Al Qaeda: and what it means to be Modern
Chatham: Faber and Faber, 2003
The author perceives a strong connection between historicism and positivism and the repressive political systems emerged in the 20th century, such as Bolshevism in Russia, Maoism in China and Nazism or Fascism in Germany. The current neo-liberalism and unilateralism adopted by the USA, particularly under presidency of George W Bush’s are also considered as some other aspects of the repressive systems. Gray suggests that there is a similarity between western Jacobeans’ revolutionary approaches and Al-Qaeda’s activities. The revolutionary anarchists of late nineteenth-century Europe are seen as Al-Qaeda’s closest precursors (Gray, 2003, p. 2). He argues that “like communism and Nazism radical Islam is modern” (Gray, 2003, p. 3).
Gray quotes Saint Simon, who wrote on the development of human intelligence that the general system of human knowledge would be recognised on the basis of the belief that the universe is ruled by a single indisputable law. All systems, such as the systems of religion, politics, morals and civil law, will be placed in harmony with the new system of knowledge (p. 39). The author also quotes Comte who believes that the positive philosophy regards all phenomena as subjected to invariable natural laws; and the business of a positive sociologist is to pursue an accurate discovery of these laws, in the smallest possible number (p. 39).
This tradition, according to the author, was continued by the Vienna Circle, philosophy of Ernest Mach (1816-1916), as logical positivism, and then it had impacts on neo-liberal economics, such as the ideas of Milton Friedman. From this point of view, economics is ahistorical science based on efficiency and free market. Then IMF and the World Bank, have used these ideas as their strategies. Using Joseph Stieglitz’ arguments, this “Market fundamentalism” has been at work to create a homogenised world. In this way, the author argues, that the economics was used as a religion in same way as August Comte and Saint Simon regarded science as religion. Comte and Simon even started to organise scientists in a very similar way to Catholicism with its hierarchy of churches and vicars.
The author’s pessimistic approach based on variety of views ranged from Hobbesian and Malthusian ideas, supported by post-modernist views of relativism and the rejection of progressiveness in history and a scientific approach in understanding history and society. He believes that the sources of conflicts should be explained by scarcity of resources. However, this is a “universal” precondition for neo-classical and neo-liberal economics as well. The author also draws on the Huntington approach of cultural diversity but put a great emphasis on anarchy and chaos rather than order.
In the strategy of “remaking the world by spectacular act of terror”, Gray sees a similarity between Bin Laden and the Secret Agent of Joseph Conrad’s eponymous novel written in the early 20th century. Gray quotes Conrad’s Secret Agent actions, as “an act of ferocity so absurd as to be incomprehensible, inexplicable, almost unthinkable” (2003, p. 22).
He looks at ideas developed by Sayyid Qutb (1906- 197), who was influenced by Maududi (1903-79), in order to shape the world as a homogeneous whole. The policies pursued by scientific minded institutions and governments, similarly want to shape the world in a standardised whole. Gray believes that this has led to collapse of states when the states no longer monopolise the violence as they did in the time when Clausewitz wrote his famous book. Al-Qaeda is one of those non-states organisations, acting at a global level beyond the control of states.
Al-Qaeda is regarded as an essentially modern organisation. It is regarded modern not only in the facet that it “uses satellite phones, laptop computers and encrypted websites. The attack on the Twin Towers, demonstrates that Al-Qaeda understands that twenty- first century wars are spectacular encounters in which the dissemination of media images is a core strategy” (p. 76). To explain that Al-Qaeda is modern he uses Rohan Gunaratna’s book “Inside Al Qaeda”. Gray considers Taliban as followers of Bin Laden.
He believes that what Al-Qaeda presented has demolished the myth of homogeneity, one form of modernity as positivist and historicists argued. By placing an emphasis on the role of accidents in history, with a frequently given example of Cleopatra’s nose, Gray rejects the relation between science and technology with economic ideas. Instead, he argues for the coexistence of different cultures and recognition of different forms of modernity. He argues that the modern era is “simply the mix of things produced by accelerating scientific advance, modern societies will vary widely and unpredictably” (p. 112).
He argues that true meaning of globalisation is a political construct, as the global market in reality is little more than the widening and deepening connections produced throughout the world by new information and communications technologies that abolish or foreshorten time and distance (p. 113). According to Gray, the conflict between Al-Qaeda and the West is war between universal idea of enlightenment and radical Islam because both are seen as religion. Gray suggests that Al-Qaeda ‘s peculiar hybrid of theocracy and anarchy is a by-product of Western radical thought (p. 117). In that sense Gray believes that this particular conflict is not about “clashes of civilizations”.
Gray, as a political theorist, to some extent, presents an approach of what Fred Halliday calls hegemonic abstentionism. This approach refers to theorists who attempt to limit the application of universal concepts of human rights (Halliday, 2000, p. 15). On the basis of this perspective, there is a danger to lose a firm ground for criticising Taliban’s and Al-Qaeda’s violent and discriminative behaviour towards women and other religious and ethnic groups.
Critical remarks
Gray is very pessimistic and it seems that he underestimates the abilities of science and history to shape our actions. It seems inconsistent to believe that all are modern, but at the same to reject universal laws which define this universality, modernity, on the basis that there are varieties of moderns. This is also a question: if all are modern, what is non-modern or traditional? If Al-Qaeda is explained as a modern phenomenon, connected to the Western tradition, then it reflects the same idea of universal in history.
In spite of rejecting homogeneity in positive ideas, there a sort of homogeneity in Gray’s pessimistic ideas. Why Taliban should be considered simply as followers of Bin Laden and in the same tradition? Does it mean from one type of modern we have to conclude another sort of modern? This implies that the author has not been careful about this generalisation and he may not have properly read Rashid Ahmad’s (2001) book on Taliban.
While John Gray looks at the symbolic meaning of 11th September as a destruction of Western rule, Hobsbawm (2007) regards it as insignificant in terms of power relations and believes that the effects and disruptions of this phenomenon are minimal. But there is no doubt that Gray’s book has discussed some very key points in relation to nature of Al-Qaeda’s modern nature.
- Noraiee, London, 10/3/2008.
References
Halliday, F. (2000). Nation and Religion in the Middle East. London: Saqi Book
Hobsbawm, E. J. (2007). Globalization, Democracy and Terrorism . London: Little, Brown.
Rashid, A. (2001) Taliban: The Story of the Afghan Warlords. Basingstoke: Pan Books.
