Customer Reviews

Al Qaeda and What It Means to Be Modern

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Arizona Sen. John McCain has a quality that is sadly lacking in the current Bush administration; he is willing to listen to 'Old Europe' with respect, even though he bluntly disagrees with many of its positions.

This is the central theme of this book; if America cannot dominate the entire world, it is wise to listen to others with respect. Instead, Gray says Bush's ambition "to reshape the Middle East comes from the Christian fundamentalist belief that a major conflagration will fulfill biblical prophecies of a catastrophic conflict in the region. To the extent that it reflects this type of thinking, American foreign policy is itself fundamentalist."

Gray directly challenges a modern American myth that "Western societies are governed by the belief that modernity is a single condition, everywhere the same and always benign." Instead, he says modernity also produces organizations such as al Qaeda, and thus if we are to defeat modern terrorism we must recognize it as a fully modern development. No one would accuse Bush of being a throwback to the Puritans; likewise, al Qaeda is not a throwback to the Middle Ages or some earlier time.

The difficulty, Gray writes, is ". . . many Americans believe that all human beings are American under the skin. On the other hand, they have long viewed the world -- especially the Old World of Europe -- as corrupt, possibly beyond redemption." Thus, the ideal expressed by President Woodrow Wilson of exporting American ideas to Europe after World War I, and the subsequent isolationism of Republicans in Congress which lasted until Dec. 7, 1941.

How valid is this? Well, Wilson sent the US Marines to Haiti with the gift of democracy in 1915; US forces stayed until 1934, providing Haiti with its most prosperous and peaceful era of the past century. After the Marines came home, Haiti collapsed into chaos and then a tyranny which lasted until 1986. President Bill Clinton sent US forces to Haiti in 1994, then pulled them out six months later. The success of America's long effort at "nation building" is reflected in today's ongoing headlines of Haitian horror.

We live in a world of chaos. As long ago as Euripides, it was recognized that knowledge cannot undo fate and virtue gives no protection against disaster. Gray urges that we return to these values, and thus understand the complexity, diversity and tolerance of life. But he adds, "Though we can imagine such a world, it is hard to imagine anything resembling it coming about by design. The proselytising fury of faith -- religious and secular -- forbids any peaceful evolution.

He says, "The most that humans can do is to be brave and resourceful, and expect to achieve little. Very likely we cannot revive this pagan view of things; but perhaps we can learn from it how to limit our hopes."

It's a grim view of the future, something almost out of 'Brave New World.' Unfortunately, he supports his pessimism with clear, logical and frightening logic; in short, science gives us wonderful rewards at the cost of our souls. It's not a new idea; but, like the best of the science which he deplores, Gray thoroughly modernizes the old Faustian legend.

It's a somber view of the future. Interesting, and fascinating, if true. This book will give any reader a lot to think about.

John Gray has written a credible, immensely readable and remarkably perceptive account of modernity's inherent contradictions. Gray argues that the "modern" accounts for how "progress" has come to center the collective ambitions of diverse stakeholders. Indeed, for Gray, progress (the modern disposition itself) is a faith-based (though not always theological) journey waged by various utopians who seek to carve a brave new world out of what they perceive to be social chaos and moral degradation. The problem is that the various "moderns" of the past 200 years, most notably Marxists, neo-liberal adherents to the Western free market, and Islamist militants like Al Qaeda, all have radically divergent plans for bringing the ultimate "new world" into existence. Prospects for arriving at a global equanimity among these competing senses of modernity look bleak. The upshot of Gray's argument is that there can be more than one way to be modern and thus the West does the world a disservice by insisting that progressive social development must be ITS way or not at all. Indeed, Gray suggests that the most successful non-Western modernizing nations (e.g. Japan, China, and especially India) have been wise to preserve their own traditions even as they unlock the power of technology and free market enterprise in their culture. Anyone with an interest in political science and critical theory should read this book at once. Indeed anyone who enjoys lucid argumentation would be well-served to crack open this elegant and slim volume of thought. Highly recommended.

Gray is great at showing unexpected links between the so-called backward Al Queda and our 'modern' western world. He shows that both have the same roots.
He doubts the current American idea of being THE source of universal civilisation. Several others went ahead: England in the 19th century, Spain in the 17th, and, who knows, China in the 21th century.
The omnipresent human desire for perfection is the greatest danger to the modern world: it leads to the terror of the good intentions.
Very readable!

Is the title of this book misleading? Clearly the emphasis of the book is on 'what it means to be modern' and 'Al Qaeda' is only used sparingly (but in my opinion very tellingly) to illustrate the main thesis. Thats not to say the title wont shift more copies with Al Qaeda in there, but if you're an intelligent and open-minded reader then you should come away from this book having been presented with a novel perspective on the modern world and having learnt something new, or at least a new argument, about the underlying nature and rational of a truly modern and global terrorist movement. Gray spends a lot of time arguing that Islamism is a product of a way of thinking that did not exist pre-enlightenment, and it seems most reviewers are focusing on this part of the argument. But to me, the more interesting (and convincing) arguments here concern al qaeda's existance as a product not only of modern thinking but of globalisation ie their ability to exploit failed states, global communications such as the internet, and of the international movement of people, money and arms. Thus the meaning of al qaeda is placed within the framework of the world view presented in 'straw dogs' - rather than technology and globablisation marching the world forwards into an era of democracy and peace, they will simply continue history along its usual course of conflict and suffering, only yet more bloodily

Being a reader of his earlier work "False Dawn", which I enjoyed, I was interested to see how he argues Al Queda and the western doctrines.

I am disappointed with this one. This book is nothing but an inappropriate display of intellect (pedantry). The author's thoughts are a repeat of arguments espoused in "False Dawn". What's more I agree with a previous reviewer. The title is misleading. There is very little on Al Queda, and is clearly an attempt to hoodwink readers. Furthermore, the reviews found on the back of the book, which spout forth with praise are all for a previous book "Straw Dogs". This only becomes apparent when reading the small print.

A disgraceful display of short-sighted marketing. I would suggest that John Gray stop beating the capitalist flaws when this book was clearly written and marketed in a manner designed to profit from the exploitation of loyal supporters of his earlier arguments. There has been no value added here.

The misrepresentation has been grave enough for me to seriously reconsider any future works from this author. I would assert you give this one a miss.

Gray's provocative essay is most valuable as stimulus and for questioning several increasingly `orthodox' presumptions about modernity and, secondarily, Al Qaeda (and nation states as well). Diverse reactions well reflect how he has gotten `under the skin' of varied readers and thinkers. Like many good essays this becomes a personal discourse for each thoughtful reader and may not be expected to achieve endorsement in toto by any one of them.

Al Qaeda is `modern' in its instruments from the internet and bank transfers to bombs. It reflects rather less than detractors wish that is in any way traditionally Islamic. Bin Laden has no training for Fatwas; old theories are warped to provide rationalization for what few Muslims believe to be Islamic; the real enemies are within the Muslim world but propped up by the "Far Enemy" in the West. Jihad is defensive not world conquest, attacking the foreign because it is so influential locally in the Muslim world not because of hatred for George's "our way of life". It is not a "clash of civilizations" satisfying and simplistic in its denial of Western political and economic interventions and totally blaming a medieval "other". There is logic to asymmetric warfare - perhaps more than response with an air force and occupation of Iraq.

Modernity is not a destination or even a journey but only a direction claiming logic and rationality belied by the realities of globalism, capitalism, and science.

Toleration is not uniquely western or modern but has ancient and Muslim roots as well. A most educated and democratic state of Germany elected Hitler. Labels obfuscate and provide excuses but not understanding. (See how some try to score points by calling Islamists "Islamo-fascist" at the very same time as describing medieval dark age mentality and rage.) Turkey is more secularist than the United States. Repressed religion encourages secular cults. Ironies and paradoxes can teach - or at least make us think freshly.

Market pricing, positivism, and the Enlightenment are but a few items grist for Gray's mill. He is both frustrating and provocative - but rarely dull.

A quotation from Wittgenstein reflects the premise that science and modernity do not have all the answers, "When all possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain untouched." (page 110)

In this rather slim book John Gray, professor at the London School of Economics, tries to put the current domination of the United States into a historical, economical and philosophical perspective. He shows that the Western way of thinking has dominated the economic and technical developments over the last 2 centuries, but that it is only one of various alternative ways to establish a society. He also shows that purely secular movements like Marxism and Nazism are firmly rooted in the Christian way of thinking and looking at the world.

And he shows that extremely fundamental muslim movements like Al-Queda, who seem to oppose vehemently to the western, Christian way of thinking, are not as different as they seem to be. Both are based on the idea that a better world on earth is possible. The main objection of the non-Western world (and I believe by now also of a decent part of the Western world) is the messianic behaviour of the USA that wants to press its type of society as the Only Right One upon the rest of the world.

This is an interesting book: not easy, but smoothly written. My main concern is the misleading title: this book is much more about the United States than about Al-Queda, but probably books on Al-Queda sell better, so the title is rather misleading.

John Gray is a controversial thinker who openly opposes the Enlightenment project and promotes a future that is based on continual competition of different values and cultures. Enlightenment, in his mind, is a residue of Christian world-view in its belief of end of the history (and thus war & struggle). In his analysis, both free-market democracies and 20th-century European totalitarian ideologies are projects that aim to realize new, universal condition for mankind - and a new global, modern identity. He sees this project as a waste of time as it is impossible one. Also a global free market is impossibility for him, as different traditions and values always shape the outcome of trade relationships. This 'laissez-faire culturalism' is extremely interesting as a mind game, as it deconstructs many of the ideas that Western thinking takes for granted - extreme left and extreme right non-withstanding. At the same time it is not a political pamphlet, at least in any conventional ideological sense. As such, the book is mind candy for those looking for a completely different view on current geopolitical issues. That does not mean, however, that one should believe everything this clever contrarian has come up with. I can share Gray's concern for the exploit of natural resources, but cannot really believe, for example, in things like the relativity of morals in torturing people for different reasons.

John Gray is staggeringly precient about the world economic system. Don't be misled by the Al Quaeda title, this is more about what it means to be modern. It is a pithy, and amazingly erudite, scan of the history of philosophic thought - in accessible language. Although rather too emphatic on some points, his knowledge is so prodigious he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. What, one wants to know, is he saying right now about the banking implosion?

Some reviewers have already noted that the title of John Gray's new book, _Al Qaeda and What it Means to be Modern_, is somewhat misleading. Many meretricious books have been launched into the world with the words "al Qaeda" on the titlepage: those words sell books. This book is unusual, not for being unreliable about al Qaeda, though it is that, but for failing to bother overmuch with the topic so prominently announced in its title.

Gray's book spends most of its time being unreliable about modernity, instead. Gray's attack on modernity, sometimes modernism, is his real project; al Qaeda was cited partly for sales considerations but also to associate Gray's real bugbears with things that people revile.

Gray's book exhibits three fundamental flaws. First, Gray tends to conflate the Enlightenment, "modernism" and modernity, assuming that modern (or modernist) thinking, like Enlightenment thinking, privileges rationality as a guide to truth, assumes that liberal democracy is the only sensible future for humanity, and is on the whole optimistic.

This is simply wrong; Gray's modernity, like modernism, includes strong respect for the irrational, nostalgia for the "primitive" both in discourse and in art, and is significantly more distrustful of technology and "progressive" politics, and less optimistic, than Enlightenment thinking.

Second, Gray seems to think that if he demonstrates that a set of ideas has a single silly aspect, then he has demolished that entire set of ideas. So Gray makes much of the quasi-religious aspects of the "Positivism" (not positivism in its current sense) of Saint-Simon and Compte. Fine; there's good comedy there. But Gray seems to think that showing that Saint-Simon and Compte said some silly things, among the many sensible things they said, and identifying them as Enlightenment figures, must necessarily discredit the whole Enlightenment project.

Here Gray is being bewilderingly silly. It's not even as if Saint-Simon or Compte were particularly central or important Enlightenment figures. Even if they had been, ridiculing their quasi-religious projects no more damages their other ideas than noting Newton's interest in numerology discredits Newton's physics. It's like singling out two learned divines of the late 18th century, who perhaps believed in God and phlogiston, and claiming that because those two clerics said some silly things therefore the whole of Christianity, all of it, must necessarily collapse.

I find it hard to believe that Gray took his own rhetoric seriously, here. He either made a very feeble logical mistake or he hoped to win at rhetorical sleight of hand. But successful sleight of hand requires speed; and though this is a short book it is ponderous.

Third, Gray's "modern" has no clear boundaries: it includes anything that suits Gray's argument. Gray's conflation of the Enlightenment, modernism and the "modern" helps his claim that Stalinism drew on Enlightment ideas, though the most important and nightmarish aspects of Stalinism had nothing of the Enlightenment in them. Moreover Stalinism embraced some aspects of modernist ideology and style, so it's not quite meaningless to claim Stalinism as modern. But Stalinism's anti-intellectual authoritarianism, bloody and millenarian, really dates back to totalitarianisms that long pre-dated the Enlightenment, or modernism, or "modernity". Examples include the Spanish-ruled Netherlands and Cromwell's republic, but really Russia's own ancient history provides the real ancestors for Stalin.

Gray counts Nazism as a modernist movement, a claim that would have offended both Nazis and modernists. Again, Gray's conflation of modernism and the Enlightenment makes it necessary to point out that Nazism was not a product of the Enlightenment except in the negative sense that Enlightenment ideas were among the things the Nazis most passionately rejected. Nor was Nazism modernist; modernists were people that the Nazis silenced, or exiled, or killed. Gray claims the Nazis as modern simply because of their well-earned status as villains: the same reason he has for claiming that al Qaeda is modern.

How does Gray argue that al Qaeda is modern? First, he seems to think that the idea of changing human culture, changing the world, is essentially modern, so that if al Qaeda has global aims (as it obviously does), then it surely must be modern too.

But both Christianity and Islam had projects for changing the whole world, also and changing human nature, long before modernism or modernity existed. Al Qaeda's fantasy of murderous conquest (enacted in real murders) is precisely Medieval in seeking the restoration of the 7th century Caliphate and the expansion of an early-Medieval version of Islam to the world.

Second, Gray makes much of al Qaeda's use of technology like the Internet. But Al Qaeda's use of technology no more links them to the modern, or modernism, or the Enlightenment, than the innovative use of gunpowder in combat, nearly a thousand years ago, by al Qaeda's predecessors in murderous religious irredentism, Christian as well as Muslim.

Third, Gray is right to say that important aspects of al Qaeda's ideology resemble those of 20th century movements like Stalinism and Nazism. But he overlooks the extent to which both Nazism and Stalinism have their roots in essentially religious and statist authoritarianisms that long pre-date the last few centuries: Nazism, Stalinism and al-Qaeda all have important common ancestors which are much older than modernity, or modernism. And the Enlightenment should not take the rap for any of them.

So this book is another example of a writer connecting their personal hobbyhorses to best-selling search keywords like "al Qaeda", "terrorism", "9/11", etc. The book's connection to the subject matter announced in its title is so slight as to be significantly misleading. But it's not a worthwhile book even in its own terms.

Finally, reading Gray has reminded me that the Enlightenment is looking pretty fresh, clean and attractive, from this vantage point in history. Certainly Gray has reawakened my interest in Enlightenment writers like Hume, Voltaire and others, all of whom write better than Gray.

Cheers!

Laon