Subject: HAB: Re: Re: Modernity vs. Premodernity (& auto-pro-anti-hegemonism)
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 12:12:31 -0800



----- Original Message -----
From: Thomas McDonald <mcdonald928-AT-yahoo.com>
To: <habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 7:19 AM
Subject: HAB: Re: Modernity vs. Premodernity (& auto-pro-anti-hegemonism)

> Islam as a culture has not met successfully with the pluralism of
> modernity (a necessity for global peace). This is similar to the case
> of Nazi Germany.

Thomas,

You evidently don't know much about the history of Islam. I'm not an Islamic
scholar, and perhaps, I hope, someone on the list can discuss this further,
but there are countless trends and countertrends within the pluralism of
Islam: peace-making, the celebration of diversity, consensus-building, and
so on. This gets about as much press as the ongoing anti-nuclear activism of
the Quakers. The fact is, the typical 'western' attitude would rather Islam
be a culture that "has not met successfully with the pluralism of
modernity." This says nothing about Islam's encounter with modernity, it is
an ideological hailing. To draw an analogy, the accusation by evangelical
Christians that all queer people are promiscuous says more about what
evangelical Christianity wants queer people to be than about the actual
sexual practices of queer people (for a sampling of 'western' attitudes
toward the east - see Alain Grosrichard, The Sultan's Court). In talking
with several Islamic scholars I was struck by some of the traditions of
consensus-building that are predominant - one person in particular argued
for the near complete congruency of Habermas's thought and certain thematic
elements of Islam (post-conventional etc.). This remains to be developed (I
did do some research on this but my unfamiliarity with the material left me
without conclusions). To the best of my knowledge, there has been more of a
confrontation with French thought and Islamic philosophy than German thought
(Derrida, Foucault, Kristeva).

Re. Ralph's thoughts that religion is a pox. Well, even if this is the case,
I don't think such a monolithic claim can be defended; this position is
simply unrealistic. Religion is a strange animal, and it takes on a
diversity of forms, dogmas, myths, and shapes. Ritual and traditions often
keep communities together which is often *self-understood* as 'regression in
the service of the ego.' I'm thinking of philosophers like Richard
Rubenstein and Emil Fackenheim, but also Charles Davis and others. One can
adopt rituals as a means of mending and coping, and at the same time remain
critical of the cementing of attitudes. The Frankfurt School had little
place for consolation in their work, but at least Marcuse and Adorno were
ambivalent. Sure, this critical self-understanding might not be common, but
it is around. On an everyday level, we often adopt ritualized behaviour as a
means of getting through the day; coffee in the morning, TV breaks, video
games, and, yikes! - even book shopping, and so on. While this might not
exactly be considered 'religious' there is no reason why so-called 'secular'
rituals are to be treated any differently than explicitly religious rituals
or dramaturgical actions. In the long run the petrifaction of such rituals
does threaten the capacity of a community to engage with a plurality of
perspectives, but there is almost always dissent and cracks.

ken



     --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---