Communitarian Letter #22
In this issue:
Question
Who are Moderate Muslims?
A Communitarian in the White House?
Social Networking and the Changing Nature of Community
British Politics: Liberals versus Communitarians
Events
Worth a Read
Feedback from Communitarian Letter #21
Question
In 2005, the United Nations General Assembly passes a resolution which holds states responsible for protecting their citizens from mass atrocities and establishes the right of international forces to intervene if a state fails to do so. This new rule is called “responsibility to protect,” or R2P. Meant to bridge the gap between those who favor unconditional humanitarian intervention wherever atrocities are being committed and those who believe in the supreme sovereignty of a state, R2P was hailed as a large step forward for the protection of human rights. Critics fear it could be used to justify invasions of sovereign nations by superpowers. What say you?
Who are Moderate Muslims?
Joshua Muravchik and Charles P. Szrom address this vital question directly in their article in the February issue of Commentary. The importance of this question is well summarized in a quote they provide from Daniel Pipes: “radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam the solution.” That is, it is wrong to treat all the followers of the Prophet as if they were terrorists or their supporters (the way Samuel Huntington and Sir Bernard Lewis do); it is equally mistaken to view Islam as a religion of peace, which is sometimes “hijacked” by terrorist to justify their act (as President Bush pronounced). It is an empirical fact of considerable ethical and political import that Muslims—like followers of all other major belief systems, religious and secular—differ greatly from one another. Some could make good allies; some, sadly, are unavoidable enemies. The key question is: who is who?
To proceed, it is essential to define the line that separates those Muslims we can readily live and work with (especially to hold at the bay the dangerous ones) from those we cannot. Muravchik and Szromdraw the line between moderates and radicals, which is good enough until they utterly blur that line by drawing it at different ideological divides; sometimes within the same sentence, often in the same paragraph. The issue is not that the editors at Commentary were asleep when they failed to ask for minimal clarity–muddled articles are all too common. The issue runs much deeper. It reflects the authors’ (and the publication’s) support for the Neo Cons’ major thesis: that one cannot be a Partner in Peace without being a liberal democrat.
The major line that divides moderates from extremeists is between those who support terrorism, the invasion of other nations, and military nuclear programs, and-- those who reject violence but do not necessarily favor a Western-style democracy and the full plethora of human rights or secular regimes. Indeed, many of these moderate, non violent Muslims favor religious life and polities. (For detailed statistical evidence showing that the majority of Muslims in Indonesia, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Algeria—some of the largest Muslim countries—are moderate but devout, see Part III of Security First).
In short, if one seeks peace and security, but believes that we can live with nations that have different regimes and sets of beliefs than Western ones (e.g., China and Cuba), the definition of moderates as non-violent (but no more) is essential. This does not mean that one ought to stop promoting democracy and human rights by non lethal means, however the basic litmus test is forswearing the sword, not the word.
With this in mind, let us visit what Muravchik and Szrom have to say.
Sometimes the authors seem to be right on, such as where they state:
…when we speak of moderate Muslims as a counterweight to extremists…what we seek has nothing to do with the ardor of their religious convictions. …Muslims may still hope and pray for the eventual recognition by all mankind of the truth of Muhammad’s message…but they may not take up the sword to hasten the advent of that goal or pursue disputes among or within countries by violent means.
However, they fall off track where they propose a six question test that must be passed in order for any group to merit US cooperation and support. Still, two of these questions are on the right track (e.g., “does it eschew violence in pursuit of its goals?”; “does it condemn terrorism?”). The other four, however, depart from this mode of thinking: “Does it both espouse democracy and practice democracy within its own structures?” “Does it advocate equal rights for minorities?” “Does it advocate equal rights for women?” “Does it accept a pluralism of interpretation within Islam?”
To set the bar that high is to leave most Muslims on the wrong side of the divide. At least one should separate the minimal demands (no support for violence) from the much more demanding ones (embracing our kind of values and politics).
(Written by Amitai Etzioni, originally posted on the TPM Café, at
A Communitarian in the White House?
If the current lineup holds, the Democrats will be represented in the forthcoming national elections by a communitarian. Hillary’s communitarian leanings have been long known. They are especially well spelled out in her book It Takes A Village. She also delivered the keynote address at the 1996 meeting of the Communitarian Network, met frequently with communitarian thinkers, especially William Galston, and read Michael Sandel (and even yours truly).
Barack Obama showed great familiarity with communitarian ideas and thinkers during a meeting at the home of Susan Ness and Larry Schneider in Bethesda, MD. However, given that this was a private meeting, I consider it inapposite to quote what he said. But one is of course free to quote his book The Audacity of Hope, which lays out his communitarian leanings in clear and strong terms:
If we Americans are individualistic at heart, if we instinctively chafe against a past of tribal allegiances, traditions, customs, and cases, it would be a mistake to assume that this is all we are. Our individualism has always been bound by a set of communal values, the glue upon which every healthy society depends. We value the imperatives of family and the cross-generational obligations that family implies. We value community, the neighborliness that expresses itself through raising the bar or coaching the soccer team. We value patriotism and the obligations of citizenship, a sense of duty and sacrifice on behalf of our nation. We value a faith in something bigger than ourselves, whether that something expresses itself in formal religion or ethical precepts. And we value the constellation of behaviors that express our mutual regard for another: honesty, fairness, humility, kindness, courtesy, and compassion.
He added:
In every society (and in every individual), these twin strands- the individualistic and the communal, autonomy and solidarity- are in tension, and it has been one of the blessings of America that the circumstances of our nation’s birth allowed us to negotiate these tensions better than most.
A communitarian perspective recognizes that the preservation of individual liberty depends on the active maintenance of the institutions of civil society where citizens learn respect for others as well as self-respect; where we acquire a lively sense of our personal and civic responsibilities, along with an appreciation of our own rights and the rights of others; where we develop the skills of self-government as well as the habit of governing ourselves, and learn to serve others-- not just self.
David Brooks, the New York Times columnist, who is more conversant with communitarian ideas than any other columnist, recently declared Obama the communitarian candidate, in sharp contrast to Republican John McCain. Brooks’ notes are of special import, as his niche in the New York Times is as the defender of conservative causes and ideas. Brooks writes:
Obama emphasizes the connections between people, the networks and the webs of influence. These sorts of links are invisible to some of his rivals, but Obama is a communitarian. He believes you can only make profound political changes if you first change the spirit of the community. In his speeches, he says that if one person stands up, then another will stand up and another and another and you’ll get a nation standing up. The key word in any Obama speech is “you.” Other politicians talk about what they will do if elected. Obama talks about what you can do if you join together. Like a community organizer on a national scale, he is trying to move people beyond their cynicism, make them believe in themselves, mobilize their common energies.
Brooks contrasts Obama with McCain, noting that “while Obama seeks solidarity with groups, McCain resists conformity. He fights fiercely, though not always successfully, against political pressures in order to remain honest, brave and forthright.” In short, McCain is an individualist.
The elections are a year away. There are going to be many twists and turns, but in the end the American people will choose a communitarian—unless a third party candidate siphons off many Democratic votes, the Supreme Court denies voting rights to many who are poor, less educated, and from a minority background (and hence have no government issued photo ID), Americans are swayed by the thousands of troops coming hope from Iraq (as Bush draws down the surge), the economy picks up and global climate cools down. That is, communitarians should not uncork the champagne quite yet, but they can safely put a bottle or two into the fridge. At least many more people will learn a lot more about communitarian ideas—what more can we ask for…?
(Written by Amitai Etzioni, originally posted on the TPM Café, at
Social Networking Sites and the Changing Nature of Community
Some of you may be aware of new social networking site on the Internet, like Facebook and MySpace, which allow users to publicly develop and displaytheir social connections. Users create a personal profile in which they may express their own interests and values, and then invite other users to become “friends” with them. These “friends lists” can include a user’s real life friends and family just as often as they can include Hollywood celebrities, rock bands, and presidential candidates. The ease with which these “friendships” co-exist suggests that young Americans are amenable to the “thinning” or personal relationships and “thickening” of ties to public figure which were previously encountered only through mass media. Similarly, “friends lists” reinforce the contemporary experience of “pseudo-community,” the impression of a relationship that media audiences feel with celebrities.
In addition, these sites demonstrate how physical location has acquired a reduced importance in the way many Americans think about their social lives; in other words, local community is no longer as meaningful. Instead, people are beginning to understand community in terms of systems of friends and contacts that span time and place and are centered on one self. Contemporary sociability is “networked individualism” – overlapping networks of social ties with individuals at the center of each.
Original article appeared in the Spring 2008 issue of Culture, and was written by Felicia Su Wong.
British Politics: Liberals versus Communitarians
Julian Baggini started a project two years ago in which he dedicated himself to trying to better understand the beliefs and values of the English. His project has led him to the conclusion that the average Briton is not a classical liberal, but is instead a communitarian. Within a communitarian framework, the “contradictions” in British belief – holding dear the “right to day what they think” while supporting limiting free speech to “prevent the spread of radical Islamist views” – make sense. The rights and liberties loved by mainstream Britain are not abstract, and they do not apply to all; they are specific, tied to British history and traditions, and apply to those who fall within the British political community.
Liberals assume that social cohesion underpins liberalism, but closer-knit societies are generally communitarian in nature. Still, it would be a mistake to claim that the British want cultural uniformity. Instead, all the British ask is for obedience to the rule of law, and for people not to seek to change the way of life of the majority—within these parameters, there is much room for liberal policies to grow. Therefore, what is needed is a flexible liberalism centered on a hard center of core values, around which people can be free to live within communities that give their lives meaning.
The original article was published in the January 2008 Prospect, and was written by Julian Baggini.
Events
"Borders, Identity,and the Search for Security"
Featuring: Ambassador Samuel Lewis and Aaron David Miller
Monday, April 14, 2008
4:00-5:30pm
Lindner Family Commons
ElliottSchool of International Affairs
GeorgeWashingtonUniversity
Washington, DC
“Security First”
49th Annual ISA Convention
San Francisco, California
Friday, March 28, 2008
1:45 – 3:30 PM
Roundtable Discussants:
Lisa A. Baglione, Saint Joseph’s University
Frances Edwards, San JoseStateUniversity
Ron Hasser, University of California Berkeley
Brendan O’Leary, University of Pennsylvania
Kathryn Poethig, CaliforniaStateUniversity-MontereyBay
Marc H. Ross, Bryn Mawr
Michael J. Sullivan, DrexelUniversity
Dariush Zahedi, University of California Berkeley
Chair:
Amitai Etzioni, GeorgeWashingtonUniversity
Worth a Read
New reviews Security First:
"'Six years after September 11,' wrote Krauthammer, 'there is still no remotely plausible alternative to the Bush Doctrine for ultimately changing the culture from which jihadism arises.'
If that ever was true, it ceased to be as of last summer. That was when Amitai Etzioni published an important book called Security First: For a Muscular, Moral Foreign Policy.”
To read the rest of the Jonathan Rauch review, published in the NationalJournal, go here:
"This book is well written, well organized, and a must read for decision makers and students of American foreign policy, although perhaps it should more properly be titled ‘First Things First.’”
To read the rest of the D.P. Franklin review, published in CHOICE, go here:
Samantha Power ofHarvardUniversity recently published Chasing the Flame, a biography of Sergio Vieira de Mello, an official with the United Nations. The piece is a great effort, which not only chronicles Vieira de Mello’s life, but tackles the questions of how the international community should cope with issues like genocide and how much power should be given to institutions like the UN. In it, Powers advocates the need to intervene in humanitarian crises with hard power and stresses the importance of security, quoting Vieira de Mello himself: “Security is the first priority, the second priority, the third priority, and the forth priority.”
In What Makes a Terrorist: Economics and the Roots of Terrorism, Alan B. Krueger, a Princeton economist, has collected much evidence to demolish the still commonly held theory that poverty is the root cause of Islamist terrorism. We highly recommend you read this book.
“Denial of Virtue” appeared in the February issue of Society, and “Will the Real Islam Stand Up?” appeared in the Marchissue of Sociological Forum.(Both byAmitai Etzioni.)
Feedback from Communitarian Letter #21
Although I am a bit younger than you (by ten years), I too am distressed by what you aptly called the infantialization of The Economist and other publications. But the creep of catering to the instant-simplified-easy access-pictorial mode in which so many of my grandchildren's generation (but fortunately, not yet they) seem to connect to the larger world has spilled over into more serious scholarly publications.
A few weeks ago I finished work, as special editor, of a volume of what is considered to be a very respectable scholarly journal. Now the other contributors and I are being asked to look over QRSs: "Quick Read Synopses" of our articles, prepared by "contract employees" of the journal (a SAGE Publications journal), to provide "convenient summaries" of scholarly articles, for which the authors have already provided abstracts, "key words," and key phrases, and for which the journal's managing editor has selected "quote outtakes," to be run in the margins of the articles.
A program on PBS's NOVA last night was devoted to the instant access -- non-reading -- computer addicted high school generation. Since retiring from full-time teaching at the University of Maryland two years ago and moving to the Pacific Northwest, I have taught a couple of courses at what is considered a "highly selective" liberal arts college near my home. Some of the first-year students in one class were distressed to find that my syllabus contained books and articles, no videos, and that my approach to teaching a 40-student introductory course included lectures and discussion but no "on-line" exercises.