Well, I certainly stirred up some controversy with that recent post about the Dutch and their apparent willingness to ban a forthcoming film in order not to anger any Muslims. A great many topics came up, and I think some readers may now look at me as some sort of Eastward-facing version of Lester Maddox. I want to clarify a few things.
First, I have never suggested that all Muslims are, if left unwatched, vicious beheaders of young girls. Like all people everywhere, most Muslims, I am sure, just want to get through the day without getting into trouble. Indeed, some of the violent excesses of Islamic extremists seem, perhaps, to be coming home to roost in recent months — a gratifying trend, if trend it is.
That said, is it reasonable, as some disingenuous commenters appear to suggest, that Islam is no different from any other worldview in terms of the hazard it presents to the world? No. As Sam Harris points out, there are reasons that we daily confront not Jainist, but Islamic terrorism. And most of those reasons have their roots in the doctrines of Islam itself. We read:
We are at war with Islam. It may not serve our immediate foreign policy objectives for our political leaders to openly acknowledge this fact, but it is unambiguously so. It is not merely that we are at war with an otherwise peaceful religion that has been “hijacked” by extremists. We are at war with precisely the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran, and further elaborated in the literature of the hadith, which recounts the sayings and actions of the Prophet. A future in which Islam and the West do not stand on the brink of mutual annihilation is a future in which most Muslims have learned to ignore most of their canon, just as most Christians have learned to do. Such a transformation, however, is by no means guaranteed to occur, given the tenets of Islam.
Many authors have pointed out that it is problematic to speak of Muslim “fundamentalism” because it suggests that there are large doctrinal differences between fundamentalist Muslims and the mainstream. The truth, however, is that most Muslims appear to be “fundamentalists” in the Western sense of the word — in that even “moderate” approaches to Islam generally consider the Koran to be the literal and inerrant word of the one true God.
[Harris now quotes, for many pages, passages from the Koran regarding treatment of unbelievers, such as:]
“We shall let them live a while, and then shall drag them to the scourge of the Fire” (2:126)
“Slay them wherever you find them” (2:190)
“The unbelievers are like beasts…” (2:172)
“Say to the unbelievers: you shall be overthrown and driven into Hell” (3:12) …On almost every page, the Koran instructs observant Muslims to despise non-believers. On almost every page, it prepares the ground for religious conflict.
The End of Faith, pp. 109-122
Strong words. These conjoined facts: that even “moderate” Muslims are generally literalists as regards the Koran, and that the Koran itself is quite unambiguous about both the role of religion in society, and Islam’s place in the world — are of key importance. Nevertheless, it is plain that a great many Muslims have, in fact, “learned to ignore most of their canon, just as most Christians have learned to do.” This is a point that was made often in the previous thread, and it is indeed a hopeful sign. As I have said repeatedly throughout this discussion, I am not spoiling for a fight, and I bear no ill will to any person on the basis of their race or ethnicity. Our only warrant for criticism of other people should be their behavior. But when there are persistent and salient patterns of violent, disruptive, or otherwise unwelcome behavior, it is perfectly reasonable for a civilized and rational society to make a critical examination of such patterns, and to try to understand their causes.
This brings us to the question of free speech that arises again and again in this discussion. I most certainly agree, I hope it should go without saying, that each of should have a right to form whatever beliefs and opinions we see fit. However, to the extent that such opinions obtrude into the public square, and begin to affect the lives of others, they rightly become fair game for critical examination. If Ayaan Hirsi Ali, having had unpleasant experiences living as a woman under Islam, should wish to express her disapproval of its principles and rationales, she should be able to do so, in a civilized world, without having to fear for her life. To suggest instead, as many do, that these topics are uniquely off-limits for discussion simply because they have to do with religion is to argue for a fundamental violation of bedrock principles of liberal Western culture: freedom of speech and the right to air one’s grievances. That you may believe in this or that metaphysical fantasy is unquestionably your right, but it confers no privilege upon you to curtail my freedom of expression. We grant this bizarre exemption almost exclusively to religion, and it’s long past time we stopped. The problem, for our liberal Western societies, has been compounded in recent years by a peculiar, multiculturalist mindset of radical “tolerance” that extends so far beyond reasonable bounds as to mandate tolerance even of cultures that are themselves radically intolerant. Even though this too has its roots in the Enlightenment, and the Romantic illusion of the “noble savage”, we perpetuate this folly at our peril.
As for the preceding discussion of demographics in Europe, am I exaggerating the problem? I would love to imagine that I am. If Western society is as worthwhile as I’ve cracked it up to be, is it really so vulnerable that it needs to worry about a few, or a few million, unassimilated immigrants? Well, yes, perhaps it is. One point of weakness is the multiculturalism I mentioned above; another, related matter is an academic tendency to criticize itself with great harshness relative to other cultures: this is the modern, and strangely inverted, form of the patronizing disdain with which those same cultures were regarded in colonial times. I do think that Western civilization is in many ways much more fragile than the sturdy theocratic societies it confronts: by its very nature, by its broadening of the circle of inclusivity, it bucks certain innate tendencies that fundamentalist religions use to their advantage. I think it needs protecting.
If I seem reactionary, well, perhaps I am. I’m reacting to what I see as very real threats to a civilization I cherish. It’s not unhealthy at all to seek to preserve things of value, to keep them distinct. I like Western culture. I like Europe. I don’t want to see them wrecked.
I would like to make clear once again that I have no quarrel with anyone, of any origin, who wishes to join in our noble Enlightenment project. All are welcome. Our culture is vitally enriched by the profusion of insights and perspectives that immigrants and visitors bring. All that we ask, if you are going to join us, is that you join us.
5 Comments
Hi Malcolm,
I would disagree with the way you’re using “multiculturalism”. There does not exist a unified theory of multiculturalism, or even a generally consistent attitude that can be encapsulated by the term “multiculturalism”. Its definition and practice vary considerably from country to country and between various social milieux (for instance, various schools of thought in academia vs. government vs. popular culture). To me, “multiculturalism” as an overarching concept is a bugaboo that many conservatives conjure when they don’t like particular minority groups gaining too much of a presence in society. While I may agree with them on particular assessments of whether a certain belief or practice of a certain minority group is beneficial or detrimental to that group within its new immigrant context and whether it is beneficial or detrimental to the host society, laments about how “multiculturalism” is destroying the West one thing that jerks MY knee. I prefer more rigorous, specific arguments dealing with one particular tenet/consequence of a specific manifestation of something that has been called “multiculturalism”.
I also think that, in the U.S., the immigrant group which does not wish to learn English and assimilate is a bugaboo as well. Europe has a very different immigrant history. As Fareed Zakaria once mentioned a few years back in a good op-ed (I believe that it was actually in The Washington Post of all places. Imagine that–a smart op-ed in the Washington Post? Miracles can happen.), it is a great irony that the U.S., in its recent flurry of xenophobia, is looking to Europe of all places for solutions to the perceived “problem” of immigration. Because, historically speaking, the U.S. has been highly successful at integrating its immigrants, whereas many European countries have failed miserably.
I do not know a single human being who was born and raised in the United States who has failed to learn English, and this without being forced to do so by a national “cultural” and linguistic policy. Sure, some may not speak it to a level I consider elegant or eloquent, but, frankly, neither do most whites whose families have been here for generations. The thing that “ghettoizes” people across generations in the U.S. is economics, not some strange desire to remain separate. Those immigrant groups which come with economic advantages (education, capital, strong family connections) that make them confident that their children will have relatively good access to opportunity are coincidentally those which assimilate most quickly–and in our country, that includes Muslims from the Middle East and South Asia.
A couple of words about “the noble savage”. The concept of “the noble savage” was used to justify some rather brutal colonialism and was not an expression of “respect”. Instead, it was used to subjugate peoples who were deemed to be unable, due to their excessive “nobility” and “innocence” to cope with equality under Western law. The awareness that multicultural attitudes have brought to the study of human societies and cultures is usually very much in opposition to the notion of “the noble savage”.
All schools of thought have their crazies and extremists. But would you deny that the acceptance of more relativism and less arrogance in assessing different cultures has brought more benefit than harm to Western societies overall?
Hi Simma,
Thanks for another engaging comment. There’s much to respond to here, but between wrapping up here at work, and teaching duties tonight at the kwoon, it will take me until later tonight or sometime tomorrow to do so.
“Our only warrant for criticism of other people should be their behavior.”
Well . . . maybe. We can certainly criticize people’s beliefs regardless of their behavior. Is that also criticizing those people? Perhaps not, but we might think that some beliefs are so dangerous that the person holding the belief also deserves criticism for holding the belief.
Murky territory, of course, but we may need to go there…
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Hi Jeffery,
Well, I’d say it’s always within our rights as thinking beings to criticize ideas as ideas, of course, independently of whether any particular person believes them or not (which is, by the way, apparently off limits, according to some, if anyone happens to think those ideas are “sacred”).
And of course we can justifiably comment on other people’s behavior, because it affects us too.
But why would we care about ideas specifically as beliefs in other people’s heads? The example you give is that they can be dangerous. Do you mean potentially dangerous to others? Well, that only begins to “bite” when the ideas are translated into behavior, I think, so then we are talking about criticizing not only behavior, but also potential behavior, which is a little murkier, as you say. But the notion is certainly compelling enough that we have laws against plotting crimes, and we also distinguish between degrees of murder based on the content of people’s minds.
Another reason to criticize beliefs regardless of overt behavior is that we might care about the person holding the belief, and worry that it is psychically damaging. “Don’t beat yourself up,” we tell our friends, when they’ve made a mistake and feel badly about it. “You’ve got to believe in yourself,” we say.
So yes, if there is good reason to think that a particular meme is a dangerous one, one that we know can impel its host to dangerous behavior, it’s perfectly reasonable to criticize that meme. And if it happens to be instantiated in the mind of a person within earshot, then we are criticizing their belief, even if they haven’t yet exhibited any untoward behavior.
And of course, the whole point of all of this ranting in recent posts is that there are some clearly dangerous memes making the rounds. The problem is that it is impossible to examine them in the abstract without all the folks who have become hosts taking it awfully personally.
So yes, Jeffery, I think you make a good point. And it gets murky.
Simma, I’ll agree that “multiculturalism” is something of a catch-all. Here are some of the things that I think are problems associated with multiculturalist excess:
Yes, the US has done a marvelous job of integrating its immigrants so far. There are some exceptions; for example ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities often don’t assimilate well. I am also inclined to think that the shadow life of illegal immigrants is often less conducive to assimilation. I agree that generally, if children are allowed to mingle in society, it will be very rare indeed for them not to learn the language or to grow up more “American” than anything else. But there are some very insular groups, which do their own schooling, and take pains to keep this “contamination” from happening. And of course there are plenty of first-generation immigrants who never make the slightest effort to assimilate.
Basically I agree with you that anyone who comes here because they are attracted by core American values of free enterprise, political and religious liberty, etc., tend to be grateful to have found a haven here, and very often become fiercely proud Americans. (I am a naturalized US citizen myself.)
Would I deny that the acceptance of more relativism and less arrogance in assessing different cultures has brought more benefit than harm to Western societies overall? Well, look at the terms you’ve used here. Should I say that I think “more arrogance” is better? Anyway, looking at places like France, or the north of England, I’m not sure; I think I might. I’ll mull that question over.
As for the “noble savage”, I do have to say that your take on the phrase is quite at odds with its origins, and with the usual understanding of the term. Yes, there certainly was a great deal of paternalistic, “white man’s burden” colonialism, and the idea that the “savages” simply weren’t ready to govern themselves. But the “noble savage” idea (the phrase first appeared in John Dryden’s 1672 play The Conquest of Granada) expressed the notion that man was essentially “good” until tainted by the corrupting forces of civilization. This patently false idea has had a persistent appeal, and took powerful hold in postwar academia, especially in the hands of people like Margaret Mead and Ashley Montagu. You still hear it as a steady drumbeat from the Left: the notion that evil Western society took sweet-natured natives and taught them our evil ways, thereby irreversibly corrupting them. Popular films like “The Gods Must Be Crazy” reinforce this notion of gentle, simple people living in tender harmony until the white males show up. It’s a lot of baloney, and it’s finally getting the vigorous debunking it deserves. Steven Pinker’s outstanding book The Blank Slate does a particularly satisfying job.