By Christopher Orlet on 10.19.07 @ 12:07AM
The motion to assert our superior Western values carries.
Europeans might have learned a valuable lesson after Western
Civilization was nearly wrecked on the shoals of national
socialism. Namely, nations unwilling to defend liberal democracy
against those who would destroy it will not long have a democracy
to defend. Sixty-two years later, many of their children and
grandchildren remain reluctant to defend Western values if so doing
gives the impression of cultural or racial superiority, which in
today's society must be one the worst crimes imaginable.
It is Muslims or former Muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn
Warraq, Irshad Manji and Salman Rushdie who are not hesitant to
speak out for Western values. Ms. Manji, author of The Trouble
With Islam, recently cautioned Europeans that "if you give up
on yourselves people like me are dead." Manji, who lives a
precarious existence under countless death threats, notes that
whether out of moral cowardice, an inverted snobbishness, or the
fear of being regarded as unenlightened or culturally insensitive,
many in the West will simply not stand up for liberty. This
unwillingness has allowed a coterie of religious fundamentalists
and moral relativists to whittle away at the core of Western
Civilization. To paraphrase Douglas Murray, this type of death wish
can only be explained as a kind of masochism being offered to us by
intellectual sadists.
This then was the mood going into the October 9 IQ2 debate titled "We Should Not Be Reluctant to
Assert the Superiority of Western Values." Participants included
Ibn Warraq, David Aaronovitch, and Douglas Murray, in favor of the
motion, and William Dalrymple, Charles Glass, and Tariq Ramadan in
opposition.
Those on the right praised the Western values of liberal
democracy, individualism, gender equality, human rights, freedom of
expression and religion, and separation of church and state.
Dalrymple and Glass chose to use their allotted time ticking off
lists of European and American colonial crimes, while Ramadan --
taken to task for his unwillingness to support an immediate ban on
the stoning of adulteresses -- fretted about a need for "humility"
and dialogue. In the evening's best rejoinder, Murray wondered how
such a dialogue could begin when any kind of doubt or criticism of
Islamic civilization in most Islamic countries will get one killed.
Even in Europe cartoons lampooning the prophet Mohammed result in
riots and boycotts and death threats, while critical films like
Theo van Gogh's Submission gets one butchered on the
cobbled streets of Amsterdam. How then shall such a dialogue begin?
he asked.
Ibn Warraq, another former Muslim writer living under a fatwa,
picked up on the theme noting that self-criticism was the greatest
legacy of Western Civilization. It was self-criticism that brought
slavery and colonialism to an end, and accounted for the civil
rights movement and opposition to Vietnam, he said.
Indeed whether Western values are unique to the West or are
universal was one of the key points of debate. For Tariq Ramadan
so-called Western values are shared by all people, and were
apparently invented by obscure 12th century Moghuls (the fact that
we never heard of them is our fault and proof again of our
ethnocentricity). Ramadan reminded those in attendance that Western
Civilization came out of Judeo-Christianity, which was a Middle
Eastern religion, though he neglected to mention the apparently
"negligible" role Greek and Roman civilizations, as well as
secularism and the Enlightenment, played in its evolution.
In his book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of
World Order, Samuel Huntington argues that individualism is
the most important Western value and one not often present in other
civilizations. He concludes that Western values have always been
more prevalent in the West. "At most these values were not unique
to the West, but the combination of them was." Murray agreed that
so-called Western values may be universal -- which would seem an
argument for returning them to other civilizations -- but they have
only been adopted in the West.
The historian Dalrymple was more comfortable commenting on the
West's dark history, than dwelling on the inconsequential present.
For Dalrymple Western values were equivalent to the Holocaust.
Indeed colonial genocide, Nazism and Marxism were "not freak
departures from form," they were rather the logical consequences of
Western -- or universal -- values. In contrast Ramadan and Glass
were happy to discuss the West's recent history, which they summed
up as Abu Ghraib, torture, extraordinary rendition, and, curiously,
the mistreatment of immigrants.
IT MAY BE ARGUED that Western Civilization did indeed produce
Hitler, Ulbricht, Franco, Mussolini, Stalin, Milosevic and
Ceausecsu, but the free West also defeated them. Huntington at
least would reject the notion that the last three dictators were in
any real sense "Western." He maintains that Eastern Orthodox
nations of southeastern and Eastern Europe constitute a distinct
"Euro-Asiatic civilization." Though European and Christian, these
nations were but minimally effected by the cultural influences of
the Renaissance. As for Hitler and Ulbricht, the German has never
shown much respect for individualism. Most important, these
dictators could only flourish by completely crushing Western
values. Like Islam, none of these dictators allowed for the West's
two key values: self-criticism and individualism.
Granted, the West is no Utopia, and it has seen its share of
excesses (My Lai and Abu Ghraib), though these are seen as blots on
our name, not good policy. If William Calley got off with a slap on
the wrist, Abu Ghraib veteran U.S. Army reservist Charles Graner
received 10 years and his "ex-girlfriend" Lynndie England was
sentenced to three years in a naval brig.
The ultimate irony, of course, is that such free exchange of
ideas could only take place in a Western country. That in itself
should prove the superiority of Western values. In the end the
audience seemed to agree, as 465 audience members voted in favor of
the motion, 264 against; a sign perhaps that the intellectual elite
in Britain may be slowly rousing itself from a half-century
slumber.
topics:
Religion, Islam, Socialism