Iakov Levi
On Narrative Historians: Bernard Lewis and the
Misunderstanding of Human Motivations
I quote from the article:
in an exclusive interview with the 'Post,' renowned Arabist Bernard Lewis likens what he calls the 'monstrous
perversion of Islam' to the evils of Nazism and Bolshevism - and says that
where it leads will depend on how the West responds to it […]
Indeed, Lewis's passion for medieval Arabic texts and respect for what
he calls "one of the great religions" has not prevented him from
being a caustic critic of radicalization among modern Muslims. On the contrary,
if anything, his erudition has led him to assert unequivocally that the
extremists have perverted their own traditions beyond recognition.
Still, says Lewis, "there are hopeful signs" indicating
movement toward change. He cites, for example, his Jordanian friends' reaction
to watching Israeli television and seeing Arab Knesset members openly attack
the government with impunity. They are at once shocked and envious. Freedom
tends to have that effect on those who do not enjoy it. Which is why, Lewis
explains, "one of the things that even the most
oppressive regimes cannot cope with today is modern communications - the
Internet and so on. People know things now in a way and to an extent that were
inconceivable in earlier times. They know, for example, how bad things are in
their societies, because they see the contrast with the West. And there are
more and more people interested in creating open societies."
First on envy.
Bernard Lewis’ Jordanian friend is envious watching Israeli television. However, envy never triggers a positive and constructive behavior. As Melanie Klein has shown, envy triggers a destructive reaction toward the envy’s object. We all have seen once in a while how frustrated children destroy the toys with which they were supposed to play.
Confronted with the impossibility of reaching the object – due to external or internal inhibitions - the frustration triggers a regression to the oral sadistic stage of psycho – sexual evolution, in which the craved object is introjected and destroyed.
Furthermore, if the “renowned Arabist’s”
analysis were correct, we should ask why - then - the most ferocious
radicalizations of the Islamic world occurred in modern times, when Muslims
were firstly exposed to “modern communications - the Internet and so on”. Why now, in our time of open
societies and open communications, the psychosis of martyrdom and suicide
exploded to such an unprecedented virulence and extent. And concomitantly to “People know things now in a way and to an extent that
were inconceivable in earlier times.”
As long as
Islamic societies were closed and were not exposed to the West’s ways, they
were in an abandoned mood peculiar to the depressive position. Active and
militant suicide was triggered by the exposure to the West and its open
society. A continuation of such an exposure may only exacerbate the
situation and not cure it. If anything, the only cure might be in cutting
them off from every contact with the West, especially the Internet and
other means of modern communication.
For hundreds of years, and in concomitance with the
regression to the depressive position, women had been segregated and secluded
with the aim of castigating men’s lust, and preventing it from emerging from
the repression. It is no accident, that in periods of success, as in the first Omayyad
generations, there was also a relaxation in the Puritan relation to women and
in iconoclastic fury, and Islam, at the beginning, had been a relatively
tolerant religion. The more they were successful, as in
Then over the last forty years two things happened: 1) There was a sexual
revolution in the West, and then 2) a huge
advance in media’s technology, beginning with television and eventually the
Internet, and these both brought an unlimited diffusion of images and ways of
life. As we use to say: "the world became a small village".
From the late sixties on, mini skirts, bare female bodies, free sexual
relations became familiar, and inundated the media of the western world. Today,
one cannot even turn on a computer, without been assaulted by nude advertising.
At this point, covering Islamic women and preventing westerners from physically
entering
As in every schizoid - paranoid position, subject and object are one. Through
suicide, the introjected Father is definitely killed
and appeased in the same condensation. Being one in the father, in the ultimate
Communio of the maternal - paternal womb,
definitely solves the unsolvable deprivation of paternal love.
The most common mistake that historians and sociologists do is to project into the group they analyze their own personal or cultural agenda. Westerners - confronted with an open society - would react in the way supposed by Bernard Lewis. However, Muslims are not motivated by the same Ego resolution as westerners are.
Cultures differ from each other not by the basic instinctual needs of the group (the Id), but by the Ego resolutions they adopt when confronted with similar conflicts. Attributing to others our own existential resolutions is a very big mistake.
The problem is that understanding the real motivations of others implies also the realization of the impossibility of changing and resolving them. And journalists, historians and sociologists are paid to offer resolutions. And to offer only those resolutions which are palatable to their audience.
The West assumes that Muslims are interested in prosperity and economic success, like themselves. Therefore, they assume that the source of Islamic terror is to be searched in economic and social backwardness. Appeasing and trying to advance them is the alleged resolution!
In the same way, the Israelis want peace and economic prosperity. Therefore, they assume that the Palestinians are motivated by the same existential agenda. Big mistake! Confronted by the challenge, the answers are always the wrong ones.
The result is bloodshed and misery.