BT Review: Terror and Liberalism

Terror and Liberalism, by Paul Berman (2003) (Publisher: WW Norton)

I finished this book a couple of weeks ago and I've been trying to figure out how I feel about it ever since - which is a good sign, I think: any book that poses questions which actively stay with you past the turning of the last page has something going for it.  I also have to confess a certain fondness for the book which arises from personal nostalgia: reading Berman reminded me of nothing so much as readings from my time as a philosophy undergraduate.  The book attempts to be an intellectual history of a totalitarian strain in Islamist theology (derived from the writings of Sayyid Qutb), and an argument for why and how liberals (in the American political sense of the term, i.e., let's call them "left-of-centre") should be opposed to said strain.  Since many only seem capable of reading books like this through the prism of Iraq, in the final chapter Berman expresses at least a skepticism, shading into opposition, with regards to that war - which is somewhat odd, since I could have sworn he was at least mildly in favour on liberal interventionist grounds.  But my tone in the first part of the preceding sentence should betray the fact that I think the book is best appreciated without reference to Iraq whatsoever.

There are two primary failings which inform an assessment of this book.  While both are, at first glance, stylistic quibbles, they ultimately have a substantive impact.  The first is the disservice done to the book by its title - this really isn't about "terror" per se, rather it is about the intellectual framework(s) which enable an individual to engage in acts of political terror (and Berman engages in a nice bit of historiography and literary analysis in tracing instances of political terror, from pre-Revolutionary Russia to Progressive America to the modern Middle East).  Since at least some will take the position that it is precisely the conflation of a political tactic with an enemy to be defeated that is at the root of the current strategic and military situation in which the United States (and, writ large, the West) finds itself, they may be inclined to dismiss the book simply based on the title - which would be a shame.

The second problem is the lack of footnoting.  Berman engages in a close reading of Qutb's Milestones, as well as critiques of a number of other writings (including Noam Chomsky's 9-11) - without once providing a citation.  He includes a bibliography, but it would have been nice, and in a book which is based on the posing of an intellectual challenge to dangerous ideologies, is frankly critical, to have been provided with citations so that readers can determine for themselves whether Berman's interpretations are fair or accurate.

Even given those considerations, however, Berman has written a bracing tour of totalitarian tendencies, from fascism through Naziism, communism and radical Islamism.  In addition, it is a call to arms - though that phrase does Berman a disservice, since he calls expressly for an avoidance of military action.  In his characterization, what is occurring on the world stage is a struggle between ideas (not cultures) and the only manner in which to win such a struggle is by making the attraction of your set of ideas apparent - and in Berman's account, the idea(l)s of tolerance, liberal democracy, freedom of religion, expression and association will eventually win out.  That's not to say that Berman is a pacifist - Berman foresees occasions which will warrant for military action (dislodging the Taliban from Afghanistan was one of them), but Iraq seems not to have qualified.  He calls for a cultural engagement and tactical battles - the archetypal tactic which he references is the support which Western trade unions provided to dissidents and democratic movements behind the Iron Curtain (where, it will be remembered, trade unions were illegal).

One final comment: some of Berman's analysis in the penultimate (or final, I don't have my copy of the book in front of me) chapter is so boilerplate that it calls into question the veracity of his earlier discussion (which is why footnotes would have been nice) - to take a simple example, in his re-telling of the lead-up to the toppling of Saddam Hussein he remarks that it was (I paraphrase) "obvious to everyone" that if the Bush administration had simply spent more time on diplomatic efforts, it could have convinced the French and the Russians to come around and join in the invasion.  The notion is, frankly, bizarre.  And it's not the only slip - but perhaps after spending so much time pointing out uncomfortable truths to his political allies (his description of the reaction to the events in Jenin is worth the price of admission alone) he can be accorded a bit of wiggle room.

Grade: A-

Recommendation: Buy

Comments

[Ian Scott]

Might be an interesting book. This struck me as "interesting:"

"The book attempts to be an intellectual history of a totalitarian strain in Islamist theology (derived from the writings of Sayyid Qutb), and an argument for why and how liberals (in the American political sense of the term, i.e., let's call them "left-of-centre") should be opposed to said strain."

Boy, does that need more explanation!

As a "classical liberal," sure - I'm opposed to such "strains" as well - but being opposed to such a strain doesn't logically follow that I'd support going off to battle to fight those strains in other countries.

There are already "totalitarian" strains of Conservatism right here, that affect me personally that are worth fighting against, however (for me).

The illogical "War On Drugs" is totalitarian, for example - and personally costs me moolah while others decide to carry it on.

Being "opposed" to some "strain" of something or other does not mean that "support" for whatever means is used by others to fight it should be expected.

Another example:

I'm sure MANY liberals (American and otherwise) find the the "cultural strain" of some to mutilate female genetilia abhorrent. But funny, isn't it.. mutilating male genitalia as done by some cultural strains is.. well... more "acceptable" by some "strains" of both "liberals" and "conservatives."

So what?

[Dave]

Sayyid Qutb

As one who has followed the blog world on its views of Sayyid Qutb, your discussion of him and your take on this character is interesting. You may be interested in visiting and contributing to a blog that explores the totality of Qutb and Islam in the form of considered essays.
http://anti-sayyid-qutb.blogspot.com/

Enjoy

Dave