Technology as a form of resistance

During the Arab Spring, the Western media focused heavily on the usage of social media.  In particular, social media was analyzed as a tool for the organization and spread of demonstrations that ultimately ousted several long-standing regimes in the Middle East.  The internet and tools such as Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube were trumpeted as playing a key role as new ways of subverting repressive measures.  One of the aftermaths of the Arab Spring was a strong and at times annoying focus by the Western media as if these specific internet tools were directly responsible for revolution.  At times, one could not help but think that this was the first time a resistance movement in the Middle East has utilized the internet (or modern technology for that matter).  Some commentators even ignored the human factor to the point that someone could be forgiven for thinking that these tools were directly responsible for the Arab Spring rather than a tool for their success.  The usage of technology and new forms of media has played a key and little understood role in defining Middle Eastern politics. 

                Al Jazeera became a sort of “boogeyman” in the eyes of American commentators, politicians, and journalists during the Bush administration.  Although such thinly-veiled criticisms of those opposed to the Iraq War and “War on Terror” were not uncommon from the Bush administration (see France), Al Jazeera was at times signaled out for subverting American policy.   The impression one received from the Western media was that Al Jazeera had a radical agenda directly opposed to the spread of “democracy” and “freedom” to the Middle East.  Nothing could have been further from the truth, but this suggestion was always implicit.  Al Jazeera has played a key role in regional affairs over the last decade, but it has not been a subversive role.  Rather, in the true spirit of Benedict Anderson, Al Jazeera has played a role in developing a new Arab consciousness.   Its popularity within the Arab world (and even abroad) gave it the ability to influence and shape thought throughout the Middle East.  While the social media documented in the previous paragraph played a key role on a micro level, it was the reporting of Al Jazeera and other news agencies that helped shape the conversation on the Arab Spring at a national, regional, and even international level.  Scholars such as Lawrence Pintak have indicated that Al Jazeera is well-placed and willing to create a new Arab community in a modern and globalized sense.  In the case of Al Jazeera, modern technology has played a key role in creating a new and powerful media voice. 

                On the flip side, the usage of technology by fundamentalist groups has been well-documented (including in some of my blog entries).  While protesters in the Arab Spring were asking for values such as freedom, liberty, and democracy that carry very modern connotations, fundamentalists groups such as Al-Qaeda are arguing against this very modernity.  Still, it is worth noting that these fundamentalist groups have fully embraced technology for the spread of their ideology.  When the media or analysts study fundamentalist groups, one of the natural places to get unfiltered information is on internet sites.  Even proclaimed anti-modern movements have utilized modern technology to its fullest advantage.  While the Arab Spring was unique and unprecedented in its scope and impact, its usage of modern technology was not.  The internet, satellite news, and other facets of the modern have long played a role in shaping and influencing Middle Eastern politics. 

BDF

Globalization and Modernity: two different eras? one unified purpose: control and homogenization??

Globalization and Development was a supportive textbook that supported what the different authors argue about globalization and its effect on different regions such as the Middle East. Globalization is an outcome of modernization. In addition, it created a North-South transnational.  With globalization every aspect of life was renewed so it fits in the idea of one global. New economy emerged, new governments and new wars. New wars emerged as an outcome of security concerns.  Even NGOs activity got influenced as the world is striving to make everything compatible with the idea of one globe. NGOs activity moved from aid to security and therefore became part of the global system.  The World is now divided between the North and the South and these division is not based on geographic characteristics but power and influence ones.  The distinction between the army and government becomes blurry. These are all outcomes of globalization. As a consequence, globalization becomes very similar to modernity in terms of its core ideas of control and homogeneity.
While modernity aimed to controlled the involved regions such as the West because it took place in this region, globalization aims to control and homogenize the whole glob because the territorial borders are no longer visible. With the new system of security and global economy, everything becomes control and freedom are restricted. Therefore, it is not hard to juxtapose between modernity and globalization because they both sought the same purpose. The implication of globalization on the Muslim world further complicate the relational dynamics between the East and the West (discussed in my other responses).

                                                                                                                                     S.A.A

Alkadry and Mamdani meet on the ground of puttig the blame on the West, and NOT the EAST!

Reciting Colonial scripts is such an amazing piece demonstrating the reality of the impact of  colonialism on the Middle East. Written from an insider perspective gives the arguments another dimension of the relationship between the ME and the West.
Alkadry states how colonialism prevented the establishment of democracy in the ME. Colonialism in short deterred democracy:

1)through the destruction of existing  socio-political institutions of the colonized;

2. through the creation of artificial states that served colonial goals and devastated  the cultural  and socio-political institutions that existed before colonialism;

3. through installing institutions that were loyal to the British  and  that steered away  from nationalism;  and

4. through direct oppression of national movements  or any movements that threatened colonial  economic  and political interests.

This fours points are the bulk of the argument, it sums up the impact of the West on the ME and how this effect is still precluding the latter to democratized. This influence is still there although the colonials are no logner physically in the region. The West formed alliance with what Alkadry calls puppet leaders who who were put in place to facilitate the exploitation of the West. The same concept works for the African countries where the blame really goes to the West and not the inherent nature of the culture. In addition, globalization also played a role in preventing the democratization of the region because economic stability became the priority and not democracy. Alkadry argues that stability is maintained at the expense of democracy. Another current influence of the West if their policy that serves the purpose of security (Israel's security) and the interests in oil.

Alkadry's argument is what a reader wants to read to understand the picture of the dynamics between the ME and the West from an insider perspective. It explicitly shows how the West has a major role for the slowing the democratization in the region. ME is still colonized by the West through their continuity in the destruction of the real values of the region. This continuity is through the alliance with puppet leaders and bogos policy that pretends to serve the interest of the ME but only serves the West's interest. 

Similar to Alkadry, Mamdani's approach about good and bad Muslim, is another example for how the West   is internally implicated for what is happening now, yet externally it pretends to help to remove what is happening. Relying on true fact Mamdani illustrates how Al-Qaida is an outcome of the USA policy, yet the USA does not hold responsible for this. Instead, they want to fight it. Mamdani argues that the US will never feel responsible. Jihad was born out of a deeply modern construction, that was serving the US where as now al Jihad in the enemy of the US. He suggests that in order to solve the divide between the West and Eats, US has to recognize this responsibility and tackles issues in which the whole region is concerned about such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The West's perception of Islam has created distinction between good and bad Muslims through what he calls cultural talks ( or in Said's word Orientalism).

Both Alkadry and Mamdani stand for a point of view that illustrate the indirectly direct implications of the West in the East in what the former dislikes about the latter. Globalization has definitely a role to play in the slow democratization and facilitating the cohesion of Jihad groups (Fandy's argument and example of Saudi Arabia). Therefore, if we define globalization as a West's product, which in many aspects is, will globalization be another West's involvement in what is happening such as Jihad and failure to democratize in the East? Is globalization to blame for the divide between the East and the West?

                                                                                                                                     S.A.A

Appadurai: What is happening to our old cultures? Are we culturally compromising between the old and the new?

Appadurai's work on globalization is a wonderful and simple piece to understand globalization and the effect of globalization on people. With the introduction of the five scapes (defined as cultural transaction, intersection of various aspects). He did a good job demonstrating the five aspects that globalization has most of influence in. The cultural reproduction is probably the most interesting outcome that Appadurai talks about. In this arena, cultures and the constructions of cultures are taking different directions. Globalization has increased people's interactions across the glob. As a consequence, a new notion of realism and cultural flow take place. The idea of imaginary realism prevails: although people do not really  live ideas and beliefs, they still imagine it with the increasing interaction  between people around the fours corners of the globe. 
Some other consequences of globalization is the detteritorialization of identity. People now construct identities that have no real relation with a certain territory (the new realism).
The language of Appadurai and the introduction of all these new concepts make this work a unique piece with regard to the topic of globalization. Although complicated, the ideas of scapes and cultural reproduction are trends that we see happening. Culture is no longer static due to the scapes (the movement of ideas and beliefs) which is a good a good conclusion to come up with. However, to what is the presence of the static or the original culture that people in the past used to preserve? Are we ridding ourselves from centuries of cultures and traditions that have been preserved and constructed for so long before globalization? or Are we compromising between the two: the old culture and the cultural reproduction?
  
                                                                                                                          S.A.A

Qutb's arguments is not irrelevant at all,but may be too extreme?

Milstones is one of my favorites readings for this class. As a radical islamist, Qutb's approach is not a one that does not make any sense. On the contrary his ideas and arguments make perfect sense in the way he utilized them. He did not argue just for the sake to be an extremist but he did a wonderful job backing his ideas. I found his ideas pretty unique although I do not think they 100% fit in the contemporary idea . I loved hos comparison about the two Jahiliya. The first Jahilia, the one before Islam, was the time when God's sovereignty was absent and people lived without any morals or ethics. This resulted in many immoral practices such as slavery, inequality , lack of beliefs and overall a big social and moral disorder. Then , Islam as religion came and saved people from this disorder. With God's sovereignty, people became free because they worship no human but God. The belief in God freed man from the dominion of man. Islam created the sense of community and solidarity between people. BUT Qutb saw a return to Aljahilia or what he called the second JAhilia. The return to this era is strongly related to the absence of God's sovereignty  which was absent before Islam. With the political institutions for example men became accountable to man instead of God. Qutb metaphor of the 2nd Jahilia is beautiful with regard to his definition to Aljahilia as the absence of God's sovereignty.
With the prevailing of the 2nd Jahilia, Qutb calls for Jihad in order to re-establish God's dominion that has been taken over by man's dominion. He believes that Al-Jihad releases people from man tyranny. For this purposes he calls for preaching by convincing people. He believes that if all obstacles and influences were removed, and people were told about Islam, they will see the beauty and the morality of the religion and ultimately convert to Islam. However, since it is impossible to remove all the obstacles that might have an influence on people, it is acceptable to fight those who stand in the way of preaching Islam. At this point fighting is legitimate and acceptable.
Based on the above, I see a beautiful sequence of ideas. The way Qutb talks about the advantages of Islam such as bringing economic freedoms and qualities is illustrative the true picture of Islam. What I like most of the book is backing every idea to the his core idea which is the establishment of God's sovereignty.
Although I do not necessarily agree with the idea of violence and like so many ideas about this book, I think for the time being this argument will not fit with modernity. We reached a point that is impossible to control all aspects to preach the way he claims. With the intelectual freedom that takes place and people have, people question everything that surrounds them including religion and it therefore becomes hard to convince them about anything and critical about everything.
I think Qutb did a great job and demonstrated a great level of Islamic intellectualism from an extreme point a view with relevance and demonstrated a bright consistency throughout the whole argument.

                                                                                                                                    S.A.A

Are fundamentalist groups modern?

Is Islam compatible with modernity?  This has been a question that we have spent nearly a semester grappling with.  As a class, we have studied a broad spectrum of ideas on the subject from academics, scholars, and commentators.  An area that has perhaps been ignored is that of fundamentalist Islamic movements.  Although we studied Sayyid Qutb whose book Milestones influenced groups such as Al-Qaeda, the subject of fundamentalists has taken a necessary back-seat.  Fundamentalist Islam, defined here as global terrorists groups, consist of an insignificant portion of the Islamic world.  Despite their size and influence, terrorism is often brought up within the context of Islam.  It is not a topic that can simply be brushed aside within an academic setting because it has no bearings on bigger pictures.  The sheer frequency terrorism is brought up make it worth studying within the context of the modern. 

                The question is whether fundamentalist Islam compatible with the modern?  The best way of framing this answer is not whether the ideas espoused by leaders such as bin Laden are modern but rather if these ideas are a product of the modern world.  If they are a product of the modern world, then it is natural to assume that they are compatible with modernity even if they were produced by hostility to said world.  Tanzanian author Mahmood Mamdani chronicles the emergence of fundamentalist Islam as a product of the Cold War.  As the United States searched for proxies in its fight against communism following the quagmire in Vietnam, US foreign policy actively supported terrorist groups in places such as Nicaragua, Mozambique, and most famously Afghanistan.  Mamdani links the beginnings of fundamentalist Islam as the product of American attempts to unite a billion Muslims against the Soviet Union (as well as driving a wedge between the Sunni majority and Shia Iran).  To achieve this end, the United States actively funded and supported mujahedeen groups fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Groups such as Al-Qaeda, lead by the upper-class Saudi Arabian Osama bin Laden, were grown out of American aid.  The modern condition of the 1980’s Cold War was therefore responsible for giving the organizational structure for fundamentalist groups.  In addition to being a response to modernity, groups such as Al-Qaeda were also created by modernity. 

                In short, what created such a negative response to modernity was modernity itself.  Al-Qaeda and similar groups are a part of the modern world.  There is a certain level of irony that groups dedicated towards promoting an anti-modern message have found their greatest recruitment success using modern technology.  Internet forums and websites have become prominent in both the growth and sustainment of fundamentalist movements.   In fact, one can claim that apart from a few completely isolated groups of people, everybody in the world has been shaped in one way or another by modernity.  Fundamentalist groups throughout the world may criticize the modern world (as have many Western groups and activists) but the point remains that the ideological character of a person is shaped by modernity.   Despite how “pre-modern” one may feel this character is, such responses are invariably modern.  Try to find something in society that has not been shaped by modernity.  It would be an extremely hard quest.

BDF

Extensions of Appadurai

            One of the key features of the modern world is the process of deterritorialization.  At its most basic definition, deterritorialization is the process by which identities and symbols are disassociated and removed from a physical place.  For example, the removal of many Palestinians from their traditional lands following the creation of the state of Israel (and the various resulting conflicts) has led to reconsideration of labels such as “Arab”, “Palestinian”, or “Israeli”.  The argument made by anthropologist Arjun Appadurai is that the process of deterritorialization itself has lead to an increase in nostalgia.  One can see this quite clearly with the aforementioned Palestinian example where there are examples of Palestinians feeling special connections with their home villages/cities despite the fact that some are at least three generations removed from said places.  Yet, this statement is a little confusing by itself.  How can the modern world, a world defined largely by an increase in globalization, have as a natural result of modernity an increase in nostalgia for nationalist and regional values?

            The concept of deterritorialization resulting in nostalgia is in fact reflective of a new globalized world.  At first glance, this statement appears contradictory.  After all, one of the chief criticisms leveled towards globalization is that it has exported an extremely domineering Western (and often more specifically American) culture.  Old ideologies such as modernization theory are often rooted in the assumption that modernity and progress could only be achieved through imitation of the West.  The concept of the West as being the apex of modernity or even the aim of typical “modernizers” is slowly changing.  Until recently, the general tone of the discourse about modernity was written in terms of polar opposites.  There were the labels of modernity vs. traditionalism, East vs. West, and democracy vs. communism simply to name a few.  Any reformer who tried to steer a middle road such as Nehru or Nasser ended up having to play a delicate balancing act.  This world has come to its natural conclusion with the end of the Cold War.  Today, countries such as India, China, and Brazil have searched for and discovered their own modernity that does not reflect that seen in the United States or Britain.  Countries can borrow ideas from South Korea, Chile, and Sweden in addition to those traditionally advocated by American policy wonks.  The ideal modern has changed significantly.  As a result, there is a new globalized modern.

            Once again, this may sound contradictory to Appadurai.  If there is a new globalized modern that each country is striving for, then how is nostalgia being built within these communities?  The answer to this question may be something as simple as the word practicality.  A globalized world has allowed for the greater spread of ideas.  In the same way a 20^th century conservative Islamic intellectual such as Qutb can be influenced by thinkers such as Marx, new modern ideals are readily accessible.  Policymakers have a wide and diverse range of examples and case-studies at their disposal and can pick and choose which ones they implement.  Instead of a Cold War style attitude of “my way or the highway”, there is a theoretical ability for politicians to choose what they think works best for their country.  Whether or not it came from Turkey, Brazil, China, India, or the United States is in some ways irrelevant.  The question may be raised what does this have to do with fostering nostalgia for tradition?  After all, countries in this example are simply borrowing from each other.  The aforementioned question however misses the point that a strong element of cultural reproduction is borrowing from one another.   The elimination of Cold War style polarization allowing for a more free-market of modern ideas shows the individuality of the nation-state.  No longer is there a simple kit for modernity.  Instead, each nation is its own unique case which reflects a nationalistic pride in its culture.  As seen through modern history, a sense of nationalism invariably leads to some sense of nostalgia for a “heroic” and/or “mythical” past. 

BDF