Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 09:54:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: HAB: Re: Modernity vs. Premodernity (& auto-pro-anti-hegemonism)


You make many good points Ken, and I probably should have better
acknowledged my lack of historical perspective on Islam, but yet.. I
would have to stand firm to the claim that of all contemporary
practitioners of religion, Islamic fundamentalists like al Qaeda and
Hamas (and their anti-pluralist ideology) are the most threatening to
the peace of the secular world.

The blame for this state of affairs may rest in the lap of many parties
(Western Oil, Inc., Arab aristocracies, dictators, etc.), but wherever
the blame lies.. being someone who works in (and loves) New York City
I'm behind all efforts to prevent further attacks even at the cost of
accusations of 'incorrect attitude toward the other'.

Perhaps we should explore the difference between the meaning of
pre-secular and post-secular.

--Tom

--- Kenneth MacKendrick <kenneth.mackendrick-AT-utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
> ----- 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 ---


====Tom McDonald  CONTACT INFO:
WEBSITE:  http://www.ThomasMcDonald.com
EMAIL:  mcdonald928-AT-yahoo.com
INSTANT MESSENGER:  "omhats" on AOL & MSN, "mcdonald928" on Yahoo

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
http://mail.yahoo.com/


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