Refusing talk to facilitate talk – the paradox of Islamist dialogue: ...

[bemildred]

---

In short, what we have to do if we want to have a serious peace process, it is necessary for us - the West - to recognise ourselves as subjects of what we are saying and what we are thinking and doing and be more realistic in seeing what we’ve become. Is the only answer within the present Western limits of thinking to the challenge of Iran and the Iranian revolution … to bomb it? Is that where we have got to? Do we not have to see and think that this is the limit to what we have become? Moving beyond these limits also requires listening to some of the insights that others have.

Muslim thinkers and philosophers are presenting a serious and substantial critique of Western thinking and society. It is a critique not a critique of the Enlightenment per se, but what we have turned the Enlightenment into in terms of its power relationships and the concentration of power within Western societies. They see this as being far from the original Enlightenment model which has now entered into myth that somehow we all live in a society which is encouraging creative new dynamic thinking in the West. We all know this is not true. Many in the West find it difficult to hear the ideas that are coming out of this part of the world and when they do they say “and you believe them? And you listen to this nonsense, this babble?”

The ability to actually think and look critically at ourselves is probably the missing element in this political process of talking. We do need, if we want to move away from this conflict, to escape from our current conditioned thinking - what Foucault described as the ‘blackmail of the narrative of history’ - of our narrative of the enlightenment, which is no longer possibly as real as it was when the Enlightenment started.

We need to challenge our acquiescence to Western language and norms which we all submit to. I speak from my experience of having worked in the European Union and in the diplomatic arena that some things are just not possible to say in the West anymore. You notice the silences in the Annapolis process; what word about the siege on Gaza or Hamas? Does anyone remember hearing about this? Saying these things in Western diplomatic circles have become unacceptable. Someone at a gathering in Washington recently raised the question about Hamas and everyone said, ‘we simply cannot discuss that here, not in this meeting; it’s not acceptable’. Is this what we mean when we talk about living in the age of the Enlightenment?

http://conflictsforum.org/2008/refusing-talk-to-facilitate-talk-%e2%80%93-the-paradox-of-islamist-dialogue-an-overdue-task-or-an-exercise-in-appeasement/

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Good points brought up

we must be open to all ideas, be willing to discuss all things, if we wish to find a solution to this problem.

[bemildred]

2. Problem? What problem?

:-)

[Sentath]

3. I'm going to read it

But at this point in the article I have to say, "Such as?" I'd like an example.

Well, I read it.

And it reveals that I am not a philosophy major. It references some very high octane names (Hegel, Kant) in an oblique manner and says that there are other ways to be rational other than being (and runs it down considerably) objective.

I'm sorry, but I'm far too pedestrian for the article to make any real impact on me. Can someone de-obfuscate it a bit for me?

[bemildred]

4. A crude summary, he has two points:

1.) You cannot claim to be listening to someone when you demand that he discuss his issues in your terms, in your problem domain. That amounts to demanding to frame the debate. This is particularly an issue in cross-cultural debate and in colonial and post-colonial situations, and in rebelling imperial domains; but in fact it is very relevant to political discourse in the USA. We have lots of political taboos, and it shuts a lot of people and points of view (like those we have here at DU) from the mainstream of political discourse. You have to discuss in terms of the "Washington consensus" or you are ridiculed and excluded.

2.) When you are in such a situation, where you are not allowed to frame and define your own terms for the purposes of stating your views, your only recourse is to refuse to participate, in other words your only recourse is to submit or rebel. Of course that is the intention of those that refuse to allow you to that right. Thus, if you do not choose to submit, your only recourse is to rebel in one form or another, because you are forbidden to state your case.

Of course he is talking in particular about the "islamists", but the application is much wider than that.