity derives from the white Anglo-Saxons who settled these United States, and rather embrace it. If I wanted my children to be proud Bengalis, it would probably be best to raise them in the Bengali nation. As it is, the likelihood, and my general sympathy, is that they assimilate to the norms and identities of the American nation. Despite the rhetoric of multiculturalism, as an empirical matter the identity of the United States is still Anglo-Protestant. Or consider my co-bloggers, John Derbyshire, Heather Mac Donald and Walter Olson. Are these aliens when set next to Mahmud?
Of course we are atypical. “A Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” with a secular Leftist would be less amicable. Argument and debate would ensue, accusations would fly. Mahmud would no doubt cause less commotion. But would Mahumd eat? Is the Inductivist’s Thanksgiving table bereft of pork products? Does Mahmud keep halal? There are even a minority of Muslims who might balk at eating at the table of a kuffar.
My point is that even a Western secular Leftist engages with a Western social conservative, because both are Western. They are products of a particular historical tradition, a cultural stream which operates with a common currency. After 9/11 the similarities were stark. Leftists admitted the value of patriotism, of pride in what we were. Conservatives admitted that there was some value to what we had become (equal rights for women, homosexuals who did not live in fear for their lives).
Some of this goes back to Jerry Muller’s distinction between orthodoxy and conservatism:
The orthodox theoretician defends existing institutions and practices because they are metaphysically true: the truth proclaimed may be based on particular revelation or on natural laws purportedly accessible to all rational men. The conservative theoretician defends existing institutions above all because they are thought to have worked rather well and been conducive to human happiness. For the conservative, the historical survival of an institution or practice —be it marriage, monarchy, or the market—creates a prima facie case that it has served some human need. For conservatives, the very existence of institutions and traditions creates a presumption that they have served some useful function. In addition, conservatives tend to be acutely sensitive to the costs of radical change. Elimination or radical reconstruction of existing institutions may lead to harmful, unintended consequences, conservatives argue, because social practices are interlinked, such that eliminating one will have unanticipated negative effects on others….
On issues such as abortion and the marriage of homosexuals the orthodox will part ways with the conservative. The orthodox Westerner may see in the Muslim a closer adherent to the true tradition. This is one reason why the Traditionalist philosopher Rene Guenon converted to Islam. But, I believe that the orthodox underestimate the implicit cultural commonalities which are unspoken and unelucidated, and which bind societies and civilizations together even more than adherence to a metaphysic. “My Country, Right or Wrong” is at once a profoundly unintellectual idea, but at the same time so is the assumption that one would sacrifice one’s own life for one’s child. Instincts have their limits, but at some point human flourishing is contingent upon admitted that life depends on implicit instincts for proper functioning, and that reflection is an exceptional avocation, islands in a sea of reflex.
And extreme secular leftists embrace orthodox Islam, not, I suppose, because they like the idea of summary execution of homosexuals for being homosexuals, honor killings, genital mutilation, and the torching of school girls, but because they see it as a very helpful tool in the effort to overthrow western civilization in general and the U.S. and capitalism in particular. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
Go far enough left or right and you end up meeting in some bizarre middle.
right. and i wonder how much of this is consequence free rhetoric. i mean, we know that communists had a coherent reason for wanting to undermine the american nation. but what about cultural leftists who don’t have such a coherent political program?
Great post.
I suspect “cultural relativism” is the most idiosyncratically western outlook it is possible to have. Show me the Islamic version.
The historian Richard Fletcher suggests that originally, Christendom and the Islamic world didn’t regard each other as different cultures, but as opposed inferior heresies. This changed when the Europeans became aware of China through Marco Polo. It was simply impossible to present Chinese culture as a degenerate heresy, or as primitively pagan and unenlightened. Fletcher suggests that western cultural relativism has its roots in Marco Polo.
@David Hume
That is an excellent question, and one I’ve often pondered. I teach, occasionally, at one of the most left-wing institutions in the U.S. (or anywhere)and the support for Islamic extremism even amongst those most likely to fall first to its sword (such as a lesbian Jewish radical feminist) is astounding. All I can imagine is that they believe that they, as certified intellectuals/artists, will be exempt from whatever horrors might befall everyone else. Or it could be just that their hatred of western civilization and the U.S. is such that they simply don’t care about what happens after the destruction occurs. Whatever it is, it appears to be cognitive dissonance taken to a pathological degree. In plain language, they’re not playing with a full deck.
As for the social conservatives who might find common cause with Islam–this will never happen, because no matter how much the two parties might agree about the sexual degeneracy of modern western society, social conservatives see radical Islamists first and foremost as people who want to kill them.
The position of the secular left: “I love Islam because it wants to kill me.”
The position of the religious right: “I hate Islam because it wants to kill me.”
Much as I hate to say it, the second position appears more reasonable.
I suspect “cultural relativism” is the most idiosyncratically western outlook it is possible to have. Show me the Islamic version.
relativism is common. it’s *egalitarianism* which is exceptional. muslims after all did agree and accept that dhimmis had “their own ways.” not only that, like many groups muslims saw a reflection of their own truths in other civilizations, as they borrowed and reinterpreted (dara shikoh is a culmination of that in indian islamic tradition, but the pattern goes as far back as the 8th century).
as for the idea of islam being a heresy, yes. this was common. particularly among the byzantines. if you accept the ‘hagarism’ revisionism that’s cuz it was a jewish-christian heresy for the first century.
@Susan
well, such radical leftists tend to see islamic extremists through the “post-colonial” lens. i.e., as indigenous revolutionary movements. i think. that’s not how the islamists always seem themselves of course. but also, college students do and say a lot of retarded things. doesn’t mean that that retardation will persist (let alone the lesbianism 🙂
@David Hume
It’s not the students I’m speaking of; it’s the faculty. A lot of the students are far more sensible and realistic. 😀
I think you’re quite right that those who embrace radical Islam see it as an indigenous revolutionary movement. But I also think you have to factor in the really psychotic hatred they have for western civilization, and accept that they’re incapable of acknowledging that a worldwide Islamic state under sharia law is not going to be the kind of place that’s hospitable to the teaching of seminars in “Cunt Theory.”
Whenever I hear certain social conservatives talk about this stuff I am half shocked and half amused. Shocked because it opens another front and you have a hard time even imagining conservatives siding with an enemy, amused because it strikes me as an intellectual eccentricity with little chance of widespread popularity.
In practice social conservatism usually means defending a way of life rather than a view on one or two issues. Islam is perceived as a general threat against the way of life of Alabamans or Texans as much as that of New Yorkers or Californians (and Germans, French etc. as well). Being against gay marriage doesn’t mean you suddenly embrace an alien way of life just because more people there will agree with you on that issue.
My view with regards to the Crazy Academic Left is that these people see America and Europe as basically the root of all evil and at best subconsciously long for its downfall and thus will root for those who have that as their goal whether it’s Soviets, the Chinese or Islam. Whether the aftermath promises anything good for them or not is not a primary concern, there’s something apocalyptic to it and besides it always seems to be far enough away to not quite worry about the real consequences. I think you could probably get rich on these complexes if you were a shrink though.
In the late 90’s, I remember a few people discussing a possible alliance between fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims. After 9/11, all of that pretty much stopped. I agree with the posters above that fundamentalist Christians see fundamentalist Muslims as too much “the other” to ever really ally with them. I can’t think of any historical example where fundamentalists of more than one religion teamed up against another group.
It is shocking how much sympathy Muslim terrorists get from the left. They just hate the West so much that they’ll hate anyone who is our enemy, never mind the fact that the Jihadists want to oppress women, gays, and most others that comprise the left. The fact that the Muslims are poor makes them even more worthy of support in their eyes. And in some cases, especially in Europe, antisemitism is factor.
My recollection is that Ramesh Ponnuru has made similar arguments, but I can’t find the source link. I believe he said this in The Party of Death.
I can’t think of any historical example where fundamentalists of more than one religion teamed up against another group.
in *one true god* rodney stark refers to the alliance of conservative catholics & protestants against secularists (favorably). though that might not count as “more than one religion” in your sense…with the history of the netherlands it probably should.
Nah, that’s what liberals say but it’s not true. Left and right agree on their rejection of the middle (liberalism), as one would expect. That doesn’t make them some “bizarre middle”.
It is surprising that no one here remembers Dinesh D’Sousa’s The Enemy at Home and other writings by him, which argue explicitly for the compatiblity between conservatism and Islam, and how both have a common enemy in the Left. His position came under severe attack and outright repudiation by National Review.
@Sheldon
I’m not sure if anyone forgot it; I had it in mind. But the point D’Souza was making never gained much traction, just as the whole notion of western social conservatives and fundamentalist Muslims making common cause because they both deplore what they see as western sexual degeneracy isn’t going anywhere.
I am fascinated by the apparent consensus that the extreme secular left finds common cause with Islam because they subconsciously want to destroy Western civilization. As a secular leftist, permit me to be more specific: the relevant overarching goal is to promote a free exchange of ideas, especially new ones, such that we can improve the world more rapidly through creativity and innovation.
Insofar as most Islamic cultures are less tolerant and accepting of new ideas than even radical Christian fundamentalists, they are just as much “the enemy” as the religious right here in America. Yes, they are to be commended for attempting to free themselves from external sources of repression, etc. etc., but they should simultaneously be criticized for their oppressive laws stifling creativity and free expression.
But why commend them for attempting to throw off external repression? It is not simply a matter of promoting liberty. So long as people have a common external enemy, they will unite under any banner at all, even radical Islam. But once they are free, trade will increase, bringing in new ideas, internal divisions will arise, and more liberal, even secular ideas may spread.
I submit that a significant fraction of the population of many Islamic countries is genetically predisposed towards a more open-minded outlook, but is currently forced into compliance with sharia and other such anachronisms. Were they to be freed from those historical shackles, I might find more in common with them than the Christian right. I suspect many rightists here would be willing to make common cause with the left in order to foster the emergence of secularism in the current Islamic world, even though success in that particular endeavour would be a defeat for “the right” in the global sense, both orthodox and conservative (and certainly according to D’Souza). But such an emergence may well require that the West no longer be perceived as a threat. Thus, soft power. Hard power creates radical militant rightists, often expressed through religious fanaticism, while soft power fosters trade and new ideas. Or so many secular leftists believe.
Apologies for the lengthy comment, but I would be very interested in the opinions of earlier posters.
They won’t be “free” they will be under patriarchy + sharia.
The trade already “increased” a whole lot in Saudi Arabia and secular ideas indeed thrive over there…
“genetically predisposed” ?
I thought all things genetic (like IQ…) were evil.
Where can I get more infos on this new leftist gospel?
currently forced into compliance by evil capitalists?
I didn’t know that either.
Are you sure?
P.S. As an aside I would be interested in the stuff you smoke, looks quite good!
It may well be, to quote kme, that “a significant fraction of Musim countries is genetically predisposed to a more open-minded outlook.” I can sympathize with that. But the fraction of open-minded doesn’t appear to have a great deal of clout. And how, exactly, are western secularists supposed to support the open-minded in the drive toward secularization without being accused of the same thing they’ve been accused of all along–cultural imperialism? Another point…Islam is, as far as I know, the only religion that is also a political and legal system. Which makes the whole concept of “secular Muslim” an oxymoron.
I appreciate the responses, though it encourages a lengthy post.
I am reluctant to go too far with generalizations on the topic of “freedom” in much of the developing world, particularly the Islamic parts. Saudi Arabia is indeed extremely repressive, but the oil wealth makes it a special case; autocratic regimes can buy off their populations given a free source of income. As for trade, historically it only brings change when the merchants can bring in new ideas; Japan changed little when foreign merchants were limited to a single port and prevented from interacting with anyone unauthorized. Now, of course, the net facilitates communication; whether a great firewall or “little playpen” strategy can counter this is now being tested.
With respect to Afghanistan, I doubt withdrawal of NATO forces will lead to an immediate takeover by the Taliban, though it’s quite possible. I do doubt that any such rigid theocratic state is sustainable for long in the face of continued interactions with the outside world, most especially if we’re no longer dropping napalm on their opium fields. People prefer to be able to dance in the streets and talk with their neighbours; once they’re aware that it’s possible, they’ll eventually make it happen. Unfortunately, they will eventually turn to the ideological pure orthodox religious fanatics if the secular government is completely mired in corruption, and ethical opinions about graft vary significantly by culture and change quite slowly (I think David Hume had an interesting post looking at this over at Gene Expression).
Still, as soon as people hate and fear the people currently in power more than they do outsiders, things will eventually proceed to revolution.
Avoiding charges of cultural imperialism is difficult when one’s explicit agenda is to change their culture. As Susan notes, that open-minded fraction has very little clout, and any overt Western intervention in support of them will damage their cause as long as the West is perceived as the enemy. I think the key is remaining open. Offer to consider their ideas. Listening to others encourages them to listen to you, and that opens both of you to the cultural innovations of the other. The difference here is that secular Western ideas have been rigorously selected under conditions of free idea exchange for a long time; they’re less likely to be defeated in this type of fitness landscape. And if one or two of their ideas wins, it’s probably because it produces better results than our old competitor… in which case I’m happy to adopt it.
The open question is to what extent the entire fitness landscape differs due to the larger cultural context; this ties into the ethics of graft and nepotism mentioned above. David, I’d be interested in your thoughts on this matter.
P.S. No need for external opiates; enkephalins are great. As for the new leftist gospel, well, it’s quite prevalent in the ivory tower, especially in the laboratories. The greatest philosophical mistake the left has made of late is to accept the premise that people’s rights and moral worth might be linked to their relative ability (read: IQ) rather than their status as sentient, self-aware beings (citizens); as such, egalitarianism requires the denial of any group-level differences. Which is going to severely undermine the left’s position as a whole when science refutes that particular assertion.
kme, you are clearly a much nicer person than am I. Or at least, you have considerably more faith than I in the power of sweet reason and open and honest dialogue and the exchange of ideas. When the former head of Hamas, Hussein Mussawi, was approached by a westerner wanting to know what could be done to bring about peace, his response was, “We don’t want anything from you. We want to eliminate you.” Now you may argue that this doesn’t represent the attitude of most Muslims, but nonetheless it appears to represent the attitude of the controlling faction. As for dancing in the streets–didn’t the Palestinians do just that when the Twin Towers came down? And hand out candy to celebrate the event? So apparently they can boogie down just fine when the spirit moves them.
A point worth mentioning is that most Muslims live in a tribal culture, which only exacerbates the pathologies of radical Islam. Tribal culture of whatever kind is absolutely inimical to progress and certainly to western values. I read a story recently about the difficulty of getting any kind of construction or repair work done in Afghanistan because the men from Tribe A refuse to work with the men from Tribe B, who in turn want to slaughter Tribe C, which is plotting to raid the camp of Tribe A.
People don’t subconsciously want to destroy Western Civ. They consciously wish to do so – that is, they wield concepts like cultural relativism as potent weapons against dominant cultural and ideological positions they want to undermine. I suspect most such people don’t take the possible consequences of that seriously – they’re busily sawing a hole in the floor, never stopping to realize that they’re standing in the center of the cut, because they’re not interested in long-term weighing of consequences. “That”, whatever ‘that’ is, can’t happen here. So there’s no reason to worry about your actions possibly bringing ‘that’ to pass.
@Caledonian
Hopefully Anonymous just highlighted an account of sociologists fighting over sociology, and while that’s of far less consequence to anyone else than western civilization, it was interesting to see the open praise of subversion.
Extending the metaphor of the hole in the floor, I think the crits have a point in that they’re already near rock bottom.
@Susan
Susan,
Perhaps I am a touch overly optimistic about the odds of Enlightenment values winning out. Your example of Hussein Mussawi is a good one – there are clearly people we will never reach, and that will always remain the case, and unfortunately they are indeed in power right now. We certainly can and have dealt with that, generally by completely ignoring the population. But there is evidence that a lighter public relations touch can have significant benefits; the fraction of the Islamic world approving of the 9/11 attacks significantly decreased following the 2008 elections.
That said, the bottom line is that none of these oppressive cultures mired in tribalism can do significant damage to the West on a civilizational scale (unless they have oil and we need it); they simply don’t have the tech. Indeed, one might go so far as to say that they would have to completely abandon most of the elements we find odious in their culture in order to develop a technological base, or at the very least would be forced to open themselves to cultural assault by Western values. The tribalism you mention also stands in the way of the necessary cooperation and rule of law. I don’t see significant cultural change as occurring rapidly, and so nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq is probably doomed to at best incremental success (at huge expense). In that I agree with you; sweet reason certainly has its limits.
Lastly, regarding Islam itself, the example of the Abbasid Caliphate suggests that it is not inherently antithetical to tolerance and novel ideas. Tribalism and entrenched patriarchy seem the more likely culprits; selective interpretation of holy texts can get you far. In summary, I think we have little to lose and much to gain by simply extending a hand and offering to listen; while it won’t produce results overnight, it can strengthen the position of moderates and lead to increased cultural exchange. Perhaps I am naive, but I believe that leads to victory for the West in the long run.
Excellent point!
Let the neanderthals starve instead of trying to bring them up to our culture which they don’t want anyway.
Since you take the opposite view may be you can explain what justifies the “cultural assault” you envision?
“If Europe had any cultural conservatives, I’d happily team up with them, but I think they’ve gone the way of the dodo.”
There are still some, such as Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X, as well as some clerical fascists, ultra-royalists, nationalists spread around Europe. You also have the Front National and the British National Party. Cultural conservatives in Europe haven’t disappeared, they’re just more associated with fringe elements than their American counterparts, due to the political history of Europe.
the example of the Abbasid Caliphate suggests that it is not inherently antithetical to tolerance and novel ideas
Islam is quite tolerant when it is the religion of a ruling elite over a non-Muslim majority. Alas, it tends to get less so the more Muslims become a majority. (One got the same dynamic in Norman Sicily and Reconquista Spain, of course, but the West got over that: the history of modern Islam suggests Islam largely has not.)
Islam is also quite cosmopolitan when confronted with lots of new ideas. The al-Ghazali comes along, it has a bad couple of centuries (Mongols sack Baghdad, etc) and things intellectually close down.
I am not saying Islam cannot evolve, just that there are some seriously problematic tendencies that are still with us.
As for suicidal Western leftists, one cannot go past “gays for Palestine”.