Clash of Civilizations
The explosion of controversy surrounding the “Innocence of Muslims” film and the supposedly “senseless” violence that ensued in Libya and elsewhere after its reception, point to a significant hole in the American worldview. That is, many Americans still cannot comprehend that their nation's values are not universal, nor even entirely logically sound.
In an insightful article, literary critic Stanley Fish evokes how many Americans cannot imagine that others have values which conflict with the catechism of Free Speech, “the assumption is that if they (the rest of the world) had heard of it (the first amendment) and read it and gotten its message, they would have understood that you don’t target or attack people because of what they have written; you don’t respond to words, however harsh and wounding you take them to be, as if they were physical blows.” But the issue here is based on a clash of two civilizations, one in which our concept of religion is privatized and compartmentalized (if not secularized), and the other where, as Fish goes on to say, “religion is not an internal, privatized matter safe from the world’s surfaces, but an overriding imperative that the world’s surfaces should reflect”. In the context of this other civilization, “a verbal or pictorial assault on their religion will not be received as an external and ephemeral annoyance, as a ‘mere’ representation; it will be received as a wounding to the heart, as a blow, and as a blow that is properly met by blows in return. No ‘sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me’ for them.”
There appears to be radically different worldviews coming into collision here, but in fact, we are as equally defensive of our First Amendment ideals as those in Libya are of their religious convictions. Fish ends his piece with a provocative comparison between belief in “Free Speech” and belief in “God” or “Truth”. For many of us in the West, Free Speech is a value imbued with religious fervor – it is an abstract and invisibly entity that we cathect with meaning and “believe” in – this is why “secular humanism” is called out by some as a “religion” in itself.
The paradox of Free Speech is that we tolerate intolerance. We tolerate those explicitly blasphemous scenes in “Innocence of Muslims” all in the name of Free Speech, but yet we are wholly intolerant of their intolerance – we think the calm rationale of Free Speech sets us apart from the inflamed “sensitivity” of the “Muslim World.” This is where we expose ourselves as hypocrites. We point out “Muslim Rage,” while we too are intolerant of having our most foundational beliefs denounced ...and perhaps we are even more “sensitive”, for those in Libya are reacting to slander, while we react with outrage when our worldview is simply not accepted by people half way across the world. This whole controversy reveals the that the West is somehow still incapable of seeing over the rims of its own worldview. This near-sightedness may be what is most “senseless” here.
46 comments on the article “Clash of Civilizations”
Displaying 21 - 30 of 46
Page 3 of 5
JasonGLOVE
Seriously this doesn't add up. If you derive, through logical reasoning, the conclusion that free speech is a good value for your society, this isn't the same as being brainwashed from the time you are a child to believe your invisible god is offended by imagery of a supposed prophet. One is based on reason. One is based on misplaced faith. This isn't a clash of cultures. It's a clash of reason vs faith-based violence.
Anon
This article basically just points out that different people believe in different things. The question is, which belief system is more humane?
Anonymous
"You fundamentally believe that freedom is speech is a universal truth and that it is every one's right to have it."
cue the joker from the dark knight: "yeaaahhhh????"
Anonymous
Moral relativism is satanic. One can not claim that the sin of calumny is equal to the sin of murder.
Lukey
I am of the mind to quote something that is universal:
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
Prepared to make a nasty video? -don't be offended when one is made in response (and unlike the previous poster I don't think we would be - there ARE plenty of offensive videos to Christianity doing the rounds)
Prepared to kill for what you believe in? -prepare to be killed for what you believe in
And unfortunately that is where we are with the world: Americans killing Muslims, Muslims killing Americans.
The right approach is dialogue and tolerance, many on both sides preach it.
We should not condone violence from either side.
tobias
one problem has got to do with our concept of UNIVERSALITY i think. certain rights aren't simply 'universal' just because we say them to be. there is no other way than to take this pragmatically. values are universal if they are universally accepted. so human rights are not.
if we think the right of free speech is fundamental for a society or for the whole world, then we have to convince people of this. we have to convince people that freedom of speech protects everyone: people who ridicule your religion but also yourself: you can make your beliefs public everywhere and in every way you want - that's your right. if people everywhere are convinced by this, than this value becomes universal.
if they are not convinced, than i think it is to simple to speak of a CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS. it's simply not true that a muslim inherently can't accept somone who hates "muslims" because he's got some funny thoughts in his head to attack islam. the fact is that 80% of muslims live in societies that are autoritarian, that don't give nothing about citizens rights, that they live under governments that manipulate public opinion to hide the fact that they (the governments) cause the poverty and extreme inequality under which people are condemned to live. the point is that these people on the streets live in societies signed by daily violence and enjoy NONE of the rights we would like them to be believe in. they have never experienced that these rights are good for them and for society. how should they be more convinced of them then of religion which often is a source of energy and a means of resistance for them. muslim immigrants in europe on the other hand, though living in an open and democratic society often don't enjoy the same opportunities (=equality) that the rest of the population has and they live in a climate of little acceptance and demonization of islam which is not very favourable to convince some of them of all human rights.
and i won't talk about the number of people in europe and the usa who would abolish freedom of speech instantly if this concerned only certain ethnic, religious, political or sexual minorities.
all of the situation in parts of the muslim world, i think, has not simply just to do with civilization and but rather with the political and socioeconomic SITUATION in which they live or have been living for a long time...
tobias
@ pete phillips
i appreciate your argumentation that human rights are a belief system as religion is. but i don't agree with the fact that in order to explain this you seem to renounce to say that you personally find the right to free speech more valuable an more reasonable than the right to kill people that express another opinion than yours.
if you live in a society that is based on a certain freedom of speech and you profit from that situation you probably would agree with my value hierarchy. would you?
what i want to say is that in our attempt to fight enemy stereotypes and to make western incongruencies visible we can't renounce to standing in for values that we are convinced of and that we can underpin with valueable arguments. i mean, i have arguments for the freedom of speech but i have none for the killing of 'wrongbelievers'. so these to things for me aren't even minimally on the same level. and i always will try to persuade others of that. i don't think that my belief is more than a belief and somehow universal, but i am sure all of humanity could profit from this belief - if the conditions are right.
difficult argument anyway...
Anonymous
This awful film was created by a pro-Israeli right-winger to rile up Islamist right-wingers. The press likes to keep us all interested so they leave that part out. Also, free speech isn't freedom to incite riots, which I'm not saying this film did. More likely, this was used as an opportunity by Islamist extremists to demonstrate their power at getting their followers out for a riot. Most of the people in Muslim countries did just go on with their lives and did not commit violent acts.
blankall
It was actually created by a Coptic Christian. He invented "Sam Bacille" as a disguise. But I guess you accept the fact that Coptic Christians shouldn't be allowed to criticize Islam as they live in Egypt, an islamic country.
Kelsonus
The premise of the article is wrong
The film had nothing to do with it
Protest all you want, the US will not abandon the Constitution for sharia
Pages
Add a new comment