Modernity, the institutions of the nation-state and a bit of exotization

What I found most interesting of this week’s readings was the relationship between “Colonizing Egypt” and how it ties into other topics such as institutions, organizations, anthropology/exotization,  creative destruction, post-modernity and finally, the difference of what Kandiyoti understands to be the collective experience of British, French and American colonies versus the Russian, Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian ones. I think to this point, it is worth mentioning that Egypt shared a bit of both British and Ottoman experiences.

In “Colonizing Egypt” we can find quite a survey on power, and how this one comes from authority that sits above and outside society as power sets limits to behavior; in this context, modernity and power relate in the sense that in a “modern state”, power works from within through a set of fixed organizational structures such as schools, factories and armies. This works out into two consequences from which I personally I cannot fully see a way to avoid them:

1)Colonial subjects and their modes of resistance move within the organizational territory of the colonial state as opposed to an entirely different exterior space.
2) Power relations become internal and eventually form the already mentioned external structures.

A great example of this transition to modernity is offered as the disciplined and uniformed solider who   is clearly distinguishable from civilians

The above mentioned structures move beyond institutions and also deal with city planning as it is described for them to be heavily influenced by bureaucrats and corporate elites. It is stated that “modern cities” are “plastic by nature”, artificial in their principle and purpose.  It is worth noticing as well the principle of creative destruction that goes hand in hand with modernity; the creation of a new world implies the destruction of the former; this reflection is particularly important when thinking on modern discourse and its implications in colonial entities and subjects, such as the Egyptian case.

Kandiyoti mentiones that modernization theory became the “broad rubric” under which “failures” of development were being addressed. Kandiyoti’s view seem to be particularly well reflected in the passage “Egypt at the exhibition” in Mitchell’s “Colonizing Egypt” which altogether is a masterpiece of colonial interactions. The Egyptian delegation noticed the carefully depiction of Cairo, even down to the small details like the dirt on buildings’ paint and the overall chaotic feel of what could be considered as the center of the Egypt modernity.
This exhibition overall disgusted the Egyptian delegation; their embarrassment reached its peak when they went into what was supposed to be a mosque and turned out to be a coffee shop where performances were taking place. It is also remarkable how the Egyptian delegation were originally invited and received as scholars with a degree of a kind of morbid curiosity which increased as they began to speak their own language; they became exoticized and thus, became part of the exhibition.

The objectness feature of Orientalism became evident, the exhibition was now complete with the Egyptian scholar, the vast deport of objects had its final piece. It might seem that modernity in the views of Kandiyoti and Mitchell (mainly) makes objects out of people (in modernity’s attempt to develop the concept of universality in law, science and morality). Once people becomes and object, modernity seems to keep treating them as such.

15900

response to 2nd week discussion and 3rd week reading

Unlike the sets of readings that we discussed in the first week, this week’s articles were arguments that were critical to modernity. While authors like Huntington and our class, based from what we read, in general arrived to define modernity as the era characterized by economic growth and better economic conditions, the Franklin School and Foucault introduced us to what they saw negative aspects of modernity.

Characteristics such as production, technology or education that we perceive as positive aspects and better lifestyle, A and H, influenced by this era, perceived it as a master plan of production. They use the culture of industry to argue production, whatever it is, it is a business that produces what people want. Art exemplified in cinema or media, lost it value of being distinct and unique and became a commodity; A and R saw that art lost its self-expression. Humans and production became part of one system where humans consumed the quality they could afford; a hierarchy with designated production qualities. In contrast to Huntignton who saw modernity as an era of technological change and progress, A and H came to see it as a tool of enslavement. I personally do not see this era as either/or but I see a connection and a continuity between the two.  Modernity when first started was a a indication of progress and change, but it is become an era of addiction and enslavement. It is incredible how A and H came to foresee this aspect decades ago. An example would be how human are obsessed with technology and how they cannot wait to possess the latest electronic devices. Human’s consumption is becoming out of control. Thus, control what Foucault saw of this era as a post-modern theorist. Emphasizing on the theory of discourse of control and normalization, knowledge creates individuals and a certain way to view the world; and power ensures that this creation of the view in put into practice. As a consequence, individuals are produced and controlled and anyone who behaves out of this discourse of control and domination is perceived out of the norm. Again, this approach of discourse is very compatible the ‘now’ we live in. Although what used to be out of the norms such as homosexuality and madness are accepted now that the time of his writing, the discourse of normalization still persists but in different ways; such as the West mission to establish democracy in the East; which creates the notion of us and them.

Democracy is known to be a Western ideal, but is it compatible to the rest such as the Eest? Is the East open to accept the imposition of the West?  In Kandiyoti article, from a postol-colonial studies perspective. It seems that the Middle East was more resistant to the Western influence than South Asia was to the Soviet Union. The latter accepted the influence and constructed a hybrid identity. However, Kandiyoty really puts too much emphasis on the theories that attempted to study the influence of the West on the ME which leads to a big lack of content and a clear comparison between the ME and South Asia. I hope to have a better understanding of Kandiyoty’s argument as we discuss it in class.

                                                                                                                                     S.A.A

The Relationship between Human, the West and Civilization

It is part of human nature to desire improvement, and a better life.  This is the basic idea that drives humanity towards modernism as a whole. Humanity values knowledge, discourse and power, and make it as a reason for life. This is the reason why our world is moving the way it is today. With everyone competing against each other to achieve a better a life, the world changes and becomes more civilized each day. However, this is only to the extent of people wanting to move towards a better quality of life. Nonetheless there are communities that reject the idea of modernization and this is the reason why there are resistances to modernization.

Theodor Adorno and Max Horkhemeir wrote an article called, “The culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception”, that shows how the media is very much the reason why media change its system and focus, making it evolve around creating as much profit as possible. Some of the key points behind this article are that Art becomes a commodity where it is used no longer to be an entertainment but as a source to gain profit. Everything is now controlled under businesses; even the political system is very much influenced by the private stakeholders.   The Idealists and capitalists influenced society to act this way. They brought the idea that modernity symbolizes progress and change and without modernization a society tends to be trapped in backwardness. Adorno and Horkhemeir also talked about the culture industry where it also had been changed from what it used to be.

Another author I analyzed was Foucault who critiqued modernity. He believes that “modern rationality is a coercive force, but where they focused on the colonization of nature and the subsequent repression of social and psychic existence” (Focault, p.43). He argued that modern theorists tend to see knowledge and truth to be neutral, objective, universal, or vehicles of progress and emancipation, while he sees it as integral components of power and domination. To connect Foucault’s explanation with Adorno, I see that Foucault is highly influenced by the ideas of Marxism and thus his idea is far from capitalism. In other words, for him modernization is just bringing society to a more liberal lifestyle. He views modern as an explanation of a west lifestyle. Focault adopts discontinuity as a positive working concept. He rejects history, civilization, and epoch. He wants us to avoid making the pass as just our pass, but to continue some aspects of the pass to our future.

Humanity often views the west as more civilized than the east. However, they do not question the negative impacts of modernization. They do not see that it weaken other forms of identity or create a sense of difference. These are some points that authors such as Foucault wants to point out.  Samuel Hamilton, also mention some of the same things in his article the “the clash of civilization”. He mentioned that culture and religion is also one of the main aspects that push economic growth, and not just modernity. However, the high respect many societies have towards modernity made many people ignore this.

Rossa D

Tradition vs. Modernity

           One of the sticking pieces for me from the Kandiyoti reading is the opjection between tradition and modernity. Kandiyoti looks at this not head on, particularly, but more in their context and role within in the pre and post existence of post-colonialism. The desire for modern to exist and triumph everything else brings several different discussions to my mind. For one, position of oppressed and oppressor within the context of tradition—who loses it and who maintains it relative to power—; two, our class discussion of the first day of Islam Modernity and Globalization where we defined, or attempted, to define modern; three, our discussion of the dystopian world put forth to us by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer in “The Culture Industry.”

            When it comes to thinking about the “Culture Industry” text with the Kandiyoti text, I’m struck, not the first time, by the allure of “modern.” Modern being a term and state of being that I can never expect anyone to be at—unless you hold the power of definition and then the power-holder can define the definition of modern to evolve along with the power-holder’s present status. Of course, this is what has happened with the West. Because the West created the structures that the world is forced to measure/compare itself against, the West holds definitional power, which results in the definition of modern to change and evolve/progress with the West’s farthest status.

            Linking back to our class discussion that first night to Kandiyoti—what is modern? In particular, I want to ask the question: why must modern be oppositional to tradition? Why can a nation not be both modern and traditional? What about these terms, with the appearance of being an inherent oppositional difference that I feel forced to question, puts them on opposite teams in a face off? For instance, many of the words in that list we made had to do with material items and their ‘modern’ appearance (including “shiny”), but if modern is the present in the West, with an ear in the material goods, and in the market the popularity of dark stained wood is making a ‘comeback’ something “traditional” is becoming popular in the modern era—does this mean that traditional can become modern? Democracy is often linked with the modern era, but democracy is found in ancient Greece, which is far from present.

            In the Kondiyoti reading, it appears that traditional is oppositional to modern because of a need to distinguish and create the slated power relationship between West and Non-West. Makes ‘sense’ right? What do we, all people not just the ‘West’, lose by this definition? Here’s where I’ll link this to a discussion I’ve had a couple times in race discussions. In American racism, there’s this expectation to adopt the oppressor’s style of thinking/communicating/living leaving behind all that makes you who you are and who you family is. White students in the discussions often seem to arrive to the conclusion that they have no traditions that go back any more than a few decades; unlike their minority counterparts who cling to their traditions in order to distinguish themselves from the oppressors. But what if the white students/West’s tradition is modernity? The definition of tradition is “the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc.” What if modernity is the shaping of a power-holder’s tradition? We, the ‘West’, call it modernity in order to more easily encourage other countries to change to our way of doing things under the guise of ‘modernity’ when in fact modernity is simply another tradition—another method of handing down our customs?

            According to Kondiyoti, the ‘West’ “vilifying tradition as a source of stasis and oppression” which, I’d argue is incredibly true. I just wonder if modernity and tradition are necessarily as oppositional as we are taught to think.

Then again, maybe I’m overlooking something really important…

-W.H.B.

Applications of Post-Colonialism

Perhaps it is a strange thing to start a discussion on post-colonialism with an image from Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness”.  What does a novella about a riverboat captain in the Belgian Congo, viewed by many post-colonialists as dehumanizing and racist, have to do with post-colonialism views of the Middle East?  It is worth presenting the scene where the narrator Marlow wonders and reflects on how “dark” and “uncivilized” Britain must have felt for the Romans.  Marlow remarks that the Romans must have felt the England’s swamps and moors represented a “darkness” similar to how Europeans (including Marlow) felt towards the Congo.  It is the metaphor of the Romans looking at the British in much the same way the Victorians often looked at the rest of the world that gives the scholar a powerful literary symbol for power relationships.

            Power relationships are a subject that Timothy Mitchell in Colonizing Egypt discusses in depth.  Drawing on the work of philosophers such as Michel Foucault and historians such as Edward Said, Mitchell characterizes a different view of colonialism through the case-study of Egypt.  For Mitchell, it is the European characterization of the Orient (and in particular by extension of his case-study that of Egypt) that determined the knowledge of the experts and scholars.  Having viewed the Orient as something out of a panorama, Europeans traveled to Egypt looking for the exact snapshot or photograph that would capture this knowledge.  When Europeans did not find what they wanted, they attempted to fit or bend their experiences to “accurately” fit the assumed knowledge of the time.  A cycle was born.  These interactions created a certain point of view or discourse of the image of the Orient (famously criticized by Said in his book Orientalism). 

            Going back to the Romans and London image, a place that held many of the aforementioned exhibitions and panoramas could have been characterized in the same way at one time.  For the Romans, their knowledge of Britain was created through discourses that depicted non-Romans as barbarians.  Even powerful enemies such as the Persians were lumped into the general category of “barbarians”.  This application of knowledge deriving from discourses is a foundation of Foucault’s philosophy as well as being a key component of post-colonialist historiography.  These discourses were used as justification for the exploitation and repression that often characterized colonialism throughout all eras. 

            The inherent problem with the topic of post-colonialism is of course its focus.  The name “post-colonialism” implies of course that its scholarly methods are applicable only within a certain time period and/or historical context.  Colonial exploitation is not solely a product of 19^th/20^th century Western influence.  Scholars must resist the temptation to focus on colonial interactions as having occurred at one point in the history of the world in a particular manner.  Using Foucault as the pivot of postcolonial theory, the philosophical ideas of power relationships can be extended across many different eras and contexts.  The principles of knowledge and power can be used to analyze anything from relationships between Ancient Greek City-States to contemporary power struggles within the context of the Middle East (through a collaborative study with dependency theory).  The biggest problem with post-colonialism is its name rather than its methods.  As a scholarly approach, it is a useful paradigm for viewing a common occurrence within history.

BDF 

Post-Colonialism vs. Postmodernism

            Deniz Kandiyoti's Post-Colonialism Compared talks about colonial encounters and modernization in the Middle East vs. in Central Asia, particularly through the lens of the post-colonial. Kandiyoti cites Hall, who says that the post-colonial is ultimately about a "critical interruption" into Eurocentric colonialism/colonization (Kandiyoti, p. 279). As I was reading this article, I was struck by some things that I perceived as similarities between post-colonialism and postmodernism (particularly postmodernism according to Foucault, in Best and Kellner's chapter Foucault and the Critique of Modernity). I outline these similarities below:

1)  The conceptualization of power.  One particular flavor of post-colonialism is called dependency theory (Kandiyoti, p. 281). According to dependency theory, the reason why some nations remains "underdeveloped" after attaining independence was that those nations had been exploited by their colonizers. This view implies that concentrated power (in this case, power concentrated in European entities) is bad. This is very similar to Foucault's view. From his postmodern perspective, power is and should be dispersed, not concentrated in elite ruling classes; and power should be productive, not repressive (Best and Kellner, p. 51).

2)  The coherence of investigative framework.  Kandiyoti refers to another reading we did for our course: Colonising Egypt by Timothy Mitchell, which is a notable work on post-colonialism. In this work, Mitchell develops a process through which to study modern structures. This process involves "relativizing and 'provincializing'" 19th-century Europe and "analyzing it as a local curiosity" (Kandiyoti, p. 285). I'm not sure I fully understand what this means, but I think it involves breaking up Europe and views of Europe into smaller pieces in order to more fully understand the larger picture. This sounds to me an awful lot like Foucault's perspectivism. In perspectivism, there is no single correct interpretation of the world; a rich and deep interpretation can come about only through looking at multiple different interpretations.

3)  The importance of accommodating individuality.  Kandiyoti argues that there are some similarities between colonial encounters and modernization in the Middle East vs. in Central Asia. But she also says that Central Asia is not merely another critique of Western modernity. If you believe that is the case, you lose the specificities of Central Asia's experience, and you also limit explorations of post-colonialism (Kandiyoti, p. 294). Likewise, Best and Kellner argue that to "respect differences" is critical to Foucault's work (Best and Kellner, p. 44). This is related to both Foucault's perspectivism and his belief in "bio-power" (Best and Kellner, p. 51).

So I am wondering, what do you think the relationship is between post-colonialism and postmodernism? Is there overlap or similarity? If so, is this a coincidental overlap, or are post-colonialism and postmodernism necessarily intertwined?

Also, in my last post ("Islam and Perspectivism vs. Modernity"), I raised the question of if Islam can be postmodern. Now, the obvious question is, Can Islam be post-colonial? The answer to this question probably rests on the answers the questions asked in the previous paragraph. Again, I have no answers already in mind, so please let me know what you think!

-GGM

The Danger of Huntington: Huntington vs Said

The first thing I read, after our class discussions Wednesday night, was “Clash of Civilizations,” which turned out to be a fairly amusing, if be it disturbing, read. Some of his points I could nod my head to (explained in depth below) and then (of course) some of his claims made me go "wt?” and then ask “how the heck did you get there?”. So maybe I'm missing information, but the following comments are a few of those which garnered the previously described reaction. 

“the people active in fundamentalist movements are young, college-educated, middle-class technicians, professionals and business persons” (p. 26). So, maybe I'm unique in this understanding, but in my experience it is not mostly “young, college-educated, middle-class technicians, professionals and business persons” who are principally active in fundamentalist organizations. From my experiences, fundamentalist groups pull from a) family indoctrination b) having limited options and picks something existential to blame life's problems on c) being themselves what they hate in others d) wanting to have strict rules for themselves after being scared among life's chaos e) these groups are also still a mix of people not all one type or not f) well I'm getting tired of listing more possibilities so we'll stop here.

“cultural commonalities increasingly overcome ideological differences, and mainland China move closer together” (p. 28). I feel like its the guns China has pointed toward the Taiwanese that has the two countries “moving closer together” versus “cultural commonalities”. Granted this article is from '93 and I don't know the then current state of those two countries' relations, but looking at now Taiwan is not wanting to be a part of China.

“founded originally in the 1960s by Turkey, Pakistan and Iran, is the realization by the leaders of several of these countries that they had no chance of admission to the European Community” (p. 28). To this I just wanted to ask “what changed to make Turkey suddenly feel like it has a chance to be a part of the European Community through the EU?” I should add also that I do not know the current state of Turkey's in or out status in regards to the EU. Who does know?

However, disputing facts of Huntington or his opinions is, in my opinion, not what's most important or what is the most interesting/engaging aspect of this article. The truly interesting aspect of this article is the danger this article, and those like it, directly and indirectly pose to people's perceptions of the world's "Civilizations" and most importantly people's views of the Western/Islamic relationship. The real danger of authors like Samuel Huntington (and even Bernard Lewis to an extent) is how quickly a person can believe them. This is not an ignorable thing, but something very real.

During my first read through of Huntington's article, I started to notice a change within myself—an almost acceptance or understanding of the skeleton of his thesis. I was surprised that I could near-agree with him on the idea of identity how it starts small, but gets bigger and bigger (see Roman example) and on the idea of big civilizations being the big players in the soon to be history; I was surprised because of the thoughts and opinions I had heard in class. I finished Huntington's piece and decided to do other tasks for a bit as I thought about what happened and something clicked. The simplicity of Huntington's argument is what makes him so dangerous. Most Americans (indeed people in general) read for pleasure or the gathering of intel, but most, in my experience, do not read with their critical lens on—arguably in part because to be fully critical requires some background of knowledge in the topic area. For example, I read whatever interests me, but I don't always have enough background information on a topic to be fully critical. Its in this step that traps so many people into thinking and agreeing with Huntington and this general philosophy of thinking. Simplicity. Huntington takes out all of the complicatedness and makes generalities without complete explanations. He draws on Westerners already existing pre-conceived notions of our superiority and uses it to 'exempt' him from having to use explanations and facts that go beyond skin deep. Course, then I go and read Said and find him saying the exact same thing—about the simplicity of Huntington's argument, that is. The one particular thing that Said wrote that I hadn't thought of or didn't think about was in reaction or in light of the 9/11 attacks. According, to Said Huntington's article was quoted as 'future-telling', but Said poses the question “but why not instead see parallels, admittedly less spectacular in their destructiveness, for Osama bin Laden and his followers in cults like the Branch Davidians or the disciples of the Rev. Jim Jones at Guyana or the Japanese Aum Shinrikyo?”. This truly important question leads me to want to ask all the people who revere Huntington's work “did he really 'predict' the future and future international relations, or are we making the future fit into his work? Did Huntington really see anything forthcoming, something his contemporaries were missing, or was his analysis so simple (thus so understandable) that it fits almost every version of the future to come?”. I don't have an answer, only inklings or feelings. Maybe you do; likely the rest of our readings will shed further inklings or suggestions into my pool of explanation options.

-W.H.B.

Countries vary, but civilization is one, and for its own progress a people must fully take part in this one civilization- Mustafa Ataturk

The idea of modernity is a difficult concept to grasp. “everyone thinks they know it when they see it , but getting a handle of the concept has not been easy”. Indeed, there is no definite criteria on what makes up a modern society.  There are many schools of thought on what constitutes as being modern.  Policies adopted by traditional  societies are usually influenced by the western societies, but that does not necessarily  mean that if a society adopts a western style it would automatically become modern.  Modernization is a revolutionary,  global, and systematic process that is also a phased, evolutionary, homogenizing, progressive, and an irreversible process. According to Huntington, Modernization is a complex process that requires different aspects of human thought and behavior to be tweaked. In order for a society to be come modern, political stability is essential. Samuel Huntington argues that political instability is the reason why countries in the developing world are not modern yet. It is not that the developing countries lack political participation, but because they lack political mobilization. No one has a problem participating in elections, but it is difficult for developing countries to mobilize political ideas and even control political activity.  Without mobilization, change is hard and therefor will stall the process of modernization.

A modern society in the “west” was not constructed over night, and most probably would not develop overnight in developing countries either. It would be wrong, then,  for countries to look at the western political system  as the ideal for modernization, though it is what most developing countries aim for.  America, for example, enjoyed equality and authority from  the beginning of its creation. Since they had already established authority, their main focus was not the creation of authority within society, but for the limitation of authority. In developing countries it is the creation of political authority with political mobilization that is the problem. As James Madison wrote in the Federalist papers: “you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself”

Marx and Engles saw modernization as inevitable. They argue that at some point,  societies worldwide will eventually become modern. Capitalism, for them, is the key for the shaping of the modern society. Capitalism however, is not the final product of this modernization, but a tool used to bring societies to modernization. Because capitalism creates inequality, the gap will eventually widen to the point were the proletarians, the exploited working class, would become so fed up that they would revolt against the Bourgeoisie, the merchant class. The more globalization takes place, the more the bourgeoisie will exploit the proletarians,  the more likely it is for a struggle between the classes since the proletarians will realize that he/she is competing against other proletarians for the benefit of the bourgeoisie. After this struggle a new class of society will emerge which will focused on the sharing of wealth and the equality of the peoples.

Weber comes with a different conclusion on how society becomes modernized. He argues that there is a close correlation between the business and the Christian protestants. Because the protestants advocate that profit is a sign of God’s favor, it encourages the people to work: “If you work hard, God will reward you.” This attitude broke the traditional feudal system and thus created the capitalist system were work and profit were essential to human life.

It is remarkable how each theory holds some truths when comparing them with the present. Looking at the recent events, Marx’s prediction is fulfilled whether it is the Arab’s spring or the occupy movements of the world. It is a  start, or rather a sign, of a class struggle. Despite these current struggle, I do not think these events will develop into Marx’s modern society because of what Huntington points out to:  the lack of political mobilization between the proletarian society.

Furthermore, in my opinion the creation of what Weber called to be the modern capitalist system picked and chose favorites worldwide by evolving some communities while ignoring other ethnic groups. This is evident in Keith Watenpaughs book when he describes Fathallah Qatsan’s meeting on “becoming Civilized”. The author describes how the people that attended the meeting saw themselves as the modern people of the middles east. What was striking was that the majority of the people that were present in the meeting held Christian beliefs. The Christians of the region shared many similar life styles with other Muslims. However, this new class of Christians were the only culture to view themselves as modern. Whether it was the education they received from the west or their constant interactions with Europeans. It is clear that Europeans favored the Christians of the region more so than the Muslims. Which begs the question if Islam is compatible with modernity, or whether the Muslims were simply ignored and thus had a slow start in modernizing their respected societies. Change is key in a modernizing a people, but if societies refuse to change their life style, it becomes difficult for modernization to take place.

-OMG

The Significance of Transitions: Traditional to Modern in the Eyes of Religion

As the earth keeps evolving, the world keeps changing. There is never a time when societies decide that their lives are perfect and that change is no longer needed.  The tile of this blog entry, “The Significance of Transitions” fits best to describe my reading from this week, especially the article titled “the Change to Change: Modernization, Development, and Politics (1971) and Political Order in Changing Societies (1968) by Samuel Huntington.

To start, I would like to include a quote from Max Weber from the article “the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905). He said, “Not leisure and enjoyment, but only activity serves to increase the Glory of God, according to the definite manifesto of His will. Waste of time is thus the first and in principle the deadliest of sins” (p.36). Weber wrote about how working hard is the real objection or aim in life. He evaluated the ethnic and spirit of capitalism. To receive any sorts of leisure or happiness, one has to work hard, sacrificing other things that touch laziness and relaxation. This shows why Weber mentioned that “unwillingness to work is symptomatic of the lack of grace. Weber argues that, no matter how high one achieve wealth, one should not stop working hard because working is every men’s obligation that should not be underestimated. Looking at Weber’s discussion of the ethic of working, I realized why the world keeps changing towards modernization each day. Because society view working as an obligation, they will not stop doing their activities. Although our daily activities vary, it always ends up that we are working towards making more and more achievement, and thus more and more competition. There is no break to this human nature, and there will never be one.

Another interesting argument made by W.W. Rostow in the article “The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto (1960) is that, “”the forces making for economic progress, which yielded limited bursts and enclaves of modern activity, expand and dominate the society” (Rostow, p. 49). This is another reason why there is a transition between tradition lifestyles to modernization. The need for human to fulfill their needs, which is listed in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, we can see how the economy can make both positive and negative impacts to our lives. Growth becomes part of us, and will never be separated from humanity. We are taught that modern technology enhance our quality of life, and therefore we are addicted in following our ambition to get more and more of these.  This is what cause mass-consumption, as modernization creates subjects that possess humans. We can no longer live or work properly without our advanced gadgets such as our phones, and laptops.

Samuel Huntington, sums up the explanation of the reason behind change in our society. Even though many would argue that, religion slows down technology advancement, some would also argue that it is because of religion we have the knowledge that the modern society needs to make change happen. However, the most interesting question out of this theme of how transition is in the eyes of religion is the question whether modernization is encouraged in Religion. I have will conclude with contrasting these two statements. Huntington suggests that modernization creates inequality between societies, thus modernization is against gods order as inequality is hated, but how about, weber’s argument about how religion encourages activity and thus modernization. Who’s argument would you agree more, Huntington’s or Weber’s?

Rossa D

History, beyond modernity, nation-states and civilizations

History is described by Dirks as a conscious sign of evolution and a sign of modernity which is directly related to the political organization of the nation-state.
Interestingly enough, Dirks also points out to the strong existent relationship between modernity and colonialism and how both have shaped our concepts of culture and history. This shaping is extensive to the point that even Nationalism (among other discourses) despite their attempts to challenge colonial rule, it is based and often accepts the premises of “modernity” on which colonialism is based.

This relationship between history, modernity, and politics, becomes clear in several of the other readings for this week, particularly in Foucault’s, Huntington’s and Said’s.
Foucault’s critique of philosophy and critical thought relates to our rationale, its limitations, dangers and historical effects.  Furthermore, Foucault’s main motivation is the respect of differences.  These differences are based in historical/social influences that despite its critique of modernity, still takes into account the foundation of modernity as base for their critique, hence fulfilling Dirk’s premise of how even critical discourses of modernity still have colonialist foundations.

Stepping away from this theoretical framework and witnessing and example of how these concepts and interactions would tie in practice, we have both Huntington’s Clash of civilizations and Said’s response to it.
Huntington’s piece argues for the clash of civilizations to be the next rising order to determine politics and thus, world history. Civilizations for Huntington might include several nation states that would follow the modernity/colonialist standards as they are based solely on how they differ from what Huntington labels as “Western civilization”. In these regards, Huntington, also seems to consider Islam a civilization, which needless to say seems to be inconsistent with several of his concepts as he ties the importance of them to phenomena like economic regionalism.

Huntington’s classification of civilization is not only inaccurate (to the point of being offensive), but also ineffective living the globalized era that we live in in which nation-states trade across oceans and non-state actors such as NGOs, militant groups and even online societies play such a dramatic role in the shaping of world history.

Said shares a critical vision of Huntington as he states:
“ How finally inadequate are the labels, generalizations and cultural assertions. At some level, for instance, primitive passions and sophisticated know-how converge in ways that give the lie to a fortified boundary not only between "West" and "Islam" but also between past and present, us and them, to say nothing of the very concepts of identity and nationality about which there is unending disagreement and debate. A unilateral decision made to draw lines in the sand, to undertake crusades, to oppose their evil with our good, to extirpate terrorism and, in Paul Wolfowitz's nihilistic vocabulary, to end nations entirely, doesn't make the supposed entities any easier to see; rather, it speaks to how much simpler it is to make bellicose statements for the purpose of mobilizing collective passions than to reflect, examine, sort out what it is we are dealing with in reality, the interconnectedness of innumerable lives, "ours" as well as "theirs."
This statement by Said is a great summary of the interaction of History/Modernity-Colonialism discourse and how critical thought engages with it. Once this interaction has occurred, it would be worth considering and possibly challenging Dirk’s concept of history as an expression of modernity/colonialism as history is being taken away from the hands of the victors and post-colonial societies are becoming empowered to challenge such definitions concepts in search of a new meaning out of what could be the ashes of modernity discourse.
Post-colonial thinkers empower themselves by embracing the labels imposed by the above and using them to create new thought opportunities.

15900

 

Islam and Perspectivism vs. Modernity

It's difficult to pinpoint a precise definition for modernity, but most people in our class agreed that it involves holding certain things as ideals toward which to strive. These things include Westernization and innovation. According to Watenpaugh (ch 2 of Being Modern in the Middle East), secularism and anti-traditionalism should also be included in this list. In contrast, Foucault was influenced by Nietzshe's belief in perspectivism (ch 2 of Postmodern Theory by Best and Kellner, p. 44). In perspectivism, there is no single correct interpretation of the world; a rich and deep interpretation can come about only through looking at multiple different interpretations. In other words, perspectivism allows for multiple possible explanations and, presumably, ideologies. This is part of postmodernism, which Foucault embraced.

Therefore, it shouldn't be surprising that Foucault's perspectivism is strikingly different from modernity. Best and Kellner explain that Foucault criticized modernity largely because he believed that the modern forms of knowledge, reason, and social institutions create "sociohistorical constructs of power and domination" (41). This is definitely a valid and crucial critique. However, I wonder if there's not an even more fundamental split between modernity and postmodernism. Because modernity believes certain values (i.e. Westernization, innovation, etc.) to be desirable, modernity implies that there is a single ideology. Perspectivism, on the other hand, seems to argue that there cannot be a single ideology; a singular vision is inadequate to explain the world. Clearly, postmodernism has taken some qualitative steps away from modernity.

Earlier in class we discussed the question of whether or not Islam can be modern. There were mixed reactions. Best and Kellner's chapter raises another question: Can Islam be postmodern?

From a religious perspective, I think most people would say no. Islam is a monotheistic faith that holds certain things to be absolutely true. This generally precludes the possibility of multiple ideologies or interpretations of the world.

And what about from a political or sociocultural perspective? Is it possible for Muslim areas of the world to embrace a postmodern lifestyle? Is this question related to the previous question about religion? To get some answers, we need to know what postmodernism is. Here are some things Foucault thinks postmodernism involves:

            -  Power must be dispersed, not concentrated in ruling classes or structures

            -  Power must be productive, not repressive

            -  Power must not be economist (like Marx)

            -  Power must not be juridical (thinking in terms of law and rights)

            -  The ideal mode of power is bio-power (respects and manages individuals and

    individual differences, but also focuses on society as a population)

What do you think? Can Islam be postmodern? Saudi Arabia and Jordan are monarchies; Kuwait has an emirate. How does this fit with postmodernism? I don't have an answer already in my head, so all thoughts are welcome.


-GGM

"Clash of Civilizations" and Current Events

       Over the holiday season, the American media took a break from Iowa and Christmas to report on a controversy surrounding a reality television show.  Lowe’s, a national retailer, pulled ads from this TV show in response to complaints from religious groups.  Large companies can be quick to pull advertisements off of shows if they feel said association is detrimental to the “company image”.  However, the move by Lowe’s to pull their ads from the show, “All-American Muslim” ended up generating more controversy then the initial complaints (for a summary of the story and it’s aftermath view: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/controversy-drives-advertisers-from-all-american-muslim-or-does-it/).  Sticking to stock formula, “All-American Muslim” illustrated the lives of real people dealing with real situations.  The only difference between the show and the multitude of clones that populate American television is who these real people are. In this case, “All-American Muslim” focused specifically on Muslims living in Michigan. 

Behind the initial protest letters to Lowe’s and other advertisers was the Florida Family Association.  The accusation leveled towards “All-American Muslim” was that it exhibited bias.  In particular, the Florida Family Association contended that “the show profiled only Muslims that appeared to be ordinary folks while excluding many Islamic believers whose agenda poses a clear and present danger to liberties and traditional values that the majority of Americans cherish” (for the full press statement see: http://floridafamily.org/full_article.php?article_no=108).  What is striking about this statement is not the obvious ignorance about the lives of American Muslims.  Ignorance about different cultures and peoples is something that is unfortunately prevalent within societies all over the world.  Remarking that Islam presents “a clear and present danger” towards American values goes deeper into intellectual arguments then the writer perhaps intended to.  Unconsciously or not, the statement adopts an “us vs. them” mentality and in particular implies of an incompatibility between “America” and “Islam”.  This statement is not the typical rhetoric of the misinformed. Change the word “Islam” with “Communism” and this phrase could have been copy/pasted out of a 50’s propaganda film.  In fact, using this differentiation between the “Muslim East” and the “Christian West” is not a new invention but rather was born out of a “need” to create a new enemy after the fall of the Soviet Union.  Whether or not it was the writer’s intention, he or she has tapped into the theories of Islam vs. the West as a “clash of civilizations”. 

            The term “clash of civilizations” was first used in the article “The Clash of Civilizations?” by Samuel Huntington.  Huntington brought forward the thesis that the post-Cold War political scene would be dominated not by nation-states but rather by cultural groups.  Cultural groups such as the “West” or “Islam” would provide conflict rather than nation-states.  Huntington viewed Islamic encounters with the “West” as inevitably violent due to the differing nature of the two “civilizations”.  As a shocked United States looked for answers amidst the tragedy in the aftermath of September 11, many commentators turned towards the “clash of civilizations” for answers. 

            The major reasoning behind the Florida Family Associations protests appears to be the fact that “All-American Muslim” directly contradicts their own preconceived beliefs about Muslims.  Here are Muslims acting and behaving as “Westerners” although differing belief systems did not render them into carbon copies of the stereotypical American nuclear family.  Certainly there is conflict and adjustment, but there is no “clash of civilizations” here.  Huntington’s work has been disputed among Middle Eastern scholars.  Criticisms can be made that Huntington relies too heavily on vaguely defined notions of culture and identity.  Where does Indonesia, a Southeastern Asian country with the world’s largest Muslim population stand?   Indonesia is certainly not a carbon copy culturally of Egypt.  Huntington also never factored in the increase of immigration within the modern era.  Additionally, Huntington conceives that there is a preordained tension between the ideals of the “West” and the ideals of “Islam”.   From the Arab Spring requesting democratic reforms to the participants of “All-American Muslim” attempting to live “normal American” lives, there is no definitive rule that the “West” and “Islam” cannot coexist.  Cairo will never look like Indianapolis (and vice versa), but despite tensions between what scholars define as the “West” and the “Muslim World” there is no preordained “clash of civilizations”.  

BDF