seyedjavadFrom: 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.