Fwd: Is it a world-system ...?

seyedjavad

From: Kafkazli Seyyed

To: KALAM@LISTSERV.OMNI-LIST.COM

CC: Seyed Javad

Subject: Is it a world-system ...?

Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 10:06:09 -0400

I think a debate needs to be conducted within social theory in relation to

the so-called 'Fundamentalism'; if we are to understand the so-called

terrorism and its causes:

Abstract

Terrorist groups are called by this negative name due to their principal

refutation of the right of 'Violence'. In modern geo-political and

political discourse, the use of force is dependent on the notion of

'Legitimacy'. Whoever denies this right and the legitimate structure of this

violence- principle outside the national and international frame of legal

interpretation is stigmatized as a 'Terrorist'. And subsequently their act

is interpreted as an act of terrorism. This would mean that a terrorist

discourse is not even legitimated discursively. In other words, the right

to present and be discursively re-presented is removed from terrorist

groups. Since the end of colonization, mainstream social theory has been

working with concepts such as modernity, globalization, world-system, world

order, and global village. They are supposed to render the state of affairs

objectively or in neutral terms. Those who actively defied the logic of

colonialism and imperialism either within the sovereign states of Third

World or without, have been stigmatized as terrorists. In my view, the

current mode of theorizing does not render the anti-global (and what has

been called democratic mode of expressing your dissatisfaction) sentiments

and reasons in contexts beyond Western states. As a matter of fact, this is

a sign of modern Romanism, based on military order in the name of Civil

Order. However, the promised civil order is kept alive by keeping the

military practice beyond the imaginary borders of Civil Society. Here, in

this article, I argue that the modern world-system resembles a military

world-state rather than a civil world-system order.

Is it a World-System we live within or a Military World-State?

Introduction

The debate on 'World Order' which is at the heart of all discourses on

'Globalization' and 'Anti-Globalization' theories and practices suffer

collectively on a decisive point. For the sake of argument, I would like to

term it as 'Ultimate Means of Violence-

principle'. What do I mean by this principle would be unfolded along the

way of this debate.

Most of modern discourses on State, both internally and externally, would

like to convince the readers that the modern world system is functioning in

accordance to cooperation between its minimal member: the units called

nation-states.1 In this paradigm the state is internally coherent and

externally cooperative. However, there are states which are not internally

coherent due to their lack of 'Democracy' but these states should function

externally 'somehow'. This 'somehow-principle' is the area which has given

reasons to a variety of Muslim Activists who question the 'credibility' of

most governments in Muslim societies.2 The majority of these groups are

stigmatized as 'Terrorist Groups'. The reason for this stigmatization is due

to their violation of 'Ultimate Principle of Violation'. A principle that

in terms of international legal community is the sole property of an entity

called Leviathan.3 In other words, the ideology of modern legal system is

based on state as the 'Basic Unit' of modern World Order.Y

Here, in this article I am not concerned with the metaphysical aspect of

this legal principle and its actual operationalization within modern

world-system.4 On the contrary, the main point of this article is to assess

the ultimateness of this 'Ultimate Principle' and its feasibility.

Heretical movements within religious contexts always represent what the

orthodoxy cannot present due to its own dogmatism, which characterizes any

orthodox frame of religiosity. The same argument could be applied on modern

World-System and the mechanism used by its power structure in defending its

own way of organizing the systemic life. In this regard, one can mention

Terrorism and the Terrorist Groups. These so-called terrorist groups have

produced* a vast body of analytical knowledge which is of relevance in order

to understand the logic of World Order. Because what today one discursively

calls 'World Order' is not felt as an order in non-Western contexts. The

international legal formulation of the current affair in terms of 'Order'

does not render the facts of global affairs. It is not far-fetched to think

of this 'World Order-Ideology' as a continuation of 'European Civilizing

Mission' during 18th and 19th centuries.

If the problem seen from a non-modern view, then the arguments provided by

these non-modern activists and thinkers and the reasons they violate the

principles of World Order are worth reflecting over.

The Violation of the 'Ultimate Principle' by Islamists

Any political formation is sustained by some sense of 'gain' and desire for

'achievement'. However, the right of hegemony is not a matter of 'desire'

or 'wish'. On the contrary, as Laster C. Thurow rightly argues,5 the rules

of international market

are not written by those who are the underdogs in the global market. The

latter should just succumb and follow the game's rules. This is the matter

of (international trade) fact. But this fact like so many other facts

within human realm of understanding do not get interpreted the same by all

other involved parties.

One of these facts is the principle of violence and the right of its

ultimate use. The reasons why, say, Islamists violate the 'Ultimate

Principle' - firstly within these dependent units and then without these

dependent units- and why they are called 'Terrorists' are not hard to

analyze.

Before going any further, I would like to make an assertion that this

analysis per se is not my concern. On the contrary, I am interested in

Islamism in relation to a wider social theoretical problem within human

sciences called by Jeffrey C. Alexander as 'Classics', 'Centrality of

Classics' and 'Centrality of Classics within Human Sciences'.6

The classics had a political vision that was based on their analysis of

Western state of affairs. That reality perceived by these classical

thinkers was not the reality as such. Because a comparative study of

political aspect of Ottoman Empire and Persian Empire do reveal another

state of affairs. The mainstream Orientalist scholarship is focused to

trace the origins of 'modernity-consciousness' in these empires. This mode

of scholarship is not totally wrong but does not reveal the reasons behind

the Islamist Terrorism. On the contrary, it presents the problem as a

reaction to 'Colonialism', 'Westernism', or 'Modernity'. These are part of

the explanation but they do not say anything about Islamism or Terrorism in

Muslim countries. What, in

my view, is lacking in these kind of explanations is the very idea of

'vision'. In other words, the orientalist scholarship is not concerned with

the substantive role played by 'vision' among religious thinkers. Islamism

is not just a reaction to Western expansionism which, could be explained by

reference to nationalism a la Gellner.7 On the contrary, it is related to

the realm of Weltanschauung and what kind of 'Leben' is desired

collectively.

Most debates on modern world system or the capitalistic system take the mode

of production as their point of departure, which is not incorrect but

insufficient. Because as 'Men' are not all the same individually, their

collective being cannot be imagined be the same all over the world. What

man produces is produced for a reason. If some men or some units of

individual (called society, or nation-state) produce for the sake of

production, that says something about their unique vision or want of the

vision. This aspect which I prefer to call the existential dimension is not

an epiphenomenon in relation to Islamism. This dimension is a recurrent

aspect of religious thought which, has not left but a deep imprint on

political aspect of Islamism. It is not land, blood, or economic hegemony

which, informs and forms Islamism. These could be part of their

in-formation process but the constitutive element should be sought somewhere

else than usually sought.

Prior to the collapse of Soviet Union, among both Western and Eastern - and

those who followed their respective paradigms in the Restern World-

intellectuals talked about 'Socialist System' and 'Capitalist System'. The

mainstream social thought is informed by the sum of the arguments put

forward by the intellectuals of either camp.

The question is; could one imagine an independent body of socio-political

thought (based on non-secular ontology and informed by a non-dualistic

epistemology) beyond Left and Right? A body of thought that is a)

authentic, b) substantially coherent, c) existentially relevant, d)

rationally feasible, and e) emotionally humane? Is such a body of thought a

fact or a fiction? Because what makes a fact distinguished from a fiction

is to have a history based in man's existentially felt and lived life.

Muslim intellectuals belonged to a group of thinkers who did not share the

modern ontology of Liberal thinkers but did not rely on socialist

Weltanschauung either. As a matter of fact, they dedicated their entire

intellectual life in defying then current mode of thoughts and attempted to

expose the deficiencies of the logic of modernity in either form (Capitalism

or Socialism).

In terms of geo-politics, Muslim Religious Thinkers argued that the

principle of violation could be sustained where the integrity of Muslim Umma

is not endangered. Looking at the geo-political reality of 'Umma', one could

hardly see any Umma. The sum of their argument could be termed as

following:

Muslim Umma is torn apart in Socialist Block by Soviet Union. The

occupation of

Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbayjan,

Daghistan, Chechnya, Tataristan, and etc. into a Socialist Block annihilated

the idea of a political Umma. The other parts which, went through

Colonialism and de-Colonization did not have any better fate in terms of

Umma-realization. On the contrary, they came out of these struggles as

'states' independent from each other.

Each got connected to the mechanism of New World Order with different pace

and at different conjunction. In other words, the idea of 'Legitimacy' was

gone forever because the notion of 'vision' was not presented in its Ummatic

form and content. Because their respective government defined themselves in

relation to a reality that did not render the existential dimension of

Muslim Umma comprehensible. That would mean that the right of ultimate use

of violence could not be assigned to the state.

In other words, various groups challenged the authority of their governments

based on the following logic:

Even one reluctantly agrees to the post-1945 World Order and the

'sovereignty' of each state among the league of states, then this principle

should be respected universally. But the Super Powers did not follow the

very logic they had set before the 'colonized' and 'de-colonized' (emerging

Third World) countries. Either, this sovereignty principle is a tale or is

an inviolable principle.

These two above-mentioned summaries are in one way or the other the latent

logic behind the Islamist anti-state activities.

However, Islamists violated this principle within the territories of

de-colonized states, they were stigmatized as 'Terrorists'. The mechanism

of this stigmatization did not follow any legal or rational procedure but it

depended on ad hoc interpretation. After the collapse of Soviet Union and

the emergence of United States to global military supremacy, the nature of

this 'logic of violation' did turn and usher into a new era.

The invasion of Kuwait is a seminal example in this regard. When Kuwait was

invaded, what the world of media represented as an 'international' reaction

was in actual (and in terms of resources) terms the reaction of few Core

States and their military industries. In other words, the system is not as

impersonal as most current macro-geo-socio-political theorists want us to

believe. In their account, the geo-political world is best seen in terms of

impersonal economic motions.�

If it is agreed that the World Order is an order imposed by few strong

military states (which happened coincidentally be the same as the

ex-colonial powers) on world various affairs, then those who question the

'Principle of Ultimate Means of Violation' and thence the logic of current

capitalism cannot be ruled out as 'Terrorists'. My argument is that their

critique is reasonable and it should be assessed within the discourse of

modern social thought. There are many historical instances that show how

insufficient the act of stigmatization is.

During the anti-Colonial movement in Algeria, those who defied the French

sovereignty principle were all accused of being 'Terrorists'. But what

Algerian resistance fighters revealed - both in theory (see Frantz Fanon)

and practice- were a closer account of state of affairs than mainstream

political analysts did at La Monde.

The Military Presence of NATO and the World Order

Here and there, one hears about the presence of military presence of NATO in

the Middle East. As a matter of fact, the stability of the region has been

neatly connected to the military presence of Western Powers. This fact is

not a new discovery in geo-political discourses. On the contrary, it is a

statement of Realpolitik in the region. However, what I think it is not

very clearly stated is the connection of this military presence and the very

ideas of a) sovereignty, b) global civil society and c) world system. My

argument is that these military presence and interval operations are not

coincidental incidents. They, in my view, represent deeper issues about the

substantial nature of this modern world (dis-)order and how its resource

distributive mechanism functions.

The military presence of NATO - which literally means America and its

Western Allies- in the Middle East cannot be explained away as peripheral

issues. On the contrary, it requires a rigorous reversal of organizing

concepts within social science theories, which uncritically follow the

'Realpolitik' as their guiding principle. By so doing, they unwittingly

become " � in the service of the government" and distancing from the

realities which they were supposed to reflect in the first place.

In my view, the world is not just a system but a State-Military-System.

This fact could shed some light on the global phenomenon of 'Terrorism'.

Because if this label is expelled and the true mechanism (and theoretical

discourses presented by such

groups) of Terrorist Groups assessed as a legitimate way of describing the

anti-World Order sentiments - then the social science discourse would

include a deeper meaning of pluralism. Because they are violating what has

been violated in years by modern organized units, called

nation-state-system. The examples are plenty and the official logic behind

these various instances is countless: Vietnam, Algeria, Chile, Afghanistan,

South Africa, Iraq, Iran, and etc.

Conclusion

If my arguments are sound and correct, then one could easily discern a

continuing line between men like Amir Kabir (the prime minister during Qajar

era in Persia) - who understood modernity as an advancement of militarism -

and people like Sheykh Shamil, Afghani, Iqbal, Abdu, Qutb, Al-Banna, and

Shariati on the other hand - who spoke of a modern Muslim community

independent of Western ideology.

In other words, the body of knowledge produced by these thinkers cannot be

excluded from mainstream social science on the premises of terrorism.

Because this practice would lead the field in the hands of few esoteric

oriented specialists in 'Terrorist Studies'. This calls, in my opinion,

into revision the conception of the global world in neutral terms such as

World-System or Global Village. Because these concepts serve those states

whose military powers are active beyond their respective 'Sovereign

Territories'. Their military presence is not an accident or by-product of

the modern world-system but actually the main generator and sustainer of

this system.

In the forthcoming article I would like to look at 'violence' and the idea

of 'classicality'. Because the mainstream social science excluded other

discourses due to the assumed violent character of some other discourses

which resulted in their total exclusion from the classical frame of

theorizing. It seems there is a close connection between the political

formulation of 'democracy' (the use of force and violence by the legitimated

Leviathan) and classicality within social science discourses. This aspect

would be discussed in the next article.

Footnotes:

Y. For a rather old version of World Order's historiography see: Toynbee

Arnold J.: Britain and the modern world order by Arnold J. Toynbee and J.L.

Hammond. [S.l.] BBC 1932. 48 p. Broadcast talk pamphlets.

* It is of importance to note that they were not named by this epithet from

the inception, as Mafia was not equivalent to 'Mobster'. It is interesting

to note that 'The Mafia' (from Arabic mahyah bragging) was an oppositional

organization against tyranny in Sicily. In other words, what today one

calls Islamic Terrorism was not called terrorism yester-day due to different

geo-political conditions.

� For instance, one can mention these following works: Theories of

international relations Scott Burchill ... [et al.]. 2nd ed. Basingstoke

Palgrave 2001.; Formal theories in international relations Michael

Nicholson. Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1989. Cambridge studies in

international relations 3.

ENDNOTE:

1 States and Societies. Edited by David Held et al. Basil Blacwell in

association with The Open University. 1990. See in particular the

introduction by David Held, pp. 1-64.; The sociology of the state. Bertrand

Badie, Pierre Birnbaum translated by Arthur

Goldhammer. Chicago London University of Chicago Press c1983.; The

development of the modern state a sociological introduction Gianfranco

Poggi. London Hutchinson 1978.; The image, the state and international

relations proceedings from the conference on 24 June 1999 at the London

School of Economics and Political Science selected papers edited by Alan

Chong and Jana Valencic. London European Foreign Policy Unit, LSE 2001.

EFPU working papers; no.2001/2.

2 For a modern classical example one can mention social thinkers such as Ali

Shariati (d.1977), Sayyid Qutb (d.1966), and Hassan Al-Banna (d.1949)

3 Hobbes Thomas. Leviathan: authoritative text, backgrounds,

interpretations. Edited by Richard E. Flathman, David Johnston. New York:

W.W. Norton & Company. 1997.

4 Arend Anthony C. International Law and the Use of Force: Beyond the UN

Charter Paradigm. London: Routledge, 1993.; Schachter Oscar. International

Law in Theory and Practice. Dordrecht, London: Nijhoff, 1991.

5 Thurow C. Lester. Head to head: The coming economic battle among Japan,

Europe, and America. London: Nicholas Brealey, 1993.

6 Alexander C. Jeffrey. Structure and Meaning: Relinking Classical

Sociology. Columbia University Press: New York. 1989; and the same author in

'The Centrality of the Classics' in Social Theory and Sociology: The

Classics and Beyond. Edited by Stephen P. Turner. Blacwell Publishers. 1996.

7 Gellner Ernest. Nations and Nationalism. Oxford: Basil Blacwell, 1983.