A few thoughts on modernity

Many if not most of the main problems facing us in the region and hindering the process of change and modernization therein are psychological in nature. One such problem is the inability of our people to reconcile themselves with the necessity of making that crossover from the traditional to the modern. Instead, most seem to believe that they can keep one leg in each world thus maximizing their benefit, that is, they think that they can avail themselves of all that advantages that modernity has to offer while holding on as hard as they can to traditional values.

Often, this dilemma boils down to a desire to get all the technology but change nothing of the customs, values and mannerisms. Some might go a little further and opt to adopt certain superficial aspects of modernity, such as the modern dress-code for both men and women, but while adhering to the selfsame value system that any run-of-mill Islamist will adhere to, such as arranged marriages and many of the usual restrictions on women, especially with regard to inheritance and chastity. 

This inability to make the break with the past and move forward that has plagued our part of the world for the last century or so is precisely why our societies are now poised at the verge of a complete relapse into pre-modern modes of existence. We have not earned what modernity has to offer, because, one, we have not taken an active part in making for centuries, and, two, because we refuse to embrace it as a whole, on account of its “glaring” imperfections.

Indeed, modernity is not perfect, what human product is? But it also cannot be perfected by people who insist on remaining outside it, or who are not wholeheartedly committed to it, or who continue to look at it with a certain disdain, it being a “foreign” product and all that, and who continue to reject its essence: the insistence on individuality and individual rights.

Indeed, if people in our region can only accept that concept of individual rights, then, each one of them becomes free to create the particular mixture of modernity and traditionalism that best suits the quirks of his/her mind and soul. For a wholehearted embracing of modernity is not synonymous with a complete rejection of everything that traditional values have to offer. On the contrary, it simply gives the individual the right to construct the values system that best suits him/her and to act on that so long as the basic human rights of others are respected. This embedded ambivalence of modernity is what makes it better than traditional value systems with their claims to divine sanctions and inability to tolerate “heretical” views.

But this ambivalence is also modernity’s weak point, one that is often exploited by Islamists, and other fundamentalists, who would protest loudly against any infringements against their basic human rights, while simultaneously and quite knowingly preaching a message that, in effect, denies others their basic human rights.

Be that as it may, every system does have weak points, and the best way to protect the modern system from its main weak point is through vigilance. The temptation to resort to intimidation and establishing legal restrictions on basic freedoms, such as free speech and the freedom of assembly is nothing less than foolish as it will eventually serve to undermine the very system we are trying to protect.

Comments

[Yaman]

There is no hope to protect the 40 year old woman from the dabbling of her parents. The best we can hope for at this point is to promote and implement a system whereby governmental institutions do not sanction, support, or encourage such interference. This requires a rewriting of most civilian codes pertaining to gender relations and family law.

Simultaneously, and this is the most meaningful bet, control of the education ministries and influence in the media by form of television dramas, etc, is necessary for inducing the "psychological" change. The new education should promote the positive ideals of classical liberalism, and the result will be generational. Artistic venues like movies and television series help introduce controversial social situations with their suggested remedies, and if not succeeding at changing people's minds at the very least introduces a degree of tolerance.

At the same time, violence must be vilified. The protection of our movement to win the above social and civil rights is impossible without the prerequisite security, and the best way (considering the circumstances from which we are exiting) is not to "force" the security for too long but to have the idea of private militias and armed groups very unpopular. Really I think the best way to take care of security is to promote a strong sense of nationalism.

[Ammar Abdulhamid]

Good ideas Yaman, the only problem lies in the fact that states in the region often attempt to walk a fine line here in order not incur popular ire. The regimes are already too dictatorial and they prefer to avoid championing any cause that can lead to a confrontation with the street through offending the usual norms. Moreover, state officials are often part of the problem, that is, their views regarding modernity and gender rights are not exactly liberal. Just read the various articles written by Syrian Minister of Expatriates Affairs, Bouthain Shaaban, published in al-Sharq al-Awsat and note her ceaseless assault on western values and defense of traditional Arab culture.

As such the fight for political rights becomes enmeshed in the fight for establishing civil society institutions, which is the essence of the problems faced by reformers in our region: they have to fight on all fronts simultaneously: they are fighting the government and society. Their security is often non-existing. For this reason, we do indeed need to take under consideration the serious for organizing ourselves as revolutionary cells. nationalism is not the answer, it is one manifestation of the enemy, which is ignorance. We need to adopt revolutionary tactics, while avoiding the usual pitfalls of revolutionary movements. And we need to remain committed to nonviolence all through.

[M. Simon]

Beautiful. Such clarity and poise.

This might be of interest. It discusses the same subject with respect to warfare:

What is wrong with the Arab way of War?

[M. Simon]

The number one failure of revolutionary movements is the belief that warfare can lead to victory. The Soviets tried that to various degrees (enmeshing Islam to a great degree) and failed.

The Chinese understand. Only by adopting the critical elements of the "enemy" program was success possible. Which is another way of saying accepting defeat.

Sadly it appears to me that Islam is not ready to accept defeat. Thus it has no possibilty of winning the real struggle to better the lives of its adherents.

Sad beyond belief.