In terms of Dabashi, I will state that I didn’t mean to imply that I agreed with what he said in this particular article, only that I can sense where he might be coming from, as someone who in a short period of time has grown quite tired of defending the local against definitions from without. I will say that I think there is an internal conflict on his part, having to do with distance and class position, as described previously.

By rationalism I don’t mean thinking rationally, or within a different context something making sense. I mean the imposition of a “flat”, reductive evidential way of viewing things onto something more complex, that involves the elliptical, the unsaid and unstated, or unsensed.

In terms of the “how”, I plan to write this all up in an article (and hopefully a book) shortly, based primarily on the experience of starting up an artists collective here in Lebanon that is based in a consensus model, and reflects a systemic approach that is self-sustaining and resistant to both internal dissent and external attack. I can’t really do it justice here. But thanks for indulging the conversation.

There is a huge potential here, that the left ignores (on purpose, I believe) to its own detriment.
I think a lot of this may simply be due to prevalent Western Islamophobia, frankly, although I’m open to other explanations, too.

Zizek is representative of this left that is more concerned with its own self-promotion and marketing than any message it is putting forth…But the “system” knows they are not dangerous, so they are given their space to work in, to write in. But in terms of action? They are useless. I feel on Dabashi’s part–and I give him credit, in a way, since it is difficult to be living inside the Beast and maintain a remove from it–an awareness of this.
I
agree that Zizek is partially representative of this tendency, but also think he is at least somewhat subversive nonetheless…he’s not, to take a relevant hypothetical, appearing on CNN. Again, I give no credit to Dabashi, until I see good reason to; for example, point out something that he’s said that appears particularly brave or on-point or not self-regarding.

What I am trying to bring forward is that there is another side to such rationalism, which is that of an active and reductive tool to undo Voice that does not fit into the dominant or hegemonic discourse. It has become a systemic enforcer of this discourse, and does not allow for the “unsaid”; the “unspoken”. Your Saidian interpretation starts to get at it, but I am currently arguing in my work that it is much deeper than this, and that a true revolutionary movement need stop defending itself along these lines and need start advocating in ways that are understood by those who inherently “get it”.

Again I don’t think we substantially disagree in spirit, and agree that a certain variety of systemic social rationalism can be pernicious, as can various versions of what are called Rational Choice Theories, or “rationalist” approaches to movement formation, etc., which ignore what scholars call “ideal interest mobilization,” or what I’d more cornily refer to as a utopian spirit. I actually wasn’t endorsing the Saidian interpretation, but overtly disputing it; as Aijaz Ahmad wrote in his (strong) criticism of Said in In Theory, Said was the first to suggest that a Western analyst was actually incapable of constructing “true” knowledge about the “Orient.”

You may be correct that a “true revolutionary movement” needs to stop defending itself along rationalist lines, but how do you expect it to organize? “Well, this program will improve your well-being, it’s in accord with norms of social justice, etc.,” which are rational arguments; what would the type of argument you envision look like? And how again would you convince leftist organizers to deploy it if not with the rational argument that it would be a more efficacious means to arrive at the desired end? And why would we wish to abandon rationality when it’s actually along rational grounds that one can deconstruct the apologiae of empire and capitalism? I ask these questions because the type of universalist “rationalism” I’m envisioning accommodates the counter-examples you offer:

it took a long time to get my head around directions given to me while walking around the city such as “turn left where Abou Ahmad’s roastery used to be”. Mind you, this is just one small example. Thus to go ahead and use a non-local (often rationalist) framework on local phenomena and concepts thus immediately does them an injustice, which is, I believe now, not naive, or without purpose. The current focus on semiotic surface meanings is another example of this.

Again the example you here bring up seems eminently rational, e.g. given the different assumptions and culture and collective memory of a given society then the directions you offer make sense and are totally rational.

I am trying to say that I see Dabashi perhaps coming from this same place, in terms of argument. I remain very much open to words to the contrary.
Perhaps it would be better if you could cite specific phrases from his argument that appeal to you, or that are examples of the phenomena you’re trying to describe; otherwise I’d just be speculating.

Large parts of the Marxist left are indeed oriented toward the state as a key actor within a socialist society, but to be more precise, a state that is subordinate to the interests of the proletariat (at least in theory). This is not the same as the liberal state, which in fact tries to maintain much of the status quo by trying to absorb contradictions — what appears to be managed change. You could have a state that does absolutely nothing, besides foreign representation, defense, etc., like conservatives might want — but if social strife is left unaddressed by a state, especially extreme inequalities and injustices against groups, then conservatives too would be ushering in massive change…just by virtue of doing nothing to ameliorate the situation because that would involve a growth in government.

Your point about anarchists earlier. Anarchism emerged from the socialist left, and much of it is still tied to it. Anarchists were active in trade unions and for the most part are anti-capitalist. Most are also far more anti-state than orthodox Marxists, who are willing to rely on a state in the transition toward communism, which is itself a stateless and classless society.

Neither liberals nor conservatives share a vision of a stateless or classless society. In the meantime, most Marxists and anarchists do share such a vision.

Otherwise, yes, outside of these simple/simplistic schematic outlines…the terms are almost useless and obsolete and rather Eurocentric. The terminology really falls to pieces when it comes to so-called “Islamic fundamentalists” for example, who have been dubbed by some “Islamo-fascists,” even if they share little in common with actual historical fascists (i.e., desire for a secular state).

Far be it from me to not permit you to make observations, but in this case I don’t see what you mean by saying the definition of capitalism “states it as a given, an accepted status quo”. I don’t know what you mean by that or how you got that out of the definition.

As for your description of “left”, it parallels the dictionary definition of “liberal” in that liberal means more inclined towards social change, as opposed to “conservative” which can mean favorable to the status quo. Again, this further explains why “left” and “liberal” are often used synonymously in the U.S.

But this is confusing, because now we have two criteria: 1) position on government role in society and 2) position on change vs. status quo. One could favor small government (conservative) and yet seek dramatic change (liberal). The dictionary definitions themselves are thus greatly problematic and contradictory.

The terms “left” and “right”, besides the fact that 100 different people could use them to mean 100 different things, are further problematic because they suggest this linear framework. People are supposed to fall into a single point along a line.

We need a 3-D model, really, to graph where a person’s politics lie. A linear model is really practically useless. There are too many other criteria to consider. Even with just two (above), problems arise with this linear model.

A solution might be to just stop using “left” and “right” as descriptive political terms, since they’re practically meaningless (as so effectively demonstrated throughout here).

You’ll permit me I hope to point out that this definition of capitalism states it is a given, an accepted status quo, and we thus define “left” and “right” based on this given. To say “The antithesis to capitalism is greater state intervention in the economy” is to describe a reductive binary that then leads to the problems of definition we seem to be having.

I only point this out because there are collective/cooperative models which don’t necessarily involve the state; which are bottom-up instead of top-down. I live in a country in which there is no active state whatsoever, yet somehow the social contract maintains a certain functionality on the communal level, for better and for worse….

Having said that, I would argue that I rarely use the terms “left” or “right” except when describing a spectrum that is reflective of the parliamentary division that was mentioned earlier. I think I did a pretty good job of implying the adjective “so-called” when referring to the left in my posts above; the one place that I used it less facetiously was when I was describing the local newspaper al-Akhbar, which, on a political spectrum (here, in the parliamentary sense) of newspapers in Lebanon, is left-wing.

For myself I define things in terms of the dominant or hegemonic discourse that is the by-product of a system bent on dispossessing populations, amassing wealth for an elite few, views the world in terms of an atomized individual with perhaps an allowance for a nuclear family, and which further enables such laws, media (including Wikipedia!), and systems that will sustain this discourse and the status quo. It enables and empowers upward. This is countered by a resistance discourse which speaks for the Voices of those discounted by the former, and which views the world in terms of a collective aggregate, with local community being the most indivisible element. It enables and empowers downward.

This allows me to say, for example, that Libération, the putatively socialist newspaper in France, is part of the dominant discourse. Same for Zizek. This is what allows Prof. Dabashi, in his book Islamic Liberation Theology to state that ethnic studies tend to be of this discourse, odd though as it seems. It also allows me to say that many groups viewed as “conservative”, for example, within political Islam, or South American Catholic liberation theology, are actually resistant. I do not mean perfectly so, and this is where the non-engagement of the so-called “left” with such resistance groups 1) reveals them to be supportive of the status quo and 2) shows their willful ignorance of the potential of reaching out to such groups. I call this the difference between activism and passivism. It also explains the will of the dominant discourse to atomize and thus destroy resistance discourses.

This question has plagued me for ages. I remember writing about what I called back then the “Marketing of AIDS” in the early 90s, and it was clear that something wasn’t right in the way active resistance and passive compliance were conflated. It is only now that I live in a more community-based culture, and am witness to the depredations of the market as representative of the antithesis of such community, that I have come to a definition.

I currently believe that we can find the answer to this question in examining current modes of mediation, as well as the systemic tendencies that we take for granted–such as rationalism, discussed above–and call them into question on a fundamental level. At least that is what I am trying to do currently in my writing. Those who are willing to call these tendencies into question, knowing that they might very well be challenging their very status in terms of class and ownership of property, their societal position, as well as the very notion of their individuality, are what I would refer to as leftists.

For that, we need to define “capitalism”, for which I’ll again defer to the dictionary: “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market”.

“Conservatives” as I defined them earlier (or as Merriam-Webster defined them, rather) are naturally inclined towards this economic system since it is favored by a lack of government interference.

The antithesis to capitalism is greater state intervention in the economy, which is a more “liberal” position, which, in the discourse I’m familiar with (U.S.), is a also a “left” position — which therefore happens to parallel your own description of what “left” means.

But then there’s this wrench in the gears (from Wikipedia): “Whether capitalism is called right-wing or left-wing varies from country to country.” In other words, the terms can mean completely opposite things for different people, rendering it practically meaningless. We’ve already run into that trouble here.

But if we overlook that, I can agree with this definition of “left”, and it parallels the starting point I offered earlier.

But if we accept these few axioms established here as our groundwork, then, again, what some call “libertarian socialism” (again, an oxymoron under this framework) would be an extreme RIGHT position, just as I previously said anarchism would also be.

Wikipedia contradicts that, saying anarchism is a “left” position – but that makes precisely zero sense to me and I have no idea what criteria is being applied to arrive at that conclusion.

We’ve got one basic criteria so far that I can see in establishing a framework: a person’s position on proper amount of government control/influence/interference in people’s lives. I would postulate that what kind of views a person might have on a preferred economic system follows from their view on that basic criteria.

This is our linear spectrum: people favoring more government being on the “left” of that spectrum and people favoring less on the “right”. Can we agree on that criteria? Or do others prefer a different criteria? If so, what?

I recalled distant memories of the origin of the terms “left” and “right” and these date back to the parliamentary or legislative bodies of the French Revolutionary period — not exactly a good formula for encompassing all of the politics of the world, then and afterward.

Interestingly, there is a Wikipedia entry on this at:

Left-Right Politics.

Salamun.

Of course it is more problematic than this, the local left remembers very well what happened to them after certain groups came to power in various countries of the region. But at the same time, no one in the Western left has been picking up on or noticing (on purpose, I believe) that for example, at local socialist conferences, you have the various political Islamic groups represented. In Lebanon, you have a left-wing daily newspaper that supports the Resistance, but is vocally critical of its non-economic engagement. There is a huge potential here, that the left ignores (on purpose, I believe) to its own detriment.

Which leads me to what I see as the reason for this, which is such a discourse calls into question one’s comfort in terms of his or her class status, or truly political view of the world. Zizek is representative of this left that is more concerned with its own self-promotion and marketing than any message it is putting forth. This is the complicit dance I refer to between “sides” in the current leftist discourse. To me they fall along a spectrum, but they all walk the line in such a way that in terms of mediation, they are darlings, in terms of discourse, they push buttons. But the “system” knows they are not dangerous, so they are given their space to work in, to write in. But in terms of action? They are useless. I feel on Dabashi’s part–and I give him credit, in a way, since it is difficult to be living inside the Beast and maintain a remove from it–an awareness of this.

This leads me to your final point concerning rational approaches. I imagine at one point there was a sense of rationalism as a tool to glean meaning from our reality, and I am no stranger to it in terms of what I am positing, especially since all of the great Islamic scholars (that I am only able to scratch the surface of what they’ve written, mind you) have availed themselves of in order to advance their arguments, even the metaphysical ones. So I would not say I am “post-everything”, but perhaps “pre-everything”….

What I am trying to bring forward is that there is another side to such rationalism, which is that of an active and reductive tool to undo Voice that does not fit into the dominant or hegemonic discourse. It has become a systemic enforcer of this discourse, and does not allow for the “unsaid”; the “unspoken”. Your Saidian interpretation starts to get at it, but I am currently arguing in my work that it is much deeper than this, and that a true revolutionary movement need stop defending itself along these lines and need start advocating in ways that are understood by those who inherently “get it”.

The examples locally are quite numerous, in which the universalist given does not stop to take into account local reality. This often comes up with my thesis advisees. Simply by virtue of using, say, a European-based framework to describe Beirut or the region, they are imposing huge limitations on their thinking but also forcing square pegs into round holes. One basic example is that of mapping (I’m in a graphic design department) in which a 2-D Cartesian system is useless when trying to accomodate the way that Beirutis see their city, or visualize it, which is based in collective memory, an active dynamism of the urban space, and a non-transient connection to the land. I call it 4-D space; it took a long time to get my head around directions given to me while walking around the city such as “turn left where Abou Ahmad’s roastery used to be”. Mind you, this is just one small example. Thus to go ahead and use a non-local (often rationalist) framework on local phenomena and concepts thus immediately does them an injustice, which is, I believe now, not naive, or without purpose. The current focus on semiotic surface meanings is another example of this.

In the last piece I linked to about remapping East and West, I refer to what you are saying as fish not being aware of the water they swim in. I grew up in this water, and now I’ve been out of it for 5 years. I’m still putting things together for myself, and don’t claim to have any greater perception of a culture I did not grow up in. But I am sensing something along these lines, am pursuing it as much as I can, and am trying to elucidate it as best as I can. I am trying to say that I see Dabashi perhaps coming from this same place, in terms of argument. I remain very much open to words to the contrary.

In the piece by Zizek — http://www.cinestatic.com/infinitethought/2009/06/will-cat-above-precipice-fall-down.asp– (which seems to get worse each time I look at it), he writes:

“blindness for a genuine demonstration of popular will, patronizingly assuming that, for the backward Iranians, Ahmadinejad is good enough – they are not yet sufficiently mature to be ruled by a secular Left.”

The implication here is that Mousavi and his supporters are in fact the “secular Left” — and I have seen absolutely no evidence to suggest either how secular they are, and even less than nothing on their supposed “left-ness”. While some call on leftists to support Mousavi and the movement behind him…my question remains: what have they said or done that specifically should appeal to the left? Is it just protesting? There were protesters against Allende in Chile…should we have backed them? There are anti-Castro protests in Miami…should we back them?

So Zizek says this is the “secular Left”…but then by the end of his very short article, as if he forgot his own theme, he writes:

“what this means is that there is a genuine liberating potential in Islam – to find a ‘good’ Islam, one doesn’t have to go back to the 10th century, we have it right here, in front of our eyes.”

This statement was downright stupid, I almost lost all respect for Zizek when I read that bit of Eurocentric, imperialist rubbish. This is someone that — to his surprise — has discovered that some Muslims might actually live up to the standards by which he submerges them. There may really be some “good” Muslims, as long as they conform to the fantasies he has woven for them. He writes like a Crusader, relieved that total war might not be necessary because now we have found some enemies we can relate to.