Understanding terrorism

The latest effort to ‘understand’ terrorism comes from Jenni Russell on the Guardian, who sadly fails rather miserably. She comes up with her own brand of tosh by mixing Samuel Huntingdon’s theory of the clash of civilisations, ethics and metaphysics. Aside from the fact that she confuses metaphysics with ethics, Ms Russell claims that ‘metaphysical beliefs’ are the result of “our earliest experiences and the culture around us”. As such ‘the dissonance between our own powerful sense of what is right’, which is one’s ethics, and ‘the values of the society around us’ leads some people to violent action.
There are two fundamental misconceptions at the core of this argument. Firstly, her understanding of metaphysical beliefs (term she invents!)and ethics, if you really want to bang the two together, as stemming from culture, you negate the universalistic nature of ethics. To take an example, human rights are founded on the universal value of life, which is not dependent on one’s geography, economic conditions or any other cultural variable. These rights, although systematically violated in most countries, are recognised across the world as human, and therefore universal, values. Secondly, this relativist idea of culture as giver of meaning and values is but an offspring of European secularist ideologies and post-colonial ideas of self-determination. Contemporary Islamic fundamentalists are not moved by a metaphysical belief embedded in a specific culture, but by envy. When they refer to the US as the ‘great Satan’, they do not equate it with evil, but with seduction. Islamists have been deeply influenced by Western secular nationalism of the XIX and XX centuries. Islamism has applied Islamic vocabulary to European nationalism and has thus betrayed Islam, as a religion that preaches universality. In doing so, Islamic terrorists have been inspired by an ideology borne out of relativism and that, in its extreme forms, has death at its core. The only clash is between those who choose life and those who choose death.

Science and religion - where are the liberals?

Gordon Lynch complains that the ‘God-buster’ troops led by Dawkins, Dennett and Co. ignore religion and theology. Yep! True, one would expect a little bit of research on the subject matter the author is writing about, but perhaps this is too sophisticated for pop-lit. What is symptomatic of the age and most worrying is these pop-scientists lacking understanding of philosophy of science. Science is the real victim here. In their flawed attempt to elevate it to universal and, in some cases, transcendent truth, science is being reduced to dogmatic scientism. On the other hand, the image most people have of religion comes from the unsavoury politics of theo-con activism. Religion and theology, especially in their liberal forms, have been largely confined to the academia. Any political success the theo-cons achieve will cost liberalism and liberal religion dearly. This is why it was religious groups who took up the lawsuit against creationism in Arkansas in 1981. They defended their right to interpret scripture and derive morality from it. The march of theo-cons aims to monopolise morality, in particular religious morality. Politics is about morals, yet liberal-minded religious people are not making their voices heard fearing our secular society’s misgivings about religion. For the sake of religion, for the sake of science and, above all, for the sake of our (sacred!) liberties and rights, liberal theologians need to leave their dusty libraries and engage in the debate.

Italy, the land that feminism forgot?

The FT had a very interesting article on the death of Italian feminism. I share Adrian Michaels’ frustration with the explicitly sexual (and sexist) imagery dominating Italian television and publicity. However, in his comparison with Britain and the US, he seems to paint a too stark picture of Italy as ‘the land that feminism forgot’. After all, I remember a similar frustration and surprise at the relatively ordinary ‘nakedness’ of young women in Britain going out clubbing, when I first moved here nearly ten years ago. I'm afraid sexism is alive and well across the globe. The dire state of Italian publicity has more to do with its clients not seeking creativity than Italians being comfortable with it. Nevertheless, it is true that the situation in Italy is indeed worse; however it is primarily due to structural rather than cultural reasons. There are, of course, cultural differences, such as an understanding of sexual explicitness as rebellion to Catholic predominance and therefore as a liberating tool. There is also a more open attitude to sex than in Anglican/Protestant cultures, hence censorship being less rigid. Regrettably, across the western world, the sixties’ revolution liberalised sex instead of liberating it from its male-centredness and its objectifying nature.
However, Italian publicity is saturated with naked women for the same reason why economic structural reforms are extremely difficult. Italy is a country still steeped in corporatism, dominated by the vested interest of a myriad of groups. Italian politics and economy are in crisis due to their subservience to groups of power, traditionally dominated by (older) men with strong political links to ensure influence. Such groups hold the key to personal and corporate success. They are boys’ clubs making the rules on who is on television, in politics and in the academia, to name a few. So far they have excluded women, young talent and innovation. It is a deeply felt crisis resented by all. When I visit Italy, I see men and women just as embarrassed and angry at the ubiquitous display of female flesh on billboards and television as they are at the tight grip with which Italy’s elders are strangulating the country.

nakeditaly