A Wishful Thinking?
Interesting post on FT here which speaks about the hopeful wish that an alternative to the ISIS’s version would develop somewhere in the modern world and woo away the violent translators that exist today. I wonder if such a fervent appeal has lain unheeded for too long a time. The idea that a centralized authority can put the stamp on authenticity is really not such a radical idea.
When the interpretations are thrown open for anyone to extract as he/she may, the result is a quite definite cacophony of wildly divergent opinions and understanding. Especially with domains where the society is involved with at large, such differing opinions has a tendency to either a) destabilize the region, b) desensitize the society or c) destroy the fabric of the domain itself. Not such a swift exercise any of them, so the transition phase is when the majority of volatility will conspire to act itself out. And this is what we see today.
The Baggage of History
I am curious to understand if there has been instances in history that can be superimposed to the situation that exist today. Always a firm believer in the constancy of cycles, I am interested in understanding if civilizations across space or time have had such crisis of existence in the past. Questioning a belief system is not an acceptance of its existential crisis, so don’t get me wrong. It would be easy to let simplifications and an overt superimposition of history let you form unreasonable, irrational and oftentimes vitriolic responses to the world around us, such as is described here. It’d be foolhardy then to have a singular opinion on the superiority of one over the other. And bear in mind, these biases tend to impose themselves in the most unlikeliest of places so much so, that the paradoxical nature of your so-called “liberal” existence becomes a joke onto itself.
Hierarchies and the Lack of It
Even in the contemporary societies, we do see what fractures in an evil-yet-hierachial society can do to the stability of the region. Examples abound of countries and whole regions erupting due to that critical missing link called authority. In the name of a liberal vision, we cannot just let the oversimplifications that such an ideology project run over everything around it. Violence by those with structural power is natural. When its incorporated by those not in the traditional power-spectrum of society, it becomes a term and is met by another term “repression”. So repression is a reaction and is different from what a de facto power suggests. The chain reaction that’s inherent in the ingredients of such a combustible mix is well-known. What isn’t immediately available to the scholarly eye is why the reverse of a hate-campaign isn’t as natural? Why doesn’t the more gentle of the two contemporaries piggyback on the “network effect” as much as its vile counterpart? I realize that there’s the law of entropy and that the natural state of being is one that’s un-contained. But that does not explain it.
Formula for Integration [Link]
The experience of different countries seem to suggest that there is no such formula. In their origins, it seems to me closer to the natural disasters in the middle ages when their origins were unknown to humans and were appropriated to supernatural beings. Much in the same way, the perpetrators and their guiding principles seem alienated to 100% of everything that we stand for. This “seemingly” unknown force is a direct corollary of the “unknown” forces that were the origins of religion itself. After all, wasn’t it to escape from the dangers of the unknown that men invented the supreme beings?
Another thought – are we, in our efforts to understand, underestimating the importance of economics and of envy?