Islamism and the war of words

Islam, terrorism, fundamentalism, are too often used inappropriately, the war of words has started. With so many journalists turned writers covering difficult topics such as terrorism, picking on the shoddy use of language and terminology has never been easier.
Jason Burke, on the Observer, chose an unfortunate way of publicising his book: he contested ‘terror’s lexicon’. The poor thing amply provides entertainment to the pedant by suggesting a rather odd locution to replace the term Islamism. Burke uses 986 words in his article and yet miserably fails to provide any grounds, let alone theory, in support of his choice for ‘modern Islamic militancy’. In fact, I wonder whether he is aware of the meaning of these three words.
Modern: it does not mean contemporary! Modern is a rather contested term depending on the field in which it is applied. Modernity refers to different periods of time. In sociology, modernity is taken as the period between the XIX and XX century, when under the thrust of industrialisation, the prevalent conception of society was transformed and the autonomous individual emerged.
Islamic: (literally) it means anything related to Islam.
Militancy: a very unfortunate term to use as it derives from miles, soldier.

By not putting forward any theory or adequate explanation behind the choice of this terminology, Burke leaves us with the literal reading of ‘modern Islamic militancy’ as ‘armies professing the Islamic faith or from Islamic countries or cultural background, whose ideology sees the individual at the centre’. Oops! This is unlikely to be what he meant!
In contrast, the term Islamism emphasises the fundamentalist character of the ideology behind terrorist violence as perpetrated by Al-Quaeda and other groups or individuals. As such, Islamism can be taken to indicate a fundamentalist ideology that interprets (and I would say perverts) Islam in adversarial (and Manichean) terms vis-à-vis the Western world. It does not necessarily lead to violent action, which can take many forms, such as international terrorism, local guerrilla insurgency, terrorist acts carried out by individuals etc. This, of course, would also benefit from systematisation. There's a difference between reporting conflict, terrorism etc. and analysing them!

Shiny happy people … humbug!

It might be because it’s a rather rough period for me, but I thought of scribbling something about 'positive people', all those Pollyanna thinkers who repeat the nonsensical mantras of ‘looking on the bright side’ and ‘having a positive attitude’. (I suppose it ties in with my post on being nice). I believe there’s a fundamental misconception at the core of this pseudo-philosophy. They seem to believe that if one has a positive attitude, life will be easier and better; and they even explain ‘bad luck’ or lack of success as a result of one’s attitude. Humbug!
Let’s be clear about this: if one is a castaway at sea, it’s bad luck, karma, destiny, (whatever you want to call it), it is not dependent on one’s attitude. One’s attitude can, indeed, improve one’s chances of survival, but that’s more to do with ‘keeping cool’ in a difficult situation, mastering one’s knowledge and abilities to be able to survive. It is not about being optimistic, which is a feature of one’s character.
Where’s God in all of this?
I believe that events are less important than what one does with them. It is our perception of what happens that gives meaning to it and to our life. Optimism and pessimism are equally pernicious in obfuscating one’s sight. Things happen in our reality plane (the world of action, objective reality etc.), but there are also parallel events happening in other planes, including our mind. It is our job to analyse the situation objectively but also to see it in all its aspects.
I strive to see God behind everything that happens to me (which is difficult enough, never mind what happens to others!) and to transform the bad into the good. Most of the time, it comes as a fleeting realisation, not more than a passing feeling, but it’s there. I find that only by ‘appropriating’ what happens, giving it meaning and ‘putting God in it’, I can make some sense. I don’t believe in the off the shelf philosophy ‘life is good’ or ‘life is bad’. The point is that we’re alive. We might as well live and be partners in creation by giving meaning and acting accordingly. It is our insight that gets us closer to God, not our attitude.
I have this image of God smiling at all those combative stubborn people who don’t go around with slogans, are not shiny happy people, but criticise. That’s how you change things. Besides, shiny happy people don’t get irony!

The Politics of God - yet more nonsense

Mark Villa’s essay ‘The Politics of God’ (N.Y. Times mag) couldn’t be any more coherent and yet wider of the mark. He claims that there was a ‘Great Separation’ in political thought with Thomas Hobbes, which led to a separation between religion and politics. Professor Villa conveniently separates morality from religion, so that he can blame, at least in part, ‘political theology’ for obscurantism of whatever sort, even Nazism. At first, I wasn’t quite sure where the problem was, so coherent was his argument. Alas, extreme coherence is what generally gives nonsense away: Professor Villa is rather confused about history. Just a few points:

1. Villa projects the present onto the past by inventing ‘political theology’. Beginning with the Emperor Constantine’s embrace of Christianity, political power adopted religion as identity and ideology, not the other way round. In Villa’s theory, theology (although he does not state which and at what particular time and place) is given enormous credit. Theologies are like philosophies, they tend to be for the few who read texts, like systematising the world and their ideas about it. Above all, theologians and philosophers, being human, are influenced by the historical and socio-economic conditions present at a certain point of time and place. Villa confuses theology with ideology.
2. Ideologies are theories with systematic and totalitarian tendencies as they generally claim to explain the world around us, and sometimes beyond, in prescriptive and all-encompassing terms. Ideologies can claim to guide social and political movements, but, even then, only when attached to power. The Reformation had much more to do with politics and economics than Villa would like to admit. More importantly, it would have gone nowhere had it not had political backing.
3. The real revolution was not ushered by Hobbes, but by the industrial revolution. In contrast to Hobbes’ absolute sovereign, the industrial age, dependent on science and technology, opened the door to the autonomous individual, once again arbiter of his/her own destiny, knowledge and beliefs.
4. On a minor point, Villa fantasises about a secular America, where disagreements over abortion, prayer and bioethics are settled within the bounds of the Constitution. Yet, fundamentalist religious ideology, in the United States, is very much encroaching on political rhetoric trampling upon individual autonomy and rights. Sadly, this is starting to happen in Europe as well. It would be wiser to give more credit to liberal religion, rather than running scared of religion per se. Liberal religion, influenced by liberal philosophy and liberal politics, provides theological ground to liberal interpretations of the texts. Fundamentalist religion, by contrast, provides literalist interpretations moulded by reactionary politics and philosophy.
5. Finally, why on earth does he go on and on about God as a ‘He’?

Lawrence killer in Italy? Why not?

It is because I take murder very seriously that I find utterly disgraceful the recent tabloids’ hysteria and the government’s jumping on the ‘Lawrence killer’ bandwagon. Learco Chindamo is now 26, he was 15 when he was jailed for life for killing Philip Lawrence back in 1995. He moved to the UK when he was 5, he has no links to Italy whatsoever. When he was arrested, he didn’t even know how to spell his address, never mind speak Italian. Nevertheless, the tabloids want him extradited to Italy. No surprises there. If Chindamo does indeed pose a threat, he should not be released. End of the story, but this is not what the hysteria is about. The tabloids, the police and the government are not saying that he should not be released; they are saying that he should be sent to Italy.
Leaving aside the legal practicalities, if I were representing the Italian government, I would call the tabloids & UK government’s bluff. Chindamo is no longer illiterate, while guest at H.M. prisons, kindly paid by the taxpayer, he passed GCSEs and he’s now deemed a ‘reformed character’ and therefore ready to be released. The Italian authorities could sponsor him to learn Italian while living and working in Italy, thus contributing towards Italian society and Italian taxes. Can anyone now see how ridiculous this hysteria is?
As an Italian in Britain, I often find distasteful how the media pander to xenophobia. I’ve experienced xenophobia, although mostly veiled; but I’ve also lived in this country for nearly 10 years, contributing to its economy and political life. When I was running for elections in 2004, people greeted me and were happy that I was working hard for them. They didn’t care about my nationality. By pandering to fears and treating foreigners as a threat, the Labour government is showing that is afraid of taking its citizens seriously.

The Century of the Self

I watched the documentary The Century of the Self by Adam Curtis the other day. It’s fascinating, yet Adam Curtis treats human beings as those irrational beings whose minds Edward Bernays wanted to control. In summary, Bernays invented advertising by using his uncle Freud’s ideas about the unconscious. He associated products with desires and got everybody hooked on consumerism. After Nazi Germany, Bernays thought necessary, in order to maintain democracy, that the masses had to be manipulated. Satisfying their desires would have kept their irrational unconscious forces at bay. The equation: consumerism = democracy, was soon advocated by many. In the 1960s, the idea was challenged and psychotherapy was advocating the expression of the inner self. Needless to say that ‘power’ exploited this celebration of the self by tailoring advertising to the ‘Me Generation’. In the final episode, the documentary applies the theory to politics seen more as a victim of the ‘me me me’ mantra trying to give people what they wanted through spin and polls. Curtis seems to think that politics by applying psychology has stopped being about rational debate and has regressed to emotions.
It’s a long documentary so I’ll make only few comments.

1. Adam Curtis’ paranoia: there is no place for complexity and contradictions. There are the good people like Roosevelt who fought against the unrestrained capitalism of the market and the conspirators (= big business, CIA, Bernays, Anna Freud?) who want to control people’s minds, albeit to ensure the preservation of democracy. Err, businesses just wanted to sell more cars!
2. Irrational unconscious desires: only sex, money and power figure as unconscious desires. Leaving aside the definition of unconscious (vs. subconscious and so on), whatever happened to the desire for justice, love and respect? Too noble to be seen as emotions? This twisted idea that human ‘rationality’ is superior to our ‘irrationality’, i.e. feelings, is reminiscent of misogynistic Greek thought. It’s never clear what this phantom rationality is (being able to do sums?) and feels rather reductionist and materialistic.
3. Politics: Curtis seems to regret the fact that politicians have sold their souls to the devil (psychology & spin presumably) and have abandoned rational debate. Once more he implies that emotions are bad and shouldn't be listened to. Whilst I agree that emotions run the risk of turning politics into demagoguery, politics is about ideas and about how you feel about them. There’s no equation to prove ideas’ ‘objectivity’. I believe that individual rights and freedoms are paramount because I’ve always had. Politics is about ideas, symbols (NHS, schools…), identity and many other things, not about what is more practical. In politics, you’re dealing with people’s lives. The practical details can be up for discussions (mostly among civil servants), but people vote for a vision, not a manual. Emotions might be difficult to handle but this is what human beings are made of. Managing expectations and people’s emotions is what makes politics challenging and rewarding.

Adam Curtis forgot that we can choose and we do choose. That’s why businesses had to change tactics and products to make them more personal, what we want rather than what is cheaper to produce. They are ahead. Government is starting to catch up now and move to personalised services because, guess what, people are complex and are not all the same!

The importance of being Nice

… why women are paid less.
Recent research has finally made official what we all knew already: that women asking for money are judged ‘less nice’ and are penalised. This has always been the case, in particular in the context of personal relationships. A common occurrence in divorce cases is the woman having spent her money on food, cleaning, petrol, house repairs and the man having bought the car, the house and all those things that actually stay and are not simply consumed. Another common occurrence, when the breadwinner is the woman, is that she supports her husband, pays for his university course, the mortgage (his share too) and then she gets a very heart-breaking and pocket-bursting goodbye. To do otherwise would have been ‘mean’, but now that she is saddled with the kids and the mortgage, she has no claim on him, who, in fact, can claim half of the house and, if without a job, money. Yep, I remember how common it was deemed in legal magazines.
Women are expected to be nice, not to make a fuss about their salary, their job, their life. I still don’t get why people are still so oblivious of their own sexism and double standards. I often hear people complaining about religious people for ‘thrusting it down your throat’. Really? When was the last time you were approached by a religious person who wanted to convert you? How many times do you come across religious adverts?
And how many times do you come across sexist adverts? Sexist jokes, comments and behaviour? Of course, to realise that one has been blind to injustice is a courageous step. It is much easier to follow society’s narrative without having a stake in shaping it. It is much easier to conform and perpetuate the same oppressive norms. It is much easier to believe that the women who demand respect are ‘less nice’. I have been penalised and I will be penalised, but at least I will have been Blunt & Disorderly with plenty of personality!

Boris 4 Mayor?

You know Boris Johnson is no longer cool when the Guardian is backing him!
Of course, Roy Hattersley's reason for backing Boris' nomination is that it'll be disastrous for the Tories. Nevertheless, it's a clear sign that Boris is no longer cool!

Religion - what is it all about?

There seem to be people out there attempting to counterbalance anti-religious polemic unfolding on bookstores and newpapers in (mainly) the UK and the US by providing sociological and anthropological interpretations. In ‘The sacred and the human’ in Prospect Magazine, Roger Scruton gives us the anthropological interpretation of religion, while Peter Thompson goes the Ernst Bloch way in the Guardian's Face to Faith. It takes all sorts!
For Thompson, religious belief is the response to humanity's existential sense of loss and need for 'home'. Citing Bloch, Thompson states that

"what drives us forward is the paradoxical desire to find our way back to somewhere we have never been: home."

However, most ideologies serve this purpose. This interpretation does not shed any light on the continuous appeal of religion and the difference between religious faith and secular ideologies.
Scruton writes a long essay on Girard, but he seems to think that religious scriptures were understood literally until Voltaire & Co. came along to enlighten us. Quite the opposite, in fact. Scriptures start to be taken literally in the XIX century with fundamentalist movements reacting against modern science. Before that, ‘God’s word’ was always deemed as in need of exegesis precisely because it was taken as 'the word of God'. In this sense, religious ‘doctrine’ is about the meaning of creation not creation as a historical event.
Anthropology of religion plays an important role in aiding our understanding of culture and humanity’s understanding of itself. However, both sociology and anthropology of religion, have been at the forefront of the current reductionist view of religion, which sees religion, at best, as an attempt to make sense of the world, and, at worst, as a delusion. Contrary to what Scruton and Thompson suggest, religion is most definitely about God. Religious faith and theology point to the infinite and to the absolute truth. It is the human attempt to go beyond culture, society and physical reality in order to find the universal and transcendent in our being. By declaring human beings as participating in God’s infinity, religious belief transcends mortality. Perhaps this is what anti-religious polemicists find so annoying: the ability to think ourselves beyond our physical reality.

Circumcision - what's your view?

The FT magazine today carries an article on the potential health benefits of circumcision. The author stays clear from taking a side in this rather controversial topic. I won’t comment on the religious meaning of it, partly because I believe that most religious practices are vested with religious meaning once they have become customary for whatever reason (political, sanitary, social …). Circumcision, dietary laws, dress (of whatever religion) were not ‘invented’ by a religion, rather they were employed by the religious authorities/community and have thus received spiritual meaning. This does not mean that I consider them devoid of religious meaning or value. I just think that it’s up to you! And I won’t state where I stand personally (and theologically) because I’m not that sure and as I’m female I don’t need to worry!
There are Jews and Muslims, though, who would advocate circumcision on hygienic grounds rather than religious grounds. I believe this is an apologetic stance aimed at rationalising something that touches one’s emotions deeply. So what’s the evidence?

"In March, the World Health Organisation and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/Aids (UNAids) urged countries to consider implementing circumcision programmes to combat Aids. The scientific basis for that statement was the combined evidence from three substantial clinical trials conducted in Africa that compared the rate with which circumcised and uncircumcised heterosexual men contracted HIV. The studies – one in South Africa, another in Kenya and a third in Uganda – showed that men who had been circumcised had a roughly 60 per cent lower risk of becoming HIV positive than their uncircumcised counterparts."

Sounds good, doesn’t it? Well, yes, but as Tim Hargreave, a urologist from Edinburgh, who has written the WHO/UNAids manual on performing circumcisions, explains in the article:

“In countries with high prevalence of HIV, cost-benefit analyses would suggest circumcising this group is the most cost-effective thing that can be done.”

What about Western countries?

"Most mainstream medical societies’ positions on the practice broadly agree: in the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and elsewhere, the relevant bodies say that, for the most part, there is no good clinical reason to subject infants to it. “There is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision,” the Royal Australasian College of Physicians says, although it adds that circumcision significantly reduces the risk of urinary tract infections (which affect fewer than 2 per cent of boys) and penile cancer, which affects one in 100,000 men in developed countries. Balanced against a complication rate from circumcision of up to 5 per cent, the Australian doctors say, it just isn’t worth it."

Percentages aside, what is interesting is that there are very strong views on both sides. It is also interesting to note, as the article mentions, that the prudish Victorians were quite keen on circumcision as they turned against the foreskin with vengeance and blame it "for everything from syphilis to masturbation and bed-wetting."
In my view, in the context of a contemporary Western liberal democracy, circumcision has very little to do with health and very much to do with religion and sexuality, gender and identity. But I'd like to hear your view.
That aside, it seems rather obvious to me that better hygiene, starting from the regular use of the bidet, is essential. I wonder whether there’ll ever be a study establishing the percentage of risk as a result of poor hygiene. In the meantime, wash your bits!

Who’s afraid of Europe? The Ryanair revolution

The UK government’s pusillanimous approach to the European constitution (or Reform treaty?) is annoying both pro- and anti-Europeans. Pro-Europeans are mystified by the timidity, when not antipathy, in embracing the liberal democratic values enshrined in the charter of fundamental rights, which are already part of British law and tradition. Anti-Europeans regard the absence of ratification through a referendum as an affront to British democratic sovereignty.
A treaty is generally a document that requires specific legal knowledge. Parliament ought to be given the opportunity to ratify clause by clause any treaty, but I find that a referendum on the new treaty would be like asking people to express their opinions on the constitutional set up of the UK including devolution, the monarchy, House of Lords, House of Commons and the courts. It's a bit like having a referendum on land taxation. It’s that sort of thing. I'm not opposed to a referendum but I think we should have one on European principles and priorities (such as terrorism, climate change etc.)
Of course, the government (any British government that is) is too afraid to take any Euro stuff to the people. Misgivings about the European project have been a traditional feature of British politics, but are they still justifiable?
Undoubtedly, there will always be a number of people who are suspicious of Europe and want the UK government to keep as far away as possible from European institutions. They are those who have buried their heads in the sand and fail to understand a deeply interconnected world where to keep outside means letting others decide for you. For the past 50 years, politicians and the media have been playing the ‘European game’, where Europe is seen as either an unpalatable but necessary tool or the bogey man.
What is doubtful is the general population’s feeling about it. The game is over. People want their politicians to be the main players, not the poodles. They rightly question why governments can’t find agreement on themes that affect the whole of Europe and that don't stop at a country's border, such as terrorism and organised crime (including trafficking of people, arms and drugs), environment, migration, and health and safety standards of food. They are no longer afraid of Europe. I like thinking of it as the Ryanair revolution. Low-cost flying has forever changed the way Europeans (including Britons) think of Europe and themselves. It might not be environmentally friendly (I myself would prefer travelling by train and hopefully this will happen soon), but easy access between European countries has been exceptionally valuable. There are people commuting across countries, including the UK, every week or sometimes even more frequently. All of a sudden, a holiday or even a short break abroad has become affordable. People have discovered new tastes and places. They enjoy the food, the wine, the sitting outside in cafés and want a slice of that at home. I’ve lived in Britain for nearly ten years and I can assure you that life has changed and, at least in some small part, Ryanair and all the other low-cost airlines have played a role. Easy communication has unleashed a thirst for a different approach to life as a whole. It’s about Britain finding its place in Europe instead of looking always across the pond of the Atlantic. It’s about a Europe with soft power but a strong identity. A referendum on principles and priorities, such as the charter of fundamental rights, would give a face to Europe. Citizens would have the opportunity to decide what Europe is really about. It should be about individual citizens whose rights come before the so called ‘national interest’, a euphemism for what is good for some in the business community. It should be about our rights and freedoms that cannot be violated by any government including our own. It is about us participating in making democracy work instead of being the end receivers of politicians who tinker at the edges due to lack of vision. The people of Europe are ready, why aren’t the politicians?

Faith, religion and violence to language

Here we go again. Here is yet another in a seemingly endless string of 'authors' taking advantage of the public's renewed interest in religion to sell books.
Christopher Brookmyre rightly observes that “belief in spite of an absence of proof or even in the face of compelling contrary evidence … needs not merely to be challenged, but to be given the full point-and-laugh treatment”. He will thus be pleased that his faithful claim that “no belief in the afterlife equals no suicide bombers” qualifies for such treatment. Mr Brookmyre strangely connects spiritualism with religious faith to discredit the whole of religious faith.
Belief in the afterlife does not imply belief in the possibility of communicating with the other side. That is why spiritualism and magic have been systematically condemned by main religions since biblical times. On the contrary, one does not need to be religious to believe in an afterlife or magic.
More worryingly, Mr Brookmyre seems to ignore the meaning of the words he so clumsily employs. First of all, faith and belief are not necessarily confined to the realm of the transcendent. As such, faith in matters related to the physical world, such as mid-nineteenth century’s biological beliefs about race, can be subject of scientific inquiry and, when disproved, it should indeed be rejected.
Physical laws, by contrast, cannot be applied to mysticism. However, depending on the discipline, different forms of evidence can be applied in order to establish the veracity or likelihood of a thesis, such as documentary and testimony evidence in legal cases.
Finally, it is not clear how Mr Brookmyre puts forward his argument that faith in the afterlife leads to suicide bombing. If this was the case, our streets would be crowded with suicidal murderers of all sorts. Like Jenni Russell before him, he confuses beliefs (presumably the Trinity, afterlife etc.) with ethics, which is the philosophy of morality.
What most of us find abhorrent is not the suicide bombers’ belief in heaven, rather it is their unethical disregard for life. It is with concern, however, that one notices yet another savage attack, not so much on religion, to which we have become accustomed in these troubled times, rather on language. I believe there is now abundant evidence to support the use of a dictionary before any more innocent ink is spilled.