00:00 Suzanne’s new book, The Apocalypse and the End of History: Modern Jihad and the Crisis of Liberalism
1:17 The ongoing War on Terror in the age of the new Cold War
10:04 Jihadism as a modern phenomenon
18:36 The recent evolution of the doctrine of jihad
26:57 What about modernity are jihadists – and US right-wingers – reacting against?
34:48 Suzanne: To thwart authoritarians, build robust democratic communities
52:56 Who is fighting the liberal status quo?
59:44 Are Democrats too idealistic?
1:05:42 Dispelling the myth of primordial ethnic tribalism
Robert Wright (Bloggingheads.tv, The Evolution of God, Nonzero, Why Buddhism Is True) and Suzanne Schneider (Brooklyn Institute for Social Research, The Apocalypse and the End of History). Recorded May 12, 2022.
Comments on BhTV: http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/64206
Twitter: https://twitter.com/bloggingheads
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/bloggingheads/
Podcasts: https://bloggingheads.tv/subscribe
source
I think we should analyze what the original meanings of the word jihad mean and what was the context of each meaning. Was is the Meccan version of jihad or the medinan version of jihad? In other words, is it the jihad waged as a minority? Or jihad waged as a majority with significant political power? And what about jihad waged by the prophet as a war lord (offensive) and well after him the Ottomans. Were they misinterpreting their prophet speaking the words of Allah? Surah 53:3-4. For this reason, I think that despite the “evolution” of the term, (partly caused by our global connectedness to cultures outside of our respective ones; particularly middle eastern cultures connectedness to the west) it is tied with its religious origins.
But interesting take nonetheless paralleling the disenchantment with the powers that be within American politics and the “modern” jihad being waged by Islamists against powers that they too are disenchanted with. I agree that America is on a slippery slope and it seems we are shifting towards an all or nothing “jihad”against one another.
Great convo!!! And God bless America!
Ms. Schneider says her bias is with the Frankfurt school which was founded by Marxists. She is a strong left winger. No wonder she disagrees with Elon Musk's assertion that the US politics has shifted leftward.
"What appears to me unacceptable in the "strategy'" (in terms of weapons, practices, ideology, rhetoric, discourse, and so on) of the "bin Laden effect" is not only the cruelty, the disregard for human life, the disrespect for the law, for women, the use of what is worst in technocapitalist modernity for the purposes of religious fanaticism. No, it is, above all, the fact that such actions and such discourse open onto no future and, in my view, have no future_. If we are to put any faith in the perfectibility of public space and of the world juridico-political scene, of the "world" itself, then there is, it seems to me, _nothing good to be hoped for from that quarter. What is being proposed, at least implicitly, is that all captialist and modern technoscientific forces be put in the service of an interpretation, itself dogmatic, of the Islamic revelation of the One. Nothing of what has been so laboriously secularized in even the nontheological form of sovereignty (…), none of this seems to have any place whatsoever in the discourse "bin Laden.'" That is why, in this unleashing of violence without name, if I had to take one of the two sides and choose in a binary situation, well I would. Despite my very strong reservations about the American, indeed European, political posture, about the "international terrorist" coalition, despite all the de facto betrayals, all the failures to live up to democracy, international law, and the very international institutions that the states of this "coalition" themselves founded and supported up to a certain point, I would take the side of the camp that, in principle, by right of law, leaves a perspective open to perfectibility in the name of the "political," democracy, international law, international institutions, and so forth. Even if this "in the name of" is still merely an assertion and a purely verbal commitment. Even in its most cynical mode, such an assertion still lets resonate within it an invincible promise. I don't hear any such promise coming from "bin Laden," at least not one in this world."
Derrida, "Autoimmunity: Real and Symbolic Suicides" Philosophy in a Time of Terror p.113
Around 20 minutes in, Bob says "Islam developed as a state thing, unlike Christianity…" I'm not trying to harp on Bob and he was speaking extemporaneously, but I don't think that's accurate at least as applied to Christianity in Europe. States most certainly had churches; Europe's identity as a cohesive culture (to the extent it ever was cohesive) had a lot to do with the state church of Rome. Some of the differences we see with Russia today are perhaps rooted in the fact that it traces its civilization to a different state Church, derived from the Eastern Roman Empire.
Throughout the Cold War and after, Global Powers utilized social and cultural forces to define abstract political concepts such as "freedom" and "liberation." National liberation struggles were juxtaposed to market-driven development. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Central European nations presented the context for de-socializations. Liberation become individualized in identity politics. Nationalism became defined as freedom and in Central Europe that took the form of ethnic nationalism. In that world, jihadism adopted culture and religion as the guiding political philosophy with the economic and political support in the war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan by American Presidential administrations. Turkish nationalism evolved as the secularism of Ataturkism confronting Kurdish nationalism with a constant flow of American war materiel. Nationalism has replaced Marxism in the Russian Federation and the Peoples' Republic of China. Counter-insurgency strategy of the United States has promoted the jihadism of Chechnya and Xinjiang Province, the nationalism of Ukraine and the "nationalist" Taiwanese independence movement. There are two camps that confront each other are irrevocably moving towards war and conflict. "War is the continuation of politics by other means." Clausewitz Throughout the Cold War and after, Global Powers utilized social and cultural forces to define abstract political concepts such as "freedom" and "liberation." National liberation struggles were juxtaposed to market-driven development. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Central European nations presented the context for de-socializations. Liberation become individualized in identity politics. Nationalism became defined as freedom and in Central Europe that took the form of ethnic nationalism. In that world, jihadism adopted culture and religion as the guiding political philosophy with the economic and political support in the war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan by American Presidential administrations. Turkish nationalism evolved as the secularism of Ataturkism confronting Kurdish nationalism with a constant flow of American war materiel. Nationalism has replaced Marxism in the Russian Federation and the Peoples' Republic of China. Counter-insurgency strategy of the United States has promoted the jihadism of Chechnya and Xinjiang Province, the nationalism of Ukraine and the "nationalist" Taiwanese independence movement. There are two camps that confront each other are irrevocably moving towards war and conflict. "War is the continuation of politics by other means." Clausewitz
Re the Fukuyama, 'end of history' zeitgeist in the 1990s and the emergence of the Clinton/Blair 'third way'. I argued circa 98 that the seeming bankruptcy of left politics would likely lead to a re-emergence of the far-right. Especially given the post-Keynesian financial deregulations, and risk of another crash.
I just couldn't hear the phrase "kind of" again. Had to bail
Could we say that the modern Islamic thinkers democratized jihad?
This is really good stuff
I find it fascinating in America that the argument is often framed as Normal People vs. The Right Wing. There is no Left Wing to speak of. It's just assumed that if you lean Left you are normal (i.e. good) and if you lean Right, you are part of "The Problem." 50 years ago conservatives assumed they were the normal, non-radicals, and now the progressives do the same. It's all reversed.
Bob, that was a waste of our time. We dont CNN/MSNBC bullshit from you.. she is full of paper dreams about the world, and now you propogate non-sense on behalf of the BLOB..
God damn it 😔
Shell make a great blobster. I honestly envy her remarkable lack of need for and possession of non-academic perspective. Happy for her.
So, a historian who doesn’t believe in heritability and confluence? Huh? 🙂
it sounds like suzanne wants to conflate jihadists and islamists' cause with something like, i dunno, patrick deneen's critique of liberalism but as explanations go this doesn't seem very fruitful or indeed explanatory.
Great conversation, I almost totally agree with her assessment of where we are in the western context, never saw the connections with the jihadi movements very insightful
I love the exposed self-realizing laughable opinion showing at every other sentence. Like the world protectors do with projecting their bad ways of life by blaming others for exactly what they do wrong…this sits far below in yuck level but it so junky that I’m forced to stop watching video when people laugh through during things they say that they dislike.
I wonder on my side what I and my friends do that sucks….
Equating the Right in America with Jihadists is exactly what the Left's so-called "Domestic Terrorism" is all about. Good to see Mr. Wright call her out on her far-left leanings which she didn't dispute.
Great conversation, thank you. Couple of comments wonder if you would agree. You both seemed to shy away from an examination of the degree to which and manner in which neoliberalism degrades material conditions for common folk @home and abroad. Also its tandem partnership with neocon policies which create even greater incentives for radicalization. I wish more people were having these conversations, cheers!
Wonderful conversation
I find the opaqueness in the background of her shot fascinating. I wonder if she chose it
Awesome conversation. Suzanne is the first person, I have heard, who has put what I see into words, perfectly,
One critique, or something to think about. The left has been moving the goal post further left, on immigration, globalism, yes identity politics.
I have drifted away from the Democrats, as they turn away from merit, and hard work, and towards race dividing, family dividing policies
Interesting, Scott Adams has held that history does not repeat. He has stated that over the last 4 years.
Please explain the difference between a liberal democracy and sharia ?
“Jihadists are a product of the modern movement towards science and engineering”
Really? We are told that a magic Angel appeared in a cave to an uneducated highwayman and trader. There the ángel revealed all necessary knowledge of the universe to the highwayman. No skeptical observers were present. And we are told that if we doubt this account we shall be subjected to torture imprisonment and even death. This is modern science and engineering? Only a product of our social science programs in modern universities could say this with a straight face.
really good talk
This woman is a nut case.
This whole Left / Right distinction has gotten so arbitrary. There is no reason why a Fascist couldn't support Public Daycare, Healthcare, and a Minimum Wage increase. In fact, a Fascist could easily use those things to win favor for their party.
Radically (from the root), Islam for non-Muslims is about "being afraid. Very afraid." By desigen.