Customer Reviews

Civilization and Its Enemies: The Next Stage of History

5 star:		(30)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

The catastrophic event that has come to be known simply as 9/11 was unique in American history. We had been brutally attacked. But by whom? Not by another country, as we soon discovered. Not by some vile dictator or head-of-state, as we later discovered. So who? Who was the enemy? Then, of course, came the question: Why were the World Trade Center and the Pentagon attacked in the first place? Why would someone deliberately, maliciously murder thousands of ordinary, innocent people?

"Civilization and Its Enemies" is an attempt by Lee Harris to answer these and other questions. The work is a brilliant analysis of the current geopolitical situation and how it came to be what it is. More significantly, it provides an insight into the historical precipitates and intellectual foundations and foibles which may account for the 9/11 tragedy.

"The subject of this book," says Harris on the opening page, "is forgetfulness." Modern civilization has forgotten how it became civilized in the first place; it isn't knowledgeable of the long period of cultural evolution involved; and it doesn't remember the tremendous amount of labor, cultural and intellectual, that went into the development of civil society. Moreover, modern civilization has forgotten about a category called "the enemy." This concept of the enemy -- someone who is willing to die to kill another -- had been discarded from our moral and political discourse. And that fact, according to Harris, has left modern civilization vulnerable to attack by those who are the enemy of civilized society.

This is an interesting thesis and, at first glance, may appear to be an implausible explanation for the 9/11 tragedy which was, according to the author, an end in itself and not a means to some other political or social end. Many contemporary observers may find this latter statement problematic since we are so accustomed to thinking in terms of warfare as a means to an end. Harris suggests that our ordinary understanding about what wars are and why they are fought is not applicable to the current conflict with terrorism. The nature of the game, so to speak, has changed and so has the enemy, and 9/11 was a manifestation of that change.

So, who is this enemy and what is his intent? How did civilization get itself into this situation where it became so vulnerable to this enemy? What is the historical backdrop? What were the social and cultural influences? Who or what is really responsible? What can modern civilization do, if anything, to protect itself? Harris's discussion of these questions takes the reader on a tour through the development of civilization from antiquity to the present day, forming the framework with which he analyzes our current dilemma and providing a rationale for his conclusions.

One of the most interesting of his discussions has to do with what Harris calls "fantasy ideology" and the related "transformative belief." He also points out the difference between abstract reasoning and concrete reasoning and discusses the "fanaticism" of abstract thought, important elements in the presentation of his argument. His concept of fantasy ideology is familiar to me because, while I use a different term to describe the phenomenon, it appears to be a subcategory of what I have called "intellectual insanity" in my own writings. Modern intellectuals are particularly susceptible to this type of thinking, which eventually leads them into the irrational abyss of moral and cultural relativism, epistemological subjectivism, metaphysical idealism, politicism, and scientism.

Harris does more, of course, than just provide us with the historical background and intellectual underpinnings which have led to our present situation. He deals with the practical matter of our current conflict with "the enemy," giving us his prescriptions about how we should meet and confront the problem in the very real context within which we have to deal with it. Many intellectuals, especially those in the academic enterprise, will recoil at some of his suggestions.

But the problem we face today, the author says, is this: "The ideals that our intellectuals have been instilling in us are utopian ideals, designed for men and women who know no enemy and who do not need to take precautions against him." These utopian ideals are dangerous because they are out of touch with the situation as it really is. The new enemy of civilization does not play his "war" game according to the rules we are used to; indeed, as far as he is concerned there are no rules at all. Our intellectuals and those who influence our social and political policies must come to realize this. Our old categories of thought and analysis will no longer suffice. And this brings Harris to what may be his most controversial conclusion as far as the academic intellectuals are concerned.

Only the United States can play the sovereign in today's world. And if the use of force is necessary to defend civilization, then America will have to use it. At the same time Harris realizes the responsibilities involved in this type of action and points out the necessity, and dilemma, of being ruthless in the defense of civilization while not succumbing to ruthlessness itself. However, because it has produced, over a long period of time and through many sociopolitical conflicts, a practical design for solving and settling problems without resorting to massive ruthlessness, the United States is the only nation which can do the job required if civilization is to be defended and the enemy defeated.

This is an important book that every American citizen should read. It should be required reading for our college and university students who are so desperately in need of intellectual guidance through the realities of the current geopolitical conflict which puts civilization itself in jeopardy. My only criticism of the book is that Harris needs to recognize there are some intellectuals around who don't subscribe to utopian fantasies and the fanaticism of abstract thought. I like to think I'm one of them.

This book is a rare combination of common sense, depth of thought, breadth of knowledge, originality, and analytical and logical sophistication. Harris writes well, and at times humorously, but (with the possible exception of the first chapter), this is not a predigested easy read. The first chapter offers a stimulating interpretation of the motivation of the perpetrators of 9/11; the attack was less a means to an end (e.g., strike terror in the US population as a means to cause US withdrawal from the Middle East) , than a theatrical demonstration, for the benefit of other Muslims, that Allah favors the triumph of Islam and the fall of the Great Satan. "Fantasy ideologies" are able to thrive because of the decline of political realism in states whose existence and wealth has not been earned by their own effort, but are (ironically) protected by the current international order.

The central theme of the book, however, is the concept of the enemy: why enemies must be overcome in the founding of a civil society as well in its maintenance, why rational self-interest cannot explain the origin of social order (contrary to Hobbes and many others), and why the category of the enemy itself tends to be forgotten or dismissed by successful societies. Such societies also forget the ruthlessness that was historically required to achieve their success and which, Harris argues, is also required for their continuing survival. By the same token, the enculturation of a non-rational, intuitive sense of shame and a similarly instinctive sense of trust are necessary for the suppression of internal violence, hence the survival, of all societies, including liberal ones.

Harris defends and carries out what I would call a naturalistic approach to social and political theory, which gives priority to careful study, analysis, and interpretation of actually existing societies and their origins. The opposite approach, developing an abstract ideal concept and comparing existing societies to it, inevitably finds the real world to be hopelessly defective. Starting with abstractions can be dangerous, too, since it obscures what has been accomplished up to the present and therefore what we stand to lose, fails to recognize and even disparages essential elements of social survival, and diverts attention from what might actually be accomplished in the future. Harris addresses problems from multiple angles, e.g., a counterintuitive historical analysis of the contribution of ancient Spartan society to Western freedom, convincing arguments against European political theorists from Rousseau to Marx, discussion of the role the Protestant conscience played in providing a social infrastructure for modern Western society, a defense of objective criteria in the comparison of cultures and what different cultures might learn from one another in a more hardnosed approach to multiculturalism, and a critique of the abstraction bias that is a built-in threat to the plausibility of academic thought.

One of the real pleasures of this book is the sense of being in the company of an author who has set out to tackle weighty matters with integrity, thoughfulness, humility, and commitment. Harris' recommended cure for intellectualist biases includes confrontation with reality and with competing ideas. I think he has been quite successful in both.

Marvin Cohen

It would be a shame if Lee Harris' Civilization and Its Enemies is dismissed as a partisan attempt to rationalize the War on Terror or if it gets lost among the masses of books that try to explain how 9/11 changed the world. Civilization and Its Enemies is a Physics and Politics for the 21st Century.

Like Walter Bagehot, Harris makes the argument that civilization's success can set it up for downfall. Sustained peace and prosperity leads to complacency, and the members of a successful civilization are apt to forget that the natural state of people in the world is neither peaceful nor prosperous.

Harris does for politics what Frederick Turner, in works such as Beauty: The Value of Values and The Culture of Hope, did for aesthetics. Like Turner, Harris argues for the importance and necessity of shame in shaping our cultural values. Like Turner, Harris creates a kind of counter-myth to challenge the classical, non-partisan liberal ideology that has dominated the West since the triumph of the Enlightenment. Harris deals with the origins of leadership, the importance of team spirit, the evolution of tolerance, along with many other forces that have shaped our current liberal democratic societies.

Harris interprets and synthesizes the work of a wide range of political philosophers, but the heart of the book focuses on a handful of Hegel's observations on the origins of civilization. Now, I've always found Hegel to be obscure and convoulted, so I can't speak to the accuracy of Harris' interpretation, but it seemed to me that, through Hegel, Harris gets to the unpleasant truth about our civilization. As members in good standing of enlightened societies, we repress the fact that our liberal democracies (and civilization in general) were formed through illiberal methods.

Harris faces up to a truth that most civilized people try to ignore, namely that they may have enemies who, for no reason that would motivate one of Adam Smith's rational actors, want to kill them. Ignoring the enemy won't make them go away, Harris argues, but neither will pretending that they really aren't enemies. There are some conflicts in this world that cannot be "worked out," no matter what we'd like to think.

Throughout the book Harris makes the case for accepting and encouraging the genuine good that can come out of a messy reality, rather than trying to force reality to conform to transcendent ideals. We in the West often forget, Harris argues, that our society is better--that is more just and more moral--than any that has ever existed in human history. It is ridiculous, Harris suggests, to judge a country like America harshly because it doesn't live up to the unachievable criteria of idealists.

Overall, Harris makes a strong argument that civilization is a fragile and precious thing, not to be taken for granted, or damned because it is, like all things of the Earth, imperfect. The book is clear and well-written--he even makes Hegel understandable. I'd recommend this book not only to those interested in getting a better handle on current events, but also to anyone who has an interest in political philosophy. As for partisanship, Harris makes a number of arguments that go against the assumptions of leftists, rightists, and centrists, libertarians and statists. Harris hasn't let a political agenda warp his argument.

Since September 11, we've all been bombarded with opinions from armchair quarterbacks, myopic intellectuals, Pollyanna liberals, deskbound philosophers, sound bite journalists, and various unqualified people expounding from their limited world view while assuming only they have the right answers. Thinking people have tended to disregard all such opinions, because none of them hold up under close examination.

What we've been looking for is something that explains what happened--and where we're headed--from a perspective that doesn't serve an ideological agenda. And we've been looking for that because an ideological agenda is what those terrorists had on that day--more of the same is not an answer.

The answer we really want is, "What's next?" We want to see what's ahead for us. Lee Harris helps us look ahead by first looking back. He takes us through the various stages of civilization and shows us how each rose to prominence and what drove it one to survive as long as it did.

For example, Sparta enjoyed 500 years in which it was never conquered, never had a civil war, and was never ruled by a tyrant. Even the United States cannot boast of such things--the USA has been around for less than half that time, had a very bloody Civil War, and is today ruled by a slew of law-breaking tyrants in government agencies (as was documented in Senator Roth's 12 televised hearings on the IRS). What gave Sparta such an amazing track record?

After explaining the source of Sparta's success, Harris moves forward through history. Along the way, he examines subsequent Western civilizations from the Roman Empire to nineteenth century Poland. It is on this journey that we see, for example, why the United States changed from a loose alliance of states to a nation with a strong central government. And we see why Poland failed to do so and what the consequences were. It's fascinating to watch Harris unfold events to expose the cultural foundations behind them, including how Hitler and Mussolini rose to power.

The book is far from being a dry history lesson, or really a history lesson at all. It's an education in how and why world events happen. Harris provides that education by providing the reader with a factual foundation then making the reader think. Having such an education will help you understand where we are headed and why. It will help you understand what the USA must do, in its role as the world's Samurai. The USA wields a mighty sword, while also adhering to a code of behavior that people of other nations expect us to continue to uphold simply because of who we are. Harris explains what that code is, how it came to be, and why it is in the best interests of the USA to continue to uphold it.

The USA, despite its relatively short history, Civil War in its 9th decade, and present infestation of tyrants, is still the world's great hope. And not just because it has more military might and more wealth than any other nation in history. The nation is a microcosm of the world's cultures--the great melting pot--and the implications of that are profound. How much responsibility to the rest of the world comes with that? Answer the question for yourself, after reading this book.

The first thing to understand about the book is whom the title refers to. Too many readers think this is a book about 9/11, and that therefore the 'enemies' referred to in the title are Islamofascist terrorists. In fact, civilization's enemies are intellectuals. Not all of them; just those who fail to appreciate what a fine and rare thing civilization really is, those who are ignorant of what sustains and upholds civilization. Intellectuals won't destroy civilization themselves, directly. But they will, if allowed, remove civilization's ability to defend itself, so that it falls when faced with a person or group ruthless enough.

These reckless, restless intellectuals are like an architect who knows nothing about engineering and gravity who decides to remodel a house. Things like walls, columns, a pitched roof, chimneys, heating ducts, and so on, can get in the way and diminish the aesthetic appeal of a house. Our idealistic architect can easily imagine a house with thinner, lighter walls, with larger rooms unencumbered by pillars, a flatter roof, and no unsightly ductwork. As our reckless architect begins his work with gusto, ripping out the air ducts, blocking off the drafty chimney, and tearing down the walls he may not notice that sections of the house have become unlivably hot and cold, others filled with smoke. It may only be when he finally hits a load-bearing wall and brings the whole thing crashing down that he is aware something is wrong. Only after all is lost, does he realize that even a defective shelter is better than the outdoors. The tragedy is he is not alone; the cost and inconvenience is borne by all the house's occupants.

It is easy to imagine how the world could be better, or to point out inconsistencies and deviations from some ideal system delineated from first principles, particularly in guarantors of order like the role the United States plays today, or that Great Britain and Rome played previously. But that is backwards, Harris says. You don't design an ideal society with universally respected and ever-expanding rights, then then somehow magically impose it upon the messy and ruthless real world. Civilization can't be built out of thin air. You need foundations and scaffolds and nails.

This is not to say that we should change nothing, that we must accept the way things are as the best thing possible. But if you understand and appreciate how we got here, and what we have to lose, you will undertake your attempts to remodel civilization much more gingerly, with respect and care for the institutions and mechanisms that have sustained it thusfar, and that are deeply imperiled by know-it-all know-nothings who risk destroying civilization's ability to defend and sustain itself.

I seldom give any book 5 stars (even a book with 3 stars for me is an enjoyable and worthwhile read), but this is one of the most perceptive and persuasive books on the foundation of politics I've ever read. I do not say this lightly, but in all modestly I strongly believe this book is as important to our age as Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Rousseau, or Hegel were and are, and it deserves just as much attention as those thinkers are accorded. We certainly need it.

Anyone who was distraught and baffled by 9-11 and the Madrid bombings will find in this superb book the answer to the questions: "Why do Islamic terrorists hate the West, especially the USA, and what do they hope to gain by continuing to perpetrate their brutal acts?"

The answers, outlined by Mr. Harris in this flawlessly reasoned book, are not likely to be popular with liberal intellectuals or a host of other hopelessly naive politicians the world over who are unwilling to truly digest the concept of ruthlessness, its place in history, and its use today by the enemies of civilization.

Are you rusty on your ancient history and Greek philosophers? What red-blooded American isn't? Take advantage of Mr. Harris' staggering knowledge of history and philosophy demonstrated in this book, and your view of today's sometimes frightening world may be changed forever. His thorough attempt to prove his thesis by citing examples from history and constructing a bulletproof argument are a tiny bit tedious in some parts, but overall this book is mind-blowing. Mr. Harris articulates very well the vague but urgently truthful thoughts that many Americans, including myself, have been kicking around silently since 9/11 but have been reluctant to discuss unless in the company of like-minded people.

Mr. Harris' book does not offer any easy solutions or paint a pretty picture of the world in the future. However, the experience of reading this book is extremely cathartic for those like myself who are always comforted by the knowing the truth, no matter how unpleasant. There is always serenity in true knowledge.

The author put plenty of thought into this book. I think it is worth reading just to get started on thinking about some of these issues oneself.

Harris starts out with a terrific point. Namely that Victor Davis Hanson and Noam Chomsky, who are at roughly opposite ends of the political spectrum, agree that the attacks of 9/11 were an act of war, designed "to further some kind of political objective." Harris explains that 9/11 was actually more an enactment of a "fantasy ideology" than some Clausewitzian act of war. That's interesting. His point is that there was no military follow-up nor military goals, nor the military wherewithal to back up such acts. But that begs a question. What if people simply did reasonable things, such as settling for no more than their fair share. Would we consider that to be acting out their fantasies as well?

The next point is that we're facing an unstable situation: those who fight us are not actually viable entities in the sense of being able to deal with and survive any uncompromising attack by internal or external enemies. That means that they may be facing a big surprise if anyone, including us, ever decides to or needs to fight them seriously. And we may be facing an equally nasty surprise if they get their hands on nuclear weapons and launch a rogue strike on us.

After that is a discussion about ruthlessness. No society can be based simply on rule by a ruthless gang. As a matter of fact, such a gang can't even create a society: at most it can take over a society. Therefore, Harris argues, gangs not only should be driven from the face of the Earth but are inherently incapable of ruling in the long run. They are on the wrong side of history. So, why should we support them? The author explains that we shouldn't. It may be expedient, but certainly not moral to contain ruthless gangs rather than remove them. And "there may be good conservative reasons for preserving a wicked status quo, but there are no liberal progressive ones."

Harris then discusses tolerance. He makes the point that "compromise" with error simply means that you need to keep re-inventing the right answer. And that while individual liberty is very important, if it surpasses all else it will eventually destroy all social order, which is the very thing that allows us to live in peace with one another in the first place.

The author also warns us about "sham multiculturalism," in which we abandon the individual and make each person the property of their culture, and applaud when that culture gives them almost no freedom at all.

Harris concludes that America ought not become an Empire of any kind, let alone an arrogant one. But that we need to reserve the option of acting unilaterally and at our own discretion, if we must do so, "not to subvert the rules of international liberalism but to uphold them." He warns that ruthless gangs must not be allowed to decide the direction of the future development of mankind. And that today, the most obvious ruthless gangs may change in nature at any time.

I see that a few reviewers tried to label this book as an unthinking defence of American power. Those reviewers must have missed almost all of what the author said. As I said, I think this book is thought-provoking and worth reading.

The author eloquently and concisely states the causality of the present conflict with our enemies and the actions of our erstwhile allies before, during, and after Operation Iraqi Freedom in a more abstract fashion. Never before has anyone concisely written why we have an enemy, what we must do, and why we must win and preserve civilization. Along the way, he debunks fantasy ideologies, deconstructs modern cosmopolitanism in contrast to the Hellenic Greek philosophy of cosmopolitanism. The author utilizes the Hegelian dialectic to further demonstrate the total lack of substance within "new age" philosophies of "relativism" and "subjectivism" as well. He even shows a bit of canny wit by coining some worthy catch phrases when referring to the antics of "anti-liberalism" western liberals (quite a dichotomy lies just within that phrase as well), such as "serial nihilism" for example.
If you've ever wondered exactly what is wrong with modern liberal academia that have rejected classical liberalism in the name of "progressive thought", reading this book should provide many answers to that questions.

In his summation the author also lays out in plain and simple terms what is needed to allow the progression of western civilization, and the benefits world wide that result from the adoption and adaptation of western ideals world wide. However, considering the amount of hostility towards western ideals from western academia at large, holding out hope for such a spontaneous ideological reversal may well be a fantasy ideology of its own.

To summarize, if you believe in classical liberalism as a beneficial ideology, buy this book, read it, give it to friends & family or tell them about it, do what you must, but make sure the word about this book gets out. If you don't believe in classical liberalism as a beneficial ideology, reading this book is probably your last hope. If you read it, and it doesn't raise any doubts about modern liberals and their fantasy ideologies, then denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

This wonderful new book argues that 9/11 will be the defining moment in a century long conflict between civilization and those that oppose it. The author, in this very reticent, imaginative, and honest book diagnoses the wider impact of terrorism and its newfound importance.

There were times in the past when great civilizations were struck down by zealotry. Rome was destroyed by massive immigrations of barbarians, from Goths to Huns to Vandals and others Rome was swamped and its empire destroyed in a short period of a 100 years prior to which it had been the controller of the known world. The fall of Rome ushered in unbridled savagery and a period of de-civilization. The same can be compared to the situation today and so argues this book. Today the western European powers, fat and rich, have given up their empires in the hopes of a peaceful world and the tolerance of the West has encouraged the boldness of terror. Already twice in the 20th century the world was threatened by zealotry, first by Nazism and then by Communism and now the new threat is Terrorism and the exponents of hatred towards the freedom found in the western democracies.

This book does not necessarily see the total picture of the terrible cataclysm facing the world and it does not critique the western powers enough for their lazy approach to policy but it does diagnose the direct threat and the coming war between civilization and its enemies.

Seth J. Frantzman

an honest and brave book. we in the US and in the west take so much for granted - That we should not be slaves, that our "villages" are not raided by armed men, that if we can't support ourselves the government will actually give us money - and a million more things we don't realize where it all comes from and what a high level of restraint and ability to cooperate and thoughtfulness it all takes. This book is a reminder that not everyone has such attributes. It's a reminder that what we have is hard won, and that it is always threatened by the barbarians at the gate. Harris tells us that the barbarians are getting closer and we will have to fight or be destroyed