Tagesspiegel Online : Kultur
There's reason for optimism in Europe, says Peter Schneider in the Tagesspiegel Online. I have 'translated' some chunks below--I decided to take a Straussian approach, which allows me to forget about translating metaphors(who would have thought a whole theory of esotericism was created in order to make translation easier!).
"In truth, the crucial conflict will play out not in the sacred but in the worldly sphere. The idea of a pure, modern, unblemished Muslim culture belongs in the realm of nostalgia. At least in
Hmm, and perhaps the perhapsed "condescension or indifference" Baudrillard discussed is atheistic? What could sustain that sort of indifference? Where are they learning their contempt if not from the mosque?
"It's astonishing, that, as of yet, the too-deeply worried majority of society has hardly cared about their natural allies: the moderate and dissident Muslims. Many of them feel left alone and stuck in the corner as 'Muslims'. And they feel betrayed by an inconsistent policy that, indeed, announces an unyielding position vis-a-vis the Muslim extremists in
"No, Islam doesn't need a protection clause against cartoons and criticism; rather many more opening clauses: a willingness to open itself to the modern world, where at last Muslims could live too--and a spirited reminder of the heroes of Islam's own betrayed Renaissance."
It's interesting to read an optimistic, factual account of the whole While Europe Slept situation. This is an example of what I’ve asked for in the past: saying what you actually think about Islam qua idea directly. This, of course, can lead to the error of treating Islam as a monolith. But that’s precisely what Schneider avoids: he is arguing that the West has to pull itself together so as to bring in moderate Muslims. By doing so the West can best prevent Islam from becoming more monolithic through a greater adoption of Anti-Westernism.
Apologies all around for the attempt at translation.
posted by Austin 5-000 at 9:03 PM
5 Comments:
I just want to make the sidest of side comments before I tackle this post seriously (and perhaps I could also take up the very interesting threat you started below about the Market of Ideas).
It seems to me that in all of this talk of West-Muslim dialogue ever since the Danish cartoons the concern has been to find a peaceful way of achieving harmony between Europe and (in a specific sense) its Muslim citizens or between Europe and (in a broader sense) the Middle East as a whole. Now, I wholeheartedly support dialogue as a strategy opposed to violence. But what end do we want? What is the definition of the harmony everyone wants to achieve? Because "dialogue" assumes that both sides will be able to bring their concerns to the table, not just that through peaceful talking Muslims will come to understand the necessity of ascribing to Western values of free speech, citizenship, secularism, etc.
In other words, do you want a Muslim population that looks like post-Christian Europe? If so, is this because such a situation will be more peaceful, or because everyone will benefit from Western culture (because the reason of the West's ways has not yet been illuminated to more conservative religious Muslim forces), or some other reasons? This is a touchy subject, but does the West have something to learn from Islam as well? Is there a possibility of transformation, or merely assimilation? I haven't yet worked out what I think of these questions, but I sometimes fear that the West has become too arrogant with its own traditions. If we're positing an alternative to fundamentalism, to any closed and uncritical system of thought, don't we need to be willing to "turn the scalpel on ourselves" as Nietzsche says of Socrates?
Scantron--
What exactly would you like to give up? The advantage of dialogue is that it is a liberal act in itself. Thus, by engaging peeps in dialogue we be already winnin the motherfuckin battle, know what I mean?
It is not possible to go into dialogue with someone unless you think you have something to say. Otherwise you should sit still and listen, asking for clarification when needed. On the other hand, an inherent aspect of any dialogue that doesn't involve some other exchange (monetary, cf. Sophists) is that you want to convince the other person.
So yes, I do want to convince each and every Muslim that my values are better than theirs. On the other hand, I cannot enter an authentic dialogue with them unless I believe that they are valuable. This belief of their value implies that I am willing to listen to what they have to say, so that I can,at least, learn how to better convince them of my ideas. This listening provides an avenue for the interlocutor to convince me.
So, in the end I am saying this: Yes, I don't really know if the Fundamentalist Islamic World has anything to offer me. That's not the reason I'm talking to them. I'm talking to them in order to get their oil, and to have them stop trying to kill me. But, because I have to listen in order to convince them, I am bound to learn whatever they have to tell me if it is convincing.
One objection, however. In the article I cited in the post, Schneider makes an excellent point: if you think Godless Europe is going to become godly again, you're probably wrong. So in that category, I'm not sure that we have anything to learn from the Islamic world. At least I hope not.
Assdone-san
I have downloaded several articles from old Chris. I thank you.
Austi- By implicating dialogue within the frame of a liberalism that you oppose to "Islam" or "Radical Islam" or whateverthefuckyouwannacallit, are you not then devaluing the possibility of its implementation? If "by engaging peeps in dialogue we be already winnin the motherfuckin battle," what grounds do we have against those who simply refuse to grant you this territory and won't enter into dialogue?
oh, abe. how cleverly snide and aloof. look how you sweep in and gratify us with your commentary. we have but half the intellectual capacity of you.
yawn.
Post a Comment
<< Home