Terrorists are just like us! Really,
the similarities are glaring— We all value our unique cultural identity, but
sometimes get ticked off by arrogant jerks. We all hope for a better future,
and make sacrifices for what we believe in, don’t we? Just because Arabs and
Americans occupy polar socio-political spheres, doesn’t mean they don’t have
any thing in common, right?
OK,
so maybe the majority of the western world wouldn’t jump on this bandwagon to
find mutuality between suicide bombings and Western ideologies- but Nietzsche
might have. The philosopher’s theory of slave morality may be applied to the
developments of both the Western-Christian perspective, as well as the Radical
Islamist outlook. Although traditional
European Christianity and modern Islamist Fundamentalism exist in popular opinion
as polar opposites, Nietzsche’s slave morality can be used to understand the
common ground between the two.
The
development of Radical Islamist sects, such as the Taliban and Al Qaeda, can be
seen to parallel Nietzsche’s theory of the European slave morality in terms of
resentment, hope and distrust. But don’t worry- the similarities don’t last
long. Nietzsche’s construct fails to
account for the distinction of the Eastern slave morality from its Western
cousin, once it is put into practice. As a result, Nietzsche’s claims miss the
divergence of the two value systems, which occurs from both a lack of Christ figure
in Eastern culture, and an irritating proximity to a current ‘master’.
Nietzsche’s Slave
Morality
…
Writing in the mid
to late nineteenth century, Friedrich Nietzsche’s work on The Genealogy of Morals was largely influenced by the school of
German Higher Criticism. This preceding school analyzed the bible as a
historical document, rather than the direct word of God. This scholarly
exploration of the esteemed ‘Holy Book’ discredited the bible as a divinely
inscribed text. It exposed the variations between synoptic gospels to be the
result of the authors’ efforts to make Christianity appealing to the different
ethnic groups they endeavored to convert. Exposing the historical roots of Christianity,
created a public suspicion among Christian Europeans that those things, which
had been long considered absolute and divine, were in fact, mere human
constructs.
This suspicion
seems to have inspired Nietzsche to trace the historical genealogy of morals.
Spurred by the belief that society’s prevalent value judgments were not absolute,
Nietzsche gives a causal explanation of European morality. In the process of this
genealogical study, the philosopher discovers a curios set of value judgments,
which he dubs, Slave Morality.
Nietzsche defines
slave morality as an inversion of traditional value judgments born from the
resentment of the powerful by the weak. For the slave figure, who traditionally
assumes the position of weakness, physical suffering and mental anguish, It almost
seems natural that he will begin to harbor and tend to a growing resentment for
his master. Soon, the slave’s resentment
“becomes creative”[1]
and begins to assign negative value judgments to those in power. The slave
aligns wealth and influence with immorality and wickedness, while she positions
those who suffer, as godly or pure of heart.
Nietzsche
theorizes that the overwhelming oppression of the Jewish people gave birth to
extreme resentment. As a result, the Jewish people founded this inverted
morality in order to say, “The miserable alone are the good; the only blessed
in God…whereas you, you noble and powerful ones, you are in all eternity the
evil…you will eternally be the wretched, accursed and damned!”[2] to
their oppressors. In doing so, the
Jewish people found a means by which to exact a spiritual revenge upon the
untouchable master. The slave
desperately wants to feel that he is the superior to the master in some way.
Resentment bred with hope inspires the slave to believe she has something of value that the master does
not (or possibly cannot) possess.
Slave morality grants newfound superiority to traditionally weak figures, by
aligning the daily suffering of enslavement, with a spiritually worthwhile
journey. In this way, the slave is able to “recover their losses only through
an imaginary revenge.”[3] The moral revolt born from resentment is in
fact, no more than a coping mechanism dependent on hope.
In practice, this
morality positions suffering as a means to purity, and self-negation as a form
of spiritual sacrifice. Misery, and
self-mutilation are the ideal. Christianity (arguably the most significant
institution to embody Nietzsche’s European slave morality) promotes these value
inversions as part of its core ideology.
Nietzsche asserts that Christianity, born out of Judaism, adopted slave
morality after it’s creation. These new
Christian followers carry over a resentment for the powerful, prideful, or
self-confidant. As a result, we see the creation of a religion that promotes compassion
in the face of hardship, idealizes the virtues of low-class figures (hello Mary
Magdalene and the homeless lepers of Jerusalem), and worships a cadaverous god,
suffering on a cross. Nietzsche states,
“From the start, the Christian faith is a sacrifice: a sacrifice of all
freedom, all pride, all self-confidence of the spirit; at the same time,
enslavement and self-mockery, self-mutilation.”[4] And he’s right. The central tenant of Christianity
is sacrifice: sacrifice meat on Fridays, sacrifice chocolate for lent, sacrifice
your time say these 200 Hail Marys, sacrifice your first born son on top of a
mountain, the list goes on. And all in the name of purity; for the cleansing of
our sins. And who shall commit the
ultimate sacrifice to free us all from all sin? Why, none other than the
glorious God: the weak, the dying, the life-less and atrophied: Jesus
Christ. This attenuated son of God, positioned
at the forefront of Christianity, represents the most direct, and visual
example of slave morality I can think of. It would seem, that Nietzsche agrees, saying “…nowhere
has there been an equal boldness in inversion, anything as horrible,
questioning and questionable as this formula (the paradoxical formula of “god
on the cross”): it promised a revaluation of all the values of antiquity.”[5] This gruesome inversion of the Godly idol represents
the hope of those that follow him: the hope that through his suffering, and their
fervent emulations, they might achieve the purity necessary for acceptance into
eternal salvation.
The priestly lie
perpetuates this hope. The Christian priest preaches an aesthetic ideal to his
congregation- promoting compassion and suffering as normative behaviors. The
church then evaluates the worth of each parishioner’s sacrifice, and translates
it into qualification for heavenly acceptance. Indeed, even the Good Book
itself promotes the priestly lie and supports the practice of a foundational
slave morality- the passages of Matthew 5-12 being some of the most notable:
“Blessed are the meek…the prosecuted…the mocked… Rejoice! and be glad, for
great is your reward in Heaven…”[6] In
other words, Stay weak little Christians! Value your suffering and rejoice in your
sacrifice! The lowest of creatures are our dying God’s favorite kind!
The Western Victory
and The Eastern Resent
…
The fall of the
once-great Ottoman Empire spawned massive resentment of the Western European
world by the Arab, Islamic peoples. From the time of creation, this nation
harbored great pride and patriotism. Granted its beginning when the Turks
conquered Constantinople, the Ottoman Empire was the last great attempt of
Middle Eastern unification. At the height of prosperity, the nation promoted
scientific and scholarly pursuits, producing leading ideas in philosophy,
literature, architecture, various arts, and military practices. However,
military virtues (traditionally guided by intense Islamic beliefs) were among
the most highly valued of pursuits.
This great empire
owes its decline to the corruption of leaders and their ignorance of developing
practices in the Western world. As the Sultans (and lower leaders called Pashas)
of the Ottoman Empire became more focused on amassing their own wealth and
prosperity, they became less focused on the development of trade, scientific
discoveries and technological advances in the Western world. It its most fatal
move, the Ottoman Empire aligned itself with the losing side of World War II
and was treated as spoils of war by victorious Westerners at the treaty of Versailles
peace conference. During the war, the
self-interested British had simulated Arab nationalism in order to undermine
the empire. The super-power promised land and independence to Arab peoples if
they would join the British to defeat the Turks. However, the British did not
make good on this promise and left the Arabs to suffer their fate with the rest
of the Ottoman Empire. As the British
simulate and then completely frustrate Arab nationalism, they unknowingly
create a breeding ground for contagious resentment.
After the war, the
British extended imperialism into Palestine, Jordan, and Iraq, while the French
occupied Syria and Lebanon. The humiliation of such an embarrassing military
defeat was not soon forgotten by the proud nation. Shamed and defeated, the
Islamic citizens watch European imperialism extend its heavy hand into their
homeland. As their land is colonized, their oppression is solidified. Slowly,
Western practices become more prevalent in the community and begin to threaten
the nation’s cultural identity. In the face of Western occupation, the citizens
of the once-great empire fear for the very survival of their ethnic integrity. Helpless to stop the cultural interlopers, the
Islamic people harbor a deep-seeded resentment for Western world.
Turkey was the
singular state of the Ottoman Empire, which successfully established itself as
an independent nation following WWII.
Interestingly, Turkey did so (in part) by embracing Western
practices. Mustafa Kemal, later renamed Ataturk,
organized the establishment of Turkey as a free state. Following his conquest, he promptly
proclaimed the state a secular republic, and made known his goals to achieve
Turkish parity with European states. In
attempts to weaken the Islamic hold on functional government, Ataturk
introduced a voting system, a parliamentary institution, and a secular school
system. The innovative leader promoted Turkish nationalism as separate from
religious beliefs. However, Ataturk begins to threaten the Islamic identity
when he outlaws many Muslim practices. The leader replaces Arab script with the
Latin alphabet in all official writings, grants women the right to vote, and
assigns Sunday, not Friday, as the national day of rest. And finally, as if to
confirm the total shift in state identity, Ataturk rules that state law
supersedes Muslim law.
The Turkish rural
majority however, does not support this push to secularism, and neither do Muslims
in the surrounding states. There is a huge backlash on the part of Islamic
objectors, as Ataturk’s Western integration pushes Muslim tradition to the
side. Arabs look on and become enraged as Western influence is not only forced upon
them by Western imperialists, but as it becomes adopted by their own Eastern
leaders. This perceived betrayal is overwhelming. Suddenly, it seems as if the West dominates
each fractural state of their once-great empire. The Western world exists in
Eastern opinions as a malicious time bomb; biding its time before it destroys
all hope of Muslim tradition.
While some Muslims
accepted and adapted to Western modernization (Ataturk and his followers being
among the most notable) others mobilized a resistance. This body of radical
Muslims created a strict ideology devoted to maintaining the traditional values
of the Koran, and reinstating the rule of shari’a law. Their struggle is to
return to the golden age of Middle Eastern supremacy when Islam reigned on
high. In order to do so, they reject modernity and innovation. However, Jonathan Schanzer,
author of Al-Qaeda’s Armies, claims
the radical group takes their rejection one step further- viewing those who introduce
such modernity as malicious enemies, bent on destroying their traditions. These
radical Muslims have identified America, the poster-child of democracy and
Western innovation, as the most abhorrent of enemies. Iran's religious leader, Ali Khameine'I proclaimed in 1998, "The
American regime is the enemy of [Iran's] Islamic government and our revolution,
It is the enemy of your revolution, your Islam, and your resistance”.[7] As prominent leaders help this inverted
movement gather support, it becomes a platform for revenge, revolt, and
distrust- but interestingly, also for hope of a better future.
And thus, the
creative resentment bred by British self-interest, spawned by military defeat,
and harbored in cultural oppression, develops into a Middle Eastern version of
Nietzsche’s slave morality: Islamist Fundamentalism.
Islamism As A Slave Morality
…
The tenants of Nietzsche’s
slave morality can be identified in this Islamic offshoot, in terms of
resentment, revenge, the priestly lie, nihilism, and promise for the future.
The foundational
resentment of Western practices by Islamist followers is evident in the
historical accounts of military abasement and cultural subjugation. This
resentment was essential to the development of Islamist fundamentalism, in the
same way resentment is essential to the creation of any slave morality. However, Islamism clicks into gear as a slave
morality when that resentment begins to assign moral values. Nietzsche says,
“The slave revolt in morality begins when resentment itself becomes creative
and gives birth to (new) values.”[8] Certainly Islamist fundamentalism has
assigned its own inverted value judgments to the accepted Western authorities,
in direct response to their resentment. Islamist thought attaches any Western
product (be it an ideology, technology, custom, fashion, policy, law, etc.) with
a negative moral assessment, while they consider themselves to be that which is
‘right’. They say, “It is our powerless people who are the good— whereas you, you powerful and
Western ones, you are the eternally wicked!”
This reassignment
of virtue; of what is ‘good’ and ‘true’ is, within itself, the revolt of
Nietzsche’s slave morality. Certainly
Roy Jackson, author of Nietzsche and
Islam, agrees this revenge is integral to the Islamist views, saying “Islamism,
in its essence, is rebellious, revolutionary, and concerned with reform and
renewal”.[9]
And thus this culture, unable to enact an actual rebellion of their oppressors,
managed to gain superiority over their enemies only through the development of
an imaginary, spiritual revenge.
This spiritual
revolt is perpetuated by the continuous reaffirmation and maintenance of the
inverted value equation. In a European slave morality, this role is
traditionally assumed by the priest; who sermons to his congregation and
reminds them how important it is to remain meek, compassionate and
self-sacrificing, if they want to be beloved by God. So what is the Islamist equivalent to the
priestly lie? In many ways, it is education.
There have been numerous accounts of secular schools that have been
disrupted, closed down, or outright destroyed by Islamist activists. Once these
state-run institutions are eliminated, the spiritual rebels erect their own
schools. Here, they are free to inform
the next generation of the woes and hatreds carried by their revolt. Additionally,
many well-known organizations and political figures (for example, The Muslim
Brotherhood) support this struggle against the Western modernization of Arabic
states. These institutions will regularly remind the public of the threat the
West poses to Arab/Islamic freedom, via various media outlets. Just as the
priest preaches to his congregation, each of these individuals are able to
directly influence the opinions of their followers from a position of authority
within the community.
A central goal of
such Islamist authorities within the community is to discredit powerful Western
entities as valid spiritual-political authorities. Every slave morality harbors distrust and
suspicion of those in power- and this Eastern version is no exception. The Islamist mistrust of accepted authorities
is clear in their condemnation of Western innovations. Following this line of nihilistic thought,
the Islamist fundamentalists actively encourage the negation of Western
principles. The goal being, not only to remove the powerful ‘master’ figure
from her unquestioned ability, but to disrepute all corresponding ideologies. Roy
Jackson notes, “In
Nietzschean terms, we (Western thought) have created idols
from our will to truth, yet the essence of Islam is, in fact, to shatter these
idols”.[10]
Islamists view these Western idols, or principles, as ‘false claims’. This inspires a strong desire, not only to
contravene Western orientations, but to completely dismantle and remove them
from the sphere of international influence.
This Islamist
suspicion extends itself beyond the distrust of foreign authorities and
solidifies itself as full-blown nihilism when these misgivings are applied to
their own Middle Eastern governments. Jonathan Schanzer recalls, “In time, the Islamist vision crystallized. They
not only rejected the influence of the West, they rejected the legitimacy of
their own governments in the Arabic world, which they saw as subservient to the
West. Thus, the overthrow of these regimes became an important part of the
Islamist agenda as well” [11] In this way, Islamic fundamentalists
align themselves with slave morality by embodying a Nietzschean nihilism.
Feeling as if even their own leaders have been tainted by Western influence,
the rebels seek to negate every authority before them. However, they do so in
the hope that a new golden age of Islam- a world of Muslim tradition and Arabic
rule- will rise again from the ashes of a burning United States.
To its credit, the
Islamist nihilism is a hopeful one. While many nihilists feel it is their
responsibility to destroy all before them without care for what grows in their
wake, the Islamist movement is not among them. Their form of nihilism operates
as a controlled fire; burning only Western claims and guarding the void until
Islamism may take root there. While the
vacuum he creates means nothing to the apathetic nihilist, it means everything
to the hopeful Islamist movement. The group shares Neitzsche’s sentiment when he
states, “The sea, our sea, lies open
again; perhaps there has never yet been such an “open sea”.”[12] While the Islamist sects have not yet
succeeded in clearing their Eastern ‘sea’ of Western agency, it is their hope
for the future that in destroying these ‘false claims’ they may create a
platform upon which Islamic rule may take hold.
Indeed, even the
radical Islamists who actualize their revenge with violent self-sacrifice share
in this hopeful nihilism. Sheik Yussef Al-Qaradhawi, a vocal member of the
Muslim Brotherhood, told an Egyptian newspaper, “The Mujahid (‘holy warriors’
who commit suicide bombings) is full of hope …He fights his enemy and the enemy
of Allah with this new weapon (the human bomb), which destiny put in the hands
of the weak, so that they would fight against the evil of the strong and
arrogant.”[13] In this way, suicide bombings embody the most
violent expression of slave morality, while simultaneously becoming a hopeful
pursuit to bring about a better future for both the mortal nation, and the
eternal self. And thus, Islamism
embraces self-negation in the hope that their sacrifice will bring revenge upon
the Western world.
Although
the Mujahid considers himself to be a martyr (prepared to die for the hope of a
future nation he will never see), he still harbors a hopefulness for his
individual self. Quintan Wiktorowicz, a
prominent American researcher of Islamic radicalization, explains the salvation
promised to Mujahid in the Koran, “Most writings agree that the martyr has a
seat in Paradise, avoids the torture of the grave, marries seventy black eyed
virgins, and can advocate on behalf of seventy relatives so that they too might
reach Paradise.”[14]
It seems that the ultimate self-sacrifice
is not only supported by the Koran, but also encouraged by it. Divine rewards are placed before the
followers and promises are made to those who successfully sacrifice themselves
in the name of Allah. And so, just as it is with its Western cousin, Eastern
slave morality allows eternal salvation to become dependent on extreme self-negation.
The Divergence of
Actualization
…
Although the
development and early existence of Islamist Fundamentalism seems to fit the
model of Nietzsche’s European slave morality, the two sets of resentment-based
value judgments diverge drastically when it comes to the practice of their
respective slave revolts. This
divergence occurs as Nietzsche tailors his work on the Genealogy of Morals to a European construct, for the sake of a
European audience. As a result, Nietzsche’s slave morality places a heavy
central focus on the emancipated effigy of Christ— A figure absent from Eastern
culture. The lack of Christly emulation
in Islamic society allows for a new will to power to develop. This will to power is driven by the presence
of a direct, enemy stimulus—A figure missing from European slave morality.
Consequentially, Eastern slave morality mobilized a violent and actualized
system of retribution, instead of constructing an imaginary revolt with
inverted moral values alone. So while
Nietzsche’s European slave morality accounts for the development of an Eastern
slave morality, it fails to recognize the glaring distinctions that develop between
the two when they are put into practice.
While the
followers of Nietzsche’s European slave morality serve their compassionate and
forgiving God by emulating his weakness and self-sacrifice, their Eastern
cousins serve Allah, (described in the Quran as The Conqueror, The Arrogant,
and the Proud -among many others)), by emulating their God’s strength and
power. Thus, the weak Catholic God is made weaker by human devotion, while the
strong Muslim God is only further empowered. As may be expected, this
distinction alone causes the departure of Islamist Fundamentalism from
participation in the construct of European slave morality. This departure of constructs is most evident
within the polar applications of self-negation. While the European slave
morality embraces self-negation for the sake of self-punishment, in the name of
Jesus Christ, the Eastern slave morality encourages self-negation for the sake
of punishing others, in the name of
Allah. This allows Eastern sacraments to
depend on outward violence instead of the traditional inner suffering. These
contrasting inner/outer orientations can be seen clearly in the definitions of
martyrs within these respective moralities. Christian martyrs have
traditionally served their God by sacrificing themselves in an attempt to save
others from a dangerous enemy. However, the Muslim martyrs feel they serve
their God by punishing others through their sacrifice, because those others are the dangerous enemy.
Islamist violence
is perpetuated not only by these fundamental orientations, but also by the
proximity to one such dangerous enemy— America, the epitome of the West. While Nietzsche’s Christian slave morality inherited
its value judgments from ancient and removed slave resentment, Islamist slave
morality conceived, birthed, and raised its own resentment in response to fresh
wounds. Thus, the Catholics create an
abstract and forgotten enemy to resent, while the Islamists identify a specific
and remembered enemy to hate.
The original
resentment possessed by European slave morality has long since faded away;
there is no genuine emotion to be found. Due to the lack of a direct master
figure, all that remains now is the inverted value system as maintained by
priestly lies. Thus, the metaphorical,
spiritual revenge was a success. Catholic followers now de-value specific
qualities as a result of successful re-conditioning by the slave revolt. The
revenge was complete when Catholics adopted a vague resentment for those
qualities possessed by the original ‘master’— regardless of where they may
appear. Subsequently, European slave morality says generally, “Weakness is beloved by God, and compassion
is the only noble. While arrogance, self-interest and outward confidence are
embraced only and always by the wicked”.
Meanwhile, what
began as a Muslim resentment, swelled and evolved into a full-blown Islamist
hatred, due to the direct presence of a concrete master figure. Amidst their
attempts to actualize a literal and violent slave revolt, Islamist followers
have begun to reassign their value judgments of specific qualities, based
solely on whether or not their Western enemies possess them. Thus, Islamist
goals for revenge center around the heated hatred of individuals who possess the devalued, Western qualities. The Islamist Fundamentalists say
specifically, “The weak Arabs are beloved
by Allah! We are the chosen who will rise again! While those arrogant Americans
are for eternity, the wicked”.
As Eastern slave
morality actualizes its revolt, it simultaneously establishes itself as an
entirely separate beast from its Western cousin. The Islamists do not devalue
general qualities because a resented master once possessed them, they devalue
specific individuals who participate in anything endorsed by the current, hated
master. Furthermore, they do not want to achieve their revolt by re-assigning
the value of their enemy’s position, they want to deliver revenge by assuming
the position and qualities of their enemies! This group of radicals still values
strength and arrogance— they simply resent their lack there of it!
In the end, it is
clear that while Islamist Fundamentalism and Western Christianity share a
common ancestor in resentment, they have become entities as contrastive as a
Golden Eagle and a Snow Leopard. While Nietzsche’s construct allows us to view
the development of these polar ideologies as parallel to each other, it also
makes evident the significance of the means by which a cultural resentment is actualized.
It would seem, that the choice between a spiritual revolt and a violent
revenge, makes all the difference in the world…
[3]
See above Footnote
[4]
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil,
What is Religious? Sect. 46 p.60
[5]
See above Footnote
[7]
Schanzer, Jonathan. "At War With
Whom?" Islamic Research and Writing. MIddle East Forum, n.d. Web.
<http://www.meforum.org/168/at-war-with-whom>.
[8]
See Footnote 1
[9]
Roy Jackson, Nietzsche and Islam,
2007. Excerpt via Scribd.com
[10]
Roy Jackson, Nietzsche and Islam, 2007. P.108 Quote via excerpt from http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/jns/reviews/roy-jackson-nietzsche-and-islam.
[12]
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Via
Anthology
[13]
Al-Ahram Al-Arabi (Egypt), February 3, 2001. Via the middle east
media research institute http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/451.htm
[14]
Quintan Wiktorowicz, (2005):
A Genealogy of Radical Islam, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 28:2, 75-97
(Online only publication)
No comments:
Post a Comment