Fighting extremism

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

Remotely related to the monthly topic, comes this TED Talk lecture by Maajid Nawaz. Here he discusses the question about the root causes for extremism. His point is that, no matter if we are talking about far-right or religious extremist organisations (Islamist, or otherwise), there are some complex reasons why they have so much success in the conditions of a globalised world, compared to the moderate majority who embrace democratic values and who, unfortunately, are falling far behind.

[Error: unknown template video]

The four main reasons that he lists are these.

1. Complacency.
2. Political correctness.
3. Political and economic failure.
4. Ideology of resistance.

This guy's insights on the matter are particularly valuable, as he himself is a self-admitted former Islamic extremist. For more than a decade he was part of an extremist organisation, trying to overthrow governments in the Middle East. He ended up with a 5 year sentence which he served in an Egyptian jail.

He is telling the story about how the way people perceive themselves and identify themselves has changed over time. For example in the Middle Ages, people thought of themselves as being "from" some religious group, then in the 19th century with the ascent of the concept of the Nation State, people started talking about themselves as being "from" a nation or an ethnic group. And nowadays they are regarded as citizens "of" a country, despite their specific ethnicity or religious belonging.

Further on, he argues that individual identity is transcending the "citizen" and is entering the so-called "Age of behaviour", where people's ideas and stories that determine their allegiances and behavioural patterns are being re-defined. This is not always a good thing, because those who are benefiting the most from this tendency of social interaction without borders, are at present, the extremists. Meanwhile, the moderate majority has been lagging behind in their inability to formulate coherent ideology of their own, which they could put as a counter-balance to the rising extremism. In this sense he is digging much deeper into the root causes for extremism than most analysts tend to venture, while many are focusing on the symptoms and external manifestations of these extremist tendencies, rather than the very reason they are there.

One thing that far-right extremism and Islamic extremism have in common is the highly effective way they communicate regardless of country borders. They use all the tools of modern communication technology, they organise their actions and spread their narrative through the powerful medium of the Internet. In this sense, the globalisation of communication has benefited them greatly, and now they are not small, isolated groups on the fringe, but are moving more into the mainstream.

One important distinction that should be emphasised is that Islamist extremism and Islam as a religious system are two very different things. And also Islam-the-religion, and Islam as a political doctrine.

The reason why the values of democracy are lagging so badly behind extremism these days, he argues, is that the people who share the democratic values, have not yet come to grips with the conclusion that we live in the "Age of behaviour", and are failing in adapting to the new realities of a world dominated by trans-national social movements, as opposed to the entrenched partisan ideologies of the near past.

And lastly, he dissects these social movements of modern time, and describes four main components that they consist of: Ideas, Narratives, Symbols, and Leaders. If a group, or a society adhering to certain values and ideas, and pursuing a certain agenda, is lacking in any one of those four areas, it is doomed to failure, or at least to a major lag behind its counterparts and rivals. Which has been the case with the proponents for democracy.

Needless to say, I strongly recommend watching this lecture.

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I would note that in a region where party-states and military dictatorships have dominated for several decades that transition to democracy will not be pleasant and that it could easily be as violent as its counterpart in Europe, which lest we forget touched off two world wars that between them leveled the continent and paved the way for the rise of the United States. That's if we want them to be democratic like EU countries, if we are more rational than that then they might find democracy that is not a direct Xerox of Europe and be better-off for it.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

I liked the video, don't have anything to add, but if this had been a conservative talk how many people here would be pointing out the the audience looks 100% white and thus racist.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

I don't know if they would be pointing that out. And if by "how many people here" you are implying that there are only liberals here, I disagree.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

It certainly doesn't imply that at all, nor do I think that. But I remember it being pointed out about tea party events as evidence of how racist the tea party was.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

I see. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I don't know, I am not very familiar with the racial composition of the Tea Party movement. Is there some truth to that, what do you think?

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Tea party events were considered racist because they were spouting racial epithets. Some don't want a black man in office, a large portion don't want a Muslim in office and believe that Obama is a Muslim.

Tea Party wasn't called racist just for existing, it was from watching videos of their rallies and the things they literally say.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

That would fall under item 2, Political Correctness.

[lai-choi-san.livejournal.com]

Excellent analysis. However :

- the different ways people identify themselves over time pile up instead of cancelling each other out ;

- the title of the video is poorly chosen. Global culture is what creates extremism as a reaction.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

I suppose he means that there are many various cultures, the culture of extremism being one of them, and respectively the necessity for a counter-balancing culture of moderateness. Not "culture" in the more general sense of "civilisation", as opposed to barbarism.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

But the point of his talk is that we need a global culture to fight extremism.

[lai-choi-san.livejournal.com]

It's what I am afraid of. It's like a red rag to a bull. On the contrary, anti-extremism would be more efficient if it takes all sorts of shapes.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

This is an interesting point of view. It also calls the next question: why has Islam been so successful in its universalism and rejection of nationalism, while other religions have not? I am having mostly Christianity in mind.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Christianity has, it's just not considered as evil for Christians to ethnically cleanse regions of Muslims as the other way around.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The Balkans and Caucasus and Ireland called and say your analogy isn't worth jack shit.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Visually interesting makes talks less boring.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

I usually listen to it with earphones without even looking at the setting. It's just a lecture after all. =)

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Thanks for posting this here. I had watched it before when you posted and thought it would be good content for here.

One thing I think this guy is wrong on is this being new behavior. Think about the communist movement, heck think about democracy when it spread through europe and then the US and the US fought a war over it. Even before that, think Nationalism overturning the old monarchies. Think the Ottomans, think the crusades.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

I needed some time to think about it and whether it was worth putting it here.

You have a point, in a way each new "phase" of societal development that he is talking about looks like it includes all the previous stages in itself like a kit of Russian dolls. Every next stage is more inclusive, which means it is not very different from the previous ones, only it has become more globalised and universal. So I would agree that the "Age of behaviour" is not very different from the previous age of "citizenship", or the ones preceding it ("nationalism" and the others). It is more like many faces of the same thing, only more evolved. Which does not automatically mean "good".

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

That would be the communism with a lot of champions who predicted into 1990 its inevitable triumph over democracy and the democracy that ethnically cleansed and created artificial famines to do with that what it would?

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

sure, whatevs

People do not like democracy...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Lenin had an interesting observation on democracy giving people a choice of candidates none of which will represent their interests. The American experience is one of disappointment and corruption. It was either Emerson or Thoreau who pointed to the goal of educating a wise person as the solution to the problem of governance. The forces of property have taken this to heart and banned wisdom from the face of the land.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Yes, the US has not been the greatest advertisement for democracy laely.