Re: Islamic Militancy: It is their problem

There is much to agree and disagree with in recent posts by Samman and Ray.  
First disagreements--I don't think people revolt because of injustice.  This 
conclusion is usually arrived at by 'sampling on the dependent variable', i.e. 
looking at those who revolt and what injustices they face.  Human history is 
unfortunately filled with many more examples of people facing injustice and not 
revolting.  Barrington Moore made this point quite well.  I think the opposite 
is also true.  In other words, its relatively privileged people who tend to 
struggle.  This issue gets muddled because people tend to focus on the most 
dramatic forms of struggle, i.e. the ones that generate a terrible response 
from repressive apparatuses.  If we look at the totality of ways of trying to 
change the social world--lobbying those in power, voting, writing, attending 
protests, joining organizations etc you'll generally find the more privileged 
members of society doing more.  The composition of those who engage in 
insurrection, armed struggle etc is somewhat different, but who would adopt 
these tactics if their goals could be met by voting etc?  Even so, I don't 
think there is much evidence that the places that generate the most intense 
armed struggles are automatically the most oppressed in the world, or that it 
is the most oppressed who provide the people for such organizations.  Its worth 
noting that women's movements for change are a relatively recent phenomenon in 
worl
d history, although women tend to have more injustice done to them than men, 
practically everywhere.  Its also worth noting the relative quiet of the 
Afghani population (people facing injustice if there was such a group)--they 
aren't the ones who are at the center of Al-Quaeda (arguably a revolt against 
the existing world system) nor do they seem to be doing much about their local 
oppressors, the Taliban.  Being terrified of the consequences of rebelling 
often inspires passivity, not action. Accepting that it's relatively privileged 
people who protest means not having to get all defensive if Israelis point out 
that there are more educated Palestinians today than there were in 1970, or 
when embittered orthodox Marxist types (not all Marxists!) go on about how its 
relatively privileged women who have generally lead feminist movements.
    Rebellions usually occur when it appears things have taken a turn for the 
worse, when injustice appears to have increased (Moore), it also helps a lot if 
means to struggle--spaces to talk to and organize the oppressed, discourses 
that help make sense of their condition, divisions among the powerful--are 
present.
It matters a lot what discourses are employed to make sense of the situation.  
Marxism, Ghandism, Islamism (the ism is to identify the political movement, not 
the religion in general) offer different insights into what a better world 
would look like, what tactics will be most effective in attaining that world, 
etc.  Nobody sees the world simply as it is--we all see things through frames 
that illuminate somethings while obscuring others.  So the presence or absence 
of particular discourses matters.

It may be true that one says different things to different audiences.  But this 
has its dangers.  People who oversimplify things confuse people.  Look at 
Rigoberta Menchu, who played into people's stereotypes about the most oppressed 
rebelling, rather than illuminating how the combination of her ethnic 
background (an extremely oppressed group) and her education (relative 
privilege) facilitated her activism.  As Boris pointed out, toeing the 
Islam-is-a-peaceful-religion line makes it difficult to talk about why people 
are rebelling in its name.  People start to believe the oversimplifications 
they tell people.  I don't think this problem has an easy resolution.

I agree that the Wallersteinian system is often formulated too rigidly, but 
there are dangers in moving in the other direction as well.  Systems are 
present when things keep behaving in a predictable manner.  Hopefully I will 
breathe throughout the day and night, because my breathing system is working.  
There are impressive elements of the modern world system that are quite 
predictable.  The core has maintained itself with only moderate additions for 
five hundred years.   I don't think it necessarilly helps to claim its all just 
fragments.  I do think that modern world system runs up against many more 
obstacles than Wallerstein indicates, that it has to adapt itself and 
compromise, and that, following Arrighi, it completely breaks down from time to 
time.

I agree that the rise of Islamism is in part a response to the collapse of the 
modernist divide of public and private (or, to put it another way, the collapse 
of the nation-state project).  It is certainly not the only response, and to 
understand differences, we need to look at long historical patterns that affect 
what people can draw on to respond to this crisis.

Finally, I wouldn't hold my breathe waiting for Israel to 'join the 
barbarians'.  There aren't many Israelis who are excited by this idea, and 
frankly, I don't see a welcoming hand coming from the barbarians either.  I 
think a decent neighborly relation between the barbarians and the 'fifty first 
state' would be a big improvement, and is actually achievable.

Steven Sherman