The Death of Authority: Part I
Welcome aboard once again to AsianSmiths! I think he’ll make a fine addition to the Optimates family. In fact, I’d like to address one of his recent commentaries: his excellent "Amsterdamistan” post. Specifically, I’d like to talk about the causes behind the West’s seeming reluctance to, well, be the West and offer an earnest defense of our heritage and our values.
If there is no authority to be found in our out-of-date (and, by liberalism’s leave, harmful and oppressive) traditions of the past, and our chief aim in life is to make ourselves comfortable, is it any surprise we can’t muster a cogent intellectual defense for the existence of “The West” as a collective society?
If there is no authority to be found in our out-of-date (and, by liberalism’s leave, harmful and oppressive) traditions of the past, and our chief aim in life is to make ourselves comfortable, is it any surprise we can’t muster a cogent intellectual defense for the existence of “The West” as a collective society?
posted by Joshua @ 6:40 PM
4 Comments:
Wow... I'm trying to respond to two posts and Kelly's comments on Amsterdamistan at the same time. Hopefully this will all be cogent.
To speak as to changing cultures, cultural identities, the shared values of those communities, and the importance of maintaining those values, I think the best place to look to as an example is Brooklyn, particularly since we're talking about the Dutch here.
Brooklyn was founded by the Dutch in the 1620's, seven years before founding New Amsterdam, as a part of the greater New Netherland. The lost it to the British not long afterwards, it it became the site of the first major battle of the revolutionary war. It grew, and co-opted many of the towns around it until reaching the end of the King's County borders, and an influx of immigration brought the city (and later borough) more ethnic and cultural diversity than any other city in the nation.
Nobody could claim the Brooklyn is "Dutch" anymore, but then again, what is it? Is it African American? Surely Bed-Stuy and other areas are. Is it Jewish? Park Slope and Crown Heights would seem to point to that. Is it Italian, or Greek, or Polish? Afterall, they're all well represented as well. Is it rich (Ocean Parkway, Carrol Gardens) or poor (Prospect Heights, Sunset Park)? Is it young (DUMBO) or old (Sheepshead Bay)? Is it for singles (Williamsburg) or families (Cobble Hill)?
In actuality, it's all and none of these things. Brooklyn can bring the connotation of any or all of these groups, and all of these groups can bring the thought of Brooklyn with them. Moreover, which system of values governs Brooklyn? If it has no consistent values, does it have no personality or identity?
Clearly the answer to the last question is "no." Or "yes," depending on the inflection. Brooklyn clearly has a personality and identity, as any six-year-old could probably attest to, but it's values are personal, individual. The black man's values are likely quite different from the Italian woman's, both of which will disagree on much with the Hasidic communities, and yet they coexist, peacefully most of the time, because of the larger system in place. The system which says: you do your thing, and I'll do mine, as long as your thing doesn't prohibit my thing or vice versa, and our laws will protect our liberties, rather than restrict them.
Such is the ideal, and identity, of the West, and I think that fear for it's end is premature to say the least. Values will change, people will evolve, but the ideal of the west says that's generally okay.
Of course, we're discussing two different sections of the "west" here, as that term always applies to both the Americas and to Europe. The Americas were founded as commercial ventures, largely influenced by the policies of the Dutch West Indies Corporation who famously hired anybody from any background as long as they were willing to put in the work. Europe was settled by tribes who fought for millenia to keep the tribe surviving. Obviously, European nations will see cultural identity in a far more narrow sense than any new world country. That's their right, of course, but in a changing world, do they have any right, much less obligation, to truly enforce it?
What this conversation is missing is that the Muslim world fears a loss of their identity to the west. They may continue to display the same rituals and dress in some places as they always have, but western soft-power has taken route in a way that now seems inescapable to them. The youth still pray towards Mecca at the prescribed times, and obey the dietary laws, but when they get home, out of the public eye, they kick off their shoes and listen to rock and roll. The U.A.E. is dominated by the fashions from New York and Paris. OPEC is forced to play nice with the Americas - or at least much nicer than they would otherwise - because that's who's buying.
The West can be mortified all they want about the prospect of losing our identity to the higher birth rates of the Muslims (which, BTW, would more likely simply constitute a Haves/Have-nots dichotomy wherein non-muslims still hols the power) but the Muslims are already losing the most outdated and restrictive aspects of their background to the west. The Netherlands can say that they'd institute Sharia if two-thirds demanded it, because they know it would never happen. Do you honestly think that Muslims are uniformly behind living under Sharia? The Muslims living in Europe (and America, and Canada) immigrated knowing that they were moving to a pluralist country. If they required Sharia enough to take to the streets and demand it, they would have stayed with it where they were (for the most part.)
The Muslim powers (in the countries that matter here) are pissed at the west because they feel legitimately threatened. They feel threatened because they know that the soft power is winning. And the soft power is winning because most of the actual Muslims in the Middle east aren't threatened by it. There will always be fanatics, who can't intellectually understand how they can lifve and act in one way, no matter how fervently, and yet accept that another can do the opposite. We have them here in the states, too, and they make up the ranks of the Klan and Westboro Baptist, but they are not representative of our people as a whole, and they sure as hell aren't representative of our values.
As per the discussion of authority, I'm not quite sure I follow any part of your argument, but I'll say this. I've saidf, many times here before, that I believe that if God is to be seen, he is seen in the ability of society to do more than the sum of it's parts could do alone. Western values presently hold that our legally constructed authorities are of our own making, and are equally impeachable. This is done through society, which then has the ultimate oversight. I, personally, couldn't be happier with the arrangement, and I foresee no instance wherein it would die out.
To put it another way, imagine two countries, Florin and Guilder. In Guilder, citizens must stand on one foot at all times, no matter where they are, as long as they are standing. In Florin, however, citizens may stand however they want. These seperate policies have been around for as long as the nations themselves have been, and in fact form the fundamental basis for their everyday life.
But recently, Guilderians have been moving into Florin, without any reverse immigration to speak of. The Guilderians are also breeding at a much higher rate than the Florins. What's more, while you'd there were always a handful of Florins standing on one foot all the time, now they make up a significant minority, and what with the birthrate, they're likely to grow into a majority unless something is done.
Meanwhile, more and more of the Guilderians, though they stand on one foot in public, take a load off and stand however they want to, both in Florin and Guilder. In Guilder, the youth are proud of being Guilderians, but they've seen the Florins standing on two feet, and see no threat in the practice. Their only threat is from the authorities that would punish them severely if they were seen doing so in public.
I ask you, which practice is under more of a threat?
Well clearly the Guilderians are the culture that's under threat, because the Count can just send Vizzini to start a war and wipe them out.
Sorry, I couldn't resist
"I mean, are there really any intellectual or cultural movements that dispute Western primacy in Western countries?"
Well, I consider one of our most cherished Western (or mayhap Anglo-Saxon) rights to be the concept of free speech. Full-throated defenses of that certainly have been lacking in the West, wouldn't you say? All it takes these days is a couple of demagogues - of any persuasion - to play the victim card, and popular pressure is put on the persons who did the supposed "offending" to apologize. I mean, did anyone just notice THE POPE apologized after a bit of demagoguery from radical imams?
Bear in mind, this wasn't the Pope going to Medina and saying "Muhammad is no good." This was the Pope going to Germany (!) and making a theological point and citing a 14th century text. But no, no, the cry goes up that he should have been more 'sensitive.'
As for the Netherlands proper, ask Theo Van Gogh or Ayaan Hirsi Ali about how great a defense it is to be 'adaptable' to radical demagogues. Gogh is dead, killed by a radical for his thoughtcrime, and Ali was exiled by her own neighbors out of fear. These are the same Dutch that expelled the Spanish Habsburg tyranny? Adaptable!
The same thing holds with the Danish cartoon controversy. American media all but hid the cartoons in the closet rather than publish them! The message there is embarrasingly simple to discern: we value our lives more than we value our liberty.
To pick another example: the Administration's torture policy. Let's put aside for a moment the barbarity of it (if you can) and focus on the fact that so many of us seem willing to abandon the rule of law! Are we really on the verge of passing a bill into law that would grant the executive the power to "interpret" whether or not someone captured - by the executive's leave, mind you! - is worthy of violent physical coersion? Some of these captured may even be citizens! It is as though we never had the Magna Carta! All of this, of course, in the name of keeping us "safe." When in the experience of the West has a so-called 'unitary executive' ever kept us both safe and free?
So yes, I do think there are some basic fundamental principles of the West that do need defending, and loudly.
Post a Comment
<< Home