revolt in the desert

evil plots and new religions

2009-02-27T23:26:00.004-05:00

Not surprisingly the Vatican was unimpressed by Richard Williamson's non-apology for his rampant antisemitism (Holocaust denial is only the beginning).

On a related note, Williamson apparently approached David Irving for advice in how to present his conspiracy theories to the public in a manner that would not cause such an uproar. Irving suggested that he admit the extermination of Jews in three camps (without mentioning any numbers, because those "need to be checked"), but went on to say that Williamson was the target of a Jewish plot designed to distract from the attacks on Gaza:

Israel set off this storm against the church, led by a German pope, to distract the world from the massacre in Gaza.

To round out the insanity, upon his arrival in London, Williamson was met by Michele Renouf. Renouf had previously supported Irving during his trial for Holocaust-denial in Austria. Renouf claimed that Williamson was the victim of an unreasonable persecution by the adherents of a new religion: "Holocaustianity".

blindness

2009-02-26T22:31:00.007-05:00

The Catholic, Holocaust-denying bishop, Richard Williamson, apologized again for the consequences of his remarks on the Holocaust.

Not surprisingly, there is nothing in the remarks to suggest that Williamson has changed his mind. What is more troubling is that Rome does not seem to have been troubled by his views enough to start with, nor has the Vatican reacted to any of the other whacko conspiracy theories to which Williamson subscribes, nor have they asked him to apologize for his rather blatant misogyny.

Peter Bruegel the Elder, "The Parable of the Blind Leading the Blind" (1568) [Tempura]

The most troubling aspects of this sordid mess have little to do with Williamson. Williamson is exactly what we thought he was; he is exactly what the Vatican ought to have known he was. And there is nothing to suggest that, despite the recent attempts of the SSPX to distance themselves from him, that he does not represent that already fringe breakaway from Catholicism. After all, they made him a bishop and up until last week had him in charge of one of their seminaries, directing the intellectual and spiritual formation of the young men there.

What is most disturbing is the failure of the Vatican to pursue these other matters suggesting that they see Williamson primarily as a PR problem in their attempt to reconcile with the SSPX movement and strengthen traditionalists within the Catholic communion at whatever cost. They do not see Williamson or his group for what it is. This means that either the Vatican is so obsessed with reconciling with the lover that jilted them that they cannot see how grossly deformed the SSPX is (the antisemitism is, as I have said, only the beginning) or, they actually do not find the spiritual deformations of the movement problematic. Either is frightening.

-LoA

the struggle (part 2)

2009-02-23T10:13:00.000-05:00

Ad Reinhardt, Untitled (1960-1966)

there is no salvation outside of History.

they were told in the garden that if they ate of the fruit of the tree they would surely die. to be like god, knowing good from evil, this is politics and the beginnings of all war. every city is babel.

in a broken world, one must write broken sentences.

if the world were perfectly closed there would be no hope. because it is broken one can hope, for that means there is passage beyond what we are.

politics substitutes the borders of the de-personal state and the declaration of war that leads to the rape and plunder of all its subjects for the caress of the body, the communion of love and the worship of that by which love is made possible.

moses was told that no one could see god and live. so, since he was moses, he did not see god. but he misunderstood: we must be no one.

-LoA

the struggle

2009-02-22T10:01:00.000-05:00

Jean-Léon Gérôme, "Prayer in the Desert" (1864) [oil on panel]

the labor of writing is not that of trying to get the words out of oneself, as if it were an exorcism. it is instead a matter of trying to find one's place within the words. this immersion is difficult because we do not know how to rest.

while the anorexic desires nothing as if it were something, the ascetic desires even less and thereby attains the Whole.

an individual: a shadow of what one is meant to be

whoever desires the infinite but sets aside the finite will only find themselves mired in finitude because they have insisted that the infinite is limited. but the one who immerses themselves in the finite will find it transfigured and every limit removed.

war: the belief that death is a greater good than peace

a standing army that sits unused is a waste. a standing army that is used is a waste.

a definition of theology: thinking through sin in the hope of salvation

-LoA

always already

2009-02-20T23:35:00.001-05:00

friend: what would you be if you couldn't be christian anymore?

LoA: a neoplatonist

friend: *sigh* but you already ARE a neoplatonist

the erosion of idenity: the national religion as freedom for indifference

2009-02-18T22:43:00.007-05:00

It is hardly surprising that our handy Gallup Poll also finds that among Americans who identify themselves as religious, the overwhelming majority (70% nationally) say that the particular religion a person practices is simply one of many such ways that a person could approach God and that many different religions are equally good at helping people achieve their eternal salvation. I am not sure that people can take political liberalism’s “freedom of religion” seriously, both as a value and as a cultural practice, unless they do not think there is anything serious at stake in which religion you are a member of. It would be naive to try and disentangle the particular way in which America understands and practices the cultural and political values of "freedom of religion" from the below average importance that religion holds in American lives according to the poll and the widespread American belief that which particular religion you are is not important to your eternal salvation.

Daniel Greene, "Ring-a-Ghoul" (2006)

One of the reasons the Evangelical Right is so "whacko" is precisely because they think that those who do not subscribe to their view of the world generally, and to their Christianity in particular, are going straight to hell…and, moreover, are trying to take the country there with them. They are at one edge of the American political spectrum because they continue to identify their religious beliefs with the State, i.e., they continue to insist upon "a Christian America". This allows them to wage both figurative and literal war upon those they identify as the enemies of God and the State with a confidence that would otherwise boggle the mind. They are on a mission from God to save America and the world -- with a gun and through the death of their enemies when necessary.

Taken more broadly though, it seems that the “religion” practiced by most people in a politically liberal state like America is a liberalism which is more or less nationalist depending on its adherent, but is largely indistinguishable from some aspect of liberal culture. The traditional religions are increasingly vestigial-hangovers from an earlier age that liberalism has been happy to mobilize as much as it can in support of its own meta-religion which subsumes all others. This is the power and genius of the modern liberal state.

-LoA

the erosion of identity: christian twilight

2009-02-16T19:50:00.008-05:00

Gallup Poll, 2008

Returning to another part of that Gallup poll mentioned earlier...

Why isn't the conclusion of that poll that, despite the number of adherents that Christianity can very legitimately claim for itself, it is a dying religion (to be as hyperbolic as possible)? This seems especially true of Protestant Christianity (whose traditional center has been America and Northern Europe). What that poll tells me, at the very least, is that, in the areas dominated by Christianity, Christianity is not the primary means of either interpreting or organizing people's lives.

That is obviously a broad generalization and the reasons for the erosion of Christian identity in these areas are diverse (Orthodoxy in Russia has obviously faced different pressures than the Christian stew that is found in America). And one would also need to be attentive, in a manner I have not, to the flourishing of Christianity in Africa and South America

-LoA

hat tip to Abu Noor

reactionary catholicism: the sspx and perennialism

2009-02-15T17:37:00.010-05:00

The events of the last few weeks have reminded us that the SSPX is haven for reactionary-Catholics of great variety. This gives us a moment to recall and reflect on the intersection of Catholic traditionalism and perennialism. The most famous example of these two movements converging in person is Rama Coomaraswamy. At first associated with the SSPX, it eventually turned out that the SSPX was not traditionalist enough for him and he broke away from that organization to form the SSPV (Society of St. Pius V).

It is pretty clear why Catholic perennialists and Catholic traditionalists are attracted to one another. And in Franco-phone Europe where the SSPX was born, both sides moved in some very similar circles vis-a-vis the Vichy Govt in WW2 France, and French Catholic fascism more generally. One can note some obvious points of convergence between the two sides, especially with regards to their anti-modern and anti-liberal stances which are inevitably translated, in both groups, into a fairly radical sense of nostalgia for more organic, rural, traditionally structured (including a generous dose of misogyny), "spiritual", forms of life.

Gian Lorenzo Bernini (1598-1680), "Time Arrested by Death" [terracotta]

The big difference between much Catholic-traditionalism and the perennialists, as I understand them, would be the denial of the existence hidden/lost super-religion buried as esoteric wisdom within the exoteric practices of the world religions. The SSPX generally see the other religions as nothing but error and one of their main complaints with the Vatican is what they see as the missionary-failure after Vatican II. Having said that, Rama Coomaraswamy was always open about his perennialism and this was never itself an issue with the SSPX.

In neither the traditionalists nor the perennialists can Nostalgia ever be satisfied. Increasingly isolated as History passes them by, they must invent wild conspiracies and secret religious pasts to explain the chaotic forces of freedom which they are unable to perceive as the shared project of human creation. Indeed the activity of humanity in its own history is interpreted here, as with the gnostics, as a Fall into the devastation, fragmentation and filth that is time. Frightened of time and history they become twisted into something unreal and inhuman.

daydreams of conformity: dante gabriel rossetti

2009-02-13T14:00:00.001-05:00

Everybody's life is pervaded by daydreams: one part of this is just stale, even enervating escapism..., but the other part is provocative, is not content just to accept the bad that exists, does not accept renunciation. This other part has hoping at its core, and is teachable. It can be extricated from the unregulated daydream and...can be activated undimmed. Nobody has ever lived without daydreams, but it is a question of following them deeper and deeper and in this way keeping them trained unerringly, usefully, on what is right.

Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope I (1959)

Dante Gabriel Rossetti, "The Day Dream" (1880)

there has always been an element of contradiction to the work of dante rossetti. one of the founding members of the pre-raphaelites, he had enthusiastically embraced the romantic ideals that the group called a return to nature. they wished to portray events as they might happen, in their natural light and setting and in more natural poses. what this involved for a great many of the pre-raphaelites, and what they became very well noted for, was the extreme detail that appeared in their works, their determination to work from nature and the narrative content of their work. but rossetti was never as technically proficient as a millais or hunt and after one early failure, never showed his paintings in the official settings provided by victorian society. instead, for rossetti painting was a way of reimbuing the world with mystery. he painted medieval tales or highly catholicized religious images, allowing him to depict a world which married nature and grace.

in general, like most of the other pre-raphaelites and those who were influenced by them, rossetti searched for a way to resist the increasingly industrialized world, its coldness and mechanization....and along with it the modes of production that determined art and artistic production, with a consequent loss of quality and increasingly alienation from 'nature'. yet as he gained in popularity and success, rossetti's lack of any real committment to truth (which was assumed in the other pre-raphaelite's turn to nature) began to tell upon his work. his path of resistance became one of autonomous beauty: paintings of isolated women, with no narrative context, idealized and divinized (in some cases literally: astarte syriaca, proserpine). the romantic ideal of beauty becomes rossetti's only goal. but as a result, his works begin to take on a mass-production quality that mirrors the industrialized world he wanted so badly to escape. figure after nearly identical figure comes out of the rossetti studio (again just compare this painting with his famous image of proserpine or astarte syrica or almost any of the others for which jane morris was his model). rossetti became a brand; an easily recognizeable something to own, and the rossetti-brand catered to the need of the newly wealthy industrialists to advance their way up the status ladder. rossetti's beauty-without-truth-content proved easily assimilable to that which it once rejected. and what was once the day-dream of hope, resistance to capitalist industrialization, became escapist fantasy living off of and supporting that same industrialization.

Dante Gabriel Rossetti, "Proserpine" (1877)

-LoA

things the pope wishes he had said a lot earlier

2009-02-12T19:32:00.000-05:00

In a meeting with Jewish leaders today, the Pope called the Holocaust a crime against God and humanity and said any denial of its reality or magnitude was untenable. This was an attempt to mend fences after the whole debacle surrounding the Pope lifting the excommunications of four SSPX bishops, including the Holocaust-denying Richard Williamson.

belief-o-matic: hours of endless entertainment

2009-02-10T23:44:00.012-05:00

Those "hours", btw, don't come all at once, but due to my continual return to this funny little survey. With all due respect to Aziz's blog, Belief-O-Matic is my favorite part of Beliefnet. The results vary, depending on when I take it and my overall mood, but the following are typical results for me (including only those results above 90%)...

1. Hinduism (100%)
2. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (99%)
3. Orthodox Quaker (92%)
4. Eastern Orthodox (91%)
5. Roman Catholic (91%)

or

1. Hinduism (100%)
2. Eastern Orthodox (94%)
3. Roman Catholic (94%)
4. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (94%)

For those of you who don't know, my home church is Melkite (which is Catholic), though I quite regularly attend the Orthodox parish immediately behind our house since the closest Melkite parish is about an hr away. Thus at some level, the results are quite satisfying. The tool clearly measures my deep identification with the Catholic/Orthodox tradition.

I do find several things amusing about the tool though. First, while the rankings vary almost every time I take the test (which keeps me coming back), Hinduism is regularly the first or second choice and I can never remember it coming in lower than 90% (unless I was playing with the survey, trying to get a specific result). This is true despite the fact that I have no real interest in or attraction to Hinduism (ok, I love Bollywood, but that never struck me as in any way Hindu-specific). I did my coursework on it when I had to, with a professor I liked a great deal and who really loved India and Hinduism...but for me...nada. So, the survey, while it did describe my own self-understanding with Catholicism/Orthodoxy, is also measuring something I am not entirely aware of and which runs counter to my own explicit self-description.

At one level I know why and how this happens. At the end of the day I am a Platonist who read too much Hegel. I am very comfy with language of the Absolute, etc., and find the answers which explicitly use the word "God" in the survey to be too mythological for my taste most of the time. Moreover, Hinduism, as it is understood by this survey, is compatible with Christian claims, as understood by this survey, concerning the Incarnation and Trinity. In reality I think that the two are theologically fairly distant from one another and that the survey is capturing a possible similarity in language that is fairly thin in reality. If, realizing this, I try to answer the questions, esp. concerning God, in a manner that stresses the One, Hinduism falls down the list, but so does Catholicism/Orthodoxy for whom the doctrine of the Triune God is central. In fact, because Hinduism shows a great deal of flexibility concerning talk about God, Catholicism and Orthodoxy fall even further down the list than Hinduism does, thereby defeating the purpose of changing my answer.

25. Islam (31%)

Ok, so if Hinduism gets overrated by the survey, Islam gets hammered, despite my deep love and active interest in Islam. Again the reasons should be obvious. Say "Incarnation" and watch Islam plummet down the list. Say "Trinity" and watch Islam literally beg the survey to no longer be included for possible consideration. Still...Islam gets ranked, almost every time I take the survey, down at the bottom of the list with the JWs and nontheism (two which definitely belong at the bottom of my list), and it makes me wonder why.

Clearly, at some level, Islam is simply a category that does not contain a lot of nuance in the survey. In fairness, neither is Hinduism. We are all aware how broad religious practice and belief can be in Hinduism and one category covers the whole spectrum for this survey. It is my impression, though, that in the case of Islam, the category is narrow, not broad, i.e., it does not include a lot of variety in religious practice and belief that are clearly also present in Islam.

In any case, we come to one of the fundamental decisions made by the designers of the survey regarding Xty...or at least my Christianity. The fact that I affirm Christ as God (the Incarnation) places me closer to those who affirm various manifestations of God (and this includes neopaganism and new age, etc.) than it does to Islam or Judaism. This strikes me as fairly poor understanding of Christianity and its history, to say the least, even if it does raise interesting questions, e.g., if a Christian decides that, despite their belief in God, Jesus is not God, do they enter into a world where there are many incarnations (e.g., Jesus is one of many beautiful souls who manifest God) or a world where the prophets, of whom Jesus might be one, point to something Other?)

In any case, I left curious about how other people score on the Belief-O-Matic and what unexpected kinships (or distances) they might find.

Lawrence the Hindu, signing off....

white washing

2009-02-09T23:17:00.000-05:00

The SSPX has fired Bp. Richard Williamson from his post as head of a seminary in Argentina because of his Holocaust denial. The Pope had demanded that Williamson recant his views if he wished to continue his service to the Church. The SSPX, a fringe group by any measure, has tried to distance themselves from Williamson on the Holocaust, saying that his opinions were private beliefs and did not represent the organization as whole. Unfortunately, other opinions of Williamson -- misogyny, Islamophobia, some conspiracy involving Oklahoma City bombing, etc., etc. -- do apparently represent the SSPX, though they are doing their best to hide it by scrubbing their website of his writings.

They haven't finished scrubbing yet. A picture of Williamson can be found on the top right of the page, here.

ash-shams

2009-02-08T19:21:00.003-05:00

Shaun Downey, "The White Window" (2003)

I call the Sun to witness
and its early morning splendor...
and the day which reveals its radiance...
and the Soul
with the harmoniousness that is given to it
and the enlightenment to know what is unfitting and what is integral to it.
The one who purifies it succeeds
and the one who confines it comes to grief.
Qur'an 91:1,3,7-9 (610-632)

al-noor

2009-02-07T23:32:00.009-05:00

Cassandria Blackmore, "Dionysios" (2008) [Reverse Painted Glass]

God is the Light of the heavens and the earth,
The parable of His Light is as if there were a niche,
And within it a Lamp: The Lamp enclosed in Glass;
The glass as it were a brilliant star;
Lit with the oil from a blessed Tree,
An Olive, neither of the East nor of the West,
Whose oil is luminous, though no fire touched it;
Light upon Light!
God guides to the Light whom He will.
Qur'an, 24:35 (610-632)

the erosion of identity

2009-02-06T00:35:00.008-05:00

My own read on some of the data on religious identity is that liberal culture erodes Christian identity (I suspect it erodes everyone’s identity, but…). Thus you see the growth in those who identify themselves as “no religion”. Insofar as certain Christian groups were growing, it was limited to those groups that have no historical memory, lack a strong confessional identity and emphasize the immediate psychological experience of the believer as the basis of their Christian commitment (Evangelicals, Pentecostals, non-denominational, etc., etc.). This immediacy, the loss of any sense of belonging to a historically dynamic community, the denigration of rationality, all yield Christians who in fact lack an identity. Identity relies on memory; the absence of it means a Christianity that is simply caught in a perpetual present.

Uttaporn Nimmalaikaew, "Blowing Away in the White Sense" (2007) [Oil, Thread and Inkjet on Canvas]

In the face of this erosion, communities with a rich historical tradition find themselves resorting to authority to protect themselves from this religious-stream-of-consciousness. Authoritarianism is though just the other side to the coin of identity-loss. It reflects the fact that the persons no longer have a sense of why they believe the things they do and so the traditional practices are maintained, not by an ephemeral feeling, but by fiat. It stands in reaction to social forces that are chaotic, unmasterable by the individual, and therefore frightening. Authority may produce a kind of stability but it is no better at creating identity. Unable to experience the present moment as part of History, we, instead, believe because God (e.g., some guy in a dress, the Church or pick-your-random-book) says that is what we must believe in order to get the reward of avoiding relativism and getting our ticket punched to heaven.

-LoA

theater of the absurd

2009-02-04T23:14:00.002-05:00

The Pope now claims that he did not know about the views of Bp Richard Williamson on the Holocaust at the time he lifted the excommunications against the bishops associated with the fringe Catholic group, the SSPX. It is hard to know whether such a statement is absurd or absurd. It is absurd if he really didn't know. Ratzinger-turned-Benny16 has a long history with the SSPX, first as JP2's point in the negotiations around their excommunication in the 1980s, and now, again taking it upon himself to begin normalizing relations with that same group. But it is likewise absurd to believe that he did not know, when they turned out to be exactly who everyone knew they were. How is it credible to say that you didn't know, when only a passing familiarity with the SSPX makes it obvious.

Meanwhile, in Austria, the Pope has decided to appoint a man to the post of bishop, that thinks Harry Potter promotes Satanism and that God had it in for New Orleans because of the loose sexual morals promoted by the city. Needless to say, Austrians seem unimpressed, and it is just another case where one wonders what B16's priorities are and who he is taking advice from, if anyone.

Across the border in Germany Angela Merkel has said that the Pope's decisions regarding Bp Richard Williamson "cannot pass without consequences". At the same time, a German theologian has suggested that it might be best if the Pope resign.

American Archbishop and Cardinal Sean O'Malley, tried to offer a bit of a defense for the Pope's actions with regard to SSPX, arguing that it was beneficial to have this group back under the control of the Papacy instead of letting them run free while speaking for Catholicism. But the American Conference of Catholic Bishops, headed by Cardinal George, spoke as a whole today, issuing a statement that condemned Richard Williamson's claims concerning the Holocaust.

In any case, the Papacy of Benedict XVI has severely damaged its own credibility and its voice in the international sphere.

the deeper hole

2009-01-31T23:11:00.000-05:00

Catholic bishop, Richard Williamson, apologizes for making his Holocaust-denying-views known to the media and the embarrassment it has caused the Church, but does not repudiate those views or apologize for holding them. See the NYTimes story here.

waking up in the bed you made

2009-01-30T23:09:00.000-05:00

The Vatican's Holocaust-Denying-Bishop PR nightmare that just won't end.

rebuilding the bridges you burned

2009-01-29T23:06:00.002-05:00

The Pope tries to normalize the Vatican's relationship with Judaism after last weeks fiasco. I am not sure the words are going to offset the action quite so easily.

at the fringes of catholicism

2009-01-28T23:01:00.001-05:00

In the process of trying to recuperate a fringe conservative group that broke away from the Catholic Church in 1988, the Vatican has landed itself in an even bigger mess. In the process of bringing the SSPX into the fold, the Papacy has also reinstated a Holocaust denier as a bishop. The leaders of the Jewish community in Israel have reacted in precisely the manner one would expect.

recommended: democracy in iran

2009-01-03T00:32:00.000-05:00

Ali Gheissari and Vali Nasr, Democracy in Iran: History and the Quest for Liberty, Oxford University Press, 2006: pp.214 + xvii

The issue of Middle Eastern democracy is obviously one that is prominent on the mind of almost anyone who has an interest in politics, international affairs or Islam today. While there are at least a pair of functionally stable elected governments in the region, Israel and Turkey, at least one vision of what the United States hoped to accomplish in Iraq was to bring democracy to that country and begin a wave of democratization to the region so that those democratizing movements would become the natural allies of America in the war on terror. Blame for this failure has regularly pointed to Syria and Iran, and there has been open talk of forcing regime change in Iran.

Gheissari and Nasr’s book attempts to make the case that Iran is already, under its own power, well on its way to democratization, and by implication (though by no means explicitly) suggests that intervention and meddling in Iranian affairs by foreign powers will be counter-productive on this matter. The book traces the political history of Iran through the 20th century focusing on the internal political players and the ebb and flow of those forces. The role of foreign power is acknowledged – the United States, England, the Soviet Union/ Russia, China, etc. – but they only feature as minor characters in the narrative, e.g., the role of the United States in the 1953 coup is mentioned, but not detailed; instead the focus is on the political setting and the tensions that made American intervention possible and outlines who benefited from that intervention.

If foreign players are relegated to minor roles, then, as one might suspect, the major characters in the story are the Pahlavis, the Ulema, the bazaar and to a lesser degree left and liberal intelligentsia. The plot as it is outlined by the authors is simple but compelling. Iran, they argue, is unlike any other colonial or post-colonial state and therefore has a unique dynamic rooted in a very long history and pride concerning its Persian identity and its role as the protector of Shi’a Islam. It is the only country, they argue, to have undergone a genuinely fundamentalist Islamic Revolution and have, since then, passed on to a largely post-fundamentalist position within the culture at large. What has driven Iranian politics through the long twentieth century, which is still underway in Iran insofar as they remain within this dynamic, is the tension between the need to modernize the Iranian state and the need to democratize the state. “Modern Iranian politics has been shaped by the continuous struggle between, on the one hand, the ideals of freedom and rule of law and, on the other, the demand for stability, order, development and the kind of state that can provide them” (23).

From the standpoint of the authors, the official leaders of Iran have been more effective in providing modernization than freedom. And this is no accident. For the Pahlavis, already, it was clear that modernization had to be achieved by a government that could quickly and flexibly act, and thus act in a unilateral manner. Reza Khan quickly consolidated power by demonstrating that given greater authority, given a reinterpretation of the 1906 constitution, he could mobilize the economic resources of the country and achieve substantial improvements in the standard of living, industrial capacity and infrastructure of Iran. Initially this development found support amongst the Ulama, who saw the rise of Reza Khan as a reinstitution of public order, and a protective measure securing the realm of the Shi’a. But ultimately this was not the way in which Reza Khan interpreted himself. The security of Iran lay in modernization, and for this to be accomplished the monarchy needed to assert its autonomy from all forces that would slow it down, including the Ulama.

What made the later Revolution interesting, then, was the extent to which the Revolution, led by the Ulama and supported by the left-intelligentsia, was a revolution against a very successful campaign on the part of the monarchy over a fifty year period (not all of them smooth of course) to improve the economic lives of Iranians. When one administered the Reagan-test, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”, the vote should have undoubtedly come down in favor of the Pahlavi-state. Yet, the Revolution did happen and it happened because in the process of achieving this wonderful economic development, the Pahlavi-state lost its ability to represent people of Iran, i.e., the people of Iran did not see the Pahlavis as representing their own concerns.

This can be seen in the manner in which the Revolution rallied around Islam to protest the secular Pahlavi government. This turned out to be much more than a pragmatic stance, and eventually, as we know, Khomeni was able to secure Supreme Leader of the Revolution and the Ulama found itself at the head of the Iranian state. The Revolution then instituted a new set of laws based upon its interpretation of Islam, laws and practices which were enforced by unofficial powers associated with the Revolution and the local mosque.

In many ways, while the Revolution did represent a kind of democratic change in Iran, it, at the same time, set back state building and severely set back economic development. Most obvious, perhaps, is that foreign business was either no longer welcome, or did not feel comfortable investing resources in unstable Iran. But not as obvious was the fact that the Revolution itself developed a kind of allergy to the institutional state and so failed to develop new political bodies to administer revolutionary policies. Instead the mosque worked alongside or, sometimes, in competition with, older political institutions left over from the Pahlavi regime.

Eventually though, after the war with Iraq ended, the Ulama found itself needing to concentrate once again on economic development for a society that had sacrificed a great deal and found itself in dire straits. It was at this point that the Ulama followed the lead of the Pahlavis and began a full-scale consolidation of institutional power, overcoming its allergy to political organization. Yet, interestingly, the authors argue that this did not completely undermine the democratic impulse of the Revolution itself. While the Supreme Leader remained untouchable and unquestionable in his political decisions, nonetheless there was also the organization and gradual spread of democratic elections at the local and national level. This has created a situation, according to the authors, in which the people of Iran now expect and have to a large degree internalized democratic values. The democratization of the Iranian people has been achieved by factions of the Ulama itself (while there are groups within the Ulama that are very resistant to it, including the Supreme Leader). Gheissari and Nasr themselves believe that this can continue and must be allowed to continue, while the pressure against the Ulama by foreign powers, and the threat of military action against Iran, just as during the hard days of the war against Iraq, simply rallies the people, who otherwise wish to see democratic change, around the Ulama in a nationalistic surge.

The book has limits of course, as every such narrative must, and none of them take away from this reader's enjoyment and willingness to recommend the book. For the most part those limits serve to reinforce other aspects of the writing which are very positive. By largely marginalizing the narrative influence of European powers on the development of Iran, the authors in fact are much more capable of providing a picture of the issues internal to Iran as a state, that have contributed to its development. In other words, the authors have, because of their decision, been able to provide a very convincing description of the development and tensions present within the Iranian political consciousness; they have told an Iranian story. Foreign influences are narratively marginalized because they are precisely that in the mind of Iranians: foreign.

The one genuinely problematic limit that I find with the book is the failure, especially in the long introduction, to define democracy. One of the things they emphasize is the variety of ways in which “democracy” has been used in Iran at various times: many of them quite illiberal. But if, as they suggest, the goal in Iran, the necessity in Iran if there is to be a legitimate state, ought to be the promotion of democratic institutions, then it must be made clear what democracy means. Now they are clearly not the only ones to blame. Democracy is a term that is very much thrown around these days without anyone taking the time to define it; everyone relies on its apparent self-evidence and the shared presumption that democracy must be a good thing. But one can fairly ask that two scholars in positions of influence take the time to specify what it is that is truly being sought under the banner of “democracy” in order not simply to help us better understand Iran, but to better understand our own categories of interpretation in a time when that category in particular has become the justification for a great deal of violence and bloodshed.

-LoA

Falsafa and Kalam: Concerning Justice

2009-01-01T14:43:00.000-05:00

The discussion ... goes to the source of the dispute between Western and Islamic legal systems: the distinction between reason-based ethics and revelation-based ethics.
-jinnzaman, in comments made at eteraz.org

[This was originally posted on 19 March 2007. A pair of conversations over at Talk Islam (see here and here) have inspired me to repost this, and to link to it from the Talk Islam site. Please note that all links to the original conversation at eteraz.org are now broken, and as such have been removed. -LoA]

In the midst of a very heated discussion last week at eteraz.org concerning the nature of the government one ought to desire, there was another set threads that took up a distinct, but not unrelated discussion concerning the role of reason within theology. Especially since JM made several substantive references to Al-Ghazali, and I made occasional and not-so-substantive references to Al-Farabi, Ibn'Arabi and Ibn'Rushd, the discussion harkened back to a debate that took place during the classical age of Islamic philosophy and the tensions that emerged within Islamic thought after the discovery of Greek philosophy. Falsafa is itself, obviously, a loan word from the Greek and so philosophy was constantly vulnerable to charges of 'innovation' in the Arabic speaking world.

I repost the conversation, as it occurred across several articles, for a pair of reasons. First, it touches upon issues that are dear to me. The call of God, under which we all stand, places us in a position such that we are, unavoidably, often against our own will, pilgrims towards a Truth which exceeds our present moment. Second, I think it is important that the discussion between Philosophy and Theology not be forgotten, because while we certainly do not comprehend God, reason will always reach out to transcend itself toward that which it does not yet know. Moreover how we understand our relationship to the God that becomes manifest in revelation will, unavoidably, shape our understanding of the political realm.

Finally, the term "positive", as it is used here by both JM and myself means "something one experiences as simply a given; having and needing no other justification than its sheer givenness". It is a datum or positum (in the sense that you might posit something, or de-posit money into the bank).

Francisco de Goya, "El Sueño dela Razon Produce Monstruos" (1799) [Etching with Aquatint]

In an ongoing discussion at eteraz.org, Irshad Manji had suggested that the following would need to be inserted into the St. Petersburg declaration in order for it to be signable:

“Practicing Muslims are an integral and valuable part of the global community, as well as essential to any movement for secular, faith-respecting states that work toward universal human rights. We acknowledge the peaceful observance of Islam to be a legitimate choice for many. We stand by those who embrace an Islam that defends critical thinking, empathy, justice, and non-violence. They are our allies, and we are theirs.”

To this jinnzaman (JM) responded with the following brief comment:

I have two questions: (1) Why do you think human rights are universal? (2) What is your definition of justice? Is it one that is based on Islamic sources of legislation such as the Qur'an, Sunnah, etc or do you subject the Islamic source to contemporary Eurocentric ethical systems?

JM followed up this comment shortly thereafter with:

The dis[tinction] is not a false dichotomy, but goes to the source of the dispute between Western and Islamic legal systems: the distinction between reason-based ethics and revelation-based ethics. By contemporary European ethical systems I'm referring to Kantian, Utilitarian, and social contract theories of ethics. By Islamic ethical systems, I'm referring to the theological framework established by the various Kalam schools, the Asharis and Maturidis. The aqeedah of Ahl us Sunnah is that their is nothing that has innate goodness/badness within it; these terms are defined by Allah (subhana wa ta'ala). As such, what is termed as "justice" is not what human beings define as "justice", but rather, what the Creator deems to be "just" since He possesses the attributes of infinite knowledge, foresight, and justice. Thus, when people talk about "reforming" Islam, they usually either inadvertently or intentionally interpolate contemporary Euro-centric ethical views into the classical Islamic traditions. One area of conflict is over this definition of "justice". For Muslims, the central concept of human relationships with one another as well as their Creator is the concept of submission to the Creator, not liberty. In other words, all ethical obligations and rights are granted or taken from the Creator. Thus, asking questions such as: what is the definition of justice, and whether human rights are truly "universal" and on what grounds other than tautology, syllogism, or social contract theory, are entirely pertinent questions.

This pair of comments, combined with JM's post entitled "Firestorm" which outlined a political vision of the Islamic world that was (for me at least) disturbingly close to the failed and destructive policies of the '79-Revolution led me to respond and defend the rights of falsafa. I, of necessity, speak as a non-Muslim; I am Christian. But the issues raised here have such bearing on how one understands the relation between revelation and reason, how one must do theology, and the relationship between God and the world, that they cross the divide between all of us who believe in the God of Abraham and unite us in a common conversation. This is not, then, a conversation about whether or not God has revealed Godself, but a matter of humanity’s disposition in the face of the God who reveals.

Reason itself must be a divine creation and therefore oriented toward God and so there can be no strong divide between philosophy and theology. Second, even if we were to accept some sort of rigorous distinction between reason and revelation, one can only know revelation by way of reason. One needs reason to understand what it says. this would mean at the very least that even if reason could not by its own power provide any knowledge of what was good it would at least have to provide a formal structure by which something could be known: reason would be the power to know and if something was to be known it would have to conform to the human capacity for knowledge. this raises two points: 1. this actually brings you very close to Kant; 2. even an analysis of the conditions of knowledge can actually tell you quite a bit about what revelation must be, what God must be and who humanity must be in order to conform to the formal structures of reason. Third, a position which strongly separates revelation from reason actually contributes to and helps maintain a strong understanding of the secular and thus the types of "justice" and "liberty" which are meant to be denied by a pure theology are going to be reinforced by theology's insistence that it remain pure. The other side of that is this: to separate knowledge of God from human knowledge really leaves God an unknowable and arbitrary power undermining any hope of union or reconciliation with God. There is nothing but submission to a tyrant for no other reason than fear of its power.

This prompted JM's reply:

Firstly, where did you get the impression that Muslims treat reason itself with disdain? What we're discussi[ng] are rational systems, not reason itself. Criticizing deontology or utilitarianism doesn't make one irrational, especially when a person is doing so on purely rational grounds. My point is that before applying these ethical systems to Islam, they need to be substantiated on independent grounds. This request isn't a denial of reason, but an assertion of rational justification.

Secondly, reason is a divine creation, but so are base desires, which are nonetheless prohibited in Islamic jurisrpudence as a source of morality. The question needs to be asked: why should reason be used as a source for ethics in the first place? What type of reasoning are you referring to: rationalism, empiricism, pragmatism, dialectical materialism, science, etc. Islamic theology incorporates rationalism, empiricism, and possibly pragmaticism, as well as mystical tendencies. It is as equally valid a tradition as Western reasoning is, although it is definitely distinct. Just because Muslim theologians came to different conclusions from Western philosophers does not make them irrational. The dispute itself is over how we reason and which type of rational conclusions are utilized in moral judgments. Second, with regards to the argument that reasoning must be used for relevation, again, I would ask you what you mean by "reasoning" and why do you think its a basis for understanding revelation. The Qur'an is a self-extrapolating document. One doesn't need to be a philosopher to engage in basic statutory interpretation. The issue is whether the direct positive commands of an infinitely knowledgeable being can be properly comprehended by beings that are finite in their existence in knowledge. Muslims believe that God is suprrational, not irrational. In other words, they believe God is beyond reasoning and we might not always understand His reasoning. This is why His explicit and unambiguous statements are taken as positive commands. So while reason is utilized to understand the texts themselves, they cannot possibly understand the legislator's intent aside from a basic hermeneutical analysis.

I'm not sure about your third position and whether you've substantiated it so I'm going to ask you lay more foundation. Terms like "good", "evil", "justice" and "injustice" are defined by the Creator. Things are not good/evil in and of themsleves. Justice is not a quantifiable property; it is not a physical characteristic of a material object, it defines human behavior. If the moon crashes into the sun and gets obliterated, this might be a catastrophic event, but it is not 'evil' or 'unjust'. These terms are moral judgments and again, this goes to the question of how moral judgments are made. For Muslims, the source of our ethics is from Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and revealed texts. Western ethics are based on certain pressupositions that ultimately get reduced to metphaysical assumptions that are ultimately tautological. If they are tautological, then an opposite statement is equally valid. There are no ethical or philosophical grounds by which Westerners can criticize Islamic ethics, otherwise an equally valid right exists for Muslims to criticize Western ethics.

The Islamic conception of God is one of infinite knowledge, power, justice, but also of infinite concern with humanity. his legislation is there for the ultimate benefit of humanity in this life and the next, even if we don't comprehend it. The goal of paradise is not merely physical pleasure, but being in the company of the creator. So, I don't really buy this whole idea of God being tyrannical. It simply is not possible for a human being with finite knowledge and limited sensory perception to comprehend a being with infinite knowledge. separation is a necessity, not an option.

Lastly, the ultimate purpose of rights and liberty from either a deontological or utilitarian perspective is to promote autonomy. Autonomy is defined as the promotion of volition and the negation of forces of coercion. Western political philosophy focuses on developing measures to prevent external measures but fails to take into account that human beings have innate trends that infringe upon their own autonomy. For Muslims, coercion is external but also internal as well. Islamic law rejects the base self (nafs) as a source of legislation and ethics. Personally speaking, irrespective of my religious views, I agree with this conclusion.

Before getting to the larger response, I think it is important to note that one has to accept this criticism of "foundationalism" if, by that term, JM means that humanity possesses some sort of sure and secure standpoint, of itself, by which it is capable of judging the truth of things, the truth of revelation even, for itself. I have no desire to deny this criticism of foundationalism. Our whole being is experienced in its gratuity and the Truth itself comes in freedom (which should not be confused with choice between two options). But this is merely to say that our being is directed beyond itself, towards God, who is All-in-All.

I want very much to be clear: I did not say that Muslims treated Reason with disdain. I was specifically being critical of the position you articulated. The position you are espousing is not specifically Muslim, nor is it by any means the position of Islam as a whole. You certainly find versions of it among Christians and others. The real dilemma is that the contrast between a "reason-based ethic" and a "revelation-based ethic" is problematic from the start because the so-called revelation-based ethic is always going to be dependent on reason, for, at the very least, both its acceptance and its interpretation: which is precisely what the contrast is meant to disallow. Nor do i have any desire to deny the appeal and rationality of the various traditions within Islam. No tradition can have the broad appeal and the ability to organize cultures, nations, peoples, the ability to generate amazing works of mathematics, philosophy, architecture, the arts etc, and not provide a compellingly rational account of the world. Though my knowledge of Islam is quite limited, i have nothing but respect for al-Farabi and al-Arabi, with whom i am somewhat familiar and for that matter do not understand them to be so far removed from many of their non-Muslim counterparts. But i don't think either you or I believe they are all "equally valid …tradition[s]", otherwise it would be a matter of indifference how we aligned ourselves with respect to the various traditions. The fact that i cannot help but orient myself toward God in one away, rather than another, means that for all my respect for (and in some cases lack of respect for) other traditions, i find them less adequate, compelling, promising, etc. They lack rationality for me, somehow, to an extent that i cannot embrace them as my own. There are reasons, for instance, why you are not Presbyterian!

The crux of the matter here is that Reason is always in play, always at work. to make an appeal to that which is beyond Reason as providing an unassailable truth is to leave the bounds of meaningful conversation. I can only understand the claims of texts like the Qur'an or the Bible insofar as they make an appeal to me. This is not to say that the texts ought to be philosophical, but the claims that those texts make on us in the end demand a judgment: will we embrace them as our own, or no? The fact that we are finite beings points to reality that the discussion over the Truth is not yet closed, has not yet reached its completion and is not yet fully known. Once again, if it were, there would be no need for this discussion. also once again, this is not to deny that one always finds one tradition more adequate in pursuing the Truth, but the Truth has not yet been fully realized. One is still in the troublesome position of having to make judgments.

The appeal to the infinity of the divine is the way in which many of us, including myself, talk about the brokenness of our own self-understandings, the incompleteness of any account that one might try to give of the human person in the present moment. It is essential to the way in which we talk about the fact that we desire to be more and other than we are, that we desire to transcend ourselves; we desire ecstasy; we desire to be Whole.

On the other hand the appeal to the infinity of God cannot be a way of short-circuiting Reason and the way in which it guides us in all that we do. Reason always extends itself to that which it encounters as merely positive, in order to incorporate, understand and judge it. You attempt to reduce Reason to a purely hermeneutic faculty with respect to revelation. But Reason will not allow itself to be so limited. Already, under such conditions, Reason will run ahead of the experience of revelation and set the conditions by which any such thing can be given. Revelation will have to present itself in the same way as any other object; any positive revelation, 'revealed religion' as the nineteenth century thinkers were fond of calling it, will have to enter into and become a part of the world of objects. At the moment it does this it becomes part of Reason's drive to grasp the world in its completeness. Likewise Reason will run ahead of any discourse and set the conditions. Experience, even the experience of revelation, must manifest itself to us, to specific kinds of knowers at a specific time and place.

Moreover, by even granting that there is such as space that belongs to revelation alone, over against Reason, which would apparently be left to go off and construct regions of human inquiry like mathematics and biology, one creates the very divide by which the secular arises. The secular becomes the space of merely human endeavor. In allowing the secular to arise in such a way, one actually reinforces the social and political conditions that allow liberalism and capitalism. Instead we must insist that it is precisely through the cultural discussions we have, which include arguments over the meaning of terms like "justice", "good", "liberty", "freedom" that we are entering into a discussion over the nature of humanity and its life toward God. We are concerned with human wholeness. This allows no space for the secular - a position with which i suspect you are sympathetic. It is precisely by denying the split between reason and revelation, by tying the two inextricably together, by insisting that the human person cannot be so schizophrenically divided, that one is in a position to criticize the dehumanizing effects of liberal life.

And this has bearing on the point concerning the arbitrariness of God. If God is conceived as that which is so other that Reason cannot go there, that the commands of God must be accepted merely as something positive, then humanity finds itself in the grip of a tyrant. We obey, not because we experience the commands as the truth of who we are, or even as Truth, but because we are at the mercy of that which threatens to overwhelm us. You push the understanding of God in this direction when you insist that "good", "justice", "evil", "injustice" etc. are entirely dependent on the meaning which they are given by the creator: that they do not have inherent meaning: that, somehow, to say Good and Justice is not also to say God and the Infinite, with all the problems involved therein.

If, when you said that these terms of no meaning in themselves you simply meant that of ourselves we are nothing, I certainly would not argue. But this still does not break the connection between Reason and the divine since insofar as we are we are from God. And, moreover, insofar as we are, our rationality drives us back towards that which is beyond all existence: the All in All.

Given some understanding of creation, I am not sure that Islam, any more than Christianity, can allow that any of our desires are truly base. Certainly we often direct our desires towards inadequate ends, but we are, as whole persons, desirous of the Good which is God. I am not sure what exactly one means when one says that these desires are not a source of ethics. As I understand it (and, i stress that my understanding of Islam is quite limited) the 'nafs' indicate precisely the lack of light, the misdirection and deformation of the will and thus that desire is not correctly ordered and illuminated. In this case it is not that one rejects an analysis of human desire in ethics or politics, but that one criticizes the inadequacy of certain desires. Surely the satisfaction of basic material and physical necessities is fundamental to any account of a just society as well as individual concern for other persons. And one moves on from there to try to satisfy higher order desires.

The very limitations to being human, to which you are sensitive in stressing the need for revelation, are the very reason it is important to remain with Reason. It is there that the Truth is manifest. It is the reason we struggle. It is why there is theology and philosophy. Human beings desire the Whole.

At this point the conversation came full circle and we turned to a discussion of how one might go about understanding what it is we mean when we say "Justice". Another defender of Kalam, Saif, stepped in at this point. His contribution is important in that it shows there is more at stake here that has been shown so far. The attempts of falsafa to defend itself against the critiques of Kalam, do not only bear of the status of Reason, but also address the question of whether or not time and History must be treated as real aspects of humanity and thus of God's manifestation to humanity.

I think that there needs to be a separation of God's law and the application of God's law to a particular case. Shariah is man's best attempt at application of Allah's law in my opinion.

Whatever you may say, shariah does not only apply to the individual. History and the Quran testify to this. I don't advocate allowing adultery at the state level. I don't advocate allowing homosexuality at the state level. I don't advocate allowing anti-Islamic things. Now it is time to use a cliche statement: "No person is an island." Every human being has an effect on other human beings. Granted, these days with no Islamic leader there is no one to apply the Shariah, so we are left with applying it to ourselves. I don't think that this means classifying the Shariah as only applying to the individual.

I'm just wondering...since when are the literal interpretations of Quran and Sunnah unjust? I am completely against calling them unjust. The prophet used these punishments, but in a different context, and he was definitely not unjust. How does justice change over time? Are we some new human race 1400 years later? No. If you want to base leniency on the mercy that the Prophet practiced and encouraged, then I'm ok with that.

….

Innovation is external. The essence of the human being, his soul, is the same. If I was transplanted to 1400 years in the past as a baby and was raised 1400 years in the past as a baby, I'd fit in 1400 years in the past with no problem. I think the same is true if someone from the past was transplanted to today.

The human being did not change at all. All that changed were the external conditions in which the human was raised. Does that mean that our external conditions define who we are, and we should do nothing except adapt to them? I don't think so...we should play an active role in shaping the external contidions to what we see as fit, what we as human beings define as right, which for Muslims are Allah's commands. We have a will...we can do it.

I don't think that chaos and needless suffering is the goal. What is unislamic about technology, about science, etc.? What is unislamic about certain types of clothes, aside from a lack of modesty? Nothing. There is no purpose in wearing 7th century Arab clothing today. There are many things in this world that are not right though, and Islam, the essence of Islam, should not take a backseat role only if everyone else does it. We have a responsibility to right.

Yes, warfare has changed. Powerful countries drop nuclear bombs and develop them while advocating nucear nonproliferation. Rich countries declare war, drop bombs, cause chaos, and then decide to leave. Thousands if not millions of soldiers and civilians die needlessly, for nothing more than powerhungry rulers who they foolishly swear allegience; soldiers do not fight in the name of their ideals. Wars are not fought in the name of justice, but greed. Even worse, a war in the name of greed of money or power is hypocritically fought in the name of justice. All is not well with the world today. I think that the world is getting worse day by day, not better.

In defense of falsafa I replied:

saif said: "If I was transplanted to 1400 years in the past as a baby and was raised 1400 years in the past as a baby, I'd fit in 1400 years in the past with no problem. I think the same is true if someone from the past was transplanted to today. The human being did not change at all. All that changed were the external conditions in which the human was raised."

This is pretty much to say that human beings have changed. Culture is not an external. There is no rigorous divide between the individual and its community. 'Human being' is not some timeless reality independent of its historical location as your own statement itself acknowledges. One acts in the time and place in which one is, out of the possibilities given in that situation. This is not the same thing as quiet conformity, it is simply a recognition that the questions and problems facing us today are not the same as those that faced humanity, e.g., 1400 years ago.

Saif responded briefly with:

No, what I said is the essence of a human being is the same, that a "human being" is a timeless reality. The only differences come from the conditions in which we are raised. I didn't state what I meant clearly when I said that culture was an external... I forgot to mention that culture is internalized...that is why I said to transplant a baby to the past. If people 1400 years ago are so different from us today, then what about a man born in a village vs. a man born in the city. What about a man born in the US vs. a man born in a very poor country? Are they completely different people? Is there a different definition of justice for both of them, or is there one definition of justice? I'm not advocating going back to 7th century arabia and using all of the laws from there. I'm saying that justice does not change between times. There is an eternal definition of justice. There is a such thing as right and wrong...they are not relative. All that can be done today is try to apply the ideal of justice to whatever situation we find ourselves in today.

Insisting upon the real historical nature of human being and rationality, I replied:

Obviously, justice then and justice now are two different things. Just look at the way visual representations of justice have transformed if nothing else. While courthouses regularly have statuary of blind-justice (justice with her eyes covered by a blindfold), such a representation would have been non-sensical or representative of a failure of justice in the middle ages.

Ideals are hardly eternal; they are instead deeply connected with the practices of the communities of which they are a part. one can think of the way in which ideals of marriage or love have changed over...the last century...not to mention 1400 years. And I suspect, even as it is within Christianity, that it is very difficult to talk about the human essence or human nature within Islam, because of the doctrine of creation. Essence or nature usually refers some quality of a thing taken on its own. The essence is what divides it from everything else. But in and of ourselves human beings are nothing, we only are insofar as we are from God...and even in that [our] being does not find its end in itself, but must exceed itself, back towards God who is beyond all being.

And what else, but that can you possibly mean when you say that we try to apply the ideal of justice to this or that situation than that we try to live our lives towards the divine? To desire Justice is to desire God. Our traditions are the continued attempts to overcome our brokenness and find Justice, the Good, etc.

All of this is not to say there is no continuity between us and our past. We can only have gotten here from there. But history happens as humanity struggles for wholeness.

This brought JM back into the conversation on behalf of Kalam with a very thoughtful and articulate statement of what was at stake in his understanding of justice:

Let's start defining terms like "justice", "autonomy", "good", "evil".

As I stated before, the interpretation of the term "justice" from a Western perspective and an Islamic perspective is different. Both Sunnis and Shias believe that the Shari'ah is inherently just because they emanate from Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) who is all-knowing and infinitely just.

The benefits/burdens of ahkam are not limited to the material world, but include the benefits/burdens accrued in the hereafter, which are greater than this world. Unlike previous Prophets, Rasulullah (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) was a universal prophet who was to deliver the message of Allah to all of mankind until the day of judgment. Thus, his commands and those contained in the Qur'an are presumed to be binding unless shown otherwise.

When I say "Islamic" conception of justice, as opposed to Western, I'm referring to the formalized opinions of experts in Islamic theology. For Ahl us Sunnah waal Jam'ah, this would refer to the Atharis, as well as the two schools of Kalam compromised of the Asharis and the Maturidis. For Shiat ul-Ali, this would refer to the aqeedah developed by their scholars that is similar to the Mu'tazila. Clearly, the claim that 'there's no distinction between Western and Islamic conceptions of justice' is merely a claim that requires substantion. Although their may be some overlap in these terms, they have different roots. The underlying roots, by which rational and moral judgments are made, in Islam is revelation. Rational arguments may be persuasive, but not mandatory. Conversely, Western philosophers don't take revealed texts as the exclusive source of rational and judgments. Revealed texts is persuasive, not mandatory proof. Claiming that there's no difference between Western philosophers and Islamic theologians is a tautological statement in the absence of proof.

According to Ahl us Sunnah waal Jam'ah, the definition of justice can be divided between substantive and procedural justice. Substantively speaking, the ultimate source of our understanding of justice comes from Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) who has the attributes of being all-knowing, infinitely just, etc. Islamic law in this sense, adopts a legal positivist approach: laws from the creator are not in and of themselves independently just, but are just because the Creator Himself commanded it and since He is infinitely just, His pronouncements, commands, and prohibitions, are all just as well. I think the problem you're having is that, whether you recognize it or not, you've adopted a sort of platonic conception of justice. Justice is not a physical property of material objects. It cannot be measured, quantified, added or subtracted in a laboratory. Things are good because God says they are good and things are bad because God says they are bad. For example, for Iblis, prostration to Adam (alayhi sallam) was an obligation. However, in the time of the Prophet Muhammad (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) to anyone other than Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) was forbidden. Prostration in and of itself is not good or bad. It was good/obligatory in the time of Iblis and it was bad/prohibited in the time of the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam). Now, the punishment for committing theft or adultery are deemed obligatory in the Shari'ah according to the fuqaha. These punishments are substantively just because they are the direct commands of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) or the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam). Had Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) commanded Ibrahim (alayhi sallam) to sacrifice Ishmael (alyahi sallam), then this would have been just and if He commanded its opposite, it would have been obligatory as well. Now, this might seem contradictory, but the law of non-contradiction doesn't necessarily apply to the Creator. Amongst the Asharis who wrote about this, Imam Juwawyni held the opinion that God is not subject to the dictates of the human intellect. In other words, Muslim theologians recognized that the finite human intellect, like the angels who questioned the creation of mankind in the first place, can not comprehend the will of the Creator who is all-knowing, all-powerful, and infinitely just. God is not irrational, but He is suprarational; beyond reason and comprehension. The perfect example of this is in the case of the narrative of Khidr and Musa (alaihi mus sallam). In this story, Musa tagged along with Khidr (alaihi mus sallam) in order to acquire spiritual knowledge. Khidr (alayhi sallam) (1) sunk a ship, (2) collapsed a wall, and (3) killed a child. Musa (alayhi sallam) objected to each of these because, from his perspective, they were apparently unjust. Khidr (alayhi sallam), however, had knowledge of the future as well and explained that their were reasons why he engaged in those particular actions. Musa (alayhi sallam) didn't have knowledge of these future events and thus, his conception of justice was limited to particular temporal and spatial restrictions. The point of the narrative is that we as humans might not be able to fully comprehend why things may be prohibited or obligatory. Allah (subhana wa ta'ala), being infinitely knowledgeable, does not possess the limitations which human beings possess.

To elaborate further, the fuqaha have stated that their are various conceptions of the purposes of the Shari'ah. According to Imam Shatibi, the goals of the underlying objectives of the Shari'ah were the promotion of (1) faith, (2) property, (3) family, (4) intellect, and and (5) life. Perhaps the term "objectives" is misleading, a better term might be "rationalizations" because one does not base one's rulings on Maqasid al Shari'ah, but one follows the methodologies laid forth in one's usul al fiqh and maqasid is used more in areas where their is ijtehad. Of course, one can absolve a legal ruling based upon overriding concerns, but this is usually in the case of exigent circumstances, not a general practice.

For example, the consumption of alcohol diminishes control of one's intellect. People lose control of their volition and are more prone to making bad decisions. Some times they destroy property, which impinges upon another maqasid of the Shari'ah. Other times, they may engage in fornication, and this impinges on the maqasid of promoting the preservation of the family. Other times, they may get into fights, which may result in the taking of life, another concern of the Shari'ah. The underlying reason, however, why the consumption of alcohol is prohibited is because Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) commanded it. It can be understood by rationalizing it, but the rationalization cannot supersede the literal conclusive proofs if they constitute an amr that constitutes an obligation in the absense of mitigating proof. As you can see, these things, when applied, promote harmony in society. However, the benefits from the implentation of the Shari'ah are incidental, not fundamental, to the conception of justice.

However, substantive justice isn't the only aspect of justice that emanates from Islamic law, there is also procedural justice as well. In other words, the punishment of a crime may in and of itself be unjust even though the declaration of a particular action to be criminal is just. The perfect example of this is the punishment for adultery, which requires four witnesses that actually see the act of penetration. Unfortunately, some so-called Islamic republics or states today implement the Hadd substantively, but fail to properly understand the procedural requirements. Mufti Taqi Usmani wrote an extensive article explaining this distinction in an article where he dealt with a lot of misunderstandings that people had with the Hudood Ordinances in Pakistan. In reality, one must look at the totality of the circumstances. A Qadhi scrutinizes the reliability of each witness, whether they were trustworthy, whether they had the proper faculties to observe the crime, whether their testimony was internally consistent, etc. Furthermore, the Qadhi looks at whether the testimony of each witness was consistent with the testimony of the other witensses, whether their was any collusion, whether it was consistent with the testimony of the accused, whether it was consistent with the forensic and physical evidence, etc. Thus, the punishment of the crime in principle may is just, but the way that the crime is punished may not be.

In addition to substantive and procedural justice, there is personal justice which is treatment of members of society in a just manner. This goes in the topic of adab, akhlaq, and mu'amalat. One must treat one's neighbors, family, elders, woman, children, indigent, sick, orphans, in a just manner by fulfilling their rights. These rights are defined by Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam).

These are the basic forms of the Islamic conceptions of justice.

For reasons I hope are clear by now, what is concerning, to me, throughout all this is the positivist understanding of the law and justice (and hence revelation as whole) which in fact denigrates the very nature of being human and as such undermines creation.

I think the first thing to note, again questioning the strong division you wish to create between Islam and the West, is that there are plenty of western thinkers who take revelation to be normative (Karl Barth most prominently from the 20th century), and of course there are traditions of legal positivism within the western tradition as well: Carl Schmitt most prominently in the 20th century, and Schmitt is making a come back in a new form in figures like Chantal Mouffe; not coincidentally Schmitt's own legal positivism is theologically based, influenced by the understanding of God and revelation introduced at the 1st Vatican Council (a council which picked its own fight with so-called "secularism"); Schmitt is also the father of contemporary western political theology as well being chief jurist for the Weimar Republic and early in the Third Reich.

Also, continuing to question the strong division between Islam and so-called western thought, you point out that my thought is influenced by Platonism and this is of course true, though in an historicized form: participation (methexis) in the divine is mediated historically. But to say I have Platonic influences again does not constitute a serious breach, in itself, with Islam. It is my appreciation of the Neoplatonic tradition that makes al-Farabi appealing, ibn'Arabi, ibn'Sina; and then of course there is ibn'Rushd who is rolling over in his grave at every word that you write.

I have not, in all this, been trying to argue that there were no differences between various traditions of philosophy and theology in the west and in Islam, merely pointing out that the gap was hardly as deep as you would like it to be. In certain areas there is even convergence. Nor have I ever meant to imply that convergence in things like legal positivism means that Islam was copying European thinkers; instead I am merely pointing out that the understanding of the law that you are articulating is not uniquely Islamic (and for that matter is not the only understanding of the law within Islam). And yes of course it is my idealism or Neoplatonism, as you note elsewhere, that makes me cringe every time you take a positivist line.

you say: "Things are good because God says they are good and things are bad because God says they are bad."

This is precisely why I argued elsewhere that you break the link between humanity and God and make God into a tyrant. According to this position we obey God for no other reason than God threatens to overwhelm us in its power. But, thankfully, your positivism is not consistent and you drift back towards a meaningful account of justice yourself.

you say: "laws from the creator are not in and of themselves independently just, but are just because the Creator Himself commanded it and since He is infinitely just, His pronouncements, commands, and prohibitions, are all just as well."

Here you once again begin by asserting the merely positive nature of the law. It is given and must be accepted for no other reason than its sheer givenness. But in the second half you affirm that God is itself Justice and so that which proceeds from God shares in that justice. Now I suppose you could reply that this is meaningless and incomprehensible jabber and you simply use the term justice because it is a revealed name. But in order for it to be a truly meaningful claim there has to be some connection between our desire for Justice and our desire for God. In this case we recognize the law as just because it contributes to the fulfillment of the desire for the Infinite (which is the desire for God-Justice). In this case the "rationalization" of the law is not a secondary operation following upon its positivity, and indeed the law cannot be just without its capacity for rationalization. The law is just only to the extent it is intelligible. And on the flip side of this, if the law responds to human desire for justice, or satisfies the rational demands for justice then it is in accordance with the human pursuit of the divine.

And finally, because I have been controlling the shape of this conversation, I end with a brief statement from JM that came in response, and summarized his view…

With regards to the assertion that Islamic law is essentially a legal positivist tradition, I would pretty much agree with that. However, if it advocates legal positivism, it isn't because Western civilization advocated this view, it is an independent conclusion. Again, I have no problem with studying Western philosophy with the recognition that Islamic philosophy is a distinct way of thinking that has its own concerns and deals with certain problems by its own distinct methodologies. While there are similarities, they are still two different paradigms.

-LoA

The Feast of St. Pachomius of Egypt (15 May)

2008-05-14T22:46:00.006-05:00

Founder of Communal Monasticism in Christianity. His rule for the monks stands as one of the early examples of Coptic literature. He organized communities for both men and women and legend says that there were some 3000 monks in those communities at the time of his death in 348.

Abba Pakhom

Troparion for Pachomius the Great (Tone VII)

With the streams of thy tears thou didst irrigate the barren desert,
and with sighs from the depths of thy soul thou didst render thy labors fruitful an hundredfold.
Thou wast a beacon for the whole world, radiating miracles.

O our father Pachomius, entreat Christ God that our souls be saved.

Clareno/Mishev

2008-05-08T17:19:00.002-05:00

Boyan Ivanov Mishev, "The Celebration of Orpheus" (2006)

"Remember that the Redeemer's mercy wipes our sins away, not in one way alone, but in many ways."
Angelo Clareno, "Letter to Phillip of Majorca" (c.1324)

Ebner/Kassan

2008-04-16T21:16:00.002-05:00

David Jon Kassan, "Approach" (2006)

I said, "Lord, if you allow me to do something wrong here, then you must do penance for me."
God answered me, "You should come to me because I will never leave you, neither here nor hereafter. Whoever desires me in true love, I will never renounce in true love."

Margaret Ebner, Revelations (1348)

christian carnival

2008-04-10T14:16:00.000-05:00

The 219th Christian Carnival is posted at Chasing the Wind. This includes my brief reflections on Wright and Obama.

I would also point out the reflections on Wright and Obama that took place over at Catholic Anarchy.

-LoA

wright speaks the truth; obama apologizes for it

2008-03-29T13:52:00.001-05:00

Christianity did not arise as a national or a class religion. As a dominant religion of rulers it must deny its origin in the crucified Christ and lose its identity. The crucified God is in fact a stateless and classless God. But it does not mean an unpolitical God. God is the God of the poor, the oppressed and the humiliated. The rule of the Christ who was crucified for political reasons can only be extended through liberation from forms of rule which make humanity servile and apathetic and the political religions which give them stability [i can't help but be reminded here of shariati's religion against religion. -LoA]. According to Paul, the perfection of the kingdom of freedom is to bring about the annihilation of all rule, authority and power, which are still unavoidable here, and at the same time to achieve the overcoming of apathy and alienation. Christians will seek to anticipate the future of Christ according to the measure of the possibilities available to them, by breaking down lordship and building up the political liveliness of each person.

Jurgen Moltmann, The Crucified God (1972)

Jon deMartin, "Faith in the Wilderness" (2006)

i have to admit that to me, a white man from rural north carolina, the words of rev. wright were beautiful. they brought back memories of many of the sermons i heard as a child and young adult, often, or even especially around the 4th of july or an election. the theme that was often pounded home from the pulpit of my home church was "heal our land". the clear implication, often made quite explicit, was that the country was sick and subject to divine judgment.

so my question has been from the beginning, what did rev. wright say that was wrong?

on this good friday, one should remember that jesus was executed as a political threat and blasphemer. he was not sentenced and killed for being nice and loving everyone. mr. rogers and barney the dinosaur are disgustingly sweet; no one suggested they be tried for treason. so the idea that sunday morning sermons should be inoffensive and make everybody feel better about themselves seems obviously absurd...even if for the most part this absurdity has become the reality in many churches. the words of pastor wright, the 30 seconds of sermon that we get to hear online, are apparently too much for fragile american ears, even though they are some of the most christian statements i have heard in a long time. they are the words of a christianity which refuses to be shackled to a state, refuses to be the handmaid of an alien power, refuses to lie in order to placate the powers and thrones that rule the american nation. america is not the kingdom of god and has been all too often blind to its own history of injustice and murder. the fact that rev. wright's words were so controversial -- pointing out the racism that still functions so powerfully in american life; reminding americans, as we try to limit nuclear weapons, that we alone have used them; reminding americans, as we fight against terrorism, that we have waged and are waging war with little concern for the lives of others; that america is not god -- is simply more evidence that america has made an idol of itself and that the nation has supplanted god in the minds and hearts of the american people.

obama has distanced himself from the "inflammatory" words of pastor wright. there are pragmatic reasons for this. perhaps it is the case that a christian cannot say the truth and be elected president. but the fact that obama denounced the truth reveals that he is nothing new on the political scene, and the fact that america needed him to denounce the words of his pastor in order to have a chance of being president suggests that america wants many things, but it does not want change. america does not wish to hear of its illness, but wants a president that will continue to lead it -- with the imperial band playing its march -- triumphantly into the glorious future that belongs to it by right, by nature. because america is the greatest nation in the world.

and it proves once again that prophets are not welcome in their own country.

-LoA

Evan Wilson, "Down to the Water" (2006)

"Woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.
Woe to you who are full, for you will be hungry.
Woe to you who are laughing, for you will mourn and weep.
...
Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye', when you yourself do not see the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye."
Luke 6:24-25,41-42 (c.75 AD)

you are what you read

2008-03-23T12:33:00.001-05:00

You're The Guns of August!

by Barbara Tuchman

Though you're interested in war, what you really want to know is what
causes war. You're out to expose imperialism, militarism, and nationalism for what they
really are. Nevertheless, you're always living in the past and have a hard time dealing
with what's going on today. You're also far more focused on Europe than anywhere else in
the world. A fitting motto for you might be "Guns do kill, but diplomats are usually pulling the trigger."

Take the Book Quiz
at the Blue Pyramid.

snagged from ayesha

height (concerning vertigo)

2008-02-21T16:17:00.000-05:00

Christopher Cousins, "Unadherence" (2007)

beyond vertigo, faith is to find oneself in the grip of height and without ground. this can be confused with vertigo since, in the disorientation and fear that inevitably follows, one feels as if one might plunge into the abyss. yet vertigo is a desperate attempt to cling to self-control when in the grip of height, fearing that one may step off the edge, might lose one's footing. but beyond fear, peace will be the recognition that one was never simply one's own, and has not been plunged into the abyss. there can be, in the grip of pure height, no fall, because the height has no limit: one is actually in perfect rest. recognizing that one is at a height beyond all abyss is the constant challenge of faith. this is why there is despair even in faith: one wonders if one is not truly falling, and if one will ever truly learn to rest.

-LoA

Recalling 12 September 1960

2008-02-10T12:22:00.002-05:00

The day on which American Catholics decided they wanted to be Protestants after all.

It was the day on which JFK insisted that the separation of Church and State was not merely a legal principle found in the United States constitution, but that somehow he had so thoroughly internalized it that it had become etched on his soul and that Catholicism would have no political bearing on his life.

John Courtney Murray would provide the theoretical description and pushed for the Protestantization of Catholicism all the way to the Second Vatican Council.

And may God have mercy on our souls.

Recalling 1829

2008-02-10T11:38:00.000-05:00

In 1829 the Catholic Emancipation Act was passed in the United Kingdom. In the minds of many at the time it was unconstitutional insofar as the sovereign was both the spiritual and political head of the people and as such there was no way in which Catholic's could submit fully to the crown. On the other hand, it seems more appropriate to see it as a broadening of the crown's power and a liberalization of the understanding of it's role. No longer would it be the case that English civil religion would be equated with one particular cultic form but instead the way was opened to embrace ever wider forms of cultic practice under the spiritual direction of the crown and thereby sublimate them to Englishness. In this way the law and rule of England came to be more uniformly and systematically applied to its citizens, eliminating a situation in which Catholic's existed at a lower or marginal level within the English state.

The existence of parallel courts of law at the peripheries of the English legal system is a return to the days prior to 1829 when it was recognized that there were those citizens and permanent residents of the nation who could never really be English and who did not reside within the fullness of English law. Rowan Williams, who currently has his plate full presiding over the dissolution of the Church of England, may well be presiding over the dissolution of 1829 and the liberal English state as well.

-LoA

When Liberalism Loses the Courage of Its Convictions

2008-02-08T16:39:00.000-05:00

This week the chief prelate of the Church of England, the widely respected Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, suggested that England find a way to accommodate the traditional forms of Shariah law, especially with respect to family disputes, within the legal structures of the United Kingdom. Williams is a scholar and academic with outstanding works on topics ranging widely from the Arian controversy of the 4th c. AD to the work of the Russian Orthodox theologian Sergei Bulgakov. This is hardly likely to be a spontaneous or thoughtless comment; instead it is likely to be the studied opinion of the most vocal and important spokesperson of the English government on matters of religion and faith.

In recent days I have been preparing to teach a course on world religions. It is not a task I relish since the whole discipline of world religions is a minefield of Orientalism. As a theologian, I am struck by the lack of systematic thought that has gone into the idea of dialogue with those who exist extra ecclesiam. It has sparked in me a hint of admiration for Political Liberalism insofar as it has one of the most well conceived, systematic and coherent "theologies" of religion in the West. Insisting on the private and moral nature of religion, Political Liberalism has managed to sublimate the great traditions that preceded it under its banner. Its post-Christian Protestantism insistence on the separation of faith and works allows it to leave the beliefs of the traditions "intact" while nonetheless bringing the practice of all into accordance with its vision of who humans are and the nature of a stable human community. The Secular is not so much an a-religious space, but a transreligious one with new rituals and liturgical forms that organize and interpret - and ultimately relativize - the place of other traditions in the life of its citizens.

The allowance of parallel legal institutions with the UK strikes at one of the central tenets of Politically Liberal "theology" of religions: the separation of faith and works. As a Roman Catholic the separation was never particularly appealing and it has always fascinated me the extent to which Catholics have failed to fight against it in their desire to enter into the mainstream of Liberal cultural and political life (JFK for instance had to embrace it in order to legitimize his candidacy). Nonetheless, when Liberalism begins to question the foundations of its own existence one has to wonder whether or not Liberalism has lost its faith. Is the Liberal experiment failed?

And what next from the Archbishop of Canterbury? It has been suggested that the creation of parallel religious courts will help Catholicism in such matters as adoption. Many adoption agencies in the US and the UK have run into problems as they are required, under existing law, to allow same-sex couples to adopt children (in the state of Massachusetts for instance, Catholic charities no longer arranges adoptions). But what else will be covered. Will divorces be denied to Catholic couples? What criminal charges will a husband be allowed to bring against his wife if he finds out she is using birth control? If he finds out she had an abortion - i.e., in the eyes of the Church, committed murder?

Where is Liberalism going?

Reason #67 We Don't Have Children

2008-01-29T10:23:00.000-05:00

We can't even make our cat behave!

We haven't been able to keep her off the kitchen counters lately and last night she jumped up on them right in front of us!!

eurydice to orpheus

2008-01-23T15:51:00.000-05:00

Edmund Dulac, "Orpheus and Eurydice" (c.1934) [Watercolor & Gouache on Paper]

notes in the margins of a book i am still writing, that is not yet finished, sing to me what i am feeling; aphoristic melodies of thoughts i discover i am having before i can write them down.

and you are the author and instrument, some sort of guide across the styx behind which i have hidden. cerebus is charmed, my mind-ever-vicious, tamed; i am opened and you go into the dark and heavy what i am.

(even as a child all i wanted to do was to paint the page black, complete and entire. so i went here, to a place where finality could be attained, to a place where i would not have to hear any voice (your voice so wonderful), where i could establish the safety of a world, and leave no other space on the page for anything else.)

too light to be restrained by the inscription of laws that forbid the song C leading me outward, page by page, around the margins of the body of the text so that i am no longer trapped where i had fled and set up guards, in myself, in the interminable internality of being me C you chant and enchant me.

proclamation of resurrection

proclamation that there must be a nothingness, an other death, than the one i write: a willingness to die (like you undertook in coming to me). to cross, to step past the end of the line, to look for meaning prior to the first word, after the last period, in the space you have opened around me.

overwhelming space, refusing to let me write a life that goes to the edge of the page, that is all encompassing; leaving me to either founder in my attempts to script out the sound and to assert only eurydice C or, to admit (an olympian admission, to truly hear the song in hades) that the best of me lies with you, in the music that impinges on the margins of the page.

-LoA

new technical term

2008-01-10T23:21:00.000-05:00

Right-Marxist: A Left-Hegelian with a desire for God

Al Faisal University, Riyadh KSA

2008-01-09T15:17:00.000-05:00

LoA: Honey, Look! They are opening a brand new University in Riyadh.
She: I will divorce you. *serious stare*
LoA: Shall I make chicken for dinner?
*She goes back to what she was doing*

ALFAISAL UNIVERSITY is a private, not-for-profit research university that will be self-governing and internationally recognized in education and research, and that will produce capable trained professionals who lead their fields. Students will begin their programs in Colleges of Business, Engineering, Medicine, and Science and General Studies in Fall 2008. Eventually, the University will enroll 1,000 students per class. The initial class will be much smaller with a gradual build up thereafter. The campus is being constructed on the beautiful grounds of the late King Faisal’s Palace in Al Maather in the center of Riyadh. The Palace will serve as the administration quarters; the other buildings will form an almost complete circle around it. Instruction will be in English. The University was founded by the King Faisal Foundation and organizations such as Boeing, British Aerospace, THALES, and King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Center, whose representatives serve on the Board of Trustees. Before entering the University, students will complete a rigorous one-year preparatory program that emphasizes English language, study skills, math and science. The College of Science and General Studies offers a four-year degree program in genetics and life sciences. In addition, the College provides core courses in the sciences, humanities, and social sciences for all university students. The curriculum of the College will involve problem-based and technologically-enhanced learning. Graduate programs will be added in the near future. The goal of these programs is to train students to use systems- and critical thinking, problem solving, and teamwork. Our programs are designed to meet high international standards with collaboration from major western research universities. The College of Science and General Studies seeks faculty with teaching and research expertise in English Literature and Language; Philosophy and Ethics; Arabic Literature and Language; and Islamic Studies. Attractive salaries and generous benefits will be provided. Queries and applications should be sent to humanitiesrecruitment@alfaisal.edu and should include a cv and the names of three references. The subject line should specify the discipline, position and advertisement reference. The deadline for applications is 15 January 2008. Off-site interviews for leading candidates will be conducted in early 2008 in the US, Europe and/or the Middle East.

are you my mother?

2008-01-08T00:58:00.000-05:00

Adrienne Stein, "I Looked for the One my Heart Loves" (2006)

Many of you, no doubt, know and grew up on the childhood story of the duckling that went around searching for its mother. It introduced children to various animals, and likewise provided children with a sense that was a place they belonged, some place that could properly be called home.

Heidegger argued in Being and Time that we needed to find that spot, that home, embrace it and make it ours in order live genuinely human lives. This home, according to Heidegger, was not something chosen arbitrarily; it was more something into which we were thrust by history and which we needed to accept. In effect, Heidegger is describing the idea of Tradition. That there is a cultural and historical conversation into which one is thrust, that one cannot opt out of, and with which one must wrestle.

To be American especially, and really one can say more generally to be a member of liberal society, is to be part of a tradition of forgetting for Heidegger. Systemic forgetting. The destruction of tradition. In fact the destruction of tradition has become the great liberal tradition. We are watching that tradition wage a crusade in its name in our own time. This is the tradition of which we are a part.

Having destroyed the traditions of our ancestors, or at least systematically forgotten our own origins and history, we struggle under the need for some sort of positive tradition to bind us together. Having wiped out the liturgical calendar, we institute a new one: Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years, Valentine's Day, etc. replaces the rhythms of a lost liturgical calendar which contained periods of feasts and fasting; penance, reconciliation and joy.

And what if one feels the weight of this loss, the loss of tradition? What is one to do? Can one choose a tradition? Having been catechized into the tradition of traditionlessness, can one enter into a new conversation that remains self-consciously historical? Is conversion possible?

I chose Catholicism. It was not my tradition. My tradition was...Pietist, Enthusiastic, Holiness, Pentecostal...the convergence of various Wesleyan strains into the historically naive Christianity that suits America so very well. But how does one convert. The awakening to history that meant the break with Pietism in its various forms does not mean that one now is part of some other history. It simply means that one is self-conscious of the historical contradiction within which one finds oneself.

One awakens to history and like the lost duck one turns to that which is near, to that closest body which seems in some form or another to have preserved historical consciousness of its own being, and asks "Are you my mother?"

-LoA

pour it early and often?

2008-01-06T12:32:00.001-05:00

just one of the amusing sights downeast...

LoA, "What Drinking Problem? (Marshallberg, NC)" (4 January 2008)

oddly, it appears to have gone out of business.

hafiz/eichenberg

2008-01-04T11:13:00.000-05:00

Fritz Eichenberg, "The Long Loneliness" (1952)

We have not come here to take prisoners,
But to surrender ever more deeply
To freedom and joy.

-Hafiz (14th. century)

Happy New Ye......WTF?!?

2008-01-01T11:31:00.000-05:00

Another story for another post, and with any luck that will follow, but I was in Oriental, NC last night for New Years. This involves taking the Minnesott Beach ferry across the Neuse River. While we were waiting for the return ferry I went into the rest station where, in both the men's and women's restrooms, one could find the following....

LoA, "Minnesott Beach Ferry, Men's Restroom #1" (31 December 2007)

The sign only appeared in Spanish...

LoA, "Minnesott Beach Ferry, Men's Restroom #2" (31 Dec 2007)

leading one to one of two conclusions. First, English speakers weren't welcome in this bathroom. Prima Facie, unlikely. Second, it was meant to be insulting to Spanish speakers, who apparently needed to be told how to use toilet paper, when English speakers don't.

In any case one cannot help but be surprised to find, in a very conservative area of the state of NC, an area where one would not be surpised to hear someone express English-only sentiments, an area with a history of racism, using Spanish only signs...unless it too is an expression of racism. That it is found in the State Ferry Station is insulting to all of us who call NC home.

LoA, "Minnesott Beach Ferry House" (31 Dec 2007)

-LoA

Pointing: Benazir Bhutto

2007-12-28T01:34:00.000-05:00

Bhutto was a glimmer of the Future.

Benazir Bhutto, 1953-2007

I am not even sure what draft this is of this post. I have lost track. I have proved unable today to say who Benazir Bhutto was to me and more importantly why.

She called me this morning at 8am. Until Tuesday night She had not even known who Bhutto was. Christmas night we went to see Charlie Wilson's War. In the conversation that followed over a traditional Christmas sushi dinner the Bhutto family came up and I tried to explain the reference in the movie to the show-trial murder of Benazir's father. We went on to talk about the importance of the Bhutto family and as we moved into a discussion of contemporary politics, I tried to explain the significance and importance of Benazir Bhutto.

I admit I was not adequate to the task. I was just finishing high school when she became PM for the first time. I was much more political then than I am now and I recall being struck by her. Maybe I had a crush on her. Whatever the case, I was amazed by her. Her rise to power and her courage. The fact that she seemed unflinching in the face of constant anger and hatred that was directed at her and her family. I was struck by her election to the office of PM and the harsh light that event shined upon the reality of women in American politics at the time [recall the absolute slaughter of Mondale with Ferraro on his ticket, for instance]. In that sense Bhutto was one of the forces that led me, let's be honest here, slowly, towards feminism.

I tried to compare her to the other great female politicians of the 20th century: Thatcher, Meir, Ghandi. I noted on Tuesday night that her decision to return to Pakistan this year almost certainly meant that her fate and Indira Ghandi's would ultimately be the same - that she would in all likelihood join her father and brothers - that she had somehow, self-consciously and with courage chosen a path that would end with her murder. I had no idea that two days later...

As I said, She called me at 8am this morning. I went downstairs and for reasons I cannot fully explain cried. And cried. The gora with no ties of blood to Pakistan, the Christian who had never lived there, raised in the south eastern United States, cried. Until I was exhausted. Possibilities had disappeared from the world because - and this is the best I can manage, I am sorry to say - Bhutto was Possibility.

She was the ability to see the future beyond the horizon of life and death that seems to engulf everything.

I am no longer deeply political. Or the nature of my politics has radically changed. However one wants to say it, it was no longer Bhutto's politics that made her compelling to me. What made her compelling was her ability to return to Pakistan in October. Her ability to face forces that were beyond her capacity to contain, beyond the ability of a single will to master and bend, and to stand against those forces and point to the Future that those forces sought to deny. That they denied again today. Bhutto affirmed the possibility of a Future that was itself not bound by or to the forces that sought to deny it. Bhutto pointed!

To Allah we belong and to Allah we return.

birth: five propositions for meister eckhart on christmas (the struggle, part 8)

2007-12-24T17:01:00.000-05:00

Arthur Hughes, "The Nativity" (1858)

mary gave birth to Truth so that the Truth might be made universally incarnate in us.

until the event of Truth is universally incarnate as History, nothing is Whole (adorno: "the whole is the false").

Truth must be realized in order to be Whole, therefore we must give birth to Truth.

mary is the last moment before the initial realization of Truth. mary realized that she was nothing and thus she was set free to be the event of the birth of Truth: the one whose heart had the fecundity of virginity and the purity of motherhood. but beyond mary's insight, one must realize that the consummation of the nothing is Truth and that the Truth is not-other to the nothing. this is incarnation.

today, we too fail to grasp the possibility of the Whole-of-History (Peace). but perhaps like mary we can realize that we are nothing ("let it be done to me as you will") and thus be the site in which Truth is born. therefore let us be the nothing out of which the Truth creates History.

-LoA

let them eat pie: appendix (for ayesha, et al.)

2007-12-03T13:36:00.000-05:00

since the pecan pie discussion was so popular, and since someone said cheesecake, i offer this little variant on the pecan pie that we tried this thanksgiving with great success (or, at least i liked it). all the halal issues of vanilla extract would have to be dealt with in this recipe as well. enjoy. (nov 2007, southern living -- god, i love that magazine)

ingredients:

a refrigerated pie crust
1 8oz. package of cream cheese (softened)
4 large eggs
3/4 cup of sugar
2 tsp vanilla extract
1/4 tsp of salt
1.25 cups chopped pecans
[yes, thats right, i went from fractions to decimals, because thats just how i roll]
1 cup light corn syrup

--------------
directions:
1. fit pie crust into a 9-in pie plate....fold edges under and crimp

2. beat cream cheese, 1 egg, 1/2 cup sugar, 1 tsp vanilla and salt at medium speed with an electric mixer until smooth. pour cream cheese mixture into piecrust; sprinkle evenly with chopped pecans.

3. whisk together corn syrup and remaining 3 eggs, 1/4 cup sugar and 1 tsp vanilla; pour mixture over the pecans and place pie on a baking sheet.

4. bake at 350F on the lowest rack of the oven for 50-55 mins or until pie is set. cool on a wire rack 1hr or until cool. serve immediately or cover and chill up to 2 days (yea, like a pie is gonna sit around for that long with no one eating it).

let them eat pie

2007-11-22T13:34:00.000-05:00

Every nation should have a national holiday on which they celebrate the fact that they were welcomed warmly by strangers who nurtured them to health until they were ready to engage in a rather successful 200+ year genocidal campaign against said strangers. You would think it would be day of national mourning maybe?, but if that's what you think you seriously misunderstand how nations work. Nations are little (or in our case not-so-little) bands of we-ness with their guns pointed at everyone else's they-ness. So, your national celebration of successful genocide should be....a celebration. We here in America call ours Thanksgiving. "God are we ever thankful that you gave us the military superiority to clear most of the continent of its indigenous inhabitants."

The food you eat on such a holiday should reflect the national character: therefore the food of choice in our case is Turkey; after all, you are what you eat. I like to follow up my holiday gorging with some fun reading. I highly recommend a happy novel, like Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian, Or the Evening Redness in the West. If more people read this book they would have a better understanding of American foreign policy (we are so misunderstood).

Finally one should not forget dessert. Seriously. I am from the South so therefore my dessert of choice is pecan pie. Sure pumpkin pie is nice too, and I will be making one of those as well, but nothing matches the pure super-caloric consumptive delight that is pecan pie. A slice of heaven. Seriously.

1. Don't make your own pie crusts. Are you insane? Is there anything more depressing and annoying than the frustrating process of trying to roll out your own pie crust. No, no there isn't. Seriously. Buy a refrigerated pie crust. Thank you.

2. 28 caramels....be sure to eat the rest of the bag while you are unwrapping the other 28; there are starving children somewhere (Canada, I think).

3. 1/4 cup butter

4. 1/4 cup water

5. 3/4 cup sugar (now you're talkin')

6. 2 large eggs

7. 1/2 teaspoon vanilla extract

8. 1/4 teaspoon salt (yes, I said salt, don't argue with me)

9. 1 cup chopped pecans

___________________________________________

After you have baked your pie crust and you have set it out to cool, combine the caramels, butter and water in a large saucepan over medium heat. Cook, stirring constantly!, 5 to 7 minutes or until caramels and butter are melted; remove from heat.

Stir together the sugar and next three ingredients. Stir into caramel mixture until thoroughly combined. Stir in the pecans (it is a pecan pie, remember). Pour into the crust.

Bake the pie at 400 degrees Farhenheit for 10 minutes. Reduce heat to 350 and bake 20 more minutes, after you shield the edges of the crust with aluminum foil to keep them from over-browning. Remove pie and let it cool.

And let them eat pie.

-LoA

G. Willow Wilson on NPR

2007-11-20T15:11:00.000-05:00

As some of you know I was a contributor for several months over at eteraz.org, as that web site was going through some transitions. During that time I had a brief overlap and was a fellow blogger with G. Willow Wilson, a young journalist and writer, and one of the original writers at eteraz. Having lived in Egypt for some time, she has recently returned to the states and has published a graphic novel entitled Cairo.

She was interviewed today by Neal Conan on NPR's "Talk of the Nation". If you missed her, I encourage you to go over to npr.org and check her out, or to check out the graphic novel itself which is on sale at amazon as well as a comic shop near you.

We wish you the best and continued success GWW,
LoA.

Adorno/Han

2007-10-30T01:11:00.000-05:00

Raymond Han, "Frieze" (2001)

“A newspaper obituary for a businessman once contained the words: ‘The breadth of his conscience vied with the kindness of his heart.’ The blunder committed by the bereaved in the elevated language reserved for such purposes, the inadvertent admission that the kindhearted deceased had lacked a conscience, expedites the funeral procession by the shortest route to the land of truth….The bourgeois…is tolerant. His love of people as they are stems from his hatred of what they might be.”
-Theodor Adorno, Minima Moralia, #3 (1951)

Adorno/Assael 3

2007-10-11T21:58:00.000-05:00

Steve Assael, "At Mother" (c.2006) [Oil on Canvas, Steel]

"One realizes with horror that earlier, opposing one's parents because they represented the world, one was often secretly the mouthpiece, against a bad world, of one even worse. Unpolitical attempts to break out of the bourgeois family usually lead only to deeper entanglement in it, and it sometimes seems as if the fatal germ-cell of society, the family, were at the nurturing germ-cell of uncompromising pursuit of another. With the family there passes away, while the system lasts, not only the most effective agency of the bourgeoisie, but also the resistance which, though repressing the individual, also strengthened and perhaps even produced it. The end of the family paralyses the forces of opposition. The rising collectivist order is a mockery of a classless one: together with the bourgeois, it liquidates the Utopia that once drew sustenance from motherly love."
-Theodor Adorno, Minima Moralia #2 (1951)

Adorno/Azarmand

2007-10-10T00:43:00.000-05:00

Mina Azarmand, "Dark Quiet" (2006)

"Considerations which start from the subject remain false to the same extent that life has become appearance. For since the overwhelming objectivity of historical movement in its present phase consists so far only in the dissolution of the subject, without yet giving rise to a new one, individual experience necessarily bases itself on the old subject, now historically condemned...The subject still feels sure of its autonomy, but the nullity demonstrated to subjects by the concentration camp is already overtaking the form of subjectivity itself."
-Theodor Adorno, Minima Moralia, Dedication (1951)

Adorno/Freymuth-Frazier

2007-09-30T00:15:00.000-05:00

Rose Freymuth-Frazier, "Grand Old Party" (2007)

He who wishes to know about life in its immediacy must scrutinize its estranged form: the objective powers that determine individual existence, even in its most hidden recesses.
-Theodor Adorno, Minima Moralia, Preface (1951)

Adorno/Assael 2

2007-08-31T17:16:00.000-05:00

Steven Assael, "Skye and Marney" (2001)

"If love in society is to represent a better one, it cannot do so as a peaceful enclave, but only by conscious opposition. This, however, demands precisely the element of voluntariness that the bourgeois, for whom love can never be natural enough, forbid it. Loving mean not letting immediacy wither under the omnipresent weight of mediation and economics, and in such fidelity it becomes itself mediated, as a stubborn counterpressure. He alone loves who has the strength to hold fast to love. Even though social advantage, sublimated, preforms the sexual impulse, using a thousand nuances sanctioned by the order to make now this, now that person seem seriously attractive, an attachment once formed opposes this by persisting where the force of social pressure, in advance of all the intrigues the latter then takes into its service, does not want it....The love, however, which in the guise of unreflecting spontaneity and proud of its alleged integrity, relies exclusively on what it takes to be the voice of the heart, and runs away as soon as it thinks it can no longer hear that voice, is in this supreme independence precisely the tool of society."
-Theodor Adorno, Minima Moralia #110 (1951)

Adorno/Warhol

2007-08-30T09:31:00.000-05:00

Andy Warhol, "Marilyn Diptych" (1962)

"The objective dissolution of society is subjectively manifested in the weakening of the erotic urge, unable to bind together self-preserving monads, as if mankind were imitating the physicists' theory of the exploding universe....When Casanova called a woman unprejudiced, he meant that no religious convention prevented her from giving herself; today the unprejudiced woman is the one who no longer believes in love, who will not be hoodwinked into investing more than she can expect in return. Sexuality, the supposed instigator of all the bustle, has become the delusion that self-denial comprised in the past. As the arrangements of life no longer allow time for pleasure conscious of itself [i.e., free and rational], replacing it by the performance of physiological functions, de-inhibited sex is itself de-sexualized."
-Theodor Adorno, Minima Moralia #107 (1951)

Adorno/Nimmalaikaew

2007-08-30T01:41:00.000-05:00

Uttaporn Nimmalaikaew, "Drifting" (2006) [inkjet on canvas followed by two layers of oil paint on mosquito netting]

"The exchange relationship that love partially withstood throughout the bourgeois age has completely absorbed it; the last immediacy falls victim to the distance of all the contracting parties from all the others. Love is chilled by the value that the ego places on itself. Loving at all seems to it like loving more, and he who loves more puts himself in the wrong."
-Theodor Adorno, Minima Moralia #107 (1951)

Adorno/Aghdashlou

2007-08-29T22:05:00.000-05:00

Aydin Aghdashlou, "The Triumph of Death" (1980)

"The fulfillment of persecution-fantasies springs from their affinity with bloody realities. Violence, on which civilization is based, means the persecution of all by all, and the persecution-maniac puts himself at a disadvantage only by blaming on his neighbor what is perpetrated by the whole, in a helpless attempt to make the incommensurable commensurable. He is burnt because he seeks to grasp directly, as with his bare hands, the objective delusion which he resembles, whereas the absurd order consists precisely in its perfected indirectness."
-Theodor Adorno, Minima Moralia #103, (1951)

Adorno/Hasbrouck

2007-08-29T10:57:00.000-05:00

Maggie Hasbrouck, "The Open Window" (2007)

"The sadism latent in everyone divines the weakness latent in everyone."
-Theodor Adorno, Minima Moralia #103 (1951)

Adorno/Assael

2007-08-29T02:59:00.000-05:00

Steven Assael, "Franchesca Twice" (2003)

"Things one fears for no real reason, apparently obsessed by an idee fixe, have the impertinent tendency to come about."
-Theodor Adorno, Minima Moralia #103 (1951)

now, if only i could find my moral compass!

2007-08-09T18:40:00.000-05:00

the folks at politicalcompass.org have designed a handly little quiz that is good for hours (depending on how obsessive you are) or at least minutes of fun.

i think this type of thing should largely be taken as a bit of whimsy, though i don't really dispute its conclusion. nonetheless how closely should one really align the politics of mandela and ghandi (and LoA)?

in any case, one should understand that the model is meant to describe the contemporary political climate and, using the insight that left/right is not adequate it attempts to add another dimension (authoritarian/anarchist) that judges how much one values order and security as opposed to freedom (understood in this model as negative freedom: the freedom from obstructions to one's will). as one can see in the first graph

this divides politics into four broad fields. the extremes of the axes represent "pure" forms of 4 major political ideologies in the 20th-21st centuries. along the left/right axis one finds communism and (economic-)liberalism. meanwhile along the authoritarian/libertarian axis one finds fascism and anarchism. i will point out that here one sees what i take to be the most glaring problem with this metric insofar as the creators use it to dispute the claim that communism and fascism were diametrically opposed to one another. whatever "diametrically" might mean in that sentence one needs some way of grasping the manner in which liberalism appeared as a progressive position to communists and a vapid and deathly system to fascist thinkers such as heidegger (who had no problem comparing it to communism in this regard). the problem here lies in the difficultly this metric has portraying the manner in which marxism and liberalism were united very strongly (in their respective theories) in their support of internationalism and universal freedom against the parochialism of the fascist movements which they found repugnant (and in marxist terms, decidely regressive). one can imagine a very different graphing for instance if the horizontal axis was internationalism v. nationalism with the individualist-liberalism marking the center of the axis. this graphing more accurately portrays the conflicts of the 20th c. in my opinion.

this is not meant to disparage the metric which definitely has its value in complicating our usual vision. here one sees its placement of some of the most significant figures of the 20th c.

or, again, here one sees the placement of recent world leaders. (i suggest another problematic placement for this metric might be musharraf, among others).

finally, i find their analysis of the american political scene interesting and largely correct insofar as they find almost the whole range of american political figures to be operating within a common field. that said, i think when one looks closely there is a clear axis along which the typical american language of "conservative" and "liberal" work. that axis seems to run diagonally from the top right corner down towards the center (and even kucinich falls along this axis). the only notable outlier is ron paul and let's face it he sounds like a non-sense voice in american politics. i would also say that this explains some of the difficulty and discomfort many catholics feel in the realm of american politics. when one looks at the previous graph at the placement of the supposedly conservative Benny16, one finds that the pope bears no relation to the axis of american political discourse and i would suggest that it is precisely for this reason that catholics find themselves, when they vote, at a severe impasse. likewise i would suggest that this impasse largely centers around the church's (often muted) skepticism towards capitalism.

and finally there is LoA. how exactly does one describe a right-marxist (a tongue in cheek reference to the 19th c. category of the right-hegelians), otherwise known as a catholic, with authority issues?

i will let She do it, since she does it so well?

Sister: Do you know where LoA is?
She: Go 'til you see Lenin, and then keep going Left.
Sister stares with very puzzled look.

LoA:Left of Lenin

best wishes,
LoA.

9 August: Akathist for St. Herman of Alaska

2007-08-08T17:41:00.000-05:00

The Monks of St. Issac of Syria Skete, "St. Herman of Alaska" [Egg Tempura and Gold Leaf on Wood]

from this day
from this hour
from this very minute
let us strive to love god above all else
and to do god's will

-Herman of Alaska

on the origins of equity (a meditation on hegel’s phenomenology of spirit, iv.a)

2007-07-30T21:36:00.000-05:00

Artimisia Gentileschi, "Susanna and the Elders" (1610)

the first experience of equality is the experience of violation. it is awakening from a dream where forces of which one is not conscious play about at their whim. awakening with a gasp, screaming, sobbing, in the night, in the bed of a stranger you thought you knew, but upon whom your eyes gaze now for only the first time

with violation there is for the first time an assertion against belongingness – belonging-to is not responsibility-to but ownedness: engulfment, a form of suicide where one has not simply given over one's will and body to another, but has annihilated the will so that the body is not one's own.

in violation, the first experience of equity, one stakes one's claim, forging the self as the labor of one's own hands. the gathering of forces which, however overpowered, are for the first time real in their desecration. violated, one gathers up the shards of self and tries to make sense.

-LoA

sexism...racism...it isn't just for conservatives anymore

2007-07-24T23:15:00.000-05:00

of course we know that it never really was, but nonetheless, liberals are typically more sly about it. i have lost count of how many times these "liberal" yankees have told me how intolerable it would be for them if they had to live in the socially backwards south, but who don't lose sleep as the supreme court of the state of connecticut repeatedly instructs the city of hartford (*ahem* state capital) to desegregate their schools. not to mention how many connecticut cities drug their feet and openly resisted the idea of a martin luther king jr. holiday. but enough of that little rant...

from two noted liberal cartoonists...

i have to say, when even democratic cartoonists are painting clinton and her supporters as man-hating, it is hard to imagine her winning the overall election. other than the stereotypes of the mis-andrist t.v. viewers (i.e., women who do not conform to societal canon of feminine beauty and are unable to keep/attract a man), one can also note the angry sneer on clinton's face.

Jeff Danziger, 23 July 2007

Meanwhile from someone who is typically one of my favorite political cartoonists (I love the little guy who adds commentary), evidence that China bashing is totally chic at the moment...oh, and a swipe at Confucius while we are at it.

Pat Oliphant, 24 July 2007

-LoA

remembering (for metz)

2007-07-23T13:40:00.000-05:00

"...memory is also of central importance for any theory of history and society as a category of resistance..."
-Johann Baptist Metz, Faith in History and Society (1977)

John William Waterhouse, "Sleep and His Half-Brother, Death" (1874)

and i stood and watched in horror as snow fell upward
and no one cared.

their blood stopped flowing
but they walked on

words stopped meaning
but they continued to talk

history stopped moving
and everyone forgot

a people without memory is capable of the greatest atrocity
even against themselves
without a second thought
because only memory can speak for the dead

-LoA

the cola wars come to pan-arabia

2007-07-19T17:35:00.000-05:00

while this post is meant to be enjoyable and fun, it is nonetheless important not to forget that the fight for control of the middle east is not only about oil. the primary american export is "culture". by this we usually mean american film and american music, etc., but the flow of american products into the middle east also includes coke and pepsi.

in an earlier post i have already pointed out (see "nancy ajram: life in the circus") the large stake that coca-cola has placed in nancy ajram trying to help the sales of coke in market that is dominated by pepsi. coke has been a large sponsor of her videos and spun the videos directly into commericials. here we see another example. notice the more traditional nancy ajram storyline-style video has been replaced by a sea of red and her name in large letters using the coca-cola font (and indeed in the commericial version it says 'coke' not 'nancy'). the song is no less enjoyable for its use as a marketing tool. sit back and enjoy "oul tany keda" and its accompanying commerical.

Nancy Ajram, "Oul Tani Keda" ["Tell Me That Again"] (2005)

Nancy Ajram, "Oul Tani Keda -- Commercial" (2005)

on the other side, nancy's main competition for queen of arabian pop, elissa (see "elissa: queen of pop"), is the vehicle of choice for pepsi in the middle east. in this well conceived commercial, elissa sings part of a song that had not yet been released at the time the commercial went to air. this both promoted the pepsi product and served as hype for the forthcoming album. this is "arrably", shot as a commericial... enjoy.

Elissa, "Arrably--Commercial" (2004)

pepsi is very aware that part of what they are selling is a piece of american culture, and that part of the appeal to the buyer is this ability to buy a bit of america. in recent commercials elissa has been paired with christina augilera. here the fusion of arabian and american cultural images is a central theme. augilera, while singing in english, belly-dances, while on the other hand a very international and cosmopolitan appearing elissa sings her arabic hit "bastannak". the arabian elissa ultimately ends up with the can of pepsi.

Christina Augilera and Elissa, "Pepsi Commercial" (2006)

this final pepsi commercial is in fact a full blown music video, and its content is probably deserving of a full blog of its own (unfortunately you will have to settle for coming and hearing the conference paper on it instead). the video features american pop stars brittany spears, pink and beyonce, and the undisputed king of arabian pop, amr diab, and is performed entirely in english. despite this though, pepsi is not offering a vision of happy fusion. while in the previous video (filmed much more recently) augilera and elissa were portrayed as on the path toward some manner of cultural convergence, in this video the message seems to be one in which arabia is able to master the pop-culture of americanism and ultimately conquer it. amr diab rules as the caesar, the americans are enslaved and there for his entertainment. the apparent disruption of his power by americanism is really nothing more than an appearance, a momentary abberation. ultimately amr diab reasserts his authority and reveals the situation was within his control all along.

but here one has the capitalist myth that consumption is mastery. and it is no surprise, then, that in order to tell such a myth the setting is not arabian at all but roman. to go down the consumerist path already places one within the myth-history of what we have been here calling americanism (which is only accurate insofar as the united states has dominated capitalism since ww2): one is overtaken by the very roots of western culture; one has already surrendered to the invading power before the war begins. so a commercial that at first glance appears to promote easy mastery of americanism by consuming it, in truth envisions the consummation of the exporting of americanism by subsuming arabia with its mythic field. one can already see this playing out in the ajram video insofar as it completely elides any distinctions between performance, rehearsal and spontaneous moments from "real life". no part of reality falls outside the capitalist reduction. capitalism is not primarily about the occupation of land, but about the occupation of minds and society. prepare to be rocked!

Amr Diab, Brittany Spears, Beyonce and Pink, "We Will Rock You -- Commerical" (2004)

-LoA

the carnival of the arts

2007-07-16T21:16:00.000-05:00

Well I think my interest in art, in various forms, is fairly well attested on this blog, so just for fun I present to you, for your pleasure, The Carnival of the Arts.

Television and Film

In case some of you have forgotten there was this little show called the Sopranos that spent several seasons on HBO and ended last month. I believe I was one of only 3 people in the English speaking world who did not watch the show, but even I heard the controversy that followed the final episode (any show that ends with music from Journey gets my vote. I am child of the 80s). With that in mind, Rickey Henderson presents Rickey's Obligatory Sopranos Post posted at Riding with Rickey. He provides a thoughtful review of the final episode.

Conan Stevens presents Powerkids Movie posted at Conan Stevens Online. Here the author reflects on how he got into the Thai film industry and tells about his role in a "new movie about to be released in Asian Cinema and US DVD".

Interior Design

Sarakastic presents The Modern Master Bedroom posted at Home Decorating Princess. This particular post is simply one example of a number of posts in Sara's blog that deal with interior design and providing what are usually very simple ideas about how to improve the aesthetics of a home. I encourage those do-it-yourselfers out there, who clearly have more energy than I do, to check out her blog.

Mark Cutler presents Voices of Design: Scott Flax posted at Mark Cutler Design, saying, "I hope you like this posting I did of an interview with Scott Flax, an architectural colorist". Culter is himself a well established architect with some pretty high profile work to his credit. His discussion here with Scott Flax on coordination of color with space and function is fascinating. And who knew there was such a thing as a professional colorist?!

Literature

So, I am sure that there are many persons other than She waiting for the final installment of Harry Potter to arrive this weekend. In the meantime I will point you towards a couple other reading options.

Aspeth presents A Review of The Professor and the Madman posted at Twelve Years Of Being Annoyed By Chloe Sevigny, calling the novel "Perhaps the best novel I've read this year. I would have easily passed this one by had a friend not wholeheartedly recommended it." The post provides a thorough and thoughtful review.

First of all let me just tell you, there is such a thing as Christian Chick Lit. Now that you have processed that bit of information, I can tell you that Camy Tang is the queen of CCL bloggers. She is on the verge of being a twice published writer herself (Sushi for One, anyone?), but she also has interviews and bookgiveaways from other CCL-ers. There were a lot of choices but I decided to link to her interview with Jenny Jones concerning Jones's debut called In Between.

Painting and Photography

I think we all know this is the area closest to my heart, and I will refer you my own posts on Han-Wu Shen. But there are other people out there painting.

Among those persons is Susan Borgas who presents her own work entitled Water's Path - Willochra Creek posted at Arts & Stuff. She says "My work as an realist artist promotes the Flinders Ranges and I hope that viewers of my work will consider visiting this region. There is nothing like sitting under a gum tree with a cool drink in one hand and a camera or drawing tool in another along with some flies for company. What more can anyone want!"

Henk ter Heide presents Stained Glass Window posted at See me draw. His blog is a collection of numerous sketches and this is his most recent post. He says that it does not have any religious significance, but a stained glass window of a tree with apples fallen around it...maybe its just me but I think I could get a lot of theological mileage out of that.

Ruth Mitchell presents Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art posted at Buy Outside the Box. She brings our attention to a "New American Art Museum being built by the Wal-Mart heiress" and some of the controversy around it. The Crystal Bridges Museum is likely to a necessary stop for those interested in the history of American painting.

If you have never followed the link in my sidebar to Umm Ibrahim's blog, With One Eye, you are not only missing out on a very interesting woman, but a very talented artist and photographer. And I am not the only one who thinks so since her work has been put on show in France recently. Go over and check it out. I provide one example, that accompanies her post entitled Simplicity?

And now for a bit of fun. Kilroy_60 presents The Power In The Eye of the Beholder posted at Fear And Loathing - The Gonzo Papers. Follow the link and let Kilroy bring out your inner-Jackson-Pollock.

Sculpture and Craft

Samir Bharadwaj presents Rediscover The Pure Pleasure Of Paper Crafts And Pop Up Cards posted at SamirBharadwaj.com. Samir walks the viewer through the steps of designing this elaborate little paper sculpture and shares the rather beautiful result of his own work. Enjoy.

Meanwhile, Lori Greenberg provides us with An Introduction to Polymer Clay over at her blog, BeadNerd. Here she introduces us to some rather remarkable jewelry designs and provides further links to the artists.

concerning the reader

2007-07-12T03:31:00.000-05:00

Morteza Katouzian, "Dead End" (1981)

in order to read well, one must be a generous reader. to read with charity is not to forgive all wrongs, or to overlook failings, but instead to actually experience where the failings are: i.e., where the author has genuinely failed to accomplish the task which they undertook and why that task was important. the miserly reader sees only the extent to which the writer did not carry out the task which the reader wished to see accomplished. in this manner the reader locks the book shut in the very act of opening its cover. this is a moral failing.

...of which i have been more-than-once guilty.

LoA.

communio sanctorum (a meditation on bonaventure's triple way iii,1)

2007-07-09T16:06:00.000-05:00

<
Marc Chagall, "Adam and Eve" (1912)

If we desire Peace, then we must somehow surpass the brokenness of the present. But the path beyond is not an arbitrary one, nor is it chosen in a kind of unrestricted freedom: no decision is ever made solely in the moment. History gave us birth, and it is out of that inheritance that the possibilities for action are given to us. To ignore this is not merely a self-defeating turning against oneself, it is a heretical declaration that one is absolute in their sovereignty. There is no future without recovery of the past. But likewise, History reveals that we never act alone. Not only must we act in partnership with those with whom we journey now. The pursuit of Peace is also undertaken in communion with those who have gone before us, who we must never forget because they too still desire Peace. The struggle now always models itself on those who were faithful in the struggle before.

-LoA

3 July 1988

2007-07-05T10:49:00.000-05:00

Morteza Katouzian, "Flight 655" (1988)

Most merciful God,
we confess that we have sinned against you
in thought, word, and deed,
by what we have done,
and by what we have left undone.
We have not loved you with our whole heart;
we have not loved our neighbors as ourselves.
We are truly sorry and we humbly repent.
For the sake of thy Son Jesus Christ,
have mercy on us and forgive us;
that we may delight in thy will,
and walk in thy ways,
to the glory of thy Name. Amen.

from the Penetential Order of the Latin Rite

now rated for your convenience

2007-07-05T00:47:00.000-05:00

Mingle²

according to the site that issued the rating, i say 'shit' alot and discuss sexuality and violence in a graphic manner. consider yourself warned.

best wishes,
LoA.

dorothy day: we are un-american; we are catholic

2007-07-04T22:22:00.000-05:00

Fritz Eichenberg, "Pax Vobiscum" (1969) [Woodblock Etching]

"What would we advocate? Wholesale disloyalty to Americanism. Wholesale refusal to fight. Wholesale withdrawal of labor (a general strike) from all industries that further the war effort. We would urge a mighty band of Catholic Conscientious Objectors who will refuse induction, who will follow Jesus of Nazareth, Prince of Peace, in the way of non-violence, in love for all mankind!"

-Dorothy Day, from "We Are Un-American; We Are Catholic", The Catholic Worker (1948)

the daughter of jephthah hides her name in the night

2007-06-29T03:00:00.000-05:00

Then the spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah, and he passed through Gilead and Manasseh. He passed on to Mizpah of Gilead, and from Mizpah he passed on to the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, "If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord's, to be offered up by me as a burnt offering." So Jephthah crossed over to the Ammonites to fight against them; and the Lord gave them into his hand. He inflicted a massive defeat on them from Aroer to the neighborhood of Minnith, twenty towns, and as far as Abel-keramim. So the Ammonites were subdued before the people of Israel. Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah; and there was his daughter coming out to meet him with timbrels and with dancing. She was his only child; he had no son or daughter except her. When he saw her he tore his clothes, and said, "Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low; you have become the cause of great trouble for me. For I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot take back my vow." She said to him, "My father, if you have opened your mouth to the Lord, do to me according to what has gone out of your mouth, now that the Lord has given you vengeance against your enemies, the Ammonites." And she said to her father, "Let this thing be done for me: Grant me two months, so that I may go down to the mountains and mourn my virginity, my companions and I." "Go," he said and sent her away for two months. So she departed, she and her companions, and mourned her virginity on the mountains. At the end of two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to the vow he had made. So there arose an Israelite custom that for four days every year the daughters of Israel would go out to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.
-Anonymous, Judges 11.29-40 (10th century B.C.)

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Yuqi Wang, "Ling" (1992)

beyond the long exhale that is night
the vicious lie in wait to consume the innocent
i have wrapped the night around me
as if i could hold it there
my teeth clenched, defiant against the dawn
oh that i were a prophet, i would hold the moon in the sky
and cry out, ‘peace’

by day they trade life for life and blood for blood
but the night denies every division:
hides man from woman, ammon from gilead, the ethiopian from the egyptian
god from humanity
oh that i were a prophet, i would make the moon new
and give birth to the stars: my children

let my name be Secret
so that it cannot be taken
they will ask my father, with the red edge still in his hand
but it will slip from his mind, like a maid before her marriage: dancing, free
oh that i were a prophet, and the voice of war was swallowed by silence
and the silence would cry out, ‘peace’

-LoA

upon having been vindicated like seven times that day...

2007-06-25T09:41:00.001-05:00

She: why doesn't everyone just OBEY ME?!

looking in the mirror: orientalism in music

2007-06-20T00:32:00.000-05:00

One aspect of the electronic, postmodern world is that there has been a reinforcement of the stereotypes by which the Orient is viewed. Television, films, and all the media's resources have forced information into more and more standardized molds. So far as the Orient is concerned, standardization and cultural stereotyping have intensified the hold of the nineteenth-century academic and imaginative demonology of "the mysterious Orient."
-Edward Said, Orientalism (1978)

By this time it should not come as a surprise that the site, both geographic and intellectual, which we call the Middle East, is seen not only as exotic, but as something erotic. It is a place where sexuality is unleashed in the absence of the civilizing impulse. No matter how many records Nancy Ajram sells in Egypt, the face of this Middle East will be the Niqaabi or the Afghan woman in the burqa (it is indicative of the problem that indeed most Westerners do not make a distinction between Arabian, Afghan, Persian, Pakistani, etc.). This eroticized vision is a necessary part of Western policy towards the region; it is a place where one's potency must be demonstrated. The violence and the eroticism cannot be separated. It is no accident that the two constant images that mesmerize the mainstream media are the militant and the sexually available, restrained woman.

This geographic erogenous zone is a place Occidentals plunder when they wish because here the rules of civilization no longer apply. It is a place that obeys only the laws of power and is thus closer to Nature, but for that reason less human. We appropriate it to ourselves at moments when our own passions seem uncontainable by the facade of civilization. This embrace of the Orient can come in a confused rush, much like passion itself, indiscriminately devouring whatever is available, expressing and managing the violence of desire by displacing onto a setting that is not one's own. Displacing it from oneself by denying that this is really who one is. This is who They are, but not I.

Sarah Brightman, "Harem", Harem (2003)

Brightman's video received (relatively mild) criticism for its mixture of Arabian and Indian images and symbols, but this really misses the point. Instead what one should see is the necessary confusion that comes of trying to make sense of the unfreedom we genuinely feel but are forced to deny and therefore must project onto someone, some-They who are, Naturally, unfree. This is repeated in the song "Free". Here the sound is not Orientalist, but the setting and theme is quintessentially so. Once again amid a group of young women in Asian clothing, this time rendered immobile, Brightman tells us of her desire to be free as she flounders in her desire to be desired. The contradiction is not, of course, in the desire for recognition, but in the dehumanizing form which that recognition apparently must take.

Sarah Brightman, "Free", Harem (2003)

Sting's collaboration with Cheb Mami bears some of the same elements. There are obvious allusions to fetishism: the concealing of the drivers face and her uniform, which repeats, in an Occidental fashion, the fantasy of the veiled Arabian woman. These themes are especially prominent, not surprisingly, in the remix version, which invokes the sexuality of the dance club. There women, now uncovered, dance in real cages, on display for the male viewer.

Yet one should not simply toss this visual experiment into the same bin of confusion with the Brightman fantasy, for at least two reasons. First, the desire of Sting to reach out to Cheb Mami is indicative of a larger and very long-standing theme in Sting's work: his internationalism, transculturalism. He constantly experiments in a variety of musical genres and sounds. Thus the incorporation of North African rai is in fact an acknowledgement of its humanity, its importance as a form of popular music. This is in stark contrast to Brightman, whose musical selections have often forgotten the reasons for their own existence and thus have to try to situate themselves within the world of popular music, reducing themselves to kitsch. Second, while the vision of "Desert Rose" is classical Orientalism, it does twist it by internalizing it. The desert is not some far away place, it turns out. The passions, violent and erotic, are not ultimately other, but are our own. The song leads back to the Occidental world and holds up a mirror to our own hypocrisy, even as Sting ends the song awash in a sea of young dancing women. The harem is not far away. It is here.

Sting and Cheb Mami, "Desert Rose", Sacred Love (2003)

Sting and Cheb Mami, "Desert Rose -- Remix", Sacred Love (2003)

-LoA

catholics like carnivals too

2007-06-19T23:18:00.001-05:00

while many of you are waiting with bated breath for the next carnival of islam in the west, it is still several weeks away. on the other hand we catholics are pretty fond of the occasional carnival ourselves. this week's carnival, at the snoring scholar, included, among many other things, my post on saying the impossible. so go over and check out what catholics are talking about this week, all set to a lovely gardening theme, at the 124th catholic carnival.

...and i even had a pair of strappy sandals already picked out, too!

2007-06-17T09:28:00.001-05:00

LoA: i am the one who showed an interest in her ring; i am the one who oooh'ed and aaaahh'd over her dress; i am the one who went shoe shopping with her; and YOU get invited to the bachelorette party?!?

She: gender discrimination sucks don't it?

this week at the carnival...

2007-06-15T13:30:00.000-05:00

the 176th christian carnival is up at nickqueen.com, and includes my essay on "saying the impossible". also my notes and vassili's letter on the role of the 7th ecumenical council ( held in nicea in 787) in the philosophy of art were included in the week's patristic roundup over at hyperekperissou.

best wishes,
LoA.

islamocommunism?

2007-06-14T01:05:00.000-05:00

Odd Nerdrum, "One Blind Singer and Two Dancers" (2001)

What's next? I will grant that the comparison between the ideology of the revolutionary movements present in the Middle East to post-WW2 Communism is an improvement. It is at least a better comparison than the poor comparison to fascism. At least Communism was transnational in its own self-description. And certainly, Mao and Stalin destroyed their countries in the mid-twentieth century, murdering freely, imprisoning arbitrarily and generally using fear and power to extend their rule. Their programs of national reform destroyed the heritage of their people. And Mao and Stalin had just about as much in common with Marx as the Taliban (for instance) does with most practitioners of Islam: each tyrant twisting the words of a prophet to justify the deaths of any and all who disagree with them.

But the fact that one day the Islamic terrorists can be fascists and the next day they are communists, one day the Nazis, the next day its a Red Islam (not that Shariati minds), makes clear the extent to which the rhetoric is just that: rhetoric. Bush and company are no closer to understanding who and what they are fighting against today, than they were the day before or will be tomorrow. As with all good Islamophobia, the rhetoric is not meant to identify the enemy so much as rally public opinion into a cohesive and deadly force. Bush and company are grasping at straws, desparately comparing their enemy to enemies of old in an effort to contain them, comprehend them and make the American people understand why Islam is such a threat to America (not the "good Muslims" of course. *wink, wink*). Its a major victory if government policy makers can tell you the difference between Sunni and Shia, let alone the differences between an Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

And finally, one must ask, will we allow our country, our governments to kill in the name of its own idols? Has the fanaticism of Bush been less deadly? The Goddess of Democracy has been the justification for the destruction of Iraq, and many within our government would to build a new Temple to her in Iran as well. Her hands are red with blood and her priests are calling out for more victims.

-LoA

a letter and some background

2007-06-12T15:01:00.000-05:00

in case you were not already convinced that this is a nerdy blog, i bring you todays post.

"John of Damascus"

in what was purely a coincidence, both vassili and i referenced the seventh great ecumenical council held in nicea in 787. i added an important section of the council as an epigraph in my elaboration on a post that i had originally sketched out a couple of months ago on the place of the holy in art (see "saying the impossible"), while vassili mentioned the council as he addressed some of his critical concerns with the philosophical position underlying my two posts on han-wu shen (part 1 and part 2 can be found at these links). i wish simply to provide a little bit of background to the reader before i provide vassili's letter because while the council is very important for the development of the understanding of art within the christian world, it is not particularly well known.

the early ecumenical councils were the gathering of christian bishops from all over the world and really centered around disputes over what it meant to say that jesus was god. these resulted in mature formulations of the doctrine of the trinity (god is a dynamic unity: father, son and spirit), the doctrine of the incarnation (christ is one person, the divine Logos, fully human and fully divine), and culminated in the controversy over the appropriateness of artistic images, icons, for representing christ, etc. one of the main challenges that christianity always faced was dealing with the ban on images and the association of all images with idolatry. the opponents of icons recalled this ban and the transcendence of god in refusing to allow artistic representations to be associated with churches and christian worship. the proponents of the icons, on the other hand, argued that god's identification with the created order, already mentioned in the earlier councils, meant that god itself had taken up created images, icons of god and thus justified their use. god's revelation had shown that god could be revealed in and through the material order and that indeed the reconciliation of humanity with god required it ("what is not assumed cannot be saved"). and this ultimately was the position of the seventh ecumenical council represented primarily in the writings of john of damascus and maximus the confessor. his references to athanasius, gregory of nyssa and gregory palamas refer to important figures in the history of christianity dating from the 4th c. to the middle ages.

vassili's letter should be read as a response to my earlier use of hegel and especially the quote from lukacs that serves as the starting point for my first post on han-wu. as i understand it, vassili wishes to deny the adequacy of concepts to the being or essence of their objects without denying the possibility of a kind of realism that acts iconographically to point you beyond the image (this would be the point of the distinction mentioned in the quote from theodore the studite and his use of walter benjamin at the end) [n.b., benjamin and lukacs had a long and often contentious dispute over the role of art and especially expressionism in the 20th c.][one might also recall adorno's strenuous insistence on maintaining the non-identity of concept and object]. my own response will follow soon.

finally...i bring you vassili's very thoughtful letter (the original can be seen here):
__________________

Dear 'Lawrence',
i think you will agree that in order to hope of any realism in visual arts we first have to have an answer to epistemological problem of what is really real and how that is known to us. I do not want here neither to open an extensive discussion of that onerous (especially since Kant's time) matter, nor to jump into any final statement; but I would like to offer a point of view. Let me start:

It is quite known the controversy about the icons—the capability of depiction of Christ mainly—during the mid-Byzantine era which resulted into the 7th Ecumenical Council and destroyed Byzantine State’s unity for ever. What is not very known is the subtleties of arguments of both sides as a result that this controversy was nothing but the pick of the iceberg which was the old (and never ending) debate about the possibility of knowledge of God and the nature of man’s salvation. (In fact the whole theology of Greek Fathers from Athanasius to Gregory Palamas is nothing but an epistemologic struggle for asserting man’s potentiality of participation into God’s uncreated energy/-ies and, hence, God’s eternal life.) What recapitalized Church’s answer was Theodore Studite’s aphorism that “what is depicted in an icon [of Christ] is not [his] nature but hypostasis.” (Of course that needs a lot of discussion, since the distinction between hypostasis, or person, and nature, or substance, is a very old and fundamental issue in Greek Patristic theology which in fact it goes back to Aristotle, and, in my opinion, farther back to Greek Archaic thought; but here and now this discussion is not possible; so, i will avoid it and i will use Studite’s aphorism just as an Archimedean point.) This aphorism has a more general value for visual arts since it keeps open the possibility of a true image without, at the same time, falling into the vicious circle of trying to find a way out of total-realism’s labyrinth. To make it a bit more straightforward: Gregory of Nyssa gives a nice account about matter and perception; he says that the matter is the concurrence (out of the divine will and power) of all of matter’s features, which each-one-in-itself is nothing but a mere name or concept (PG 44, 69C), and that nature’s idiom is her state of continuous changing out of her constitution (ibid, 108A) and of her immanent creative reason [κτίσεως λόγον=reason of being] (ibid, 88D). And how can we perceive natural reality? He says, through hypostasis, which is nature’s manifestation via her specific idioms (PG 32, 328). Gregory Palamas similarly says: a substance without a distinct-from-it energy is totally non-existent [ανυπόστατος=without hypostasis] and a mere speculation of mind (Works, vol.5, 112).

So what i try to say is that the only possible and honest realism in visual arts is the depiction of what is commonly accepted as naturally idiomatic in our art’s object —that is, to create a visual name, as a real name-sign for a real thing. (As W. Benjamin says, “The name is the analogue of the knowledge of the object in the object itself.”) Can we see it somewhere? Yes, it is seen in folk art, in icons, in many works among the great poets of painting (e.g. Fra Angelico, Greco, Caravaggio, Giacometti and others).

What really appalls me in illusionary realism and in Lucacs’ naïve statement is their utopian will for man’s consciousness’ final dominion over nature —and every utopia, i think you will agree, is nothing but violence.

I hope i managed to give to you an idea of what i had in mind.
You have my best wishes for your “journey”.
/vassili

saying the impossible

2007-06-11T01:44:00.000-05:00

"We define that the holy icons, whether in color, mosaic, or some other material, should be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on the sacred vessels and liturgical vestments, on the walls, furnishings, and in houses and along the roads, namely the icons of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, that of our Lady the Theotokos, those of the venerable angels and those of all saintly people. Whenever these representations are contemplated, they will cause those who look at them to commemorate and love their prototype. We define also that they should be kissed and that they are an object of veneration and honor (timitiki proskynisis), but not of real worship (latreia), which is reserved for Him Who is the subject of our faith and is proper for the divine nature, ... which is in effect transmitted to the prototype; he who venerates the icon, venerated in it the reality for which it stands."

The Seventh Ecumenical Council, Nicea (787)

Sandro Botticelli, "Madonna of the Magnificat" (c.1483)

Let us take two portrayals of the Virgin Mary.

For the first let us use Botticelli's "Madonna of the Magnificat" as an example. We choose it not because it is somehow exceptional – it is that, widely admired at the time of its composition, it remains an impressive display of skill and composition – but because the themes by which the Virgin is portrayed are in many ways quite typical. It is not known who commissioned the piece, but whoever it may have been, they were extremely wealthy. To begin with, the panel is extremely large, and each of the characters is nearly life-sized. Given the expense of gold paint, artists were generally very sparing in its use. But here Botticelli uses it in extravagant fashion. Mary's robe and dress are very intricately embroidered in gold. The crown that is being lowered upon her head is likewise of a very delicate gold design. The halos are of course of gold paint, and there is gold embroidery on some the minor characters as well. Perhaps most amazingly, Botticelli even used gold paint to supplement and achieve the overall hair color that he desired the Virgin to have.

Likewise, Mary bears the marks of royalty. She is being crowned Queen of Heaven as she writes, by two angels (she is penning the Magnificat found in the gospel of Luke). There are a number of stars in the crown adapting one typical portrayal of the Queen of Heaven with stars at her feet in a manner more appropriate to the tondo. Her clothes are likewise rich and lush. The royal blue is almost a mandatory Marian color, as is the deep red dress underneath. The angels gather round her as attendants, two of them holding the book open for her as she writes, their own clothing testimony to the wealth of the one on whom they wait.

Now while it is true that these traits lead us to an appreciation of the wealth of the commissioner, to think that this is the only function would be not merely cynical, but to fundamentally misunderstand the message of the painting. Botticelli's Christendom is a great chain of being that stretches from the lowliest depths of creation up to the heights of the divine. In order to analogously express this the artist takes those things which are most beautiful, those things which signify power, royal authority and grace to humanity here below, and uses them to express to the benevolent rule of the Queen of Heaven (in this case). Thus, it is not only the picture itself which, in iconic fashion, directs the viewer beyond themselves toward a greater understanding of Mary, but in fact the viewer is likewise directed towards the aristocratic family who commissioned the painting; they are understood by all to analogously portray the divine through the beauty of their lives and the benevolence of their rule. Thus the magnificent expenditure is not merely a decadent display, but a recognition that their wealth is at the service of something that transcends them. The image of royal power rebounds back upon the commissioner to measure and judge them – are they a dim but adequate reflection of the power of God in their use of earthly power?

Chris Ofili, "The Holy Virgin Mary" (1996)

For our second example, let us examine Chris Ofili's controversial "Holy Virgin Mary".

Here the composition is extremely simple. Mary, who has seemingly African features (Ofili is himself a Roman Catholic of African origin), looks out at the viewer. She is not Botticelli's aristocrat. There is no finery here. Simple earthy tones are used. The painter used both paint and elephant feces to achieve the effect he wanted with Mary. The beings that seem to flutter around her like butterflies, what one would traditionally identify as cherubs, turn out to be the buttocks and genitalia of various black women, cut from pornographic magazines and various blaxploitation films.

Obviously Ofili is addressing his audience in a much different way than Botticelli. He does nothing to invoke wealth and power. Mary is very common. But assuming that Ofili's purpose was not simply to piss off Mayor Guiliani, what purpose does the inclusion of scatological and pornographic elements serve. Why portray something he calls holy by means of so-much-shit?

The fact is that we no longer live in Botticelli's world. While gold may still indicate power, the sources of power are no longer considered as benevolent as they were. They are no longer, even in theory, interested in the human good, nor the common good. The powers represented by gold, by big blue, are the market, governments and corporations: the instruments of capitalism. These are things that exert their control over the audience, penetrate every sector of their lives, and allow no escape. Capitalism remains, at best, neutral with respect to the human good, and judges things only as commodities, reducing everything that falls within its grasp (which is nothing less than everything). Thus Ofili turns to waste, literally to shit. His voice is speaks according to that which is not valued by capitalism - whether it is to feces or to those parts of humanity which society views as so-much-shit - because that is what capitalism does not value; it is that which at least has a chance of escaping capitalism's control. Shit becomes the way of negating the demonic influence of the culture industry which embraces every part of human life and denies humanity any escape. Only shit, in the closed world of capitalism, might represent something beyond capital, can represent the holy, because shit is what is given off and left behind after the consumer consumes.

Yet one is left to wonder if Ofili can accomplish his purpose. Does not this negation of the values of capitalism not really just affirm them by turning them on their head. The use of shit only has meaning because of the value-system it is negating. Thus the painting itself is tied to, and is worthless without, capitalism. It needs capitalism to have value and to mean anything. Has Ofili done anything more than show capitalism a way of valuing that which it had previously excreted as worthless, further increasing its range of influence and control? Is this not what Dalí foretold when he exposed Liberal-Capitalist society's unconscious in bluntly scatological terms. Ironically Ofili's painting ended up in the hands of a wealthy collector before it was lost in a fire. Ofili's problem is not unique; the problem is, how does one speak of the Beyond, of the divine, given that our language is always earth bound? Is it possible, or is capitalism's closure of life within its all encompassing web the truth of who we are?

Mark Rothko, Untitled (1968) [Acrylic on Paper]

Perhaps the best way to think of the relation between Botticelli and Ofili is in these linguistic terms. They are both attempts to speak about that which is holy. In the theological tradition there is a distinction made between positive speech about the holy (cataphatic language) and negative speech (apophatic language). Botticelli is clearly cataphatic language. Living in the middle of a Christendom which, according to its own self-understanding, attempts to direct the human person towards the divine, Botticelli not surprisingly uses those things that his culture values in order to express that impulse toward the holy. Ofili on the other hand resorts to an apophatic language, denying that the things which we value are holy at all. This is again, not surprising, since the culture in which Ofili speaks no longer sees a connection between its actions and the religious, which is granted a private and interior existence if it is affirmed at all.

But it is important to note, in order that BOTH forms of language not fall into idolatry, that the two forms must (and do) work together. It is not simply that every Botticelli needs Ofili's corrective (and vice versa), but that both elements are at work in both painters. The cataphatic and apophatic are correlates of one another which together attempt to open language onto a horizon which transcends it.

One should not be naive and think that Botticelli actually believes that his positive portrayal of the Virgin Mary in some way represents a realistic representation of her. He is well aware she is not a European noblewoman, nor was she someone who lived her life in wealth (nor let us be naive and think that Botticelli is not privileging a European, noble, Mary for the same reasons that he uses golds and blues). There is a negation, a falseness, that is built into the language itself that allows the viewer to see through, to see beyond what is merely said. In so doing, Botticelli not merely affirms but negates that which he speaks. As already mentioned, the commissioners, no less than the painting itself, can be at best, dim images of the holy towards which their eyes are turned.

Likewise, Ofili's negations cannot function without something to negate, something of value, something that is good: even if one realizes, in the negation that the things we value as good are nothing but shit, fallen and broken.

Trapped as we are within the prison-house of language, that language must be taken beyond its limits in order to express something beyond the prison. If there is to be hope for the future, we must crucify language, ignore Wittgenstein, and stake a claim on the Impossible – speak the unspeakable. This conjunction of the cataphatic and apophatic reminds us that we are not-yet what we desire to be, even though we do not yet know what it is that we desire. It reminds us not to settle for idols, but also to hold fast to hope.

-LoA

musharraf's enlightenment

2007-06-09T21:03:00.000-05:00

Perhaps the lightbulb is finally starting to flicker and illuminate the situation for Musharraf, because he is in a predicament. Whatever the case, the political isolation of Mush is clearly starting to take its toll. The Washington Post is reporting that Musharraf lashed out at his allies in Parliament accusing them of leaving him standing alone as the media and others called for his resignation. But it is hard to see who he has to blame for this isolation other than himself, as he has made a number of decisions of late that could only undermine his claim to legitimacy.

What he has failed to understand, one might argue is that the governance of the military rested upon a certain recognition among the people of Pakistan of his rule. The enlightened tyrant is in a tenuous position if they wish to maintain both their enlightenment and their tyranny. Perhaps even more than a ruler who achieves power through elections, the enlightened tyrant must embody the will of the people in significant ways - must be their representative. An elected leader can make unpopular decisions and will likely be tolerated because the electorate knows that when the times comes, that leader will be out of a job. But when the tyrant sweeps into power with claims of stabilizing and reinvigorating a country so that the country can continue on its way towards prosperity, an almost impossible balancing act is required. This is the role that the Pakistani military has played on a number of occasions, and it is the situation which brought about Musharraf's rise to power. But he can only hold control, or at least "enlightened" control, as long as the people view him as their representative - acting on their behalf. Obviously, no representative is going to be able to achieve this on a universal scale, but because Musharraf assumed power, every person who is alienated by him and no longer recognizes him as acting in some general way for the good of the country will feel legitimacy in opposing him as an unabashed tyrant.

The dismissal of the CJP was a significant misstep on his part because it indicated an unwillingness on his part to hold himself accountable to standards of enlightened government. In short the dismissal of the CJP was a strike against the foundations of Musharraf's own claims to legitimacy. The recent restrictions of the free press brought further protests and disruptions, and the outraged voice of the Pakistani people was severe enough to be felt in Islamabad. Again what the toleration (at a bare minimum) of a free press indicates is the government's willingness to hear voices than its own. The willingness to allow an opposition press shows that one is dedicated to responding to the concerns of those who might disagree with you. These are things an enlightened tyrant must be willing to do.

Finding himself alone (or more to the point, having isolated himself), Mush has rescinded the restrictions upon the free press (see the same WaPo article), but it is probably much too late to save himself at this juncture. And so he has two options, it seems to me. he can tear his country apart by passing over from an enlightened tyrant to a brutal one and stamp the will of the military upon the country through harsh and repressive measures. Let us hope this is not the path he chooses. I genuinely believe this is not what is in the heart of Musharraf, nor his desire for his country. In which case his other option is to let the planned elections go forward without his insistence that he continue to be ruler of the country. Every day in which delays that decision brings him closer to being remembered as Musharraf the Brutal.

-LoA

carnivals of the week

2007-06-08T18:49:00.001-05:00

allow me to point your attention to a couple of carnivals that are linking to my little corner of the desert this week.

the 10th carnival of islam in the west is up over at aaminah's blog, and the 175th christian carnival is up over at rey's bible archive.

enjoy,
LoA.

the possibilities of realism, part 2: han-wu shen's daydreams of conformity

2007-06-07T13:47:00.000-05:00

Some time ago, Alaleh Alamir, who is herself a painter, asked, in response to the post on Han-Wu Shen (see 'The Possibilities of Realism: a Case for the Art of Han-Wu Shen'), "Could hyper-realism in painting still make sense in the age of fotoshop and its like? realism can represent a technical challenge do the doer; I am not sure it brings anything more to the viewer or to world consciousness..."

One can also see, in the comments to the post on Han-Wu Shen, Vassilip, who has also worked in paint, making somewhat existentialist objections against realist painting and especially against the quote from Lukacs which serves as the epigraph for the post: I wonder, do you really believe that a realism in art (any realism) is possible? I mean, do you really believe that is possible to translate true experience (if ever we be fully able to be her masters) into icons? ...Can you not see how outrageously utopian is Lukacs’ statement (even in his upside-down Hegelian …Platonism)?"

As appears in my reply already to Vassilip, I categorically reject the idea that somehow Reason is unable to contain experience as philosophically absurd. This does not mean that rationality is whole or complete as yet, but it does mean that the breaks and gaps, the contradictions that are present within the Real, are experiences of Reason coming into contradiction with itself, not of Reason coming into contradiction with some Other which is uncontainable. This position serves as a good benchmark to judge the limits of my sympathies with typical expressions of (post-)Marxism, which is often quite extensive. But it seems to me that figures like Sartre and Adorno betray the dialectic when they contrast Reason with Matter. This makes matter into the Real which Reason can never fully comprehend (this is expressed in both as a kind of "priority of the object"). But certainly, to echo Hegel, if Reason can experience itself in contradiction with Matter, then it has somehow already seen beyond the supposed limit of Reason in order to experience itself as grinding against its own Other: it has transcended the supposed limit. As such the contradiction is transformed into a conflict between two moments of Reason itself. This leads to a position I have articulated on a number of occasions: namely that the Whole conditions everything we do and that we all act for the Whole in some form or another (see most recently 'Freedom', but also 'Dialectic' and, negotiating the relationship between Hegel and Adorno, 'The Struggle, Part 6').

Now, these philosophical issues do not by any means address the larger issues being raised here against realism, and I think the issues are very serious. I would agree that if all that is left to 'realism' is the demonstration of technique then it is ideologically dead, and has nothing more to contribute. And that is certainly the danger right now: a camera and foto-shop is a much more appropriate mode of production than oil and canvas. But if, somehow, realism can incorporate the lessons learned from 'modern art' then maybe it can have some future. I suggested that possibly Han-Wu Shen had tried to incorporate some of these lessons through his comparison of his work to industrial painting within the genre of decorative figure painting (it is admittedly very difficult to foresee a revival of historical figure painting). This would allow the genre within which he is working to transcend itself. To put it another way, it would allow abstract art to recover a certain amount of explicit narrative content without giving up its central truth: form and color.

That said, I have to admit that is not clear that Han-Wu Shen's project is truly sustainable, judging by his own work. He recently left China for the west coast of the United States and since that time has generated a number of 'decorative' paintings in the worst sense, which only seems to the feed the blindness of the art-consumer. I include three examples below:

Han-Wu Shen, "Reverie" (2004)

Han-Wu Shen, "Reflection (Reverie #2)" (2004)

Han-Wu Shen, "Daydream (Reverie #3)" (2004)

Here one quickly notices that the lack of content is present as much in the subject as in the over-all object itself. The reader is rendered as intellectually inert and mindless as are these (notably caucasian) women caught up in their various reveries. Finally, one can see immediate parallels with Dante Rossetti's own "Daydream" etc. I believe a similar critique can be leveled at Han-Wu Shen in these paintings as was leveled at Rossetti in an earlier post (see 'Daydreams of Conformity').

-LoA

borders

2007-06-06T01:30:00.000-05:00

Patricia Larsen, "White Beach #4" (2005)

there are moments between the unconscious and waking where one falls off the edge of the map and drowns in a sea that you thought was only ink. someone had told you to be careful, as you walked to the edge: green lined by black. but it was after all, only a map. since when did lines on paper kill anyone?

i cannot count the dead.

-LoA

freedom: a meditation on bonaventure's breviloquium v.1-3

2007-06-05T12:02:00.000-05:00

Dale Frank, "(Goodnight Scrub)" 2003

there is a tendency to think of freedom as the ability to do what one wants, the autonomous exercise of one's individual will; the exercise of one's own power. but this seems incredibly problematic, for what is it that is ours? what do we have that is not a gift, down to our ability to act, and existence itself? in and of ourselves we are nothing, our existence was never ours to command, nor can we will our non-existence. we find ourselves absolutely dependent on a power beyond our mere individuality. and because we are nothing of ourselves, what is the operation of this autonomy which pretends to freedom except the will-to-nothing, the impossible desire for self-annihilation. our will no less than our existence is received from that which is beyond us: from our history, from culture and from that by which even they are.

to fight against this is not to assert one's freedom, but to deny one's reality within the Whole and thus become a slave to the forces one fights against. we delude ourselves that our freedom is somehow our's, a possession that belongs only to us. but this is never so. perhaps the mistake is understandable. my existence is out of my control; i find myself existent from beyond my will in an event that can only be, from my standpoint, fully gratuitous. but surely my actions are mine own. and indeed they involve my reason, my will: freedom. yet, it is no less true of my freedom than it is of my existence itself that it is received as a gift, for my freedom is a mode of my existence.

because we are, of ourselves, nothing, human freedom left to itself is only capable of nothing. it is only by way of that same gratuity by which we find ourselves to exist that we are able to act with meaning. individualism, egotism, self-will is a turn away from meaning toward nihilism and self-destruction. the very gratuity by which we are is also the guarantee of meaning-full action, the fact that we are caught up in something larger than ourselves. freedom is not, then, self-will, but bringing oneself into conformity and identification with the Whole by which we are free.

-LoA

Theses on Orientalism and Islamophobia

2007-06-04T11:44:00.000-05:00

1: Public opinion is held by no one, but is the opinion in which one becomes Other to oneself.

Steven Assael, Untitled [Superman] (2006)

2: It would seem that public opinion represents the consciousness of a group of people as they unite and impose their will upon some relevant authority, whether that authority be some government official of whatever rank, the local radio station or the bakery across the street. But this is not the case. Public opinion is not the expression of the power of a group, but the manifestation of the powerlessness of the self in the mass in which that self has become anonymous or abstract. It is the structure of a collective and therefore external identity.

3: That there is a connection between Orientalism and Islamophobia is not a surprising declaration. They are intertwined ways in which the Occident orients itself towards the Other as threat. But two things must be realized here.

3.1: First, every Other is, as such, a threat. This is not unique to the Oriental. They represent a comparable but separate desire with its own projects which is capable of appropriating resources and values which I may need against my will. Orientalism, then, represents the way in which the specific threat represented by a particular object, now called the Oriental, is thematized so that it might be put into practice.

3.1.example: This is different in content and scope, but comparable in its form to my relation to my neighbor, who is likewise an Other and a threat to me. Let us say that along the property line between my property and theirs are two rows, very close to one another, of blueberry bushes. The property line runs directly between these two rows of blueberry bushes. When my neighbor goes to cut the grass they are not able to ride the lawn mower directly between the two rows of bushes and so they always use the weedeater to tend to the blueberry bushes. One day, knowing that I have hurt my ankle, the neighbor trims around my bushes for me in an action of recognition and reciprocity between us. This allows me to complete my lawn care on the riding mower. But the next week, the neighbor does it again. And the next week again. Now there is confrontation and conflict regardless of the (let us say it already!) supposed good will of the neighbor, because if I allow the behavior to continue, at a certain point, in the eyes of the state of North Carolina, the property will pass over to my neighbor because they have cared for it (and we all have John Locke’s theory of property to thank for that). The bushes that were mine and which I used to make desserts and such to my great delight, will no longer be mine. The neighbor becomes in my eyes crafty and deceitful, a dissembler, who flatters me on the one hand while trying to steal from me on the other. The neighbor must be watched at all times because they are lazy and shiftless, not content to gain profit in a legitimate way, they would rather take what belongs to and has been nurtured by another, namely myself.

3.1.conclusion: Their separation from me and from my interests is made necessary by the nature of the object itself – my property – which constitutes them, by its very shape, as a threat, as an Other whose projects may interrupt my own, ultimately in a critical and perhaps even fatal way if things spiral too far out of hand. I need know NOTHING about my neighbor in order to know this. This is the truth of who they are in relation to the object in question, no matter what subjective characteristics they might possess. In other words it is objectively the truth: it is the truth carried in and constituted by the object itself. So we can summarize the first move of the object is that it constitutes the Other as Other and in this case as someone lazy, a liar, tricky and dissembling, greedy and lustful, etc., and I must adopt this attitude towards the Other if I am going to act in my own interests.

3.2: So the object makes the Other into the Other, but the truth of the matter is that the object also makes me into an Other.

3.2.1: Islamophobia, as the reflex of Orientalism, is not, first of all about the Oriental. It is about me. It describes the actions that I must take in order to maintain myself with my desires in the face of this Other, this Oriental, who is a threat. Once again, this is not a description of some subjective attitude on my part. It is not necessarily reflective of who I am in my personality, subjectivity, or selfhood, etc. It is who I am objectively, i.e., in relation to this object which demands maintenance and defense from me. My attitude and actions are given to me by the object as part and parcel of its character. This means that once again the attitude of Islamophobia is given to me as someone anonymous. Who I am does not matter other than the fact that I, like any other of a certain type, stand before this object in a particular way (as an American, and most probably as a White American). What matters is this generic identification which is indifferent to who I am individually. In other words, I receive my actions and attitudes as externalities. The I-who-acts could be anyone, any member of the genus to which I happen to find myself a part. I receive them as something Other than who I am; I am Other-than-I-am.

3.2.2: But we can take it one brief step further. To a certain extent MY Islamophobia is not even the attitude I hold indirectly, but the attitude I hold for Others, or, to put it otherwise, it is not the attitude I hold, but the attitude that I wish other members of my genus to hold. As an individual I need not hate the Oriental. I am capable of making individual judgments about good and bad Orientals. This is the source of that timeless but irrelevant defense in the face of my own racism: “I have Oriental friends; I cannot be an Islamophobe”. The problem is that the Oriental is a threat not only to me directly, or even more correctly, is not a threat at all to me directly, the Oriental is a threat to me-as-member-of-a-genus (e.g., American or Westerner or civilized humanity). The threat is not only to me but to me through all the other members of my genus. I am threatened through them and I am powerless to protect myself from the threat that occurs to me through them. Thus I need them to hold an attitude which will protect me from the Oriental-threat. I need them to defend me with all vigilance (the same holds true, by the way, for other members of my genus about me – they are threatened through me and I must maintain vigilance for them). Thus when I adopt the attitude of Islamophobia, as the attitude objectively required by the object (America, civilization, Christianity, etc.) I am not adopting it for myself as such but as the attitude of the others of my own genus to whom I offer myself as example.

3.2.example: Let us return to the much lower stakes of the owner of the blueberry bushes. My aggression against my neighbor is not based on my subjective attitude towards them, but out of my bushes’ demand that they be maintained by me if I am to use enjoy tarts in the summer. Moreover my own good will towards my neighbor is irrelevant because I must live the aggressive maintenance which the bushes require of me as an example to my neighbors so that they too will maintain their property and thus protect the common laws of property against any violation which would jeopardize mine in turn and in so doing expose me to harm and, if things were to spiral out of control, complete loss of property and death.

3.2.conclusion: Thus my phobic attitudes are doubly Other to me, or, better, are the attitudes-I-hold-as-Other-to-myself. They are the objectively demanded attitudes that all members of my genus must hold and which I hold as an example to the other members of my genus, due to my own impotence, as a reminder of the attitudes they must hold in order avoid exposing me.

-LoA

new blog of the month: catholicanarchy.org

2007-06-04T00:38:00.000-05:00

Every month Theology Blogs, a Christian blog roll, showcases one of its blogs through the Blog of the Month. Having had the honor of being chosen as the Blog of the Month for the Month of May by Peter over at Coming Home, I now have the honor of choosing the Blog of the Month for June. So, in that capacity, I proudly present catholicanarchy.org.

To my mind this is one of the most interesting Roman Catholic blogs in existence, and as a Catholic myself I am going to indulge in a bit of nepotism. Michael explores a variety of themes that one would expect to see in someone so obviously influenced by Dorothy Day: political theology, social justice, the problem of violence, war, the state, etc, and he does this in a manner that invites discussion and contemplation, embodying the ethos of peace which he advocates. While I personally I have my own issues with the positions generally associated with the Catholic Worker, it is, at present, one of the few movements within American Catholicism that is resistant to identifying the faith with one loci or another of the culture of political liberalism, and for this it must not only be applauded but also warmly supported in broad areas of its social and ecclesial criticism.

By way of an introduction to Michael’s thought I draw the readers attention to two posts:

1. Memorial Day and the Religious Syncretism of the State

2. Howard Zinn on Families as “Pockets of Insurrection”

the possibilities of realism: a case for the art of han-wu shen

2007-06-01T10:32:00.000-05:00

Great realism, therefore, does not portray an immediately obvious aspect of reality but one which is permanent and objectively more significant, namely man in the whole range of his relations to the real world, above all those that outlast mere fashion. Over and above that, it captures tendencies of development that only exist incipiently and so have not yet had the opportunity to unfold their entire human and social potential. To discern and give shape to such underground trends is the great historical mission of the true...avant-garde.

Georg Lukács, "Realism in the Balance" (1938)

David Camp, "Blue Maiden's Gaze" (2005)

Despite the work of groups like the Art Renewal Center to assert the need for contemporary Realism against the bankruptcy of modernist painting, it is not terribly clear that contemporary Realism is itself ideologically solvent. Instead, too much of contemporary realist painting has no real ambition beyond decorative art. Individual figures, most often female, quite often nude are placed in settings that do little to provide any real context or provide one with narrative clues. Instead of being timeless, they are ahistorical, like the capitalism to which they are capitulations. They are commodities provided for consumption to an audience that has itself lost any sense of history. Thus realism regresses back to the earliest moment of Enlightenment aesthetics: art as entertainment. It becomes a completely private event that does nothing to challenge the viewer with respect to the place and form of art, or their own relation to the means or mode of production of works of art or any other form of labor. The universal human experience, by which it provides its own self-justification, is nothing more than that of the isolated, alienated, objectified individual who is unable to relate or comprehend themselves as part of some larger whole, and so disapproves of any art that does more than provide an unspeakable feeling to be enjoyed. Thus realism, in the contemporary moment, most often presents itself as nothing but a mirror in which we view our own fate. It provokes a sentimental gaze which quiets any need for real thought so that one can save all one's energy for the labor which is needed to sustain the growth of capital, experienced as the real truth of nature.

Han-Wu Shen, "Mother and Child by the River" (2002)

It is not hard to understand why realism gradually fell out of fashion. It is more than fad that drives art. The Pre-Raphaelites were inspired, at least in part, by the truth of nature. They, unlike their contemporaries, often went outside to paint their landscapes directly, etc. Perhaps with some exaggeration, Ruskin claimed that Millais could spend the day working on a spot of canvas that was no larger than a large coin. And indeed, Millais in his Pre-Raphaelite days paints in exquisite detail. But as the mode of production changes, so does art. As photography becomes increasingly available, certainly Millais's painstaking style becomes inefficient, but realism itself begins to lose its purpose. What is it that painting can do that a camera can not? Gradually the answer became clearer, though Whistler had already grasped the idea. Painting is to color, what music is to sound. The real content of painting, as the need for 'realist' content is historically displaced, is the relation of colors: harmonies, dischords, chaos and order, lights and darks, etc.

This need not mean that there cannot be a legitimate and contemporary Realism. But any realism that wishes to be true, not merely to its object, but also to its form, must never forget that painting is not either glorified or simplified photography, just a photography is not film. When painting does this, the difference in labor is lost and the painting itself becomes an image of what it ought be. Photography is a different media, one that deals in image, one that is increasingly able to bring us images from every aspect of life, often staged to communicate the truth of what happened (even more than the truth of what happened would), and which compensates, for better/for worse, for its lack of depth by providing an ever increasing barrage of those images. The concrete effect is the degeneration of realist (figure) painting into decorative and portraiture forms. Only a decorative piece can contain the simplicity that might vaguely make its completion an efficient possibility relative to some photographic comparison, while portraiture lives on, again without any real context, as a sign of status. A true Realism then cannot forego the study of color in order to be true to its form; in this historical moment, the form is the content.

Han-Wu Shen, "Co-Workers" (2000)

One contemporary realist who has developed this idea is Han-Wu Shen. Han-Wu, in important ways, already shows a superior grasp of realism relative to many of his contemporaries in that his work as whole develops its own narrative intellectual content and makes demands upon the 'reader'. Despite the fact that many of his paintings, taken in isolation, have the same decorative effect as one sees in the realists about whom I have been complaining, taken as a corpus, what one has in Han-Wu Shen is, on the one hand, a fairly sustained look at the tension between the Communist ideals/goals for China and the life of the rural peasantry who are still extremely common in the Chinese countryside, and on the other, an examination of the tension between those same peasants and their urban peers (and these are not two completely unrelated tensions of course).

But in and of itself, one would have to conclude that this would not be enough. A photo-journalist could accomplish this, not only with more ease, but with more power and narrative sophistication, than could someone limited by the labor time invested in oil and canvas figure painting. Yet Han-Wu Shen indicates he is quite aware of this problem and that indeed the labor of painting is not simply or even primarily about the rendering of figures. Its truth is no longer strictly found in its narrative content. Content and form must coincide. By far his most popular urban subject is the blue-collar painter. Here Han-Wu meditates on the nature of the art itself, and asks his audience and himself, "What is painting?". These 'common' painters, these laborers, these are his fellows and their art is not so very far from his own. Painting is about color. About providing a harmony of colors (and when one does not, it is always the possibility of harmony that makes the disharmony striking and meaningful). If one will, the proletarian painters are, not surprisingly, the ones who show in their practice the truth in painting. They have always known, says Han-Wu, that the color is the thing! But this is itself a narrative content one might reply. This takes us one final step further into his paintings of the painters. They themselves become explorations of color, canvases for Jackson Pollock to envy. They are built up like a mosaic so that as one is taken into the painting one loses sight of the painters and are drawn to what they want you to see, the beautiful arrangement of color, questions of harmony and form that lead back out to an evaluation of the whole work and ultimately the world of those painters and the painter himself. It leads to questions of Truth.

If and only if contemporary Realism can grasp the ideas that are being explored by those such as Han-Wu Shen can it possibly compete with the varioius (post-)modernisms as a truly meaningful form of painting/art, and indeed if it learns its lessons well, it may have the power to unite form and content in a manner beyond that of more abstract explorations of color. Great works of art, Adorno tells us, are those that not merely grasp the spirit of their age, but do so in such a way that the contradictions of that age are likewise allowed to appear. By allowing an apparently decorative realism to speak beyond itself Han-Wu Shen has perhaps done just that.

-LoA

Han-Wu Shen, "Young Red Guard" (c.2000)

Appendix
The first painting by Han-Wu Shen I saw was "Pregnant Worker." I was overwhelmed and awed; overjoyed almost to the point of tears. Here was such a powerful display of color and harmony. Han-Wu had consumed and consummated abstract art right there in that one jacket, that one denim work coat. I was stunned: oranges and browns and rust, blues, greys and steel, and that one touch of pink that is so perfect for being so out of place. This was justice: no glamour shot, no objectified subject for me to consume; this was real. It was the most real painting I had seen.....in.....I could not think when. Rapture!

Han-Wu Shen, "Pregnant Worker" (2000)

carnivale!

2007-05-30T23:48:00.000-05:00

The piece I wrote on the threats against Christians in Charsadda, Pakistan was picked up by both the 121st Catholic Carnival and the 174th Christian Carnival, I am happy to report. So go over to Just Another Day of Catholic Pondering and Parableman and check out the carnies and the blogs.

best wishes,
LoA.

for and against the theatres of violence

2007-05-28T14:08:00.000-05:00

"i do not understand my own actions. for i do not do what i want but i do the very thing which i hate."
-paul the apostle, letter to the romans 7:15 (c.65 AD)

Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds, "As I Sat Sadly By Her Side" (2001)

john milbank has written that perhaps the greatest violence we perpetuate against others is the violence of the spectator. it is the violence present in the inability to turn our heads from the car wreck in horror-fascination. it is the violence of watching the plane crash over and over again on cnn. he is right to a degree, but the spectacle also renders the spectator inert before its power. it creates a field in which one relates to the event as something purely given. early christian criticisms of the theater traveled along this double line recognizing that one was both completely impotent and motionless before the spectacle and yet, at the same time, by one's sitting actively affirmed its power.

this is the place in which we now find ourselves so often: sitting at the window, in front of the tv, watching a disaster unfold that is not of our making but which was, at the same time, authored by no one else but us. we are caught in the double violence which renders us powerless to stop its unfolding, and thus at the same time constitutes us as the active and free agents of its realization. that which is external to us becomes the truth of who we are.

in the attitude we adopt toward the spectacle we become other to ourselves. caught in this dangerous theater we come to wear the mask which is assigned us, demanded of us, and the truth of who we are and what we will becomes immaterial. in watching the drama unfold, we are ourselves made actors. the drama, which we recognize to be a thing outside us, is transformed from inert to having a dynamic inertial power. the action makes us passive and our passivity becomes our action.

-LoA

wahid (one)

2007-05-26T11:06:00.000-05:00

Robert Ryman, "Ledger" (1982)

to the uninitiated, many of the beauties of the desert are difficult to impart. our first year in saudi arabia was wet and the desert bloomed. outbursts of green and color, sleeping beneath the arid beige, were unleashed upon the world for a short span. the rains were overwhelming at times. four members of a boy scout troop, camping in the wadi al-batin, were caught in a flash flood and died. often the winds would kick up before the storm and a wall of sand would sweep across the compound, only to be overtaken by the rain. when this would happen the rain would fall heavy and dark, coating everything in a sheet of mud, while serenading everyone with its virtuoso percussion.

but one could not count on rain. driving through desert, as we often did hunting for stones suitable for my mother's lapidary hobby, we would pass bedouin camps. tents made of heavy material would be planted in the desert, a stalk-like television antenna sprouting out its center, a generator bulging from the side. beside it would be the near omni-present toyota short pick-ups which the king gave to every boy when he reached age. and beside that would be the mercedes benz tank-truck which carried water: the vehicle of life. like the desert itself, they were warm people. the toyota blew up a cloud of sand and approached us, and though we shared no common language we were invited in for tea. the men sat with us as we drank the hot drink; a girl, who was probably younger than i was, brought the pot, while the women sat in another part of the large tent, peering from around a curtain in their black, veiled faces. we talked to each other with a friendly lack-of-understanding, and they smiled, talked among themselves and laughed.

but the real beauty of the desert was in its barren simplicity underneath a sun that stripped everything of what was inessential. in its persistence, light would gradually grind down any shadow and reveal it for the nothing that it was. shadow has no positive reality, it is a lack of light, and the light will not be denied for it is the only thing that is real. in the height of the day, the distinction between heaven and earth passed away, there was no longer any horizon, and we were all one.

-LoA

more from charsadda and nwfp

2007-05-23T15:36:00.000-05:00

It appears there was a grenade attack on Monday against yet another music store in NWFP, this time in Sherpao. This is a continuation of similarly themed attacks that have been ongoing in the area. The story also reports that vendors in Charsadda said that they had been warned to stop selling such items for fear of Taliban attacks. It is not clear from the article if the warning came from local magistrates interested in their safety or as threat from someone.

I bring up the story for two reasons. First, I cannot find this news story on anywhere near as many news outlets. Even the Pakistani English-language newspaper, the Daily Times, only has a brief article on it. Clearly actual attacks against private business owners who are, presumably, Muslim is not as news worthy in the eyes of the BBC, et alia, as anonymous letters sent to "threaten the Christians of Pakistan" (play melodramatic music here). This despite the fact that one of the persons responsible for the attack was reportedly apprehended. Who were they? Is it Taliban related? Is it the wife's brother's cousins getting back at the husband for having an affair? Enquiring minds want to know. I want to know.

Second, just to continue the fun of trying to trace down the truth concerning the threatening letters understaken in yesterday's post, this timeline of events in the North West Frontier Province, which is actually quite handy, does not mention letters at all, but says instead that the threats against Christians were chalked onto the side of a local Church in Charsadda. I am going to rule the chalk-theory out on the basis of the picture which the AP provided, even though, given all the contradictions in the reporting, I am still going out on a limb since I can not read Urdu and if they put up the same picture and told me it was the grocery list his wife had given him that morning i would have to believe them. *sigh*

good luck with your news reading,
LoA.

trying to read the news from pakistan

2007-05-22T15:53:00.000-05:00

Puck, "The Evil Spirits of Modern Daily News" (1888)

[All links provided at the end of the post.]

Last week, in a post on the challenges facing religious minorities in Pakistan, Saliha linked a BBC article concerning threats that were made against Christians in the town of Charsadda by means of an anonymous letter. Saif responded in the comments to Saliha’s post that the article struck him as a bit of propaganda, and I must admit that my first response was very similar to Saif’s. I actually thought Saliha’s post was very good and that she had made much much(!!) better use of the story than any of the news outlets that were reporting the story.

Several things bothered me about the way the media approached the story. I will begin with the BBC article in particular but then move on to look at broader coverage of the story in the U.S., U.K., Pakistan and elsewhere.

1. I think the number one thing that bothered me about the BBC article was the way in which the anonymous nature of the letter did not give the BBC one moment of pause. No one signed the letter and no one has claimed responsibility for the letter and thus one really has no way of judging the letter itself. For all the BBC knows, this was a couple of guys out on an all night bender that thought scaring some Christians would be funny. Now, this is not to say that as a Catholic if I were in Charsadda I would not be concerned. I would indeed be very troubled and no doubt frightened by such threats especially given the bomb attacks that had already occurred in the area.

2. But the inability to evaluate the significance of the letter was not important to the BBC and it is passed over in silence. This is a news story in their eyes, and does not need any such evaluation, because it confirms to them and to their presumed readers, the preconceptions of Pakistanis and Islam that they already have. As Saif points out, no legitimate religious authority would support such a letter, yet, despite this fact, you have no indication from the BBC that they even tried to get a response from one of the local Imam’s or even a cleric in Islamabad. The function of the story is simply to remind us how violent and uncivilized Pakistanis and Muslims are.

3. Factual inaccuracies: I do not know what they mean when they say John Michael, a Christian member of the Pakistani parliament, is the head of the Catholic Church in Pakistan, but as far as I can tell he is not a Roman Catholic bishop. Also, as far as I can tell, the head of the Catholic Church in Pakistan is still the Archbishop of Lahore, Lawrence Saldahna.

4. This brings us into the realm of more much more troubling challenges that face us as readers of the media. How can we tell what is going on? Who do we rely upon? One of the things I usually try to do with stories like this one, a half a world away with sketchy information, is try and see what other media outlets are saying. When I did that in this case, it was like I had fallen into a spider web and the more I tried to free myself (i.e. find the actual truth of the story) the more deeply I became entangled in the web.

- Let us start with the letter itself. The BBC report indicates only one letter. They show a picture (purchased from the AP) of a man, a cross behind him, holding the letter up for the camera to see. Yet other news agencies indicate that a number of letters were sent to various churches containing the threat, others that it was a mix of churches and homes (FOX, picking up the AP, reports 2 churches and several homes). An Indian outlet reports that the letters were received not only in Charsadda, but also in Mardan. It is in fact one of the Pakistani outlets that seems most helpful, if their information is presumed to be reliable. They report that the letters were photocopies of a hand-written note, written in rather crude Urdu. But this would seem to be contradicted by a Christian news outlet (whose sources are unspecified) that reports that the various letters received by different parties were not identical [Note that this same news agency has a bit from the 21 May edition calling Jerry Falwell a “cultural hero”].

- Then one has to deal with the threat itself. The BBC article, in its opening paragraph, written in bold print just so you don’t miss it, reports that the Christians are threatened with bomb attacks if they do not convert within the allotted 10 days. Christian Today puts a whole phrase about dire consequences and bombs in quotes, as if they were quoting the letter (or some other unnamed source). AsiaNews headline says that the Christians have been told to convert or die. These claims - the BBC, Christian Today and AsiaNews - seem to be untrue. Most news agencies are reporting that the threats are unspecific, noting only that there will be consequences if they do not convert. The above mentioned Christian news agency says that there are definitely letters that do not specify consequences but it is “reported” that some letters contain bomb threats. That is true insofar as the BBC is reporting that there are bomb threats, but no one seems to have any actual letter – unless the BBC knows something no one else knows, in which case they need to be clearer in their article. The AP provides the only translation of the letter that I could find. In its earliest article (from 12 May – oddly its 16 May article is much more inflammatory and for all intents and purposes says the Taliban wrote the letters), in the above mentioned picture taken by Muhammed Zubair, the following translation is provided:
{"Inform all Christians to covert to Islam or to leave this place. Otherwise you will be in trouble."
Thursday, May 10, 2007 in Charsadda, near Peshawar, Pakistan.}

- Another British outlet, the TimesOnline, reports that as a result of the letters "Christians have fled their homes". Now this is arguably important because it provides a way of judging whether or not Christians believe that the letters represent an escalated or new level of danger for them. Now I suppose, technically, in order for the TimesOnline claim to be true, one would only need at least two Christians to leave their home as a result of the threat. But clearly the opening sentence of the article is meant to imply that Christians have decided to make an exodus from the area. This seems false. Most outlets are reporting that a few Christians have left, but the vast majority are staying put. The BBC, who at least has the decency to provide a reporters name for the story, has Barbara Plett telling us that a few families have left but most are simply “living in fear”. Melodramatic, and not particularly helpful since it turns out that Ms Plett is reporting on the story from Islamabad and thus clearly has no way of confirming for us that what is being said is true. One Pakistani outlet, not surprisingly perhaps, is reporting that no one(!) has left as a result of the letters. This is stated by the local police chief and confirmed by a Christian source. While I find it improbable that a couple of people did not at least say to themselves, “I have not seen Auntie Mary down in Lahore in a long time; now would be a good time to visit”, it also seems unlikely that Christians have caused a traffic jam on the road south out of Charsadda: especially since the number of Christians we are talking about seems to be between approximately 500 and 600 people depending on which news organization you ask (the Middle Eastern Times reports, e.g., 50 families). Moreover at least this outlet has been responsible enough to provide two independent sources for the fact it is reporting and provided names for both of their sources. Clearly this is a revolutionary idea for modern journalism. They also note that the Associated Press had reported migration from the area and give the name of the AP source. I swear, it is almost like they know what responsible journalism is. Maybe the BBC should take notes.

- And then there is the matter of who is actually delivering the threat. The AP wire, picked up by FOX (FOX picks up the feed without the picture or the translation of the letter, interestingly), among others, opens its 12 May report with the claim that the letter is the work of “extremists” even though a few paragraphs later they admit that the letter was unsigned. It’s 16 May report goes even further, virtually declaring the Taliban party the author. The ironically named Christian news outlet, WorthyNews, declares in its headline that “Militants” are “forcing” Christians to convert and shutting down their churches. Besides ignoring the fact that the letters were anonymous, it makes it sound like armed militants are on the streets compelling Christians to say the shahada while they nail-shut the doors of local churches. Perhaps the most egregious offence on this score is from the Indian media outlet, The Times of India, which unambiguously identifies the letter-senders as the Taliban.

- The official response is another matter that is extremely unclear. If you are to believe the AsiaNews, which is a news service aimed at Catholic readers, the authorities are treating the letters as a “joke” and the Christians of Charsadda are callously being ignored. One can see how they might have inferred this, since a Pakistani outlet reports that the chief of police called the letters “immature” and said that the Taliban were much more sophisticated in their methods. But to say that he does not think that the letters are the work of the Taliban and to say that he is going to do nothing is two different things. And he goes on to say that special measures are being taken to ensure the security of Christians and churches. Now it might also be the case, at the very same time, that Christians do not feel secure despite whatever measures are available to the police. And this seems to be implied by the BBC story and others. But even the BBC notes that police have been stationed near Christian interests.

- Now, while I think it is fair to cut them a break, especially when talking about headlines where they are forced to conserve space and be economic with their words while at the same time trying to inspire you to want to read the story, I think it is also important to notice the way in which the words Christian and Pakistan(i) are used in these articles. Over and over again Christians are mentioned in the headlines as if all Christians of Pakistan were being threatened, and not 500 to 600 in a portion of NWFP. Moreover Pakistan is often used in the headlines in a way that could suggest that it is the Pakistani government or some official authority that is attempting to compel this mass conversion. Clearly Pakistan, if that word refers to the country and its powers, are not complelling anyone to convert, and the letters did not come from Pakistan.

- And, finally, to take up Saif’s complaint, which I believe is a relatively legitimate one. Only the news services, like the Middle Eastern News, which picked up the AFP feed and the quote from Shabaz Bhatti, have any statements denouncing the letter and claiming that they violate the spirit of Islam. Even that paragraph is not terribly clear in the AFP feed and it is not clear who is speaking, who the “Alliance” is, and whether or not the speaker is Muslim. A better version of this article (perhaps the original full version, I can not tell) is found at ChristianToday, where one learns that the Alliance is the “All Pakistan Minority Alliance”. Moreover, I presume that the All Pakistan Minority Alliance is a private organization, but who they are and what they do is unstated. Unfortunately, the Christian Today article fails to mention Shabaz Bhatti by name, so I have to put those two pieces together from two different articles. Another thing that the Christian Today article does well is link this event with broader events affecting religious minorities in Pakistan, mentioning the recent failed legislation that was brought before Parliament for the equal treatment of blasphemy no matter which religion was involved. Saliha has also provided us a very useful post on that topic. The 12 May AP report is also one of the few (the only one?) that provides a quote from Pakistani authorities insisting that religious minorities in Pakistan have the right to practice their religion and that their rights will be protected by the Pakistani government. This statement disappears from nearly ALL subsequent reports from other news agencies. Moreover no one seems to have gone to the “trouble” of attempting to interview religious leaders in Peshawar or Islamabad or anywhere else to get their reaction. Meanwhile we have statements from Christian leaders in Islambad and Lahore, as well as foreign Christian figures denouncing the threat to Christians. This is the point at which the articles, especially from the Western media come very very close to being propaganda. They refuse to even acknowledge the need to seek the opinion of Muslim voices. The presumably Muslim voice of the letter(s) is the only voice they can hear. Whether or not it is self-consciously propaganda, it is Yellow Journalism by any standard.

________________________________

The following provides, I believe, a complete list of the all the links that were referenced in this post, beginning with Saliha Shah's two wonderful posts on religious minorities and the freedom of religion found at eteraz.org:

Saliha Shah, "A Step Back for Religious Freedom"

Saliha Shah, "Why Protect Religious Minorities?"

AP - 12 May (includes translation of letter), "Pakistan Christians Receive Threatening Letters Urging Conversion"

see FOXNews version of same article here

BBC (as already linked by Saliha Shah), "Pakistan Christians Demand Help"

Middle Eastern Times (picking up the AFP feed), "Christians in Pakistan Ordered to Convert"

The TimesOnline, "Christians in Pakistan Told to Convert"

AsiaNews, "Christians Threatened: Convert to Islam or Die"

The Times of India, "Pak Bishop Slams Taliban Threats"

Worthy News, "Pakistan Militants Force Christians to Convert to Islam and Shut Churches"

The Daily Times, "Threatening Letter to Christians in Charsadda: Police Guarding Homes and Churches"

Assist News Service (ANS) [A Christian News Outlet], "Letters Threaten Pakistani Christians to Convert to Islam"

Christian Today, "Christians Have 10 Days to Convert to Islam in Pakistan"

AP - 16 May, "Pakistani Christians Warned to Convert"

-LoA

working through liberalism

2007-05-21T21:48:00.001-05:00

MC Escher, "Liberation" (1955)

The Enlightenment, which was to deliver us from our tutelage and minority, operated on the principle that traditions and social stratifications that had been taken for natural were in fact unfounded human conventions. Having denaturalized that old feudal order the liberal revolution of freedom, equality and universal fraternity could be brought about. Yet, this political emancipation, as Marx called it, only affected persons at the most formal level, while leaving the very real divisions of civil life intact. Thus, it is no surprise in the face of the ubiquity of Late Capitalism that once again society is confronted with large scale social stratification that is effectively feudal-aristocratic insofar as one’s economic possibilities are largely a function of one’s ‘accident of birth’. At the same time, humanity is inundated with the frantic insistence on the naturalness of the liberal tradition itself, the universal desire for democracy and of course the natural rationality and freedom of capitalism.

It is no wonder, then, that among those who do not wish to enlist in the Crusade for democratic-capitalism, a position which has ironically taken on the role of a conservative ideology (Fukayama), there is a tendency to call for a renewal or completion of the Enlightenment (Habermas): in other words, a repetition of the strategy to denaturalize and revolutionize for the sake of freedom in order to overturn the lingering sources of stratification, division and alienation. Yet this is the very program of abstraction and formalization which brought about the current order.

Others, like John Milbank, suggest that the Enlightenment be abandoned in favor of a hierarchical but non-alienated society, one that can embody hierarchical difference without violence. While such a position does grasp the essential role hierarchy plays in current societal organization, and its ties to any attempt to discern the Good in the present moment, it ignores that the hierarchies themselves feed off alienation and violence in order to fulfill their educative function. As Milbank’s own mentor, Augustine, would have taught him, Cogito (knowledge) cannot loose itself from Cogo (power); hierarchies only ever exist because of sin.

Finally, then, ought one not see the possibilities of politics as present within the contradictions and alienations of political liberalism? This would mean not looking for some new solution, which would be nothing but the raising up of some new idol, one which would be judged by capitalism in any case. Instead by insisting on non-closure and relativity of this historical moment and the persistence of the desire for something other than what is, one is open to the New which is our salvation. Only in this way can politics legitimately be the work of the people (liturgy).

W(h)ither Fascism?

2007-05-15T18:30:00.000-05:00

If one were to continue to propose entries for Milan Kundera’s “A Short Dictionary of Misunderstood Words”, certainly, today, one would need to add FASCISM. It seems to me there must be at least two components in place to have a genuinely fascist government, party, organization or movement. First, and probably most importantly, there must be a desire to rally the citizenry and organize the political realm around the idea of the nation-family: some common racial, or ethnic heritage, some common, natural, language, possibly, within which the cultural inheritance is passed down across the generations. There must be, then, a very rigorous form of nationalism, where the idea of the nation is taken quite literally: nation as a reference to our natus, or birth.

Secondly, fascism relates to the economic reorganization of the nation along the lines of a state capitalism in order to revitalize the productivity of the worker, but also to provide security for that same worker. Ernst Jünger, one of the economic theorists of fascism, argued in ¬The Worker (1932), for instance, that the revitalization of German industry was linked to the revitalization of German men, warrior-men, and thus the strength of Germany itself.

In both cases, what one sees is the nostalgia for roots in the midst of an uncertain, and economically unstable world, where one found one’s identity through conformity to one’s nature, one’s nation, one’s natus. Oswald Spengler’s “conservative revolution” was premised on the politics of natus, against the internationalism of liberalism and Marxism, and for Jünger, freedom was only found in giving oneself over in obedience to serving and protecting one’s natus. In both cases there was a longing for a strong leader who would rally and lead the people in this new nationalism.

From this it ought to be immediately clear that Islam is stridently anti-fascist. The Ummah, the unity of those who submit to God, is a unity of all peoples without regards to race, nation, or ethnicity. Politically speaking mainstream Islam has taken a variety of political forms, but none of them have been fascist: one could point to imperial or monarchical (with roots in the tribal organization) as perhaps the most common.

But of course this is not the way fascism is being used; instead it has been used to focus attention on elements at the Right extreme of Islam: Al-Qaeda, etc. Islamo-fascism: the enemies of liberalism. Now it is true, as already mentioned, that fascism was anti-liberal. Rightists from Spengler to Heidegger saw liberalism as decadent, promoting mediocrity and weakness. But this in and of itself is hardly fascist, it is a position shared by many Rightists. There is an abiding emphasis on the Ummah within Al-Qaeda, bringing together Arabs and Pakistanis and Afghanis and Southeast Asians in a way that is not always seen due to racial tensions that do persist among the various groups. Moreover the criticism of Anglo and Continental governments, the criticism of their decadence, is entirely religious in its basis, not nationalistic, and the same could be said for the criticism that one sees from the militant parties within Islam against certain Middle Eastern governments themselves, especially the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Finally one must say that there is nearly no economic component to the critique or the ideological thrust of the militants.

The Islamists seem to have two basic goals: the re-establishment of the caliphate and the universal extension of shariah law. With that in mind, one is left to wonder why we do not call them what they are, virulently anti-liberal, imperialistic theocrats, instead of the terribly inaccurate “fascists”.

Is there, then, a rise of fascism today? If so, it must certainly not be where the Anglo and Continental governments have wanted to identify it. There has also been a tendency amongst the Left, following the initial impulses of persons like Michel Foucault, to identify the universal penetration of Anglo and Continental life by the forces of Late Capital, what Adorno would have called the Culture Industry, as fascist because of the surreptitious conformity it evokes in its citizenry, its ability to extend control. But again one must point out the antithetical nature of Late Capitalism, and really one should say Capitalism generally, and fascism, due to its universal aims and its reliance, in cohort with political liberalism, on universal ideas of nature and human nature that unite everyone of all races and creeds under the natural law of rights (and thus competition). Indeed one would have to say that those who oppose the globalizing impulse behind Late Capitalism are indeed the more significant regressive forces, and insofar as those concerned with distributive justice, whether liberal or Leftist, have been willing to accept such arguments within their ranks, they undermine the cause of freedom and equity which they pursue.

Likewise there is a tendency on the Right to identify, rather haphazardly, all liberalism as socialism and all socialism as fascism. One must say, within the American context at any rate, there seems to be no real socialism and certainly no Marxism that is politically effective. No one in the mainstream of American political life is engaged in a critique that points the historicity of the liberal-capitalist complex, nor possesses any sense that Capitalism might collapse under its own success. There is nothing in American politics that suggests that the dominance of Late-Capital and the accumulation of private property ought to be or can be disturbed. There is simply a preservation and management of what is apparently seen as the natural order. Moreover, even if there were a genuine Marxism in this country, one would be forced to point out that no two groups hated each other more than the Marxists and the fascists: Marxism insisted on a universal conception of freedom in which no one could be free unless all were free, while fascist nationalism sought only a local definition of freedom and believed that Marxism undermined the natural order of things. This is why Marxism was able to make common cause with liberalism against fascism in the form of the Popular Front: both Marxism and liberalism, in different ways supported a universal conception of freedom and equity.

One should grant, in passing, one significant point here, to the Right. The economic reforms of the post-depression era, not only in America, but throughout the liberal world, were largely inspired by fascism’s economic success. But one also has to say, knocking on wood, that fascism has no real soil in which to take root in America, as it might in Europe. America for Americans is almost laughable, compared to France for the French, or Germany for Germans. Who would those Americans be? There is no common natus, no common language or culture, around which Americans would be able to rally. This is the cause of Heidegger’s judgment that American’s could never be authentic: they are, by definition, a people without roots. And indeed fascism had far less success and support in the United States than it ever did in Europe.

One might ask then, one last time, whither fascism? Is there any sort of fascist revival going on in the contemporary world? I would suggest that there is though neither in the United States nor in the Islamic world, but once again on the Continent of Europe where it had its appeal to begin with. For many years countries like France and the Netherlands have prided themselves on being bastions of liberalism with a very generous immigration policy built around the Enlightenment ideal of cosmopolitanism. Yet in the wake of the instability in the Middle East and threats of terrorism primarily from Muslim groups and several incidents of violence, one has seen nationalism reasserting itself on the Continent.

The re-emergence of the Right, in the personage of the late Pim Fortuyn, for instance, was a clear sign of tidal change on the once liberal Continent. This was followed in France by the restriction of immigration, vigorous debate on the standards of citizenship, and a highly controversial law which banned religious attire in schools and government offices (while it affected many different groups in minor ways, it was aimed primarily at the elimination of girls wearing hijab to school). Finally, there are new and recent incidents in Germany, which has been suffering under a well publicized resurgence of Neo-Nazism in the public arena. Using a law dating which dated back to the Nazi regime itself, German law enforcement made the decision to arrest a Baptist woman for the crime of home-schooling her children. The mother, who remains under arrest, is now separated from her family; the father took the children and fled to Austria. Nor is the mother's case unique as the German government seems intent to crack down on home-schoolers, many of which are Christian. Meanwhile there was the infamous case of the Moroccan woman who was told that since she was from Morocco she should expect subhuman treatment at the hands of her husband and that German government would not get involved in any extraordinary way.

I would suggest that the real place we need to fear the resurgence of fascism is among our N.A.T.O. neighbors. The debates over immigration, citizenship and identity, the legal decisions that have been made recently in Germany and France are disturbing signs. The motivation in all cases has been a renunciation of liberal values and the demand that the people of the nation conform to some idea of the natural cultural identity of the nation-family and that all forces that run counter to that ideal must be suppressed in this time of crisis. Crisis was always the excuse of Rightists from the time of Oswald Spengler forward.

The mis-identification of fascism does not help us to understand the extreme problems and challenges that are faced in the Islamic world, while at the same time it blinds us to the regressive threats to liberalism much closer to home.

on one being told she is still young enough to have more children

2007-05-10T00:54:00.000-05:00

William Bouguereau, "Charity" (1878)

He but throws them from his belly.
In this simplest of couplings
the egg comes to fruition, unwasted.
The uterus is not a cardboard cutout,
an organ meant to remain unfilled,
a chalice dry.

The value of the woman is
her uterine potential. How
can two arms be full with
only one child? At least
two plump babies to grow
in holding each hand.
At least two to fulfill
the empty hours of a
woman's biology, to
maintain her honor in
a world bent toward
the aggression of both sexes:

This is the ideal,
the prize of all time:
radiant mother, beyond
maidenhood but years from
the wise, silent crone.

The swaying of hips,
the arch of bent necks
and upturned pinkies?
The gentle knowledge
of years and the scientifically
applied art of nurturing?

Not to waste, not to waste!

Do not let too many years
pass in between births.
Beauty and wisdom
in the female of the species
are merely tools to be
used in nurturing creation.

Time remains.

Legitimacy lies in numbers.
Lie down and prepare
to push.

-DRG (see her full blog at Insufferable Know It All)

:from munirah

2007-05-06T01:01:00.000-05:00

we write this to you from the desert
the letters forming: light on sand
while you wait for
the air conditioner to turn off
inside your cape cod cottage:
new england in june and the electricity costs so much

each grain of sand here is a moment of infinity
each one calls out to you
silently
in the way only infinity can
while you turn up the tv
in order to avoid that revelation

you say, the desert is a liar:
illusions of water, the blurring of distinctions; it will kill if it can
i will stay on solid ground, in the reality of
shopping malls, dairy queens and the marketing machine
but we say, the sun is the only truth
and every grain of sand, its prism

-LoA

eros (an excerpt from hypatia's lost commentary on plato's phaedrus)

2007-05-04T01:04:00.000-05:00

Gail Foster, "Passage" (2005) [acrylic on canvas]

A desire for the caress, to be touched by another - erotics: the pursuit of proximity and tenderness, the pilgrimage to the border of one's being, to the border beyond which the beloved lies.

The lover and the beloved, together in sex do not seek identity; love of the lover is never an attempt to cross the border - to have power over the body, an act of aggression, commission of violence, rape - instead it is the acknowledgment of the gift of peace (providence itself). Giving oneself over to pure vulnerability, laying down one's arms, exposure.

The erotic finds its end, not in the beloved (who is always the theme) but, in rapture and ecstasy itself. The coming together is the denouncement of identification, which would, in truth, entail the loss of identity. Ecstasy is not a passage between borders,

(for the space between us is only the necessary counter-moment to the sensuousness, voluptuousness, nakedness of the body)

but a doxology sung to that which holds the very difference between our borders inviolable: the apocalyptic shudder that promises a final end to violence will come. It commands not only 'thou shalt not kill' but also 'love one another'.

-LoA

the universal natacha atlas

2007-04-29T00:09:00.000-05:00

truth is that whether you know it or not you have probably heard the voice of natacha atlas. a genuinely international musician who has recorded music in arabic, french, spanish and english; she has accompanied a wide variety of singers on various albums. she joined sarah brightman on "arabian nights" from the album harem (on which a post is forthcoming), she appeared on the indigo girls come on now social, on the track "faye tucker", she was hired to provide the vocals on cirque de soleil's sound track for verekai, and also provided music for the sound track of the orlando bloom movie, the kingdom of heaven. these among many other international projects means that it would be hard for someone to avoid her.

given earlier posts it is natural to compare her work with that of arabian pop queens nancy ajram and elissa. but even a cursory glance reveals that despite very contemporary sounds from all the artists involved, atlas moves to a very different groove. while elissa, for instance, portrays herself and her music as extremely cosmopolitan despite her deep roots in the levant, atlas, who is nomadic (an egyptian muslim with some distant jewish roots, growing up in a moroccan suburb of brussels and then in the uk, etc.) emphasizes her north african identity both in her sound and in her appearance, even as she maps that identification on a variety of cultural forms. the rhythms of rai, salsa, north african folk music, etc. permeates everything she does, even when she does not perform in arabic.

we offer, as an introduction, three songs from the 1990s. the first two are a narrative pair (though, to be clear, atlas videos do not possess the narrative quality that we have come to associate with ajram's work): the first in english, the second in french. in "one brief moment", she mourns the man she has (not even yet) lost as she apathetically changes clothes in front of the taxi driver while they drive through london. in the second, having arrived at the location where she is to perform, she covers "mon amie la rose" as men look on with desire and as the dramas of love (and its lack) unfold among the dancers, only to leave as distant and unmoved as she arrived. "mon amie la rose" was an important hit for establishing her french audience.

Natacha Atlas, "One Brief Moment", Gedida (1999)

Natacha Atlas, "Mon Amie La Rose", Gedida (1999)

only yesterday you were admiring me
tomorrow i will be dust forever
[and then in arabic at the end...]
my friend the rose
told me something
during the night...

the final song, "leysh nat'arak" is a regal march from her first solo album that reveals her confidence and her embrace of her egyptian roots. she also makes clear that her musical choices have political consequences and motivations in a way that entirely sets her apart from elissa and nancy ajram. she has referred to herself as the "the human gaza strip", divided and torn between worlds, and she does not hold back on this powerful song.

Natacha Atlas, "Leysh Nat'Arak" ["Why Are You Fighting?"] (1995)

why are you fighting?
crossing borders in the desert heat
the stories in the rocks and stones
signatures of time written on every face
the syncopated heartbeat of arab and jew
a song that keeps saying remember
if you are cousins why are you fighting
listen to your hearts and the truth will be clear
it's written on your bones

-LoA

universal crucifixion

2007-04-25T22:29:00.000-05:00

Irena Korosec, "Kurds, Forgotten by God" (2004)

let the blood be on our hands, and on the hands of our children

one can only turn the holocaust into a unique event, a sacrosanct atrocity, by a stubborn and studied act of forgetting: a forgetting of history, a forgetting of a history of blood, a forgetting of murder; and this forgetting is itself a form of murder. genocide is a political crime because it divides us by some party, some ethnos (some genos). but by grouping us genostically one has already begun the process of dehumanizing the other so that one can kill more easily. murder is much more the unthinkable – it puts the blood on my hands and makes the killed my responsibility: one i am forced to address by their first name, their good name – the stranger is made my neighbor when there are no nations to reduce the address to a tribal identity. personal crimes – the only crimes against humanity. politics is always already such a crime.

-LoA

my, what a beautiful gown you are wearing emperor!

2007-04-25T21:48:00.002-05:00

The Vatican ambassador to Israel threatened Thursday to boycott a Holocaust memorial ceremony next week over a museum’s portrayal of Pope Pius XII’s conduct during the Nazis’ killing of Jews in World War II.

Archbishop Antonio Franco said he had written to the director of the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum asking for the revision of a caption suggesting the wartime pope had been apathetic to the Jews’ plight.

The caption, quoted in the Israeli press, says Pope Pius XII “abstained from signing the Allied declaration condemning the extermination of the Jews” and “maintained his neutral position throughout the war."

from Reuters

Jacques-Louis David, "Nude Study of Pope Pius VII" (1805)

In other news the Vatican has declared that the trial and execution of Joan of Arc will from henceforth be called "A Few Brief Questions" and the Crusades will be renamed "our vacation in Palestine".

I am sorry, but the suggestion that Pius XII 'did all that he could do for the Jews' is simply absurd. Can one even begin to imagine the legitimacy the Vatican would have on the issue of human rights, as a voice for peace in the middle east, etc., if Pius XII has signed the declaration; if he had risked losing the Vatican; if he HAD lost the Vatican because he had stood up for what was good.

That the Pope remained "neutral" out of fear of losing his position, out of fear that the Church would be undermined if the Pope were either arrested or forced to flee is understandable. BUT it is NOT "all the Pope could do".

Can one imagine the history between Catholics and Jews after World War II had Pius XII risked his crown, St. Peter's, etc., had he lost it all to Mussolini, had he been martyred? There were Christian martyrs during the war. Pius XII was not one of them.

I am not saying choosing martyrdom is an easy choice; I am not saying I could make that choice myself (I don't like sweating, let alone pain). I am saying don't tell me how beautiful the Pope's clothes are!

LoA.

dalí; or, same shit different day

2007-04-18T14:38:00.000-05:00

Bryan Larson, "Just the Beginning" (2001)

in the end, dalí proved to have a better grasp of surrealism and what it was than did breton and the others who were at the origins of the movement. they fantasized it as a force of liberation to be aligned with communist political aims. to breton and the others, surrealism's attempt to thematize the unconscious, to bring to light those dark drives which were hidden from humanity, was going to somehow free that humanity.

but as dalí saw, when others did not, the unconscious was not a haven of paradise where the edenic humanity could be rediscovered in all its natural glory. the irrational was not salvation from an increasingly rationalized world, rather, what was being uncovered by surrealism was the anglo and continental unconscious (for lack of a better term) which was never absent from the conscious drives of technological expansion and domination of the world (both as industrialization and colonization), was never absent from any act, no matter how mundane, decadent or benevolent. thus the surrealists were not showing the way to the future, but were merely revealing the truth of the present: the unsaid in everything that persons, society, and culture did.

it is not surprising, then, that freud was impressed by dalí upon meeting him. dalí alone of the surrealists had understood him: this was freud's assessment; and it was dalí alone who could make him reconsider surrealism as something more than art without understanding.

dalí's understanding has indeed been vindicated by the fact that the anglo and continental culture was able to absorb surrealism so easily and make it part of its cultural currency. and dalí was glad to be its superstar, while never forgetting that he was merely returning our own shit to us for us to enjoy: the scatological innards of that which the ego always presents with a clear and shiny face.

-LoA

Salvador Dalí, "The Visage of War" (1940)

10
Memory says: Want to do it right? Don't count on me.
I'm a canal in Europe where bodies are floating
I'm a mass grave I'm the life that returns
I'm a table set with room for the Stranger
I'm a field with corners left for the landless
I'm accused of child-death of drinking blood
I'm a man-child praising God he's a man
I'm a woman bargaining for chicken
I'm a woman who sells for a boat ticket
I'm a family dispersed between night and fog
I'm an immigrant tailor who says "A coat
is not a piece of cloth only" I sway
in the learnings of master-mystics
I have dreamed of Zion I've dreamed of world revolution
I have dreamed my children could live at last like others
I have walked the children of others through the ranks of hatred
I'm a corpse dredged from a canal in Berlin
a river in Mississippi I'm a woman standing
with another woman dressed in black
on the streets of Haifa, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem
there is spit on my sleeve there are phonecalls in the night
I am a woman standing in line for gasmasks
I stand on a road in Ramallah with naked face listening
I am standing here in your poem unsatisfied
lifting my smoky mirror

1989-1990

Adrienne Rich, #10 from "Eastern War Time", An Atlas of the Difficult World: Poems, 1988-1991

Edward Hopper, "Cape Cod Morning" (1950)

love and marriage...

2007-04-16T00:03:00.000-05:00

up until very recently the home in which i had lived longest at one stretch was a villa in king khalid military city in saudi arabia. it was villa #2370. across the street in villa #2369 lived my best friend, hiren, with his sister, manisha, and their little brother. and of course their parents, whose names i, sadly, do not remember: mama and papa patel.

mama patel gave me my first extensive exposure to indian food: a steady diet of samosas of various sorts and desserts which ought to have been served with insulin injections, they were so sweet. she was a warm woman and her house was always open to me.

at some point i found out that mama and papa patel had met only by a parentally arranged marriage and, being american and a boy in his early adolescence, i somehow tactlessly and shamelessly asked whether or not they didn't resent that. didn't they want to have love before they got married, etc.

papa patel was a very quiet man, a relative stick of a figure. the most words i ever heard him speak in one afternoon came during a badminton tournament held on the base during which he did quite well: he would talk to himself very sternly every time he made a mistake. needless to say i got my answer from the round and much more effusive mama patel.

he was an engineer getting ready to move to america when they got married; her parents convinced her that this was the opportunity of a lifetime. and she said, that indeed, she did resent and regret much during the early years of their marriage. they were total strangers to one another suddenly forced to live together and trying to make sense of the habits and desires of the other person. she laughed when she told us that her mother had told her 'that is marriage, but you get used to it'.

she got pregnant a little over a year after they got married and had hiren and manisha in relatively quick succession. she said at that point she had something besides her husband to focus her attention on, and while she may not have loved him at that point, she ceased having time to resent or regret decisions. she had two children to raise.

love came, she said, as the children left infancy and began to become interactive members of the family. she saw him as the father to their children, that he was a good father to them, and she began to cherish him for the way in which he loved and nurtured their children. her love for him arose out of the shared love they had for their children. and now, she said, she could not be more grateful to her parents, nor could she be more in love with a man than she was now. papa patel sat beside her all the way through the story, silently, his arm around her shoulder, proudly smiling.

and when i remember back, 15ish years now, to our own decision to marry, i believe i too would have to tell that rude little boy living in that villa in saudi arabia, that we were children when we got married. we did not know ourselves, let alone one another and could not even begin to comprehend what love really was. how She put up with that person over the first years of our marriage is a mystery. but here we are all these years later and i could not be more grateful...with still so much more to learn.

the promise

2007-04-14T09:33:00.000-05:00

And now she turns her face brightly on the new morning in the new classroom
new in her beauty her skin her lashes her lively body:
Race, class...all that...but isn't that all just history?
Aren't people bored with all that?

She could be
myself at nineteen but free of reverence for past ideas
ignorant of hopes piled on her

Adrienne Rich, from "Inscriptions", Dark Fields of the Republic (1994)

Ambrogio Lorenzetti, "Suckling Madonna" (1330)

the question asked here is whether or not christianity will live up to its promise? one of the most significant groups contributing to the spread and success of christianity in late antiquity were women. they embraced the message of christianity that they need not be owned by a man, and that christianity would mean freedom for them. and so the question remains now: are women fully human, and does the reconciliation promised by christianity apply to them in full, or must women, and consequently all of humanity, turn elsewhere because the promise that in christ there is neither male nor female has been broken?

had the child of mary been a girl, would she have been any less the voice of Reconciliation? but would the world have heard her voice? do we hear her now? the promise must be fulfilled.

-LoA

Marjorie Kramer, "Self-Portrait Breastfeeding Raloon, After Ambrogio Lorenzetti" (1976)

Western women are not able to discard completely and forget our personal, cultural or religious Christian history. We will either transform it into a new liberating future or continue to be subject to its tyranny whether we recognize its power or not. Feminists cannot afford such an ahistorical or antihistorical stance because it is precisely the power of oppression that deprives people of their history.

Elizabeth Schüssler-Fiorenza, In Memory of Her (1983)