Al Qaeda and what it means to be modern
Read this book a few weeks back by John Gray (of the Straw Dogs fame) and have been meaning to write a post on it since. The title of the book gives you a pretty good idea of what its supposed to be about and the back cover blurb gives a fairly detailed description;
”… as we become modern, we will become more reasonable. Nothing could be further from the truth… Al Qaeda is a product of modernity and of globalisation and it will not be the last group to use the products of the modern world in its own monstrous way.”
It’s a pity the book fails to live up to its own title and idea however. It does have many positives; its short (119 pages, 145 if you count the references and index), its easy enough to read because the chapters are fairly short and Gray’s writing style isn’t that bad, if perhaps a bit too academic.
But what exactly does he talk about? While the title and blurb would indicate that this would be a discussion on how Al Qaeda uses modern technology and media to both spread its message and commit attacks and how this is descended from similar groups like the Anarchists of the early 1900’s who did the same thing thats not the case. Yes, these things are studied, but Gray spends the bulk of the book on a philosophical discussion on what the word ‘modern’ actually means.
Which isn’t all bad in fairness. The opening chapter (and probably the best) ‘what Al Qaeda destroyed’ talks about how 9/11 was a blow against the idea that as the world develops we’ll all become more alike (’more modern’ in the parlance of the book) and how the idea that Al Qaeda is ‘medieval’ is a complete misnomer - having nothing to do with the facts and trying to diminish the links Al Qaeda has with the like of the Anarchists or Enlightenment thinkers. He draws very good links between the like of the positivist thinkers - who believed that you can ‘make’ the world the way you want it and Al Qaeda’s desire to make the world a ‘Muslim one’.
The problem is that shortly after this in the book, the author moves away from this talk to an extent. Instead he focuses on philosophical arguments about ‘where’ exactly these thinkers connect. While parts of this are interesting - the idea that Al Qaeda is a ‘Christian world’ creation based on the observation that only Abrahamic religions believe there is a purpose to history driving events and how similar behavior can be ascribed to modern Muslim fanatics being a good example.
There are many elements of Gray’s arguments that I just find hard to believe - mainly because he seems to be somewhat of a relativist. I’m not too sure why I get this feeling - going back on the book I can’t find a passage where he identifies himself as such but he seems to rubbish all ideas of ‘how the world should be’ - economic, scientific and religious. Now given that they are the main ways that the world has been organised, what else is there?
But again, the main flaw in the book has to be its focus on people who even in their own time were ignored - he spends nearly a chapter on a group of French Positivists from the 1850’s to whom he seems to attribute the Holocaust, Nazism and a number of other horrors.
However, despite these flaws, there are some great insights - his argument as to why the United States cannot continue as a global power is interesting - (basically, their economy is dependent on foreign investment, this allows their military might, once the foreign investors lose faith in the US a power they will pull out their money and voila! No more US ability to wage war)…
Towards the end of the book he does come back to the main idea of terrorism - and his basic idea is that Al Qaeda cannot be defeated. It is not an army and it has no center (despite the literal meaning of the name). Essentially, it will die once the majority of its number lose faith or join other causes. In many ways it is a phantom and no more substantial for that.
Anyway, for its size and if you are interested in this topic this is not a bad place to begin. Just don’t pay too much attention to the back cover blurb.