What Right-Wing Militias Have in Common with 13th-Century Imams
-
I'm reading a great book called The Civilization of Europe in the Middle Ages, and I just finished a section on the collapse of scientific inquiry in the Moslem world. As most of us know, the Moslem world was far ahead of the West during the Middle Ages in almost every way: science, math, medicine, philosophy. They were "the West" as we think of it now: the enlightened, open, richer society, while Europe was poor, closed-minded, and paranoid.
But the author of this book makes an interesting point: In the Moslem world, the religious authorities and the scientific thinkers were completely separate. Religious leaders were either fundamentalists or mystics. The intellectual class was made up of secular leaders: teachers, businessmen, lawyers. And while this led to a huge flourishing of intellectual freedom and thus scientific progress in the short term, it proved their undoing in the end. Because when the intellectual class reached a certain level of freedom and daring, the religious leaders freaked out and shut them down. By the 13th century, science in the Islamic world was dead.
This is in contrast to Europe, where the intellectual class and the religious leadership was always one and the same. This meant that progress was slower, incremental, hesitant. But it had the virtue of taking place within the institutions of the Church and thus being protected in a way. The religious leaders felt in control and less threatened.
This makes me think of how these right-wing militias pop up every time a Democratic president is elected. A certain class of people is deeply threatened by progressive culture, and when a Democrat is elected they panic. Except for a few areas (torture, for example) life under Obama is not very different from life under Bush. But the idea that they have lost control is deeply upsetting to these people.
And so, ironically, it may be easier to make progress under conservative governments than under liberal ones, simply because the paranoia is tamped down. I remember one liberal commentator saying that Bush had actually done a great thing by devoting a huge amount of money to battling AIDS in Africa. This passed without much public response, which certainly wouldn't have been the case if the president were Obama; we can all imagine the canned responses---think "Kenyan anti-colonialist mindset"; think "bankrupting our children."
Another example: Jesse Helms virulently opposed US aid to African AIDS efforts until Bono cornered him and put it in terms he could relate to: people with AIDS were the modern-day Samaritans; we were called to reach out to people who were despised by all. I don't know why Jesse Helms couldn't have come to this conclusion on his own, but the very same act of charity meant completely different things to him depending on whether it was framed as part of liberal culture or part of conservative culture.
I think too of the efforts to eradicate foot-binding in China and female genital mutilation in Africa. You've got to get the traditional leaders on board. It's only when village leaders are included in the process that the plainly progressive change can occur.
It's kind of galling to liberals like me to see our values dismissed by conservatives, and then embraced once they are framed as their own ideas. But if that's what it takes, that's what it takes. On any number of issues---from civil rights to environmentalism---it would be nice to hear conservatives say just once: "You were right, and we were wrong." But I'm not holding my breath.
-
I'm reading a great book called The Civilization of Europe in the Middle Ages, and I just finished a section on the collapse of scientific inquiry in the Moslem world. As most of us know, the Moslem world was far ahead of the West during the Middle Ages in almost every way: science, math, medicine, philosophy. They were "the West" as we think of it now: the enlightened, open, richer society, while Europe was poor, closed-minded, and paranoid.
But the author of this book makes an interesting point: In the Moslem world, the religious authorities and the scientific thinkers were completely separate. Religious leaders were either fundamentalists or mystics. The intellectual class was made up of secular leaders: teachers, businessmen, lawyers. And while this led to a huge flourishing of intellectual freedom and thus scientific progress in the short term, it proved their undoing in the end. Because when the intellectual class reached a certain level of freedom and daring, the religious leaders freaked out and shut them down. By the 13th century, science in the Islamic world was dead.
This is in contrast to Europe, where the intellectual class and the religious leadership was always one and the same. This meant that progress was slower, incremental, hesitant. But it had the virtue of taking place within the institutions of the Church and thus being protected in a way. The religious leaders felt in control and less threatened.
This makes me think of how these right-wing militias pop up every time a Democratic president is elected. A certain class of people is deeply threatened by progressive culture, and when a Democrat is elected they panic. Except for a few areas (torture, for example) life under Obama is not very different from life under Bush. But the idea that they have lost control is deeply upsetting to these people.
And so, ironically, it may be easier to make progress under conservative governments than under liberal ones, simply because the paranoia is tamped down. I remember one liberal commentator saying that Bush had actually done a great thing by devoting a huge amount of money to battling AIDS in Africa. This passed without much public response, which certainly wouldn't have been the case if the president were Obama; we can all imagine the canned responses---think "Kenyan anti-colonialist mindset"; think "bankrupting our children."
Another example: Jesse Helms virulently opposed US aid to African AIDS efforts until Bono cornered him and put it in terms he could relate to: people with AIDS were the modern-day Samaritans; we were called to reach out to people who were despised by all. I don't know why Jesse Helms couldn't have come to this conclusion on his own, but the very same act of charity meant completely different things to him depending on whether it was framed as part of liberal culture or part of conservative culture.
I think too of the efforts to eradicate foot-binding in China and female genital mutilation in Africa. You've got to get the traditional leaders on board. It's only when village leaders are included in the process that the plainly progressive change can occur.
It's kind of galling to liberals like me to see our values dismissed by conservatives, and then embraced once they are framed as their own ideas. But if that's what it takes, that's what it takes. On any number of issues---from civil rights to environmentalism---it would be nice to hear conservatives say just once: "You were right, and we were wrong." But I'm not holding my breath.
-
posted by Anonymous at
1:30 PM
1 Comments:
i think that's SUCH an important point, kibble, that what is important is that the right thing is done, not that the left gets credit for the right. (erm . . .)
what's important is that AIDS is eradicated, homosexuals are not persecuted, and children's advantages are not dictated by the zip code or skin color. and if the only way to get the majority on board is for the bushes and the mccains to champion it, well, so be it. yes, it's a bitter pill to swallow, but progress is much more important than our egos.
this book sounds fascinating, in the manner of guns, germs, and steel, which has been on my to-read list for, oh, about five years? . . .
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home