Spoof?
September 30, 2008
I can’t actually tell if this is really a fox news clip, or if it has been spoofed and altered in some way. The fact that I face this kind of confusion about the authenticity of a newsclip is a problem in and of itself, obviously.
It’s fucking entertaining though, to name one thing that I can ascertain with certainty.
Samuel P. Huntington’s controversial essay entitled “The Clash of Civilizations”[1] was intended to take on the immense task of predicting the next driving force behind the international system’s presumed new world order. After the end of the Cold War, the international political community was at a loss as to what conflict would be dividing them next, and what sides they were all to take. Huntington graciously rushed to inform the world that the “fundamental source of conflict in this new world”[2] would inevitably be the inherent cultural differences between civilizations. Huntington’s passionately argued thesis seems to be rather convincing at first, however, upon further inspection his sweeping arguments prove themselves to be seriously flawed and vastly oversimplified. Some critics of his self-proclaimed paradigm argue that it is also a self fulfilling prophecy: his hypothesis is highly flawed, but if the world’s policy makers are sufficiently convinced that it is true and that it really is inevitable, they will unwittingly create a ‘clash of civilizations’.
Huntington’s argument for the emerging clash of civilizations rests on six premises. The first is that civilizations are inherently different because their traditions, their histories and their religions have evolved separately for centuries, and have formed completely different and often contradictory value systems from one another that are not likely to change. According to Huntington, these fundamental, fixed differences have historically caused “the most prolonged and most violent conflicts”. Second, Huntington posits that the globalization effect of increasing interactions between cultures will heighten the awareness of the differences between civilizations, and likewise, the similarities within them. Huntington claims that this increased contact between people will revive and strengthen deep historical hostilities. Third, his theory proposes that local and national identities are being lost because of the social changes brought on by economic modernization. Many people are reviving religion in order to fill the void caused by the loss of local community membership and identity.Fourth, the West is experiencing the peak of its power militarily, ideologically and economically. The non-western civilizations feel threatened by overwhelming western cultural influence. In response they are calling for a return to non-western roots and traditions with the intent of shaping the world in non-western ways. Fifth, since cultural characteristics are inherited, they are harder to compromise or change because they are essential to a person’s identity, they are what one is, not what one believes. Thus there is no possibility of persuading or compelling someone to switch sides, as is possible with political ideology. Furthermore, Huntington says “Even more than ethnicity, religion discriminates sharply and exclusively among people.[12]” And finally, there is an increase in economic regionalism, which both strengthens identification with one’s own civilization, and which, Huntington argues, may only succeed if the parties belong to a common civilization. Thus Huntington arrives at the conclusion that civilizations will surely clash. He does not explicitly state that this cultural conflict will necessarily take a violent physical form, although he maintains that this has historically been the case.
In making his argument, Huntington remains squarely cemented in liberal ideology. He is proposing a post-Cold War paradigm which claims that the next prevailing world conflict will come out of cultural principles (which are not ideologies per se, but are ideological nonetheless) and that the world’s people will be willing to fight and die for the propagation of the civilization into which they were born. He adheres to the liberal notions that states are interconnected, but within the context that this interconnection arises out of a shared civilizational identity; and that groups of states are placed at odds with one another by virtue of their differing cultural and traditional values.
Huntington’s post-Cold War paradigm is riddled with anomalies and exceptions, and the most salient of these inconsistencies lies in the assumption of a single, consolidated culture within a given civilization. As Professor Edward Said points out in a video-taped lecture at the University of Massachusetts, “defining culture is always a major, ongoing struggle”[15]. Within any given society, there is an unending dialogue that occurs between the official and the unofficial counter cultures. Shireen T. Hunter echoes this observation in The Future of Islam and the West, by saying that cultures “are living organisms in a constant state of evolution, and they change in response to internal and external stimuli in the context of the dynamics of challenge and response.”[16] This constant challenge to the mainstream culture is a form of creative provocation that forces people to reassess their beliefs and behaviors constantly, urging them to adapt to their ever changing context.
Furthermore, there is as much conflict within a given culture as between cultures. It is foolhardy to believe that a civilization is not only homogeneous, but that it has no internal fissures or divisions. Major Alex Osborn of the British Army writes, “The clash of civilizations approach suggests that groups will come together in support, yet the coalition to defeat Iraq in 1991 included numerous Arab nations and Iran supported Christian Armenia in its conflict with Muslim Azerbaijan. Conversely, the genocide of Tutsis by Hutus in Rwanda took place within a single civilization, and wars within Western civilization have been the most numerous and bloody in history.”[17]
This is not to say that Huntington is wrong in his observation that there are growing resentments in the Third World towards the West, and particularly toward the U.S.A. Many developing countries are calling for reclamation of their cultural roots in reaction to the overwhelming invasion of mainstream Western culture throughout the non-Western world. The ravenous, well-oiled and well financed juggernaut of Western pop culture and the political and economical hegemony that the West wields internationally severely undermine the autonomy of developing nations. Is it any wonder that non-westerners are reacting negatively? Graham Fuller wrote in 1995 that “a civilizational clash is not so much over Jesus Christ, Confucius or the prophet Mohammad, as it is over the unequal distribution of world power, wealth and influence.”[18]
The international politics and economy dance to the West’s tune. The current economic system was set up by the West, to benefit itself at the cost of the well being of the developing world. Since Huntington first published his essay, it is possible that there has been an increase in tensions between the West and the ‘rest’, but this is not a religious or tradition-based clash, this is a clash between “the civilizations of the poor and the powerless, and that of the rich and the mighty. It is a conflict between those who have power and those that do not, those who control the world’s destiny and those who are subjects of control.”[19] By claiming that this new era will herald the advent of full participation by non-western countries in the game of world politics, Huntington is glaringly overlooking the fact that the developing world is persistently being exploited, and is still forced to submit to overpowering Western coercion. Shireen T. Hunter notes,
“This balance of power, which is heavily weighted in the West’s favor, gives tremendous influence over the fate of the Muslim states and its people. . . Western officials and experts have admitted, for example that the only group to have lost out in the Uruguay Round negotiations on the international trading system was the Third World.”[20]
There is one more factor to be considered, the Cold War’s end left America struggling for unity, and unable to come to consensus over certain policy changes. American policy makers realized that they needed another common enemy to rally against in order to unify the nation, and to guide American foreign policy. In his videotaped lecture, Edward Said points out that Huntington’s theory was just an attempt to continue the Cold War, and American foreign policy makers flocked toward it for this very reason.[21] Hans J. Morganthau once said, “All politics, including international politics, are about power and ideologies serve as disguises.”[22]
A clash of civilizations is not imminent, nor is it already occurring, but it can feed itself into existence only if the world’s heads of state begin to view the world through Huntington’s skewed lens and thus enact discriminatory policies that will create such a clash. Policy makers need to recognize that all societies and cultures are multifaceted and continuously evolving. By choosing to celebrate and respect the differences between people, both domestically and internationally, policy makers will never have to worry about Huntington’s impending civilizational conflict.
More reflection on the real world-wide consequences of the process of economic globalization is needed on this hypothetical clash based solely on civilizational differences. As Georg Sorenson states in his essay, ‘What Kind of World Order?: The International System in the New Millennium’, “. . . the question is whether the current order of the interregnum has enough to offer the less privileged half of the world’s population and what the reactions will be if that turns out not to be the case.”[23]
[1] First printed in the Foreign Affairs journal, full citation found in the References page at the end.
[2] From Pg 22, of Foreign Affairs, the first page of Huntington’s ‘The Clash of Civilizations”.
[15] The Myth of The clash of Civilizations, Prof. Edward Said in Lecture – Full reference to be found in bibliography.
[16] Hunter, Shireen T. The Future of Islam and the West, Clash of Civilizations or Peaceful Coexistence? Page 10.
[17] Major Alex Osborn. “The ‘Clash of Civilizations’ Thesis as a Tool for Explaining Conflict in the Contemporary World” Defence Studies, Vol. 5, no. 3 (2005): pg 396.
[18] Dialogues: Islamic – U.S. – The West. (conference organized on Oct. 28-31, 2002 in
Granada, Spain.) Clash of Civilizations or Clash of Perceptions? 2002 Report, The Nature of Civilizational Clash. New York University, 2006. http://islamuswest.org/publications_islam_and_the_West/Clash_of_Civilizations_or_Clash_of_Perceptions/clash_16.html (accessed Dec. 1, 2006) (accessed Dec. 1, 2006)
[19] Hunter, Shireen T. The Future of Islam and the West: Clash of Civilizations or Peaceful
Coexistence? Westport Connecticut: Praeger Publishers, 1998. Pg 21
[20] Ibid, pg 20
[21] Said, Edward. Edward Said in Lecture: ‘The Myth of the Clash of Civilizations.’ Produced by The Media Education Foundation. Directed by Sut Jhally. 55 min. Media Education Foundation, 1998. (videocassette)
[23] Sorenson, Geog. “What Kind of World Order?” Cooperation and Conflict: Journal of the Nordic International Studies Association. Vol. 41, no 4 (2006): 343-363. www.ps.au.dk/NISA (accessed Nov. 29, 2006) pg 359.
Who’s Watching the Watchdogs?
September 24, 2007
Montreal Police have quite the reputation for brutality. I had not given much thought to it until I was walking along St. Laurent street on Saturday night. I came upon a police officer harassing a man and a woman. The girl looked scared, so I decided to observe the situation. I informed the officer that I would be observing the situation. He told me to step away. I did. He told me to step away again. So I did.
He got pissed off, and walked up to me. He spoke to me in rapid-fire French, a language that despite my efforts, I am unable to fully understand. Having informed him that I did not understand what he was saying, he scoffed and told me that I should leave. I told him that I know that I have a right to observe. He proceeded to yell at me in French. He asked for my ID (in English), and I happily provided him with it. He then informed me in English that he was going to give me a ticket, but did not say what it was for. My friend, Sven, came up to me and asked what was going on. I explained the situation to him. Meanwhile, the cop stomped off to his police car.
“For what?” I asked. I walked up to the police car and demanded that he inform me of what I had done wrong. He told me to step back onto the sidewalk. So I did. Sven turned to the car and asked “what is she being charged with?” Sven is a lawyer, by the way. Two other friends, Tom and Catherine, joined us on the sidewalk.
The other cop demanded that Tom show him ID. Tom refused. He doesn’t need to show ID, no one does unless police have cause to suspect that someone has just commited a crime, or is about to commuit one. Suddenly ten police cars showed up, and twenty police officers emerged from them. One of them grabbed my arm and pulled it up behind my back, breaking my glasses in the process. (I woke up with a big bruise on one arm, and scratches on the other today.) Six police officers grabbed Tom and tackled him to the floor, and smashed his head against the concrete. They shackled his arms and legs. Another four grabbed Sven, and put him in hand cuffs.
The police woman holding my arm let me go, and yelled at me in French. I told her I did not speak French, and informed her that I’ve only been in Montreal for two years. She yelled some more (in French) and then walked away. Catherine and I watched in horror at the brutality, the nonsensical use of force. We asked for a pen from the police officers so that we could write down their names and badge numbers. The approximately seven officers in earshot all refused, saying that they didn’t have any extra pens. One of them patted his shirt pocket, which held some pens, and said “see, I’m using mine,” as he walked away laughing.
In the end, Tom, Sven and I were given tickets for “En ayant gene la circulation des pietons et refuse sans motif valable de circuler a la demande d’un agent de la paix.” Which apparently means “For having obstructed pedestian traffic and refusing without viable motive to circulate upon being asked by a peace officer.” I find it ironic that he calls himself an ‘agent of peace’.
They took Sven and Tom to the police station parking lot, then pushed them out of the cars and told them to leave.
Tom has bruises, cuts and scrapes all over him. As well as the ticket for ‘obstructing pedestrian traffic’ Tom is being charged with ‘resisting arrest’ and ‘assaulting a police officer’. Sven is also charged with ‘assaulting a police officer’. Neither Tom nor Sven laid a hand on anyone that night, which leads me to the newfound understanding that the phrase ‘assaulting a police officer’ is code for ‘being assaulted by a police officer’. The phrase is simply used to justify the bruises and the blood caused by “officers of the law”on the citizens they are meant to “protect”. I don’t feel any safer. Next time I walk alone at night, I won’t be scared by the random drug dealers walking by, I’ll be scared of the legally armed golems that are there to ‘protect’ me from harm.
Moral of the story: don’t ever stand on the sidewalk near police officers: you have no idea what will happen next.
This video is American, from the Guerilla News Network. Canadian law is similar in that you are legally allowed to observe the actions of a police officer as long as you stand at least 2 metres away fromt the scene.
Beware: watching the watchdog can go horribly awry.
Women should be seen and not heard?
September 10, 2007
Holy shit.
I don’t know how else to acurately express my reaction to this article.
Excerpt:
“Couples where the man talks more are happier than one where the woman is more talkative, according to the latest research by a team of behavioural scientists from Green Mountain College and University of Texas at Austin.”…”Martha, who is a mother of two, also has a similar opinion about the matter.
“I’ve always played the role of silent partner. When we talk too much, men lose the confidence about their power and the position they have in the family. It can lead to fights in the family,” she said. “It’s always healthy to stay rather silent than creating troubles.”
It was not published in 1940 – oh no, it was published Aug. 20th, 2007. This year. Whoever thinks ‘all is fine’ for women, needs a reality check.
All things converge on one societal norm: the silencing of women’s voice in society is best for the society. Is this article just expressing the cultural normative values of the day? What next: studies that show that parliament runs better when women do not participate? Supreme court judges make better decisions if there are no women on the panel? Buses are more environmentally friendly if they are not driven by women? What The Fuck.
Everytime I look around at this society, I lose clarity on all things except one: This world is FUBAR (fucked up beyond all recognition.)
Would Nostradamus have worn BLING?
August 24, 2007
I watched an 1982 film about Nostradamus’ life and predictions last night. It was quite the assortment of fear-mongering and speculation that I had thought it would be. Apparently, Nostradamus predicted the Kennedy assassination, the first world war and the second world war. He even predicted a third world war that should have started in 1999. He said the ‘New City’ (presumably New York City) would experience a ‘terror’ from the skies, and that it would subsequently descend into complete disorder. Then he predicted that a man wearing a blue turban would make an alliance with an Eastern European force (which they assumed would be Russia- and remember, this film was made in the throes of the Cold War). Nostradamus wrote that this alliance would signal the beginning of a “world-wide reign of terror”
Now, to put this in context, the film also mentioned that both the allies and Germany used Nostradamus’ predictions as propaganda to garner support for their respective sides during WWII. Funny that, eh? And then went on to mention that each side hand-picked what phrases would be most supportive to the respective sides’ war effort.
I can’t help but wonder if the same was done since. Perhaps the ‘War on Terror’ wouldn’t have been worth a speckled herring if Nostradamus hadn’t made a mention of it…. Chicken? Egg? Hmmm….
During the whole movie, I just couldn’t help but wonder: Would Nostradamus have would have worn bling? I think he would have.
