| |
TRANSATLANTIC CATHARSIS – January 5, 2007
* The following essay is an English translation of an article by Mr. GRZEGORZ LEWICKI, one of the winners of the writing contest organized in April, 2006, by the Center for International Relations in Warsaw, the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and The Portal of Foreign Affairs – an online magazine published by the Institute of Foreign Affairs in Warsaw. Its re-publication has been made possible through the courtesy of these copyright holders.
What is the West? Historians have been trying to answer this question for centuries. Until recently, the West has been considered as consisting of Europe, with the United States growing out of the same cultural tradition. This was the view of distinguished 20th century historians like Oswald Spengler or Arnold Toynbee. Although this definition of the West is still held, contemporary political scientists point out key differences between the U.S. and Europe. Samuel P. Huntington for example, considers the two to be sub-civilizations within the West.
THE DECLINE OF THE WEST
One can even hear more radical claims: that the West no longer exists, and that the U.S. and Europe parted ways a long time ago. According to this view, the current dispute over the intervention in Iraq is a consequence of a schism in Western thought that dates back to the era of French Revolution, two and a half centuries ago, just after the establishment of the United States.
The definition of “progress” is crucial here. Irving Kristol claims there are at least two modern concepts of “progress” and each has different political consequences: “The first arose out of the Continental Enlightenment and laid the foundation of the French Revolution; the second has its origins in the Anglo-Scottish Enlightenment and led to the American Revolution”. In the American tradition there is a “written constitution, a strong concept of individual rights and institutional solutions, but the fundamental continuity of cultural identity remains unchanged. The American Revolution does not destruct; rather it sustains the traditions and on the old, solid fundaments builds the fresh content.” On the other hand, The European tradition “intentionally and radically rejects its past and doing so departs from the main trend of pre-modern Western thought.”
As one can see, the greatest difference between Europeans and Americans is how they view their past. These disparate views implicate the different attitude toward religion. In the European Enlightenment tradition religion was seen as an oppressive force running counter to individual liberties. In the American tradition this distrust is not to be seen. Look at how Europeans and Americans view the relationship between religion and reason. Europe considers faith a relic of the past. Contrary to this, the U.S. was founded on the belief that “The American Eagle flies into the air of mankind’s history on two wings – reason (ratio) and faith (fides). Both are necessary for him to fly.” Europe chose monism, the exclusiveness of ratio, as its cultural and societal foundation, while the U.S. chose pluralism.
Arnold Toynbee, often referred to as the greatest historian of all time, believed that the fate of civilizations is tied up with the fate of the religions on which they are based. He showed that every civilization undergoes certain evolutionary phases:
1: Genesis.
2: Development
3: Break down
4: Disintegration, divided into:
a) Period of disturbances
b) A universal state phase
c) An interregnum phase
5: Dissolution.
Toynbee believed that the Western civilization has just endured a four hundred year phase of disturbances, and now - on the verge of establishing a universal state - is facing the period of collapse. Significantly, in accordance with his model the fall of a civilization is always a suicide. Disintegration begins from within a civilization due to internal divisions. These divisions enable aggressive, determined elements of different cultures to penetrate the civilization, ultimately leading to its downfall.
Indeed, both Europe and the U.S. have taken steps toward creating a ‘universal state’ what is especially visible when one compares the ambitious geopolitical aspirations of the European Union with American plans for a Pax Americana. In the West there are now two conflicting visions of universalism: the American unilateral model and the European post-modernist view. In their fullest form they cannot be realized at the same time.
According to Toynbee, the emergence of a single universal state is a sign that internal divisions threaten Western civilization. History has proved the British historian was in this aspect right. The universal state began to take form after World War II when the U.S. became a superpower and Europe began to integrate. The current war in Iraq and the international conflict growing out of it are, in Toynbee’s theory, a sign of creeping political divisions within the West, which will ultimately lead to its suicide.
The current rivalry between the U.S. and Europe, described in a vulgarized way by Robert Kagan in his book Paradise and Power, is dangerous. If the transatlantic crisis worsens, Western civilization will slowly collapse, and both Europe and the U.S. will be cut off from their cultural roots. Political scientists agree nowadays that the future belongs to Asia, and that the West should prepare for a relative decline in power. Thus, irrational rivalry between Europe and the U.S. will only accelerate this decline.
Toynbee hoped that the West, thanks to its historical exceptionality, has a chance to avoid collapse. He believed that this exceptionality stems from the West’s unprecedented historical experiences. The modern West can draw on lessons from the past and use them to foresee dangerous trends, counteracting and perhaps reversing them. Unfortunately, Toynbee was unable to prove such a thesis theoretically. Nevertheless, he surely had what Jose Ortega y Gasset describes as a “historical reason” – a state of mind allowing to anticipate the occurrence of some events by drawing analogies from history.
We should use this reason to assume that some convergence of political thought is in Europe and America’s interest. However, this does not necessarily mean complete uniformity but agreement on certain basic principles. To create such unity good will on both sides is essential. One should not expect that it is only Europe which should undertake political and ideological reforms, as many pro-American European conservatives wish, but one should admit that so should the U.S. Nor should the U.S. entirely abandon its active role in the world and adjust itself to EU political standards.
The unity and its internal cohesion of the West needs to be based on mutual apologies, mutual uttering of ‘mea culpa’ and open acknowledgment of responsibility on both sides of Atlantic. We need to be aware of the dangerous process of distrust at work in Europe and the U.S. Distrust that leads to caricatures and stereotypes, and which ultimately leads to political extremism. In other words: We should accept Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr’s claim that “Egoistic depravation of universal ideals and values is a more solid fact of human behavior than any moralistic credo would be willing to admit”. We should then compare the two different approaches toward culture, religion as well as the political and economical concepts that grow out of them. Only by such a general pardon may we assess the situation realistically.
IDENTITY: CULTURE AND RELIGION
The fierce diplomatic confrontation between Europe and the U.S. which began after the intervention in Iraq in 2003, showed that neither Europe nor the U.S. have given enough weight to bilateral relations. Washington ignored Europe, which in the decades after its final liberation from communist oppression, has gained new strength and has begun making its own plans. At the same time Brussels looks on the U.S. with a sense of cultural superiority. Before 1989 the West had a common goal. But with the fall of the Berlin Wall new priorities have not been set. If they existed transatlantic cooperation would be much simpler.
(1) At the end of 20th Century, neo-enlightenment theories, which had been previously restrained by the threat of communism, revived in Europe. Ideals of equality, socialism, and secularity as the sole remedy for socio-political problems tempted Europeans to abandon their previous European identity and create a new, ‘improved’ identity. Institutions rooted in Christianity and the traditional family have been deemed old fashioned. An ideology centered on the glorification of freedom and equality has arisen in opposition to religion. Conservative philosopher Roger Scruton, describes this as a “culture of rejection” based on the repudiation of former social structures combined with simultaneous lack of the effort to create the complete system of alternative values. It is in fact a sort of anti-culture defined by opposition to ideas grounded in historical experience.
Post-modernism, a child of this anti-culture, resembles a chaotic mix of materialism and Nietzschean relativism. Its deconstructive nature makes it unprogressive, and it tends to go in intellectual circles; but it is an influential movement in philosophy and European culture. It attempts to fill a spiritual vacuum with non-axiomatic concepts like Schopenhauer’s ‘common will’ and Heidegger’s ‘existence’. These attempts are doomed to failure. As John Gray puts it, Post-Modernism creates the very axioms which it fights against.
Europe today needs tolerance – toward post-modernist experimentation, to challenges by minorities and cultural liberalism, but also toward Christians. Only through tolerance will the secular elites of the Western Europe be able to accept that spirituality is not a relict of Middle Ages; something that will ultimately be eliminated by Hegel’s absolute spirit. Evoking Hegel may at first seem weird, but this kind of thinking is still present in the minds of European elites. These elites seem not to notice that Christianity became the foundation of Europe not because of mystical sophistication of a handful of fanatics who established the Church, but because it was useful as a carrier of identity and values that cannot be replaced by relativistic philosophy.
Fortunately, after theoretical warnings against negating the pre-enlightenment component of European identity have been ignored, today the empirical warning comes. Lack of intellectual impetus and political consensus have hampered the European integration process, while demographic and religious changes are destroying the geopolitical stability of the continent. If there exists a spirit of history, the last decade shows it plainly that it is rational – and as Hegel used to say – highly intelligent. The ubiquity and intensity of these changes, by their visibility may persuade a public that often misses theoretical arguments. As a result, the defenders of a transcendental component in the European identity have been gaining strength again. Western civilization will collapse if deprived of its transcendental component. Despite general criticism, Toynbee’s view is today triumphant in a way that he would never have expected in the first half of 20th Century. The accuracy of Toynbee’s predictions is linked to his implicit assumptions about the existence of two mechanisms:
(a) Proportional interdependence between growing secularity and individual egoism, and its demographic consequences;
(b) The impossibility of filling a spiritual vacuum with the dogmatic concepts un-rooted in society’s external norms.
When personal egoism reached a certain critical point in Europe, the demographic societal structure of Europe started to collapse [see: (a)]. As there were not enough young people in their productive years to support the elderly, it became necessary to allow immigration on a large scale; which has disturbed Europe’s demographic structure. Immigration was carrying within itself Islam, a belief system in competition with Christianity. A radically politicized, anti-democratic version of Islam is spreading through Europe. It seeks to filling the vacuum left by the rejection of Christianity with its own societal norms [see: (b)].
Europe has to accept that the fates of all civilizations are dependent on the fate of the religious systems they are based upon. Looking at history one cannot state otherwise. Independent research and demographic projections confirm it. Even the skeptical should accept this, whatever their own metaphysical preferences.
(2) The current American approach to culture and religion grew out of the “Conservative Revolution” begun by Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich. Like many of the periodic religious revivals in the U.S. occurring every few decades, the Conservative Revolution confirmed the Americans in their identity and increased patriotism among the public.
America has however suffered social deterioration. This does even not refer to such common American traits as “Circling around in the pursuit of small and ordinary excitements”, as Alexis de Tocqueville put it; or the lack of independent thinking and susceptibility to manipulation that Ortega y Gasset notes.
Rather, this deterioration is revealed in the growing polarization of right and left wing political movements. Many analysts speak of “two Americas” – Republican and Democratic one. This division is clearly seen in the last presidential elections. Some believe that dialogue in American society has been replaced by ideological infighting. As Andrzej Bryk puts it, the polarization is so far gone that certain TV channels in the U.S. focus on persuading viewers to legalize narcotics and abortion while the others proclaim: “Jesus will save you”. Bernard Henri Levi, a French political scientist, lists those breakdowns caused by the lack of dialogue:
1: Religious fundamentalism
2: A resurgence of isolationism on both the right and left side of political scene.
3: A wave a nationalism resembling some of the worst aspects of European chauvinism.
4: A new conformity that threatens spontaneity and energy.
5: Individual spirit being weighed down by mass consumption.
6: Historical hyper-amnesia.
This “hyper-amnesia” traces back to the first American settlers, who - escaping from Europe - decided to start a new life in America. Leaving their past behind, full of creativeness and plans for the future they focused on creating a new society. This culturally creative amnesia, based on faith in one’s strengths, has unfortunately evolved over time into a divorce from the past, a reaffirmation of American greatness, a feeling of the superiority of America over other nations, and the belief that, as Rick Warren, an American pastor, puts it: “Only radicals have been able to change the world”.
A mixing of Christian thoughts with Marxism has led to a religious fundamentalism that has a potential for aggressiveness, which - if amalgamated with Messianism - may become dangerous. Harold Bloom believes that American religion is not set up to be a religion of peace; especially when the American identity has a tendency to define itself by war with what is different from it. “We already export the whole our culture everywhere, soon we will start to export our American religion. If Woodrow Wilson was right in saying that America is the spirit among the nations of the world, then the 21st Century will be a century of religious wars.” The Protestant ethos, which supports entrepreneurship and economical liberalism, is often criticized for its insensitiveness to problems arising from social inequality, and sometimes is even called a ‘post-Christian’ ethos.
America needs to notice these negative tendencies soon. It should abandon the blind belief in the perfection of its own ideas, and listen to Europe’s voice. American Christianity’s lack of cultural reflection could be overcome by following the example by European Catholicism. European Catholicism in turn would benefit from American methods of evangelization, which could be implemented in the Old World.
Willingness to evangelize, to spread American views, continues to have value, despite criticism accusing neoconservatives advocates of a forward American foreign policy of Trotskyism and Zionism. As long as neoconservatives have strong support from the business community and connections in influential public institutions such criticism will not undermine their position.
But neoconservative willingness to spread American values by force is dangerous and reveals itself in aggressive, unilateral actions. Doctrinal clarity and a Manichaean world view, seeing the world as a struggle between cosmic good and cosmic evil, allowed neoconservatives to create hard-line foreign policy that led to the intervention in the Middle East. By overthrowing Saddam Hussein the U.S. embarked on an imperial path, from which it cannot depart, because – as is put by sociologist Jadwiga Staniszkis – “The imperial logic of power does not tolerate neutral spheres. Not conquering an area within an empire’s sphere of interest may be interpreted as a sign of weakness.”
The essential correctness of American imperial logic should not be questioned, even if its methods are faulty. Many political scientists believe that the U.S. is repeating the situation of the 1960s. As in the Sixties, aggressive ‘hawks’ have gained undisputed power, and have gone from political moderation to extremism. The result of their Middle East policy may be Iraq becoming “the next Vietnam” and the Democrats taking over power. The current decrease of support for Bush’s policy seems to confirm such a scenario. As in the 1970’s, advocates of military action have come under fire for being guided by cold political calculation rather than true beliefs. Sophisticated methods of social persuasion and media manipulation have not convinced Americans that the intervention in Iraq is running smoothly or that it will bring any benefits in the near future. The German magazine Der Spiegel announced that “America is losing its status as a global empire. The United States will be unable to claim a position of moral correctness for many years. They unintentionally brought about the conflict of cultures with Europe. The great British leader Winston Churchill used to say that America has a habit of committing every possible mistake but making proper choices in the final outcome and in decisive matters. The first part of Churchill’s statement has been proven. The second has yet to be seen.
THE NEW PARTNERSHIP.
Both Europe and the U.S. are facing problems, which are often not noticed from within. Both should pay more attention to outside criticism, especially from representatives of different cultures. Reforms aiming at political rapprochement should be undertaken on both sides of the Atlantic to continue the historic partnership. Partnership is possible, despite differences, because the West as a whole still shares many common values. These values should be cultivated and spread by both the U.S. and EU to face the influx of competing values from different cultures brought on by globalization. The need for reform is great; but we need to set our priorities. Reform efforts should take into cultural and religious aspects as well as political factors.
As Robert Kagan notes, Europe supports the spread of political postmodernism, multilateralism and international law, beyond its borders more from weakness than from noble ideological motives. By evoking multilateralism and international law, Europeans gain practical benefits with little cost. A new approach to global politics should not uncritically adopt the American attitude that treats international law as merely a noble but unenforceable idea with no basis in reality. A new approach to geopolitics should be grounded in political realism and based on the principle that outside of Western civilization there exists a dangerous, Hobbesian world that does not view the peaceful postmodern state with enthusiasm.
In every alliance where one party is stronger, the stronger party tries to subordinate the weaker as a quid pro quo for protection. Europeans, after dealing discreditably with the intervention in Iraq, have realized that they cannot defend their continent without bearing the costs. The intervention in Iraq shocked Europe and made Europeans realize that economic power does not necessarily translate into military and political power. The logic of power politics shows that as long as Europe relies for security on her alliance with the U.S., she has to make concessions to American demands. If Europe wants to be able to influence the U.S. she has to have something on the table, and that is military power. Europe has both the means and the opportunity to become an empire, but to realize her aspirations Europe has to emulate the U.S. It must end its hostility toward religion; free its economy, which, if delayed, will only make the necessary reforms more painful; and reduce bureaucracy. Europe, because it is more diverse than the United States, needs a stronger bureaucracy to hold it together. But European elites should follow the Enlightenment tradition of harking back to Classical examples, and recall Tacitus, who warned that the more legislation and laws a country has, the more sick it is.
Europe does not need to copy the liberal American economic model. It should admit the failure of the kind of radical socialism, sometimes shading toward communism, which has paralyzed the European economy. Only after rejecting socialism and rethinking her identity, will Europe be able to increase its military power. This will allow a true and more equal partnership with the U.S. and a common approach to the rest of the world. That European elites have finally realized that today “Self-defense begins beyond the borders.”, allows us to be hopeful.
Americans in turn need to curb their unilateral ambitions. Neoconservatives should heed Reinhold Niebuhr, the ideological father of conservatism, who said that order should be imposed, even at the price of justice. But if justice is too often sacrificed to enforce order it becomes difficult to maintain. The first duty of the international community is to control chaos and create order. But the second task is also important and is tied in with the first. This task is to see to it that the power protecting the community does not become a tyranny. Nations, especially powerful ones, are often too proud to realize that their power is a threat to other nations. America finds herself torn between the twin dangers of irresponsibility and cynicism. Some Americans are willing to walk away from the responsibilities of power because they are afraid the United States might collapse under the strain. But Americans can also get lost in drum-beating chauvinism while cynically disregarding the responsibilities that come with power. We see this pattern clearly in the latter part of the 20th century: the left wing tending toward irresponsible isolationism, and the right wing more comfortable in wielding power and trying to transform the world scene.
The U.S. needs to utilize a bit of post-modernistic finesse in planning its long term foreign policy. Its superiority is far too great. Many countries find the U.S. intimidating and will combine against it. Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor to the President Jimmy Carter, warned against an aggressive foreign policy by evoking the biblical metaphor that a City on the Hill can not stand alone, overshadowing the world below it.
America does not have to overshadow the world. As Isaiah Berlin put it, power without limits or controls will tend to disregard its enemies. Every system of ideas, left unopposed, can become a self-absorbed, monistic ideology. This is what happened with secular European thought.
A similar situation is happening with neoconservative doctrine in the U.S. Conservatives do not need to waste time fighting the marginalized opposition within the United States. They can carry out their plans, backed by the great mass of public support created by the 9/11 trauma.
Although the idea of “changing of the world” is still supported by the American public, neoconservatives realize that if this is not presented to the public in an acceptable form, it will undermine public support and lead to political instability. Americans have long been fed on the notion that American national interests can be achieved without harming the interests of other nations. According to Wendt’s constructive theory of international reality, neoconservatives need to constantly cultivate this myth. Too many Americans cannot understand that as the U.S. gains power and prestige others feel their national pride and position threatened. When Americans are told this, their usual reaction is to reject the argument and seek another political option. Neoconservatives need to restrain their own aggressive reformism and improve their public image.
SUMMARY
The West needs a strong United States to survive, even though Bush’s doctrine draws on Machiavelli’s concept of virtu, fortuna and necessita, and assumes that war can be beneficial. The West also needs a strong Europe. Despite her present identity crisis brought on by ideological monism, Europe still can prove Edmund Burke wrong when he said that with the French Revolution the glory of Europe vanished forever. That glory may return, but only if Europe finds long term and not just temporary solutions to her internal problems.
The collapse of the West’s unity would mean a catastrophe. To avoid it, we must maintain the alliance between Europe and the U.S. The U.S. needs to utilize at least a bit of post-modernistic reasoning by accepting that, as Norman Davies puts it, one can not send soldiers against ideas. The U.S. also needs to understand that without Europe it will be impossible for the U.S. to secure world peace and carry on the heritage of the West on its own. Europeans in turn need to realize the consequences of Europe’s military weakness, the limits of political postmodernism, and understand the dangerous utopianism of trying to sustain a society in a spiritual vacuum.
Grzegorz Lewicki
* You can discuss this article with the author at the following address.
----------------------
Author of the article is a M.A. candidate in European Studies at Universiteit Maastricht in the Netherlands. He holds B.Sc. in International Relations from Tischner European University in Krakow, Poland. He presently works as a political scientist and journalist. His interest are in philosophy of history, world’s religions and American conservatism.
---------------------- |
|
