Jennifer Hernandez
Helga Tawil-Souri
ILA: Islam, Media, and the West
29 September 2008
Political/Theoretical Contestations
In 1990, Bernard Lewis defined the growing global conflicts, particularly those between the West and Islam as “a mood and a movement far transcending the level of issues and policies and the governments that pursue them” (60). Samuel P. Huntington furthered the argument of a “clash of civilizations” in 1993 that these issues “will dominate global politics” and the division will be “the battle lines of the future” (22). This argument has held strong and has served as the reasoning for the continuous conflicts and violent acts our world has seen to date. However, several authors have spoken and challenge the validity of this argument. The “clash of civilizations” argument does not resonate with my thinking and is not sufficient enough to explain why relations have soured between the West and Islam. The argument is generalized and lacks strength, it outlines reasons for the “clash” but the points and differences that are highlighted within this argument have further perpetuated the differences between these two civilizations.
The “clash of civilizations” argument has remained in the forefront as notorious figures from each “civilization” have spewed their views within the structure of this argument. My first problem with Bernard Lewis was his establishment of the ‘us versus them’ mentality. In describing the (at the time) current sentiments of “good” Muslims, as “generations of reformers and modernizers” with a “keen and growing awareness of the weakness, poverty, and backwardness of the Islamic world as compared to the advancing West” that are looking to “achieve equality with the West and perhaps restore their lost superiority” (Lewis 56-57). This perspective not only defines what a “good Muslim” should be but places the West and their modernity at a high level of superiority, in a place where everyone else must accommodate and make changes within their own way of life to reach this place.
Another issue with the “clash of civilizations” is it assumes that culture can be broken down and explained so simply, Huntington divides countries “not in terms of their political or economic systems or in terms of their level of economic development but rather in terms of their culture and civilization” (23). When evaluating in terms of economics we evaluate quantitatively. If this comparison is based on civilizations that means we are looking to categorize civilizations according to quality. We are using culture and the way people identify self as an indicator for judgment and placing a value on it. Huntington goes on to define civilizations as “dynamic; they rise and fall; they divide and merge” (24). If civilization is constantly changing and consists of the broadest form of definition that means it is the most general description. It does not take into account the factors people use to define themselves and the values people connect with.
According to Huntington there are seven possibly eight major civilization contenders, they include: “Western, Confucian, Japanese, Latin America, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-orthodox, possibly African” (25). To not fully consider African a civilization and make the claim that it “possibly” counts as a contender is to deny their culture and place. There are people that live in that area, they have beliefs and values just like everyone else, just because the civilization itself may not be an active contender in the “clash” does not mean to deny their place. This is yet a further example of how Huntington continues to stress his point and emphasize the importance of the West’s superiority.
In terms of creating these general concepts, Mamdani uses the term “culture talk” and it “assumes that every culture has a tangible essence that defines it, and it then explains politics as a consequence of that essence” (Mamdani 17). I think it is the creation and establishment of these generalizations that further perpetuate the disagreements and conflict between the West and Islam.
“Culture talk” is employed not only by Huntington but Osama Bin Laden as well. Bin Laden claims “the American people are the ones who choose their government through their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. […] The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their government, and even to change it if they want” (Bin Laden 164). As Americans we know that is far from the truth. Sure we have a say in our government but we do not live in a true and absolute democracy. Reading this from what we know about our American culture it is fair to say Bin Laden is forming a generalization. Americans consist of more than the organization of their government. If Bin Laden is evaluating Americans in this fashion who is to say that Lewis and Huntington are not doing the same to Islam and the Middle East?
Mahmood Mamdani highlights “one unfortunate response to tragedy is a self-righteousness about one’s own condition, a seeking proof of one’s special place in the world, even in victimhood” (10). As can be seen both Lewis and Bin Laden see their “sides” on the defense. Visualizing their land as a victim and justifying the actions for declaring their superiority and need for dominance in the world. If this thinking continues what will it take to make it stop?
Several examples of the media have used the “clash” as their source for interpretation and perception of events. Articles by Thomas L. Friedman push forward this idea of “backwardness” and how the Middle East has yet to compare to the economic advancements and progressive movements of the West. Friedman references a “modern, progressive message” that “should have come from Egypt, and had they, they would have had a modernizing effect on the entire Arab world, particularly its other big stagnating countries – Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia”. Once again there is the comparison of the advancing West to the “stagnating” Middle East.
Through a Western perspective Bin Laden is read fundamentally because of the religious doctrine rhetoric he uses. However here is the long-term effect Huntington calls for.
“Hence the West will increasingly have to accommodate these non-Western modern civilizations whose power approaches that of the West but whose values and interests differ significantly from those of the West. This will require the West to maintain the economic and military power necessary to protect its interests in relation to these civilizations” (49).
While different from religion it still calls for protection and defense against this clash. Depending on the frame and perception of reading each work the other seems very extreme. Bin Laden’s use of religion and Lewis’ use of economic and military power are extremes for the other in each respected situation. At the root of each one’s statement they both call for unity in challenging these ideas that are going against what they believe is right. Each side is confident that their beliefs are just and the way things should be. If both sides continue on the defense what will result?
Benjamin Barber refers to the globalization and fusion of world cultures. What is interesting here is that instead of one triumphing over the other Barber sees the two working together as they work against each other. He thinks the “dynamics of the Jihad-McWorld linkage are deeply dialectical” (Barber 18). While this argument further complicates and banishes any sort of simple distinguishing factor I think it captures what is going on in the world today. What Barber for sees is quite interesting as the combination between ‘McWorld’ and ‘Jihad’ will “produce some stifling amalgam of the two suspended in chaos” (Barber 19). Maybe that will be the final result. Currently I see the clash perpetuating as long as people keep reaffirming the existence of such a "clash".
Works Cited
Barber, Benjamin. Jihad vs. McWorld: How Tribalism and Globalism are Reshaping the World. New York: Ballantine Books, 1996.
Bin Laden, Osama. Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden. Ed. Bruce Lawrence. London: New York, 2005.
Friedman, Thomas L. “The Land of Denial.” The New York Times 5 June 2002 late ed.: A5.
Lewis, Bernard. “The Roots of Muslim Rage.” Atlantic Monthly September 1990: 47-60.
Huntington, Samuel P. “The Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs 72.3 (1993): 22-49.
Mamdani, Mahmood. Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terrorism. New York: Pantheon Books, 2004.