Ways to attribute causation and blame

‘Islam’ and ‘The West’ are questionable rubrics that in popular discourse have particular meanings and connotations. I want to take a look at how these seemingly diametrically opposed forces meet in possibility and actuality.

Islam is a world religion, roughly a fifth of people living identify with it. It is like any other religion, it is embodied in more than one way, that’s to say it looks and acts differently depending on where and when, different shades of the same colour on a palette you could say. This is an obvious but necessary point considering that repeated narrative of Islam’s one-dimensional nature.

The West is easier to definitely negatively, it is not a geographical area, after all Australia and Austria are nowhere near each other, nor does a language define it, I mean Portuguese and Danish don’t share much in common linguistically, perhaps the link is elsewhere. What has the power to relate people beyond immediate words in such a dramatic way? Religion seems to be the force.

The West is broadly speaking, Christian, it has different languages and more than a few ethnic groups, it  underwent a process of secularization which has changed different countries to varying degrees, so France is secular in a different way to how Portugal is secular. Most Muslim Majority Countries are Secular in the political sense yet different still because the Enlightenment was an activity restricted to a relatively small area of the world, to pockets of Western Europe, its ideas percolating over time through those societies in different ways.

The West has a Christian heritage, this is the underlying relation that is at the root, (often unconsciously) of this modern discourse of ‘The West’ as I see it. This discourse is often the basis of identity politics, a type of politics that often sadly reduces the world to a polarised story of us the good, us the hero, us the victim, and them, the ‘others’, the ‘savages’, the perpetrators. This is an inescapable aspect of identity politics of which ‘Islam’, as a civilisation plays in the same way, nor is it confined to ‘The West & ‘Islam’, it is a matter of identity, a feature throughout history.

Where is the meeting of the Monotheisms you ask? After all I have described two worlds that would seem to be separate…there is a separation but there are always  meeting points, even 1000 years ago there was a bridge between Aquinas & Avicenna via the former’s scholastic mentor. Very few civilisations maintain lives apart from the world beyond them. The question is to what extent? After all we are now seeing through globalization the deliberate dilution of national identities across the world. We ought not imagine however that in ages past there was no interaction between cultures. Scholarship has shown that whether through trade routes, through philosophy, through migration, there has always been a link between Christendom and its younger cousin, the Islamic world.

This is excluding all the untold stories that scholarship can  perhaps never document, the only prospect that I find disconcerting is the loss of identity within both worlds, the commercialisation and post-modern process of a world of diverse groups living the same lives as consumers with the same goals and same importance and same truths….a world blind to nuance, without the wisdom to appreciate difference while distinguishing it.

The prospect of identity loss, loss of heritage and a watering down of human identity into a world of brightly lit consumerism and shallow selfish individualism is a prospect that should worry people, rather than reaching for convenient words like Islam and The West by which we attribute all sorts of phenomena.

Amidst flux and impermanence

Amid the flux and impermanence of the commercialised, globalised metropolis,

the urgent challenge is to find soil in which one can be rooted,

the stability of being rooted or grounded in an erratic aesthetically, materially and symbolically unstable environment in which one faces a constant barrage of persuasive if not pervasive gestures and proposals which are designed in some way to appeal to our instincts of fear, hunger, identity & desire.

The task at hand is to seek out the means by which one can ground oneself, root oneself and ultimately guard the fragile human mind whose unconscious and vast depths are troubled, tempted and torn asunder in ways no campesino, no fellah, no farmer tolerate as their aching, sweating bodies endure a cycle of tasks the mind can meet whether on windy slopes or in midday heat!

Bitterness, one of its forms

Bitterness, and the sweeping generalisations that spring forth from it can be understood as an unconscious response rooted in a person’s particular traumatic experience and a broader sense of powerlessness in life. The language of polarisation, of ‘us’ and ‘them’ is in reality a pitiful, inarticulate mode of convenient passive aggression. Still this means of channeling bitterness, this sense of inertia/impotence reveals something more profound about the human condition, fundamentally it reflects unconsciousness.

That is to say a soul that has never truly questioned itself, a person who makes a home in their sufferings and powerlessness, who is consoled by their condition, they cannot abstain from crushing others with their tongues, from killing the beautiful complexity of life which will always defy their categorisations, their essentialisations which they make in one fell swoop.

They are yet to actually engage in self-reflection, they have never become a question to themselves, merely existing…not yet born. One is truly born and (hence truly alive or conscious) in self-reflection, when one can properly refer to oneself, maturely, one’s actions, one’s past, one’s course in life, only then can you truly refer to others, and empathise with their unique, divergent experiences, without this we will are relegated to a bestial, cold mode of reference.