Enough Said

Response to "The Necessity of Scepticism Backlash and Backtrack" By Edward Said CounterPunch (http://www.counterpunch.org/) September 28, 2001
Academics have the primary task of investigating theoretical boundaries, analysing absolutes, describing aspects of perfection. This is enough, surely. Unfortunately no. The social importance of academia also extends to connecting the theoretical with the practical, the past with the present. The greatest have the courage to take a final step and act or at least propose action in the scale of everyday life. This requires courage because all practical, immediate and everyday action occurs amongst the murky grey of morally contradictory options. The ivory tower by its very nature is (and should be) a place above these considerations. To come down from the tower but retain its perspective is dangerous but also an opportunity to truly lead.
I find Edward Said’s contribution facile in this light.
In the above, article, he describes a sad side effect of generalisation as it applies to Muslims in the USA. I would have expected more analysis of how all people generalise - most importantly about people based on every possible difference such as appearance, speech, and opinion. I would have hoped for recognition that such generalisations are made in many countries against Americans with at least equally brutal results. I would have hoped that the analysis had revealed some principles that distinguish good generalisations from those that are evil.
Evil – a word that I am glad to see re-enter the lexicon, because it injects a morality back into the equation. The word “good” has become merely a measure of the advantage of one over another – “good for whom ?”. Most people would generalise about large tattooed leather jacketed loud bikies in a dark alley on Saturday night, and take another route. Many would discriminate against them in the light of day during an employment interview. Most people generalise on the basis of race and nationality. The Germans are said to lack a sense of humour. The French are said to be great lovers. Ask yourself honestly whether you have used or left such statements unchallenged. I frequently read and hear generalisations about the USA and “Americans” used by highly educated and intelligent people despite their obvious inaccuracy when predicting the personality or performance of any individual. Generalisation becomes evil when it harms the innocent. Yet this occurs constantly to different degrees. The only antidote to incorrect generalisation is exposure to variety. From my exposure, the press is working hard on prominent stories of patriotic Muslims and Arabs. Unfortunately, the coverage also reveals more Muslims and Arabs who do wish nothing but death to the USA.
The events of September 11 2001 were acts of war. The choice of targets, the absence of any demand before destruction, but most of all the scale has elevated them beyond the “ordinary” terrorist act. In a state at war, many will incorrectly generalise that all dissent equals disloyalty.
The enemy has not declared itself. Nor has it stated any aims. This enemy holds to no rules, least of all the bizarre idea of the rules of war. Every US citizen and most of the rest of the world is looking for the enemy. When we look, we see differences and similarities. In a state of war, many will incorrectly generalise that if you dress (or speak, or have a complexion) like known enemies, then you are one.
So what can we ask of US citizens ?
Edward Said asks that they “grasp the main long range hope” which is a “community of conscience and understanding” which requires US citizens to do some “decent back-tracking”. He wants them to “place the horrors of what occurred on 11 September in a context that includes US actions”. He shows gross insensitivity and foolishness by talking of “our main weapons as Arabs” being moral arguments.
Intellectually, morally and politically these attitudes are disastrous.
So what can we ask of US citizens ?
We can ask citizens of the USA to continue their support for international involvement. Their economic and military supremacy on the planet gives them both responsibility and opportunity. Many of their critics are constantly pointing out new responsibilities that require the commitment of US lives and resources. We did not see Arab states rushing to the aid of persecuted Muslims in the Baltic. US citizens in my experience have a sober (but sometimes weary) acceptance of this role. Opportunities also flow from these involvements as they have always done throughout recorded history. There is and should always be a debate about balancing this quid pro quo because there have been, and will be, immoral excesses. But it is laughable to say all opportunities flowing from these involvements are inherently immoral.
We can ask citizens of the USA to continue their support for individual freedom at home and abroad. The USA has, on balance, contributed more than any other nation in history to a higher consciousness and experience of freedom. I would challenge Edward Said to denounce the extreme oppression that exists under Muslim influence throughout the world as a counterpoint to his worries about the “erosion of civil liberties” in the USA. The rulers of most countries represented in the United Nations do not believe in individual freedom. Intellectuals should contribute to the debate on what constitutes freedom and what are the threats to it. In my view, the greatest threat to freedom on the planet is growth – both population and production. But that is another story. Currently, in the USA, the greatest enemy of freedom is fear. The debate must be about how much freedom needs to be sacrificed to reduce the terror. This balance is different in every country, in every road, in every building. The next attack will not be from a plane.
We can ask citizens of the USA to support international involvement and individual freedom by sacrificing some of their sons and daughters as well as a huge amount of money and materials on supporting change in countries throughout the world. This requires a vision that many will not share. An acceptance that there will be tragic mistakes and that the task will often be thankless.
So why do it ?
By putting everyone in Australia to work, the incidence of crime and drug abuse would vastly reduce. But I could give no guarantee that an unemployed drug addict would not murder your mother on the way home. Similarly, if all governments on earth observed minimum standards of democracy and individual freedom, or if all people were fed clothed and housed to a minimum standard, then the number of extremists of all persuasions would be vastly reduced. But, I could give no guarantee that a religious fanatic would not blow up your mother on the way home. I could probably have more success reducing crime, drug addiction and extremism by applying one brand of extremism worldwide. The sad life history of my imaginary unemployed drug addicted killer is an explanation not an excuse, and in my world he would be summarily executed in a humane manner. Likewise the fanatical bomber. If these events became a repeating pattern, it would provoke a search for policies that may prevent others from following the same fatal path.
An international coalition should have two tasks that may be undertaken simultaneously, but should not be confused. First, the infection needs to be removed.
We can ask citizens of the USA to encourage and support an international coalition that will eliminate terrorists in any country preferably with the cooperation of the infected host nation. This has begun. Where host nations refuse to cooperate then all means of influence should be brought to bear patiently, humanely, creatively and inexorably e.g. economic inducement or threat, military inducement or threat, support for alternative governments etc. Where direct military action is considered necessary, it should be taken with a view to moving responsibility as soon as possible to nationals within their own countries with international support.
It is essential that the elimination of terrorism should include a prohibition on the extreme expressions of hate which nurture them. Many countries have laws against racial and religious “vilification”. The current overwhelmingly Muslim hate rallies permitted by Pakistan and Indonesia would not be permitted in Australia or the USA, and should not be permitted in any country – even if non-violent. Edward Said talks about the “almost palpable air of hatred” in the USA.
I would have hoped that an intellectual would have put these evils within some context. Some people on the streets of the USA have made evil generalisations and in some cases acted against Muslims or others who appear “alien” (a term widely used in the US for any non-citizen which tars everyone from Australians to Martians !). These expressions and actions are actively opposed by the government by both political statement and police action.
Compare the widespread tolerance if not encouragement of hate and its expression in countries with Muslim groups. This evil is not only expressed on the streets, but institutionalised within religious schools and other Muslim political organisations (one of the core problems with Islam is the absence of any conceptual or actual separation between church and state). It is this value system that is the main cause of the suicidal commitment of the terrorists. Other times and places have endured injustice on the scale being experienced in the Middle East. We need to look closely at a system of belief that responds by systematically brainwashing its population with a belief that violent death in battle is a gold pass to paradise, and that the USA is the evil empire.
A prohibition on expressions of hate illustrates the way in which even “universal values” are subject to a social context. Individual freedoms of speech and action apply within boundaries defined by culture. The challenge for the intellectual is to help develop and refine boundaries that should apply to all cultures. The alternative allows totalitarianism to be disguised as merely a cultural choice.
Second, conditions which feed the tendency to extremism should be changed.
We can ask citizens of the USA to encourage and support an international coalition that will increase individual freedom and democracy in all countries. Again, where nations refuse to cooperate then all means of influence should be brought to bear patiently, humanely, creatively and inexorably e.g. economic inducement or threat, military inducement or threat, support for alternative governments etc. This objective applies to all nations on the planet not just those who may be thought to be currently harbouring terrorists. Its implementation is likely to require economic forces brought to bear for political and humanitarian purposes.
This is the “main long-range hope”. That a “community of conscience and understanding” will emerge to support and ultimately enforce minimum standards of democracy and individual freedom. Of course, there is also a need for emergency provision of sustenance in many areas of the world - food, medicine, housing. But to provide these without establishing the acceptance of shared universal values is to repeat the mistakes of the USA and many others in the past. All immoral regimes will use “human shields” to place their most innocent people into the pit of famine, or indeed the frontline of battle to sap the resolve of their enemies. We can ask citizens of the USA to be resolute in seeking changes that will last beyond the next years drought.
All this asking. What have we to give ? I am proud that Australia has offered tangible support to the USA. Even though the size is insignificant, the symbolic effect of offering real sacrifice rather than conditional hot air is very powerful. There are dangers. The hysterical anti-Americanism and, indeed murderous anti-Christian attitude of crowds in the largest Muslim nation in the world has already cowed many Australians. We can speak up in defence of the USA and provide supportive guidance. What guidance is there in merely encouraging “scepticism and re-evaluation”.
I consider the actions taken to date by Bush, Blair and other leaders as exemplary. Remember what the alternatives could have been ! Remember the widespread acceptance that explosions in Afghanistan following immediately on the attack on the USA were the start of an immediate retaliation. Praise them. Support them. Guide them with specific suggestions. Think of what may happen to the world if they are driven into a corner by the evaporation of international support.
Enough Said.