To explain, or the attempt to explain, is not the same as proffering a justification, rationalization, or an excuse
I
thought it should go without saying, but the attempt at explanation of why someone behaves a certain way (at
the individual level, what motivates action) is not equivalent in any way to a
defense of the proposed reasons that motivate an actor and that are part of said
explanation, nor does it amount to any sort of apology (or ‘excuse’) for the
behavior under examination. Rather, it helps those on the outside looking in,
as it were, to make sense—insofar as we can make sense—of such behavior (along
the lines of ‘nothing human is foreign to me’). So, for example, when a FB
friend linked to a speech by Egypt’s president Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi calling for
a “revolution” within Islam, I wrote the following: He’s a tyrant, in large
measure responsible for crushing the Revolution (such as it was) in Egypt,
evidencing no respect for legal due procedure or basic human rights. His
indiscriminate crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood or other—more
avowedly—radical Islamists (in addition to members of the Left) only serves to
plant the seeds for radicalization of young Muslims, alienating them from their
own society. He’s speaking more for the benefit of a “Western” audience (especially
the elite decision makers at the helm of its most powerful countries) so as to blunt
criticisms of his regime (in particular, its growing catalogue of egregious
human rights violations). I am not thereby endorsing the political program of
the Muslim Brotherhood (in fact, there is no one such program insofar as there
are well-known conflicting positions and tendencies within the group), nor attempting to excuse the behavior of
radical Islamists or self-identifying “jihadists” that Sisi is ruthlessly crushing
in Egypt. I am interested in what makes these radical Islamists “tick” (no pun
intended), what makes the actions they decide in favor of, in their minds,
palatable or otherwise indispensable to achieving their aims (some of which may
be irrational or repugnant) or living out their commitment to (their
understanding of) an Islamic worldview. I am also interested in why
discrimination against and the ruthless suppression of such groups only tends to
backfire, in other words, prepares the political and social psychological soil
propitious for sowing the seeds of further radicalization among a new
generation of Muslims.
It’s
not so much a “revolution” in Islam that is needed (after all, the vast majority
of Muslims around the world are perfectly reasonable and peaceful*), but an
understanding of the social-psychological and political conditions that make
radical Islamist ideology or “jihadist” Islamist ideology an attractive or
compelling “option” for some Muslims. For an exemplary illustration of this,
see Scott Atran’s book (as well as several of his articles), Talking to the
Enemy: Violent Extremism, Sacred
Values, and What It Means to Be Human (Allen Lane, 2010). As for the
political variables that help account for abandoning the reliance on violent if
not terrorist methods among these radical Islamists, see Omar Ashour’s The De-Radicalization of Jihadists: Transforming Armed Islamist Movements (Routledge,
2009). Nothing said here amounts to a defense of or an apology for how these
radical Islamists behave (they still need to be held legally and morally
accountable for their actions), but is rather part of an endeavor to understand
why they in fact find the choice of indiscriminate
or terrorist violence a viable option (i.e., why does it appear ‘rational,’ in
an instrumental sense, for them). Another
work that exemplifies this “sense-making” endeavor is the aptly titled volume
edited by Diego Gambetta, Making Sense of
Suicide Missions (Oxford University Press, 2006). Jon Elster reminds us,
“It is usually easier to change people’s circumstances and opportunities than
to change their minds.” In the first instance, this is no doubt true, and I
would only add, for our purposes, that a change in circumstances and
opportunities may indeed serve as a necessary condition for the sort of change
in mind (with regard to interests, passions, beliefs, values) that prompts a
favorable change in behavior.
Another
FB friend who happens to model the virtues of “cause lawyering,” expressed
frustration if not incomprehension in a comment thread on the recent terrorist
events in France when someone attempted to articulate (more or less) the
conceptual and practical difference between social scientific explanation and moral-political
and legal defense or justification (what was defensively termed ‘excuses’ by
those who disagreed with him). So, for instance, if one knows something about
the life of recent Muslim immigrants in France (or other European countries for
that matter), about the history of colonialism and post-colonialism, and so
forth and so on, facts and events that might serve as background variables (part
of the set of real, felt or imagined constraints, i.e., the ‘opportunity set’) central
to any such endeavor, one is heading down a slippery slope of rationalization
or excuse-mongering. If one further attempts to combine an appreciation of this
opportunity set with a peak (so to speak) into the mind of a person who is
willing to or actually does commit terrorist acts, this is not tantamount to an
endorsement of the putative or proposed individual motivational (hence causal)
reasons (for the actor: desires and beliefs as interests, passions,
commitments, etc.) that make for the proposed explanation and thus enhanced
understanding (bearing in mind that a causal explanation of mechanisms has a
finite number of links). Our lawyer appears to understand such causal
explanations on the order of “necessitation” (perhaps this is an instance of conflating causality and determinism, which both physics and philosophy have taught us to distinguish) in other words, in our endeavor
to explain the causal mechanisms of behavior we are at the same time saying the
actor in question had no choice in the matter, he or she was forced or
compelled by circumstances or situation to act as described in our hypothetical
or suggested explanation, and so we are, in effect, offering an apologia, an excuse, a (moral or
political or legal) rationalization for the behavior in question. But that is a
blatant non sequitur.
The
endeavor to explain and understand in such cases is not unlike what Erich Fromm
tried to do in his pioneering study of the Weimar working class, a project in
which he and his colleagues tried to explain (in particular, as a species of a
‘social psychological’ explanation) why an ostensible identification with “the
Left” was swiftly abandoned in favor of an ascendant populist fascist ideology.
This, in turn, is related to the larger political concerns and psychoanalytic
praxis of Freudian psychoanalysts in post-World War I Europe as told in
Elizabeth Ann Danto’s important book, Freud’s
Free Clinics: Psychoanalysis and
Social Justice, 1918-1938 (Columbia University Press, 2005). The Viennese
psychoanalysts of the 1920s and early 1930s justifiably believed that
“psychoanalysis had an implicit political mission.” In sum, an understanding of
history, situations, circumstances, and psychology is essential to the
long-term struggle to undercut the causal variables that create the social
psychological conditions necessary for the cultivation of fanaticism and
extremist ideologies, ideologies like those of jihadist Islamists who believe
they possess sufficient justification for their resort to indiscriminate
violence.
* I take this piece on Muslims
in Germany to be fairly representative of Muslims in Europe and North America: “Despite rising racism, European Muslims embrace democratic values.” As for Muslims around
the rest of the world, they may not all be “democrats,” but the vast majority
of them clearly do not subscribe to the sorts of radical Islamist ideologies
that legitimate indiscriminate or terrorist violence.
- Elster, Jon. Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
- Elster, Jon. Explaining Social Behavior: More Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
- March, Andrew F. Islam and Liberal Citizenship: The Search for an Overlapping Consensus. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
- Miller, Richard W. Fact and Method: Explanation, Confirmation and Reality in the Natural and the Social Sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987.
- Rodinson, Maxime (Roger Veinus, tr.) Europe and the Mystique of Islam. London: I.B. Tauris and Co., 2002 ed. (first published in French in 1980).
- Wickham, Carrie Rosefsky. The Muslim Brotherhood: Evolution of an Islamist Movement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home