The Origins of Occidentalism

When the West is under attack, as it was on September 11, it is often assumed — not only in America — that the West means the United States. This goes for those on the left, who believe that U.S. foreign policy (or "imperialism") and U.S. corporate power (or "globalization") have brought the suicide bombers and holy warriors upon America by marginalizing and bullying the millions of people who have failed to benefit from the capitalist world order. But it also goes for conservatives, who think that Islamist radicalism, like Communism before, is an attack on "our values," that is, on the "American way of life."

There is some truth to those claims. The worldwide reach of Wall Street, Hollywood, and the U.S. armed forces invites resentment. And to the extent that those institutions represent the American way of life, they are indeed targets of the Islamist jihad. It is also true that U.S. foreign policy can be misguided, even brutal. And global capitalism can do a great deal of damage as well as good. Finally, the United States, as the only Western superpower, has indeed come to stand for the West as a whole. And countries, such as Israel, that are looked upon as U.S. proxies provoke violent hostility for that reason alone.

However, the kind of violence currently directed at targets associated with the West, from the World Trade Center to a discothèque in Bali, is not just about the United States. Nor can it be reduced to global economics. Even those who have good reason to blame their poverty on harsh forms of U.S.-backed capitalism do not normally blow themselves up in public places to kill the maximum number of unarmed civilians. We do not hear of suicide bombers from the slums of Rio or Bangkok.

Something else is going on, which my co-author, Avishai Margalit, and I call Occidentalism (the title of our new book): a war against a particular idea of the West, which is neither new nor unique to Islamist extremism. The current jihadis see the West as something less than human, to be destroyed, as though it were a cancer. This idea has historical roots that long precede any form of "U.S. imperialism." Similar hostility, though not always as lethal, has been directed in the past against Britain and France as much as against America. What, then, is the Occidentalist idea of the West?

Clearly, the idea of the West as a malign force is not some Eastern or Middle Eastern idea, but has deep roots in European soil. Defining it in historical terms is not a simple matter. Occidentalism was part of the counter-Enlightenment, to be sure, but also of the reaction against industrialization. Some Marxists have been attracted to it, but so, of course, have their enemies on the far right. Occidentalism is a revolt against rationalism (the cold, mechanical West, the machine civilization) and secularism, but also against individualism. European colonialism provoked Occidentalism, and so does global capitalism today. But one can speak of Occidentalism only when the revolt against the West becomes a form of pure destruction, when the West is depicted as less than human, when rebellion means murder.

It is odd that the author would name the war against Western values Occidentalism, as the name suggests the opposite. But I don't think we're dealing with deep thinking here, as the following quote suggests:

Humiliation can easily turn into a cult of the pure and the authentic. Among the most resented attributes of the hated Occident are its claims to universalism. Christianity is a universalist faith, but so is the Enlightenment belief in reason. Napoleon was a universalist who believed in a common civil code for all his conquered subjects. The conviction that the United States represents universal values and has the God-given duty to spread democracy in the benighted world belongs to the same universalist tradition. Some of these values may indeed be universal. One would like to think that all people could benefit from democracy or the use of reason. The Code Napoleon brought many benefits. But when universal solutions are imposed by force, or when people feel threatened or humiliated or unable to compete with the powers that promote such solutions, that is when we see the dangerous retreat into dreams of purity.

Now this article is an anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war rant. But they mistake their own liberal views with those of traditional Western values. It is the liberals that wish to impose their socialist, feminist, and environmentalist stances on all societies. We conservatives were quite content to allow Afghanistan to wallow in its 6th century social relations, right up to the point they aided terrorists in the slaughter of our citizens. It was NOT the imposition of Occidental values that pushed the Taliban to aid al Qaeda--it was the inherent logic of their fascist ideology. Is it good that Afghan society has been "democratized"? Yes, but we would prefer it evolve as the logical extension of the desire of the people. No Western nation should ever say, another nation MUST adopt our ways. Trade and social exchange of other kinds will inevitably lead to such desires. We have no need to impose our values.

"It is odd that the author would name the war against Western values Occidentalism, as the name suggests the opposite."

Perhaps, but it picks up on the title of Edward Said's book, Orientalism, which was not so much a defense of a general idea of the Near East as a critique of the stereotypical idea of the Near East as a collected thing, the Orient, as expressed by writers and thinkers in Europe and North America.

So in this vein, chosing the name "Occidentalism" is actually quite apt, for the authors seem to be critiquing the midguided stereotype of the radical Islamicists that there is such a collected thing as "the West" that once identified ought to be destroyed. The reality is, of course, that there is no "West" or "East" but a multitude of places, each quite culturally diverse.

I understand your point about Said's equally odd nomenclature. Given their liberal penchant, I'd have thought they might use "Occidentaphobia". Also, I would argue that there is such thing as a "Western" ethos. God knows, the multiculturalists are certainly railing against something. Among other things this ethos includes political liberalism (in the classic sense), a central role for private enterprise in the economy, a high regard for education and science, a rule of law, and a separation of political power from other cultural institutions (including religious or ethnic). Now, not all people in the West agree with these points, but in general they are regarded as the ideals to aim for. And, of course, many nations around the world have adopted this "Westernaphile" view--some perhaps as the result of colonialism, but also because if offers the best hope for a better life in their own societies.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.