Speaking of phantom guilt and those it afflicts, over at the Augean Stables, another, related, malady has been found.
Like all potent and difficult psychological talents, however, self-criticism has its pathologies. Whereas most people dislike and avoid self-criticism at all costs, some few find it exhilarating, and engage in it unilaterally. This passion for self-criticism has created, in our day, a kind messianic pathology, what I call masochistic omnipotence syndrome, in which, “everything is our fault, and if only we could be better, we could fix anything.”
To this end, we forfeit normal protections. “Who are we to judge?” we say, as we accept as valid the stories and deeds of the oppressed “other,” no matter how dishonest the narrative and its intentions might be… From moral equivalence: “We’re as bad as you are”; to moral inversion: “No, we’re worse than you are.” The Muslim terrorists who blow up fellow Muslims at prayer in Iraq are thus to Michael Moore “Minute Men” resisting American soldiers who represent the forces of the evil empire. And if we just do this kind of moral reckoning enough, we seem to reason, we will eventually elicit good will and negotiate an end to all conflicts. “War,” we all know, “is not the answer.” We have the responsibility to repent for our imperialism and ask forgiveness for our crimes against native peoples. And all of this might be reasonable in the framework of good intentions on both sides.
But some use these principles to criticise us, not because they respect and admire the values they invoke, but only because of the positional advantage it gives them. They have no intention of reciprocating. They do not believe in these values, and they see us as irremediably stupid and effeminate for embracing self-criticism and commitments to treating others fairly… For them, our self-criticism registers as signs of weakness and an invitation to further aggression. The vulnerability we painfully but magnanimously adopt triggers not reciprocity and reconciliation, but predatory hopes.
Related ground is covered in the latest Shire Network News podcasts, which include a two-part exchange between Nick Cohen and Douglas Murray on left, right and the decidedly non-reciprocal nature of jihadi Islam. Part one. Part two. Well worth a listen.
Update:
Democratiya’s Alan Johnson chances his arm by sharing with Guardian readers a few unflattering truths.
By reducing the complexity of the post-cold war world to a single great contest in which “imperialism” or “empire” faced “anti-imperialism” or “the resistance”, parts of the left had transformed themselves into a reactionary post-left that took its enemy’s enemy for its friend. We were “all Hizbullah now” as the placards had it. Listen to John Rees, a leader of the Stop the War Coalition and Respect: “Socialists should unconditionally stand with the oppressed against the oppressor, even if the people who run the oppressed country are undemocratic and persecute minorities, like Saddam Hussein.”
America was the global oppressor and Bush was the “Number 1 terrorist”. Anyone shooting at Americans became, by that act, the resistance to empire. A collapse of sensibility followed. The reductionism in the theory licensed habits of mind and structures of feeling well-known among the older fellow travellers of Stalinism – apologia, denial, grossly simplifying tendencies of thought, moral relativism. The consequence was profound political disorientation. Tony Benn sat in front of the mass murderer, Saddam Hussein, and asked him, “I wonder whether you could say something yourself directly through this interview to the peace movement of the world that might help to advance the cause they have in mind?” Days later, Benn was less kind to an Iraqi oppositionist, spitting the words “CIA stooge!”
Naturally, Johnson’s comments don’t go down terribly well with the devout:
The only ones on the (supposed) left who “lost their way” were those who happily allied themselves with an unholy alliance of NeoConservative apologists for authoritarianism, free-market oligarchs and far-right fundamentalist Christians.
It’s dizzying stuff, and just a bit grubby.
Help fund my filthy excavations.
heres a golden oldie, not entirely unrelated to the subject in hand…
http://www.counterpunch.org/fiskbeaten.html
Ah, Mr Fisk’s finest hour. At the time I did wonder if there was some strange erotic component to his outpourings. In fact, I still do. I suppose one can only hope his masochistic leanings are indulged by some burly chaps. Then everyone will be happy.
I was pleased to see that Alan Johnson used the word “reactionary” to describe this particular faction of the Left. I’ve often felt, though, that “reactionary” could well describe most left-wing factions. It strikes me as odd that left-wing and progressive are used more or less as synonyms. These days if you’re seeking out some hide-bound, reactionary views you would do well to look at the Labour Party back benches, or amongst the opinion-writers of the Guardian. Mention the word reform (the BBC perhaps, or the NHS, welfare provision etc etc) to these people and you’ll be met with purple-faced rage and intransigence. Polly Toynbee is the patron saint of these blustering neo-blimps, adhering to tired (not to say failed) old ideologies and nostalgic for those golden days of 1968.
Of course, when you get to the pro-Jihad left, these people are not merely reactionary – the word “backward” seems most apt, if a little too polite.
Horace,
Yes, reactionary is the term that springs to mind, along with contrarian, delusional, paranoid and vile. The Guardian’s CiF site is, as often as not, a sort of blocked moral u-bend. Sometimes it’s amusing in its derangement, but usually it’s just grubby and depressing. And as I said yesterday, my impression is that the pious and unhinged are hardly a minority, as the comments seem to bear out.
Theodore Dalrymple, in pondering this issue, quoted someone with whom he (and I) are not prone to empathising with, namely Terence Eagleton: “In the conflict between Western capitalism and radical Islam, a paucity of belief squares up to an excess of it. The West finds itself faced with a full-blooded metaphysical onslaught at just the historical point that it has, so to speak, philosophically disarmed.”
http://www.aims.ca/library/Paradoxes.pdf
And, of course, the greatest rider of this particular scapegoat was the charlatan Edward Said,
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2006/12/06/orientalism/index.html
now suitably debunked (though you would not realise it from the BBC) by Ibn Warraq.
http://www.secularislam.org/articles/debunking.htm
I think this clash of values is irreconcilable. We have to be judgemental, we have to look at cultures from the inside as well as from the outside from where odious behaviour may seem a mere anthropological curiosity. When it is in your backyard, it graduates from curiosity to problem. It is also not possible to apply personal morality to nations. An individual may sacrifice his life to further a cause – that is his right, but no democratic government can contemplate such an option. Ahmadinejad may wish to sacrifice Iran in his millennial wet dream, but few Iranians would follow him.
Those who decry the USA as the number one oppressor should briefly consider a 20th century in which there had been no USA to rescue Europe from its folly. Britain would have made peace with Nazi Europe (like the French) after its strength had been bled almost to death. Hitler could have been able to contain the Red Army, leaving Europe carved up between two odious dictators. The option of self-criticism would never have arisen, and Britain would have to trade with Fascists to survive. Whether Liberals would be biting their tongues with silent fury or have gone native under Oswald Moseley is a question they might like to be asking themselves. They might also be honest and realise that “Neo-Conservatives” are almost exclusively renegade Liberals – real Conservatives are quite a different breed.
“everything is our fault, and if only we could be better, we could fix anything.”
Ah, swoon and behold, the audacious Audacity of Hope the self-victimized noble must cling to.
But, wait, who is this woeful “we” of which you speak, O’ Progressive dhimmi?
Nevermind, simply bend over and accept your bitter and just deserts – after all, that should make you feel even better, wot?
Alcuin,
“Those who decry the USA as the number one oppressor should briefly consider a 20th century in which there had been no USA to rescue Europe from its folly.”
I remember an Open Democracy thread from a couple of years ago which asked readers to choose an alternative to the US – i.e, a nation they’d actually like to see as the preeminent military, cultural and economic force. Serious answers were not forthcoming. I also recall another thread, from about the same time, asking those who casually use the terms “American empire” and “US imperialism” to explain exactly how the US qualifies as an “empire”. Again, and despite the length of the thread, no serious explanation was offered, though the term was still used with remarkable regularity.
In my experience, when you really try to bore in on exactly what they mean by “American Imperialism,” you usually wind up with awful oppression like McDonalds and Starbucks. Oh, and somehow buying stuff from China is imperialism, too.
This whole topic of liberal self-flagellation informs why I despise Jimmy Carter – the quintessential Presidential failure who goes about the world legitimizing dictators and terrorists while blaming the West for many of those same despots’ excesses and evils. This is a common thread in many religious movements as well. One defines one’s piety by confessing to and repenting of one’s sins. In order to gain more piety one must beat one’s breast more loudly and with more fervor than one’s fellow religionists. So it is with today’s greens and socialists.
As for Progressives, I share the opinion that they are some of the most conservative, reactionary, and prejudiced people in the world. As an American, I call myself a true Progressive. I believe in progress. In improving the world for individuals. I find it abhorrent that so-called liberals, who supposedly care the most for all peoples of the world, oppose any action to improve the lives of Iraqis and Afghanis by military action. They say America should stay out because we intervene based on self-interest and not altruism. We should not invade Iraq because we do not invade N. Korea, Darfur, China, etc. They miss the obvious: It is better to help some where you can than to help no one where you cannot.
Candice,
“I believe in progress. In improving the world for individuals. I find it abhorrent that so-called liberals, who supposedly care the most for all peoples of the world, oppose any action to improve the lives of Iraqis and Afghanis by military action.”
For quite a few, I suspect the problem has much to do with using words like “progressive” while being captivated by an ideology that’s at odds with the most obvious engine of progress, i.e. capitalism. Ditto the ideological disdain for “US imperialism” and “bourgeois” values – values which, more often than not, lead to material betterment. Thus, for many, a choice arises: Either cling to that ideology – and one’s self-image as radical or whatever – or abandon those things, which don’t seem to work terribly well, and support what very often does.
Funny video here you might enjoy,
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/02b04e93cb