James Hitchcock has a truly remarkable editorial in the latest Touchstone which asks a penetrating question: can traditional societies survive the power of modernity? He writes,
A closed traditional society finds it almost impossible to effect an orderly and controlled transition to modernity. Religion dominates all aspects of life to the extent that no distinction is made between matters of faith and mere custom. . . .Thus, it proves psychologically impossible to discard those things in traditional society that have outlived their legitimacy without thereby setting off global change. The changing culture fosters a half-conscious conviction that truth lies roughly in asserting the opposite of what one previously believed. Changes cannot be evaluated rationally, because people are carried along by a euphoric sense of having liberated themselves from long-standing, narrow oppressiveness.Modern society offers an opportunity to exercise freedom in the fullest sense, an exercise that exposes the facts that what passes for deep conviction may be for many people merely a brittle social conformity, and what passes for morality may be the mere absence of opportunities for sin.Muslims who see the United States as the Great Satan reject the good of political liberty along with the poisonous moral licentiousness that such liberty permits. They perceive the ambiguity of modernity itself, most of which either originated in the United States or has been propagated through American influence.But for that very reason the antibodies to modern cultural viruses also exist most robustly in the United States, which is practically the only society in the Western world where moral traditionalists have an effective voice in public affairs.Religious belief is stronger in America than anywhere else in the West partly because believers have had to find ways of living their faith without the kind of social supports that, historically, were provided in countries with established churches.
This is an interesting explanation for America’s unusual religious culture, and one that makes a great deal of sense; but if he’s right to suggest that “the forces of modernity—political, economic, and cultural—really are irresistible and that sooner or later almost every society in the world will have to face them,” then the implications of his argument must be faced as well, because they are of great significance. As he says,
If that assumption is correct, it is better to experience modernity sooner rather than later, in order to make use of what is good in it and to learn to cope with what is bad. Simple quarantine is no longer possible. . . .Both for societies and for individuals, our cultural situation is tragic in the classical sense, because it requires decisions none of which are free of possible bad consequences. Maintaining a rigorously closed society may protect generations of people from the worst evils of modernity, even as it virtually guarantees that later generations will be infected all the more virulently. But alternatively, allowing people a good measure of freedom inevitably leads to abuse.
While, from a Christian perspective, one may well call the consequences of this situation for the church tragic, there is a silver lining as well: if Hitchcock’s overall thesis is correct, then that applies not only to Christian societies but also to Muslim societies as well. This suggests that while traditionalist Islamic societies will no doubt succeed in resisting modernity for some time—which is, I believe, the driving concern behind the rise of Islamism in its various forms, including its most virulent strain, jihadism—they cannot resist forever; eventually, the Islamic world will see its own version of Quebec’s “Silent Revolution,” and the collapse of radical Islam, leaving much of the Islamic world looking much like the once-Christian nations of western Europe. This offers hope that, in our conflict with militant Islam as with the Cold War against global communism, if we will stand strong and not surrender, we will see a Berlin Wall moment.
This cultural conflict between militant Americanism and militant Islam is interesting, to me, because of its difference from the Cold War. The Cold War was empire versus empire; it was a clean contest of brute power, and America will always win those.
This is different. It is empire versus insurgency – our usual recourse to brute force will not avail us at all. It boils down to a battle of ideas – really, as I see it, multiple interrelated battles of multiple ideas. What this means is that our ideas will have to actually be better. More importantly, our lives will actually have to be preferable – or we will never, ever win.
If our ideas and lives are in fact better, then the truth will out, will it not? But if the cost of our way of life is greater than the benefit, then we won’t “win”.
My bet is this – something will emerge from the conflict which is better than either option, better than militant Americanism, better than militant Islam. That’s the hope anyway.
I really think there’s very little difference on that score, aside from the fact that the Islamic world is governmentally decentralized to a greater degree. The Cold War was just as much a battle of ideas; we didn’t win the brute-power war, but we won the ideological war when the ideology of communism ultimately failed to keep up.
Where there is a difference is in the differing mindset of Islamic leaders as opposed to Communist leaders as regards deterrence–MAD would never have worked, and will never work, against the likes of Ahmadinejad. I do think, though, that Iraq and Gaza have proven that actually beating these folks in combat does have a deterrent effect–when it comes to actual fighting, they don’t measure up to their rhetoric.
As for something better emerging from the conflict–I’m certainly in agreement that America can and needs to be better than it is; but I’m not sanguine about that happening as a result of this, I’m afraid. That, I think, will take something different (probably a direct and widespread move of the Holy Spirit).