January 08, 2004
THE GRAY LADY OR THE TIGER CAGE?:
War of Ideas, Part 1 (THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, 1/08/04, NY Times)
As my friend Dov Seidman, whose company, LRN, teaches ethics to global corporations, put it: The cold war ended the way it did because at some bedrock level we and the Soviets "agreed on what is shameful." And shame, more than any laws or police, is how a village, a society or a culture expresses approval and disapproval and applies restraints.But today, alas, there is no bedrock agreement on what is shameful, what is outside the boundary of a civilized world. Unlike the Soviet Union, the Islamist terrorists are neither a state subject to conventional deterrence or international rules, nor individuals deterred by the fear of death. And their home societies, in too many cases, have not stigmatized their acts as "shameful." In too many cases, their spiritual leaders have provided them with religious cover, and their local charities have provided them with money. That is why suicide bombing is spreading.
We cannot change other societies and cultures on our own. But we also can't just do nothing in the face of this mounting threat. What we can do is partner with the forces of moderation within these societies to help them fight the war of ideas. Because ultimately this is a struggle within the Arab-Muslim world, and we have to help our allies there, just as we did in World Wars I and II.
This column is the first in a five-part series on how we can do that.
Are there any more dreaded words in the English language than a NY Times announcement of "a five-part series"? Few and far between will be the souls who wouldn't at least contemplate sticking their hand in a blender rather than be forced to read all five installments. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 8, 2004 08:52 AM
The Islamic terrorists aren't states, subject to conventional force, but they LIVE in states subject to conventional force. They are protected and sustained by people who live in states.
Which is why, as pointed out on this blog, Bush said that the US would make no distinction between terrorists, and the countries that support them.
We cannot hold countries responsible for lawless acts committed by single citizens, but we can indeed hold nations responsible for not shutting down conspiracies and organizations within their borders.
There, I've boiled down a five-part series to three paragraphs. 'Course, I don't get paid by the word or column inch.
Much of Arab world has seared shame out of it consciousness - otherwise, it would have gone completely insane. Of course, some parts have done that, too. And Tom Friedman needs more room to say that?
Somehow, I doubt that the Soviets learned much about shame. Was Gorbachev ashamed of Marxism? Was Stalin ever ashamed of anything? Friedman needs a long vacation in rural Brazil or the Australian Outback, far from the souk and far from Manhattan.
Posted by: jim hamlen at January 8, 2004 09:35 AM"The cold war ended the way it did because at some bedrock level we and the Soviets 'agreed on what is shameful'."
And here I thought the cold war ended the way it did because the Soviet Union went broke, ultimately becoming as bankrupt economically as it was ideologically.
Silly me.
As for shame, true shame leads to contrition, not to denying that shame (though the latter is all too human), nor acting even more shamefully while simultaneously complaining that others are humiliating you.
Insurmountable problems occur when expressing contrition is itself viewed as shameful. Which is merely another facet of what David Pryce-Jones refers to as the closed circle.
Posted by: Barry Meislin at January 8, 2004 10:11 AMGee Barry, why does every conversation this week have to come back to Pete Rose.
Posted by: jeff at January 8, 2004 10:43 AMUntil Islam goes thru its own reformation, any "5 part series" from Mr. Friedman is pissing in the wind.
Posted by: BJW at January 8, 2004 10:48 AMAnd just what was shameful about the USSR, Mr. Seidman? Do you explain that in your seminar?
Posted by: Sandy P. at January 8, 2004 10:56 AMI have decided the distinction between shame cultures and guilt cultures is mostly phoney.
I had heard about it but never lived in a so-called shame culture until 1987. It turns out to be not all that different from the guilt culture I was brought up in.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at January 8, 2004 11:10 AMShame, Cold War. Hmm. The cold war ended because Reagan and Thatcher decided not to be ashamed to hit back after the Left redefined morality to suit their Post McCarthy, Post Vietnam agendas; and because A few in the Kremlin decided that declaring victory and going home was a hell of a lot less shameful than completing the bankruption of their empire.
Shame, Guilt. Hmm...I don't think one needs to "live" in a particular culture to be able to appreciate that there can be (ought to be) a difference between "Shame" and "Guilt". In my experience the reaction to "shame" is more likely than not be "I wished I had not been caught"; to "guilt", "I wished I had not done that." If one can not see which feeling is more likely to result in self-improvement (all else equal) one must be consumed by cynicism.
Posted by: MG at January 8, 2004 11:56 AMIf we had any shame we'd be ashamed of leaving the Soviets in control of Eastern Europe and Russia after WWII.
Posted by: oj at January 8, 2004 12:04 PM