With the amount of articles, books and university courses seeking to explore and explain radical Islam and its relation to contemporary conflicts, you'd think the religious movement actually had something to do with terrorism. It does not. In fact, the answer to fighting Al-Qaeda and its opposition to the "West" cannot be found in the Koran, Wahhabism or the tenets of political Islamism. Indeed, radical Islamic terrorism is merely another doomed manifestation of a much older and broader rejection of modernity, and a study of the history of "Western" values demonstrates the realities of Islamic extremism's rise and inevitable defeat.
Quotation marks are a necessity when using the term "Western" values because, though these principles are often associated with Europe, the ideology of modernity has gradually become a universal philosophy for all humanity. Ideals of rationality, pluralism and the formation of a shared global society are not restricted to American politicians or policy, but are espoused by leaders from Nelson Mandela to Evo Morales to Jacques Chirac and Junichiro Koizumi. Neither is it a matter of capitalism versus socialism, as both economic ideologies are based on a fundamental philosophy of progress that advocates reason, unity and cultural diversity.
Radical fundamentalist Islam claims to oppose these values, frightening its foes with what seems to be an unprecedented challenge to the "West." Actually, it's nothing new. The past 100 years have witnessed two other manifestations of this same rejection of the homogenizing, rationalizing and unifying forces of progress, first in the form of Fascism and later as Bolshevism in the Soviet Union. Though the three movements selectively employed advanced technology (like guns, tanks, suicide-bomber piloted planes or Iran's new nuclear program) and sometimes even claimed to represent the forces of progress, a close look at their ideologies reveals a shared fundamental core rejection of modernity - exaltation of a supposed utopian past, opposition to "corrupt" modern values, formation of closed societies and celebration of irrationality. While the philosophies differ due to geopolitical circumstances and the cultures in which they've taken root, they have always originated from the same inherent, underlying reaction to modernity. In reality, Fascism, Bolshevism and radical Islam are three different masks that disguise one anti-ideology - Reaction.
Reaction is merely the world's innate response to progress. It is the unavoidable by-product of the spread of modernity. Just as the human body will react against unfamiliar changes like inoculation, a new diet or an organ transplant, so too do human societies often initially resist the advance of time. Jean Baudrillard explains, "Allergy to any definitive order, to any definitive power, is - happily - universal." Yet the experience of Reaction's first two manifestations demonstrates that, as purely a response to modernity, it is fated to ideological emptiness, internal contradictions and inability to resist the overwhelming force of progress. Fascism's doomed "will to empire" caused it to exhaust its militaries and provoke the formation of a mighty defensive alliance that lead to its defeat. Bolshevism could not suppress the will of the masses nor sustain its high industrial demands in a planned economy. The only reason the two regimes survived as long as they did was that they were able to continuously re-energize their ideologies and rally their followers by railing against the "decadent" modernity of the "West" which threatened their traditional ways of life. A look at the speeches of Fascist leaders like Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini or Bolsheviks like Joseph Stalin reveals the paucity of affirmative beliefs in their ideologies and the overwhelming amount of simple negations of "Western" modernity. One can imagine how much faster these movements would have collapsed had they been unable to use modern regimes as scapegoats.
It is only a matter of time before radical Islam too fails as a flawed movement in which Reaction has manifested itself. However, though the nation-state centered continent on which Fascism arose made it possible to destroy it through inter-state war, and the competing global economies of the Cold War allowed the West to simply "outspend" Bolshevism, the realities of the 21st century world are quite different. In a globalized society, all forces - including both modernity and Reaction - have become transnational and deterritorialized. Radical Islam has no state loyalties, no economy and no central authority. Rather than relying on the tired paradigms of state-centricity, invasion and economic warfare (as it has so far with the "Axis of Evil," the invasion of Iraq and potential sanctions on Iran), the "West" must instead employ the weapons of globalization.
Cultural dispersion, the spread of advanced technology and redistribution of its vast material wealth are the tools of a post-modern arsenal that will allow progress to once again defeat Reaction. Under either a regime of modernity or a regime of radical Islamic reaction, Muslim women could choose to wear the hijab, believers could object to intentionally offensive cartoons and the orthodox could practice their religion, but only under a government that embraces progress can people find better healthcare technology for their children, a government responsive to rational concerns of the state and rising standards of living - irresistible desires that ensure the downfall of an independent political Islamist ideology that cannot not position itself "against the West." Radical terrorist Islam cannot survive independently; it is a black hole of reactionary thought that feeds on modernity in order to maintain its existence and legitimacy. By understanding the realities of 21st century politics, using globalization to undermine Reaction and making sure not to foolishly strengthen its hold, the "West" can, and will, once again succeed and continue the inevitable spread of progressive thought across the globe and through all levels of society.
Jacob Schuman '08 thinks Jean Baudrillard and Francis Fukuyama would get along great.
