The Time to Listen
Since the fall of Berlin wall, the world is writing the pages of a new international scenario. Perhaps it may look like an inedit moment in history. Or, perhaps we need to read more history books.
Last weekend, France witnessed the largest rally in their history, and that is not a minor detail for a country with such a long history. There is a sense of harmony and unity among the french, and while the unanimous voices are “Je suis Charlie” and “we are not afraid”, the necessary question of the present day should be, “Now what?”. Unlike the common voices that claim that we are not going to stand still, to talk and do nothing, that this is the time for convincing action, we should make the act of listening our priority. Listen to us, listen to them, try to understand who are them. Furthermore, we need to find how much of them we have inside of us.
The islamic religion covers a wide spectrum, and it is safe to say that radical extremist is one regrettable part, but not a general representation. That has been said several times already. But it is even more curious to analyse the terrorist strategy. If I would like to expand the horizon of the islamic revolution, it is hard to think that today we are a step closer to that goal than last week, before the attacks. Since last wednesday, Charlie Hebdo and their controversial satires are world-wide known, the largest demonstration in France was echoed around the world condemning the attacks, and the islamophbic voices are increasingly stronger. At the same time, the attack did nothing but to push the agendas of states in favor of harsh military interventions and policies that are far from acting in their benefit. How would this massacre would help to their cause? Things aren’t usually as simple as they are presented to us, and a society that listens critically and reads in between lines won’t be easily fooled by the order of appearances. The philosopher Slavoj Žižek, in an article published last saturday, dug further into the rationality that lead to those attacks and pointed out the obvious and yet ridiculous: “If today’s so-called fundamentalists really believe they have found their way to Truth, why should they feel threatened by non-believers, why should they envy them?(...) The problem with fundamentalists is not that we consider them inferior to us, but, rather, that they themselves secretly consider themselves inferior.” There’s a need to reassure their own unicity, their radical difference, and this violence is the eruption of a unresourceful despair. Violence is never abstract, it is an intervention that covers up a certain impotence.
It is critical for us to think and listen. Rushed opinions and immediate actions serves only to the purpose of mitigating pain, not to the seek of solutions and justice. As members of liberal democratic societies, our duty is to engage in a mature debate. And this isn’t a chore we can relegate to the political leaders only. For example: the attentive observer might have noticed that, among the world leaders that joined the massive demonstrations, some -if not many- are questioned for their practices towards free press. Some politicians will use the Charlie Hebdo massacre to distract the attention from issues that somehow points out at them, while sneaking to the world a clean image of themselves as champions of liberty and peace.
Moreover, others will try manipulate a national tragedy this to push their agenda. Marine Le Pen, leader of the french right wing party Front National, called for the return of death penalty almost immediately after the attacks. Being the Islam extremist well known for their suicidal attacks and lack of care for their personal life when pursuing their goal, to propose the instauration of death penalty to fight them sounds like throwing stones to the clouds. But politicians will try to mask their intentions, and let us think that this is a necessary measure.
A newspaper published an article by the renowned spanish writer Arturo Perez Reverte originally written in September last year. The name: “Is the holy war, idiots!” While the article digress about his knowledge of “the enemy” and the achievements of western democracy; perhaps the author forgets that describing this as a war is the ultimate justification for attacks against Europe. Only because we are (now) a peaceful society, only because of that is that we have reasons we condemn violence and terrorism. Later on, he refuses to discuss or negotiate with the radical Islam. “What are we going to negotiate? With whom?” he asks. Don’t get me wrong, these crimes are deplorable and justice must be served. The threat of radical terrorist groups must be erased. But many, rushed in their call to arms, declare a holy war when they haven’t even found out who are we fighting. Islam as a whole? What are we attacking? Houses? Their petrol operation from where they finance their activities (and from where we get our oil too)? What are we exactly supposed to do? What would be the consequences of just attacking the targets we presume terrorist or terrorist-related? The last question comes as a necessary reflexion regarding the late military ventures in the Middle East.
In a new international scenario where national states are no longer the specific boundaries for conflicts, we need to address these problems as a global community. Perhaps what Pérez-Reverte and Le Pen are missing also is a historical perspective. The spanish writer and the french politician decided to ignore in their analysis the history of colonization and exploitation by Europe. Africa was invaded and colonized by ambitious european countries competing for resources during the peak of their industrial revolution. Those once colonized countries, don’t feel violence as a foreign element in their history: it was brought by Europe to them, and many of these people remain resentful of the abuse suffered by the old continent. Later on, the US military interventions in the middle east will add another chapter to this story.
Now, Islamophobics and nationalist wants to close borders to immigrants and to restore the “national identity”. ISIS currently has a force of 15 thousand soldiers within their self proclaimed borders. It is estimated that a thousand of them are french citizens, and many other thousands are from other european countries. Then again, who are we fighting? While the European right wing pushes to revise their immigration laws, they fail to acknowledge the complex scenario that scapes from easy nation-related definitions.
To listen is an urgent matter. To listen isn't to justify or side with extremism: is to define the problem and understand where are we, which role are we going to play and how are going to -not kill terrorists- but to end terrorism. If we keep addressing this violence as a foreign attack or a holy war, Europe will never defeat or understand the true nature and genealogy of extremist violence. The enemy isn't within or outside.
Global terror is a burst of violence that came from our desire to neglect the idea that from now on, no problem will be an individual one. There’s no such thing as the problem of violence in middle east, there’s a problem of violence in the world; there’s no problem of malnutrition and hunger in Africa, there’s hunger in the world.
We need to listen and think before making a regrettable military decision. Hate, revenge and intolerance-driven decisions won’t do anything else than to mirror the violence that last week fell upon France. As a great nihilist philosopher once wrote, "He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. If thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee."
Last weekend, France witnessed the largest rally in their history, and that is not a minor detail for a country with such a long history. There is a sense of harmony and unity among the french, and while the unanimous voices are “Je suis Charlie” and “we are not afraid”, the necessary question of the present day should be, “Now what?”. Unlike the common voices that claim that we are not going to stand still, to talk and do nothing, that this is the time for convincing action, we should make the act of listening our priority. Listen to us, listen to them, try to understand who are them. Furthermore, we need to find how much of them we have inside of us.
The islamic religion covers a wide spectrum, and it is safe to say that radical extremist is one regrettable part, but not a general representation. That has been said several times already. But it is even more curious to analyse the terrorist strategy. If I would like to expand the horizon of the islamic revolution, it is hard to think that today we are a step closer to that goal than last week, before the attacks. Since last wednesday, Charlie Hebdo and their controversial satires are world-wide known, the largest demonstration in France was echoed around the world condemning the attacks, and the islamophbic voices are increasingly stronger. At the same time, the attack did nothing but to push the agendas of states in favor of harsh military interventions and policies that are far from acting in their benefit. How would this massacre would help to their cause? Things aren’t usually as simple as they are presented to us, and a society that listens critically and reads in between lines won’t be easily fooled by the order of appearances. The philosopher Slavoj Žižek, in an article published last saturday, dug further into the rationality that lead to those attacks and pointed out the obvious and yet ridiculous: “If today’s so-called fundamentalists really believe they have found their way to Truth, why should they feel threatened by non-believers, why should they envy them?(...) The problem with fundamentalists is not that we consider them inferior to us, but, rather, that they themselves secretly consider themselves inferior.” There’s a need to reassure their own unicity, their radical difference, and this violence is the eruption of a unresourceful despair. Violence is never abstract, it is an intervention that covers up a certain impotence.
It is critical for us to think and listen. Rushed opinions and immediate actions serves only to the purpose of mitigating pain, not to the seek of solutions and justice. As members of liberal democratic societies, our duty is to engage in a mature debate. And this isn’t a chore we can relegate to the political leaders only. For example: the attentive observer might have noticed that, among the world leaders that joined the massive demonstrations, some -if not many- are questioned for their practices towards free press. Some politicians will use the Charlie Hebdo massacre to distract the attention from issues that somehow points out at them, while sneaking to the world a clean image of themselves as champions of liberty and peace.
Moreover, others will try manipulate a national tragedy this to push their agenda. Marine Le Pen, leader of the french right wing party Front National, called for the return of death penalty almost immediately after the attacks. Being the Islam extremist well known for their suicidal attacks and lack of care for their personal life when pursuing their goal, to propose the instauration of death penalty to fight them sounds like throwing stones to the clouds. But politicians will try to mask their intentions, and let us think that this is a necessary measure.
A newspaper published an article by the renowned spanish writer Arturo Perez Reverte originally written in September last year. The name: “Is the holy war, idiots!” While the article digress about his knowledge of “the enemy” and the achievements of western democracy; perhaps the author forgets that describing this as a war is the ultimate justification for attacks against Europe. Only because we are (now) a peaceful society, only because of that is that we have reasons we condemn violence and terrorism. Later on, he refuses to discuss or negotiate with the radical Islam. “What are we going to negotiate? With whom?” he asks. Don’t get me wrong, these crimes are deplorable and justice must be served. The threat of radical terrorist groups must be erased. But many, rushed in their call to arms, declare a holy war when they haven’t even found out who are we fighting. Islam as a whole? What are we attacking? Houses? Their petrol operation from where they finance their activities (and from where we get our oil too)? What are we exactly supposed to do? What would be the consequences of just attacking the targets we presume terrorist or terrorist-related? The last question comes as a necessary reflexion regarding the late military ventures in the Middle East.
In a new international scenario where national states are no longer the specific boundaries for conflicts, we need to address these problems as a global community. Perhaps what Pérez-Reverte and Le Pen are missing also is a historical perspective. The spanish writer and the french politician decided to ignore in their analysis the history of colonization and exploitation by Europe. Africa was invaded and colonized by ambitious european countries competing for resources during the peak of their industrial revolution. Those once colonized countries, don’t feel violence as a foreign element in their history: it was brought by Europe to them, and many of these people remain resentful of the abuse suffered by the old continent. Later on, the US military interventions in the middle east will add another chapter to this story.
Now, Islamophobics and nationalist wants to close borders to immigrants and to restore the “national identity”. ISIS currently has a force of 15 thousand soldiers within their self proclaimed borders. It is estimated that a thousand of them are french citizens, and many other thousands are from other european countries. Then again, who are we fighting? While the European right wing pushes to revise their immigration laws, they fail to acknowledge the complex scenario that scapes from easy nation-related definitions.
To listen is an urgent matter. To listen isn't to justify or side with extremism: is to define the problem and understand where are we, which role are we going to play and how are going to -not kill terrorists- but to end terrorism. If we keep addressing this violence as a foreign attack or a holy war, Europe will never defeat or understand the true nature and genealogy of extremist violence. The enemy isn't within or outside.
Global terror is a burst of violence that came from our desire to neglect the idea that from now on, no problem will be an individual one. There’s no such thing as the problem of violence in middle east, there’s a problem of violence in the world; there’s no problem of malnutrition and hunger in Africa, there’s hunger in the world.
We need to listen and think before making a regrettable military decision. Hate, revenge and intolerance-driven decisions won’t do anything else than to mirror the violence that last week fell upon France. As a great nihilist philosopher once wrote, "He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. If thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee."
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario