|
these are two almost unrelated articles.
the first is interesting....that it points to the centrality of the israel-palestinian conflict is useful is these benighted times---that it makes the argument for the importance of that conflict in refracting opposition to american actions is a good thing---because there has to be a link between statements and actions for american ideology to not appear as obviously nothing more than that.
what is interesting in it is the assumption that one can simply wish away other modes of thinking about the what defines the collective--that the abstract notion of collective particular to capitalist-style nation-states is somehow natural or obvious--that the abandonment of say clan or kinship ties as the primary space for identifcation is inevitable.
the writer undermines the import of his analysis by simply referring to an abundant literature without saying anything about the complexities raised by the historical materials presumably collected there. i think the transition to american-style pseudo-democracy sits on particular conditions--people like to pretend those conditions are universal--but the sad fact of the matter is that they are not.
but i suppose it is in its vagueness that the article can be seen as a support for wolfowitz-style arguments concerning iraq. vagueness--imprecision--seems key to it at every step.
so as a normative argument about what would be nice in principle, the article seems innocuous enough--as prescriptive, it is useless.
the second article is far more problematic--first because there is no source--second because the idea of "timeless lessons" is ridiculous--third because it indulges a screwy protestant triumphalism that is wholly without foundation--fourth because it leaves out consideration of capitalism--fifth because it sits on only vague, stereotypical information about islam (the kind of junk you might glean from time magazine), it lends itself to the implicit argument that the real nub lies in the religion itself. which in turn leads to the fatuous clash of cultures interpretation advanced by the likes of samuel huntington.
as an example: the article throws around enlightenment in an indefensible way, shifting back and forth between an adjective and a traditional historical periodization that much recent scholarship has shown to be rooted in illusion---an illusion of unity, an illusion that history moves in stages that sweep all segments of a society along at once--the problems go on and on.
you should read max weber's protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism, and think about what he says there, if you really want to make any argument of the kind outlined in this article operational. there are critiques of weber as well, which i think are sometimes interesting--like colin campbell's work.
but i suspect that a starting assumption is that capitalism is above critique....
now i should say that i am not interested in finding myself in yet another of these situations where there is no debate. so if defense of the articles (which are very different) are to be mounted, please route them through arguments. and reply as though there is an actual engagement going on.
dormancy is easier than trying to navigate the shoals of non conversation.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|