Customer Reviews

The West and the Rest: Globalization and the Terrorist Threat

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Roger Scruton is one of the most extraordinary figures of our time. He is an English political philosopher who frequently appears in the British press and who has written a monumental history of modern philosophy, as well as the Oxford Past Master volumes on Kant and Spinoza, as well as seminal works on the moral philosophy of the erotic and the philosophy of music, as well as superb works of architectural and art criticism. He has even written two operas, both words and music, and two volumes of satirical pseudo-Platonic dialogues.

Perhaps the most notable characteristic of his writing is its originality or freshness. In almost all his works, you get the sense that an incredibly powerful mind is confronting a question or a topic for the first time. That quality is on display here, as Scruton thinks through with his reader the questions which arise in the wake of the terrorist attacks of 9/11. He argues for the uniqueness (and, perhaps, the unrepeatability) of the Western political achievement of "territorial sovereignty." He takes us through the theological, philosophical, and cultural impediments to modernization in the Muslim world. He discusses the effects of globalization on both the West and "the Rest" (of the world).

Like many Americans, I read vociferously all the journalistic and many of the academic debates which followed after 9/11. Amazingly, there are more new insights and arguments in this single short book--it can be read in one or two sittings--than in dozens of other long articles and books. This is a marvelous work of synethesis, and it deserves to be the starting point for all future discussions of American policy in an age of terrorism.

British philosopher, aesthetician and cultural critic Roger Scruton's new book -- unfortunately published by a press that is a bit obscure, which means that not all bookstores will carry it -- is a stunning account of the history of the similarities and differences between the West and other social and political dispensations, in an age that will (probably) be known for globalization and terrorism. Anyone looking for a spirited defence of the notion of the West, with its special (but hopefully 'exportable') emphasis on the consent of the governed, will want to have this book.

Scruton's argument is that there is something vital and special about the nexus of factors -- economic free market, extensive but not uncurbed private ownership, elected state representatives, civil society, open rather than closed parliament or legislative assembly, and independent judiciary -- that combine to creat the distinctness of Western polities (The West). What is special is that these represent an outgrowth of a long historical movement animated by the need for polities to secure the confidence and faith of its citizens. But not all states were forged in this kind of process, or tradition, which combines loyalty to a greater good (healthy patriotism and/or nationalism) with a respect for plurality, and which allows a fruitful tension between secularity and faith, and between duties and rights. Rather, some states don't have these advantages. A number of these (The Rest) are 'legitimate' states in name only (or because the UN has seen fit to include them on its roster). Here Scruton of course discusses non-Western states. But he saves his most insightful discussion for a learned inquiry into Islamic states, or more to the point, religion, focusing on Islam as a faith which has never experienced the kind of Reformation-like upheaval that could result in a State-Church separation. But these are just some of his concerns, and there are too many to discuss in a brief review. (I've said nothing about his interesting, Tory-Hegelian attitude towards globalization, which should infuriate -- though also hopefully convert -- some libertarians. Suffice it to say that Scruton refuses to fetishize the market, treating it with a healthy suspicion borne of an Burkean understanding of just how destructive of tradition, faith and established values an utterly unregulated market can be.)

All in all, as always, Scruton brings his keen analytical mind, as well as his surprisingly moderate tone (for a man as reviled as he is, or was), and his gift for lucid and fascinating explanation and exploration, to bear on a number of important topics. I recommend this book without any hesitation whatsoever, and hope that it finds a vast readership (AND that a number of people go on to read his many other fascinating and well-written books, many of which are pitched at the general, educated reader).

In this fascinating book, British Philosopher (and former university professor) Roger Scruton looks at the West and the Islamic world, and examines what has brought on the present crisis. It is his contention that the both the Western and the Islamic worlds are in a state of crisis. In the Islamic world, the increase in population and the concomitant urbanization has produced alienation, while the march of globalization has brought it face to face with a Western world that it both envies and hates. In the West, the whole of Western culture is under assault from an elitist, post-Modernist "Culture of Repudiation" that wishes to tear down the culture, but has nothing to erect in its place.

Along the way, Mr. Scruton treats the reader to a profound and highly enlightening look at the foundations of modern Western and Islamic political ideology; where they came from, where they are going, and what has produced such hostility. The conclusion of the book is small, with some suggestions to "constrain" the process of globalization, thus minimizing the threat perceived by the Muslim world, but nothing more far-reaching than that.

I found this book to be both enlightening and somewhat frightening. Mr. Scruton's analysis suggests that the roots of the present hostility emanating from the Middle East are very deep indeed, and not likely to be ameliorated by any simple or easy solution. If there was one book that I would urge everyone to read, so as to understand the present world, this would be it! Please read this book.

Although relatively brief (161 pages) this volume is densely packed with careful analysis and incisive observation. Subtitled "Globalization and the Terrorist Threat," this book explores a number of related themes. A major thesis is how modern Western democracies differ from other types of societies in general, and the Islamic world in particular. His historical and philosophical investigations provide a framework in which to judge both the September 11 attacks, and the ongoing threat of Islamic terrorism.

He begins by noting that social bonding can take place by means of either religion or politics. In the pluralistic West, social cohesion is mainly found in the form of the social contract, whereas in the Islamic world, religion alone provides that basis. Roman law and the Christian religion helped provide the basis for the social contract, as well as bring about the Western conception of the demarcation of the religious and political spheres.

Islamic societies on the other hand know of no separation of religious and secular authorities, with religion the sole basis of the state. Just as the Communist party was a law onto itself, so "Islam aims to control the state without being a subject of the state". As a result, there are no political or social mediating structures between Allah and His will (Islam) and the submissive Muslim (Islamic citizen).

The freedoms of a democracy, including the freedom to oppose the state, to vote for alternative parties, and to freely express dissenting opinions are thus not to be found in Islamic states. In theocracies, such dissent is just not possible. And given that Islam means submission, the good Muslim is an obedient Muslim.

Both secular Western societies and Muslim societies have notions of membership. Membership in the West is made up of the voluntary, the tribal, the linguistic and the political. Muslim membership is credal, based only on the religious. The political process of the West allows for the separation of society from the state, while there is no such distinction in Islamic jurisdictions. Thus the political is the religious, whereas the genius of Western democracies is to separate the political from the rest of social and personal life.

Democratic citizenship helps to limit state power and deter totalitarian temptations. However as the onslaught of radical individualism and secularism sweep the West, former loyalties and the sense of social membership are quickly giving way. As the concept of citizenship disappears, social membership is strained and the basis of democracies is undermined. In the light of such social and political fragmentation, the religious membership of Islamic societies stands in sharp contrast.

However Islamic unity is based on force and power, not consent. Religious toleration, taken for granted in the West, is a foreign concept in Islamic societies. Islamic law applies to every aspect of life, and leads to the denial of the political. All is religious, and mediating structures are unheard of.

While Christianity teaches us to give to Caesar what is his, in Islamic thinking nothing is Caesar's, everything is Allah's. All is religious because all is Allah's. Thus Islamic membership is all-embracing and all-demanding.

But Western membership, or citizenship is unraveling, making Western democracies vulnerable and lacking in direction. Thus the inability of Western nations to unite against the real dangers of terrorism. Thus the mistaken notions of moral equivalence, where ruthless Muslim dictatorships are seen as no better or no worse than Western leadership. Thus the real possibility of the continued demise of the West coupled with a resurgent rise of Islam.

Yes there are exceptions, such as authoritarian democracies (e.g Singapore) and democratic Muslim states (Turkey being the only real example). But Islamic nations are inherently undemocratic. The political freedoms we enjoy in the West are largely unheard of in Islamic societies. And while the majority of Muslims do not support terrorism and murder, enough do to make for a lengthy battle between the West and Islam.

In the past Christians may have wrongly used the edge of the sword to command loyalty to the faith, but that has always been a perversion of Christ's gospel, not a fulfillment of it. But for a Muslim to take up the sword for Islam against the unbeliever is both sensible for a member of a theocracy and endorsed (at least in some interpretations) in the Koran.

Indeed, terrorism and conquest have a long history in Islam. And modern Western-trained Muslims, backed with Western technology and the revenue of Arabian oil wells, have made for the kind of terrorism witnessed in New York and Bali. Many explanations and justifications for such terrorism have been put forward, but the truth is, as Scruton documents, "Islamism is not a cry of distress from the `wretched of the earth.' It is an implacable summon to war, issued by globetrotting middle-class Muslims".

Since opposition cannot be found in Islamic countries, only a re-invigorated West can adequately deal with the terrorist threat (and Muslim terrorism against other Muslims is not uncommon). But this requires a renewal of the idea of citizenship and community, and a renunciation of radical versions of individualism and secularism. The religious (mainly Judeo-Christian) basis of Western democracies needs to be revived and encouraged not just in the private sphere but in the public as well.

Thus Scruton's book is not only a warning about the anti-democratic makeup of Islamic societies, but a wake-up call to the West to re-explore its roots and re-establish its moral and cultural foundations. Without a revived West the prospects for the war against Islamic terrorism look bleak. But this volume helps to remind us that the stakes are high and some things are worth fighting for. Hopefully this book will serve as a much-needed call to action by the West. If not, we have much to fear from the future.

I consider myself a European integrationist, because I believe there is more that binds Europeans than that divides them (certainly when faced with an islamist threat). However Roger Scruton makes a compelling case for the old-fashioned nation-state, something I have not seen in a long time.

The first half of the book - the best half - is a philosophical text about what defines the Western world. Central to Scruton's thesis is the Social Contract, an abstract description for what is basically acceptance by the people of the legitimacy of authority and the laws of a country. Thanks to this legitimacy, we have politics in the West, because thanks to politics, we can forget about politics between elections and politics allows the state to be separated from society. Scruton argues this acceptance of laws and authority can only exist when people feel they are members, i.e. there is a commonality of values. These existed in Western nation-states which have centuries of shared history, languages, customs and laws. One of the beauties of political communities is that laws can evolve and authorities replaced. Scruton contrasts this with other forms of community, such as the tribe and the creed. Because the creed derives its cement not from the free acceptance of members of the laws, but from a sacred, given text, this text (read the Koran or the Bible in medieval Europe) is cast in stone (and because Islam does not have an institution like the Church, nobody has the authority to re-interpret the Koran and adapt it to the modern world). The difference between medieval Europe and Islam is (a) that Europe also inherited Roman law as a system of resolution of conflicts, which existed independently of religion, and (b) that Christianity started off as a religion which did not attempt to compete with the worldly powers (although, there have been a few popes who very actively tried to get the upper hand over wordly powers, it just happens they lost), allowing secularism to arise in time. (This section in many ways is the flip side of the book "What went wrong ?" by Bernard Lewis)

Scruton goes on to argue that by the 19th century, people in Europe began to identify themselves less and less on the basis of their religious affiliation, but on the basis of language, custom and nationality. A modern democratic nation-state is a large group of strangers but towards each of whom members feel certain obligations embodied in the law (this has parallels in Francis Fukuyama's theory of Trust). It is this feeling of communality with unknown compatriots that gives birth to the public spirit ("trust" in Fukuyama's terminology) of citizens. In contrast, muslim societies have very specific rules of how members are to relate to family members and clan or tribe members, and on how to relate to God (see the 5 key duties of a good muslim, of which 4 relate with religious rituals), but not to strangers, even with the same passport (insofar this has any meaning).

At this point it is clear to, according to Scruton, without a nation-state of which one feels a member, there cannot be politics, law, public spirit or sacrifice.
However, Western democracies, in an effort to be tolerant and secular, have become so morally relativist that there are few strong shared values left, because any reference to dominant values is considered at odds with the multicultural dogma. Hence, what started off as the strength of the West, its tolerance and secularism, is becoming its weakness in the face of secondary threats. From here on Scruton starts to analyse the threats to the West.

The first threat is Islamism because of the different value system. A modern nation-state offers membership, not truth, but the moral relativism of Western societies is shocking for muslims, for whom a nation doesn't offer membership and who seek truth. Scruton in some ways admires the traditional values of muslims, such as respect for parents, rites of passage and authority, none of which unfortunately exist anymore in modern western culture, and he certainly has some understanding for the disorientation of muslims living in the West.

But Scruton also takes aim at globalisation and international organisations like the UN or even the EU too, because they undermine the identity of the nation-state and hence lead to weaker institutions, less support for the law, in short the culture of repudiation.

Scruton concludes with a number of recommendations (which is courageous : plenty of books are written to complain about things in life without doing the difficult bit : recommending a remedy), which are to re-examine and adjust our immigration policies (more integration), our acceptance of the multicultural dogma, our commitment to free trade (which destroys the sense of identity in poorer countries), our acceptance of the multinational corporation (because it is claimed by him to be a law onto its own), the litigious nature of our societies (presumably he has the US in mind) and our addiction to consumption and comfort.

To a large extent I can see how these can cause moral relativism in the West, but how he will get westerners to heed his advice - and change their ways of life - is unclear to me; in fact I'm certain this will not happen.

The book is short, which is some excuse for its black and white nature (as the title suggests) : at times - in particular discussing the merits of Common Law - it sounds as if the only two real democracies are the UK and the US and the rest is barbaric. But this is also a thought-provoking book - with a much wider subject than the subtitle suggests - , primarily in its argument for the nation-state. This is refreshing : for 50 years we have been told in Europe that nationalism is bad : it caused world wars and it was incompatible with globalisation, multiculturalism etc... Maybe there is something to be said for the nation state after all

As an Englishman, Roger Scruton understands as no other cultural philosopher what it is like to be a member of an increasingly dominant civilisation. Freedom, individualism and hedonism seem very normal to us, Westerners, but they are can only truly arise in a civilisation where religion and reason have been and are being kept apart. The West seems to want to export these Western values (one value being more desirable than the other) to countries where other civilisations have completely different values. Western imperialism is a counter-productive idea because and muslim terrorists are the embodiment of an anti-modernist resistance towards Western expansion cultural world power. Armed by Occidentalist fruits of igenuity (such as airplanes, cell-phones, notebooks and Internet) the exreme Orientalists attempt to hit the West straight in the heart. By combining an abstract version of the ancient ideas of islam with modern, hedonistic tools, Scruton says, muslim terrorists may seem anti-globalistic, but in fact they USE the structures of globalism in order to spread the word of Mohammed's call for world power. This, in itself, is globalism too. In the book, Scruton displays islamist terrorism as the core around which his ideas revolve.

And he shows us yet more mind-boggling contradictions which need to be unveiled. Although Scruton, like other Europeans, is a member of the globalising Western culture, he wants to make clear that Europeans DO have something to fight for; that they do have a culture of their own and that being Western means that you are part of an intrinsic, complex civilisation with a rich history, with all its vulnerabilities. Our separation of state & church, our Enlightenment ideals such as rationalism, the idea of progress and the notion of being the member of a society (Le Contrat Social), have lead to our present culture of happiness, stability and inner consience. In islamic countries you are a member of a community under God. This has serious consequences for the way Westerners deal with freedom and matters such as efficiency, which may seem utilitarian in the eyes of the muslim world. For example, buildings cannot be higher than the minarets of the mosque, and laws can only be made by God or his special clerics, etc. Muslim immigrants are prone to a great revaluation of the cosy laws of islam, which offers them clear-cut rules for living and a dichotomous world of good and evil. They are receptible to radicalisation if the Western world they live in seems bleak and calculating.
The West has lost such unambiguous rules; people rarely are members of a community. Western people are members of a nation, a society. However, even this Western feeling of being a member of a coherent society, this `contract with people that you do not know', is rapidly disappearing because of the same Western values of individualism and hedonism. Cultural relativism has frustrated a sense of membership for several decades now. In the sixties, seventies, eighties and nineties it was not OK to be proud of your culture. Non-Western tribes were allowed to be proud, but not we. Scruton correctly blames the leftist intellectuals for this, who, in universities, called these evil proud Westerners `racists'. People in areas with high percentages of non-Western immigrants feel surrounded by newcomers who do not feel members of this `contract with people you don't know'. Moreover, there are millions of newcomers who despise our culture. Scruton says in the book that leftist intellectuals have relentlessly torn down the sense of cultural unity or of national identity and of authority, without offering a realistic alternative. People who opposed this were not racists, Scruton says in the book, they were merely defending their contract, their heritage. All this weakness, these loose ties, this extreme cultural relativism that muslims see in the West (which was partly created in order to give new cultures some space), arouse great contempt in many muslims. They see a godless, decadent culture. Their alternative: the laws of islam. Scruton calls for a renewal of our cultural self-esteem: we do have a culture to keep strong, as globalised as it may seem!

It is truly a GOOD BOOK!

Roger Scruton, who has written more than twenty books, including: LAND HELD HOSTAGE: LEBANON AND THE WEST (1987), has summarized the philosophical background of political thought supporting western forms of government and enterprises, on the one hand, and the most menacing forms of opposition threatening their existence, on the other. The index is quite useful for locating significant figures, where they appear in the text most pertinently. Nietzsche only appears once, on the way to explaining "the appeal of those recent thinkers--Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Richard Rorty--who owe their intellectual eminence not to their arguments but to their role in giving authority to the rejection of authority, and to their absolute commitment to the impossibility of absolute commitments." (p. 75). Former opponents of the Western world as we know it in this book include Karl Marx, "Shortly after the family had been iconized by Hegel, it was satirized by Marx and Engels in THE HOLY FAMILY. But the real intellectual war against the family is a product of the late twentieth century, and part of a great cultural shift from the affirmation to the repudiation of inherited values." (p. 70). "Like Marxism, feminism purports to show us the world without ideological masks or camouflage." (p. 72). Marx is later criticized more philosophically for starting this ball rolling. "All distinctions are `cultural,' therefore `constructed,' therefore `ideological,' in the sense defined by Marx--manufactured by the ruling classes in order to serve their interests and bolster their power. Western civilization is simply the record of that oppressive process, and the principal purpose of studying it is to deconstruct its claim to our membership. This is the core belief that a great many students in the humanities are required to ingest, " (p. 79) at least until men stop signing up for liberal arts classes because they find them so offensive.

On the other hand, revolt in Western societies seems to play right into the hands of what the poet, Robert Bly, calls a sibling society. Instead of a society dominated by adults able "to induct young people into the national culture, when loyalties no longer stretch across generations or define themselves in territorial terms, then inevitably the society of strangers, held together by citizenship, is under threat." (p. 82). The vast media domination, assuming the primary influence of entertainment values in areas that used to be under the sway of intellectual thought, produces a society which is easily seen by the rest of the world as dominated by "a dissipation that is both cause and effect of the sex-and-drugs lifestyle of the modern teenager." (p. 82).

The fundamental point in Chapter 3, "Holy Law," is perhaps stated most forcefully later, in Chapter 4, "Globalization," considering how the common financial situation determining the future of the demographic explosion has not escaped ancient attitudes. "There is no such entity as Iraq, only a legal fiction erected by the United Nations for the purpose of dealing with whichever individual, clique, or faction is for the moment holding the people of that country hostage." (p. 135). Any authority which previously existed in that area takes "no responsibility, and can be neither praised nor blamed, but exist merely as shields and weapons in the hands of those whose advantages they secure. This was made explicit under the Leninist system of Communist government, which was . . . shadowed by an office of the `vanguard party,' which exercised all the power but was wholly unaccountable for doing so.
"This too casts some light on September 11. The attacks were designed to wound the United States in its decision-making part." (pp. 135-136). September 11, 2001, was a near miss for the political parties who send people to the U.S. Congress. Only those who lack political clout in the ruling party would want to point out that the financial structures and Pentagon civilians harmed in that attack were among those least likely to throw lives away in the kind of fights which previously seemed unlikely for a government which normally, "When it fights on their behalf it does not drag them into conflicts that are none of their business but involves them in conflicts of their own." (p. 138). So when I look at the news, I'm still checking to see if the oil wells are safe, and who wouldn't? This book explains things that were in the news much longer than most people have worried about them, and some of the truth in this book hurts.

We're all asking what alienated the London suicide bombers to do what they did. This book offers some real insights into the Islamist state of mind.

There are no easy solutions : the West now offers the Muslim immigrant welfare benefits, free education, free medical services and plenty of work on the illegal market (the European Union having priced work out of the official economy). What the immigrant won't find is any process of nation building so he lives in strict isolation; being a member of only his family and his immigrant community.

The chapters on how the West built nations through shared language,shared religion, shared customs and a shared legal system (all absent from the European Union) are extremely thought provoking.

Please read this book. I came to the conclusion some time ago that the nations of the West are giving up their countries. A price it seems we pay for freedom (freedom gone too far?).

I am a fully integrated immigrant. I came to the UK at the age of six some 42 years ago and firmly believed that all immigrants would seek to become integrated. I failed to understand why this has not happened but this book along with some others I have read recently (eg Bernard Lewis: Islam in Crisis) have helped me to make some sense of the current situation.

Scruton gives us a piercing concpetual analysis and deconstruction of the major qualities of Western and Islamic mindsets, motivations and goals, from political "liberal New York" to creed based Tehran. Of particular interest is his conclusion, based fully on what he considers the central tenets of the West. A must read and consideration for any citizen concerned about the state of the globe.

I am not sure that this book is about the West and the rest that includes China, India, Russia, Brazil. It is more about the West and Islam. This is not surprising since it was written in response to 9/11. For Scruton the West is comprised of territorial states whose democratic features include a seperation of state and church, and an insistence on loyalty to the state. The Islamic world on the other hand is a civilization in which loyalty to one's particular state is secondary to loyalty to Islamic Civilization as a whole. In Islamic civilization there is no loyalty per se to the state, but rather to the global Islamic community. Islam does not seperate church and state but makes them one.
Scruton sees a loss of faith and decline in functionality in the West, and contrasts this with an Islamic world whose loyalty is o Islamic civilization as a whole. He sees the rise of global terror in connection with the growth of Islam in the world.