Yet More Theories on the Left and Islam

Here, here, and here I have been listing theories explaining the strange alliance of leftists with Muslims, who are often far to the right. Here are two new theories:

13. The Cognitive-Egocentrist theory: This is the theory of Richard Landes at Augean Stables. Ages ago I bookmarked his site, but generally I haven’t had the time to explore it because there’s always so much to do. But in this post he describes the leftist mindset as one of cognitive egocentrism, in which leftists project their own views and values onto others. Specifically, leftists come from cultures in which people have agreed not to dominate, cultures in which one is nice assuming that others will be nice in return. Meanwhile, the people they champion come from “Prime divider” societies, in which the rule is “rule or be ruled” or “do onto others before they do onto you.” (I have myself pointed this out in passing, using the phrase “oppress or be oppressed.” See here.) Anyway, the problem is that leftists don’t understand such cultures and assume that talk by what he calls “demopaths” – that is, people from Prime divider cultures who have figured out how to dupe liberals and leftists – shows that they have the same values.

I’m going to use my own example here, one I’ve thought about but haven't mentioned yet. One can hate American imperialism for two reasons: because one hates imperialism of all kinds or because one thinks that America doesn't, while one's own country does, have the right to be an imperialist. Liberals and leftists hate American imperialism for the first reason, while Islamofascists hate it for the second reason. Many of us can easily see this, but for some reason most liberals and leftists today cannot.

14. The Different-Leftist-Milieus theory: This theory says that liberals and leftists come from different milieus, and that what seems horrible and anti-leftist in one milieu can seem quite progressive in another milieu. This was brought home to me a few weeks ago when Julian Assange’s possible extradition was in the news. Although he seemed to fit in well with the left in some ways, in other ways he seemed very far from leftist culture. Then Michael Moore stepped in to defend him, and once again, Moore seemed pretty far from at least one part of leftist culture (namely, the feminist part). And most recently we’ve had Nir Rosen putting his foot in his mouth about the sexual assault of Lara Logan.

I concluded that what these incidents meant is that there are different leftist milieus each of which adheres to leftist values while ranking them in different ways. The milieu I was once part of was strongly feminist, and to a lesser extent, strongly in favor of gay liberation. In such a milieu, the statements of Moore and Rosen (and the behavior of Assange) would be unthinkable for any liberal or leftist. Since they did make these statements, they are obviously part of a different milieu than I was, one that was very weak on feminism.

I remember that years ago when Noam Chomsky came to my university to give a talk, some feminists I knew were disappointed that he seemed to care not at all about feminism. I believe they had some kind of talk with him and came away satisfied, though in a subsequent talk, he bent hardly at all in their direction. He is someone whose political views were shaped before the radical feminists came along, and he apparently sees no reason for changing. Nearly every one of his books on political matters are about America’s or Israel’s foreign policies. A few are about class and the power of the media, but in the list of his books I see nothing on feminism, gay liberation, or for that matter, the unemployed in academia.

Similarly, Edward Said’s basic concerns were the Palestinians and the Islamic world generally and how it has suffered under Western imperialism, seasoned with a little bit on literature. Again, there is nothing in the list of his books - and I'll admit that I've read only his Orientalism - that focused on the plight of women or gays or apostates among the Palestinians or in the Islamic world.

So I’m guessing that the leftists who have basically forged the alliance with Muslims and who don’t care that many of them are much more sexist and homophobic than conservatives in the West come from a milieu where feminism and gay liberation had hardly any importance at all.

The question then switches from why people who care so much about feminism and gay liberation would make such an alliance – because it’s clear now that they don't care very much – to why do those people who do care about feminism and gay liberation go along with it. And to some extent they don’t. People like Bruce Bawer and Phyllis Chesler are both against it. (Both speak from personal experience.) Recently, I reported on an exchange in the Guardian in which one commenter accused another of Islamophobia, whereupon the other replied, “Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t realise I wasn’t allowed to support secularism, liberalism, women’s rights, gay rights, free speech and real religious freedom inclusive of atheism and agnosticism. Silly me I thought this was the Guardian.” In addition, I' heard that when the former mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, invited a Muslim known to be sexist and homophobic to London, there were some leftists protesting this. And finally, when the Swiss voted against minarets a few months ago, there were reports that feminists were some of those voting against them. So, there are pockets of resistance out there.

Still, what now needs to be explained is why those who come from a milieu similar to mine aren’t more resistant. Many of them just go along. Why? Probably, one of the other theories already mentioned will work for each individual leftist. Also, the language that is used by the leftists forging this alliance is similar to what they’ve been hearing all their lives: the U.S. is evil, the conservatives are evil, it’s nice to be nice to foreign cultures, and so on. Add to that a media that is willing to overlook all the sins of those other cultures, and it’s easy to see why even the most radical of feminists will not only go along, but occasionally go so far as to imagine that the most reactionary of Muslims share their feminist goals.

One strange thing about this theory is that what it presumes is that among those people who are egalitarian there is inequality, that among those who hate hierarchies a hierarchy has emerged. The people who favor supporting the sexists, homophobes and anti-secularists are on top, while feminists and the others are on the bottom. This phenomenon, of course, is grist for the mill of those who aren’t egalitarian, and it ought to be a problem waiting to be solved by egalitarians, though as far as I know, no one has noticed it besides me.

Anyway, just for convenience, here are all the theories:

1. The Stuck-in-the-Sixties theory.
2. The Contrarian theory.
3. The Oppressors-and-Oppressed theory.
4. The Unity-of-the-Causes theory.
5. The We-Are-Guilty theory.
6. The Near-Enemy-vs.-the-Far-Enemy theory.
7. The Eventually-We’ll-Be-Proved-Right theory.
8. The Leftists-Are-Weenies theory.
9. The Right-Controls-Everything theory.
10. The They-Aren’t-Really-Muslims theory.
11. The We-Don’t-Want-To-Admit-That-We’re-Wrong theory.
12. The America-Is-Always-the-Bad-Guy theory.
13. The Cognitive-Egocentrism theory.
14. The Different-Leftist-Milieus theory.

Comments

[Salem]

Do you really think that the Islamic world is far to the right in Western terms? Socially, I guess (although even here the comparison is stretched), but economically, no way. The signature issue that holds the right together is paying at least lip-service to the free market.

How about this theory (I don't know how it fits into your existing ones): leftism won in most of the Middle East in the post-colonial period. But western leftists can't bring themselves to support the supposedly leftist regimes in the Middle East (eg Mubarak), because they're so awful and obviously broken. As the left are generally optimistic about the possibilities of revolution, they therefore support any rising movement in the Middle East, which just so happens to be Islamism atm. And when there are leftist challenges to a sitting Islamist state (as in Iran) the left support that too.

I call it the Eternal Optimist Theory, but I think it needs to be married with the White Man's Burden Theory, which is obviously a part of the explanation.

[Ben Landon]

Salem,

The Left is not saying much of anything about Libya. They seem to be supporting revolution in Egypt but not in Libya. In addition, they are more than willing to criticize Saudi Arabia, but don't seem the least bit interested in criticizing Syria or Iran. I do not think your proposed theory takes into account that Leftists appear to be much more critical of the USA's allies than of its enemies.

[John Pepple]

Salem: I would agree with Ben Landon about the varying support among leftists for different regimes in the Muslim world. The idea seems to be that if a regime is not supported by America, then it is “authentic” and must be supported by the left; otherwise, it should be opposed.

And why do you say that even socially these countries aren’t so far to the right? Saudi Arabia, at least, is about as far to the right as you can get, if you are thinking in feminist terms. In north Africa, there is female genital mutilation. In Egypt, nearly every woman wears a headscarf, which wasn’t true a couple decades ago, and I assume this is the influence of religious conservatives. Plus, I was told they don’t even understand atheism. Everyone is either Muslim, Christian, or Jewish. This is very far from the secularist West.

As for the left’s refusal to support the economically unfree countries of the Muslim world, keep in mind that I’m also puzzled by the total lack of interest among leftists in what is going on in Europe among the immigrants. One would think that a huge army of conservatives moving into town would bother the left, but that hasn’t happened yet.

Think about it reversed. Just imagine if pro-life people invited a bunch of immigrants in who were known to be strongly pro-choice. The pro-life people kept pushing against abortion, and when it was pointed out to them that they were undercutting their own position by inviting these immigrants in, the answers given were unconvincing (“Our homegrown pro-choice people are worse,” “They have the right to their own culture,” “You’re just prejudiced against them,” etc.).

Ok, let’s assume you’re right, though, that the Muslim countries aren’t very far to the right, or more likely, that the left doesn’t for some reason see them this way. I think this would fall under the They-Aren’t-Really-Muslims theory, or rather a variant of it that simply doesn’t acknowledge how far to the right they are socially.