Facilitate the power of love - confront the love of power

Sat, 25 Sep 2004

The nth Crusade

Part of the intention of this inquiry is to be able to juxtapose items that might not usually seem related but which appear to support the notion that domination is ubiquitous, threaded through the grain of the time. So that the connections, once seen, increase the chances we can make a move from bullying and coercion to love and cooperation.

A nearby church is flying the Crusader flag of St George, again, the last time was during the world cup.

Curious at a time when Islam is in the news so often and for so many different reasons that the Crusader flag should have come to occupy so much public attention.

Crusader flag over church

It's not as though many of the thousands of football fans are likely to have any conscious understanding of the history that their nationalist emblem carries but perhaps they understand unconsciously that, both in the tribal world of 12th Century European warlordism that spawned the Crusades, and the domesticated versions of it that soccer embodies, the Crusader flag remains an emblem of 'us' and 'them' dominance, of overcoming the infidel, the 'other', the foreigner.

More on that later.

Purposeful forgetting

P. sent me a cutting from the Daily Mail (p15 Sept 21 2004) that she thought I ought to see. In an article entitled 'Iraq: Is Tony away with the fairies?', Steve Glover points to Blair's 'Messiah complex' quoting his 2001 Labour conference speech that referred to the Congo and Rwanda.

'This is the moment to seize. The kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle down again. Before they do let us reorder the world around us'

Headline: Order this World

I was reminded of another image from another century. How easily the lessons of history can be forgotten.

Pitt and Napoleon carve up World Gilray: The Plum Pudding in Danger - Pitt and Napoleon carve up the world

This historicity, forgetting or passing over, or simply being ignorant of the inconveniently horrible aspects of how the the present distribution of power in western society came into being does appear to be part of the entrancing stories that dominant elites tell. For example I have tended to see the US as a late-comer to, or even outside imperial ambition. Leaving aside the Roman antecedents, France, Britain, Germany, Holland, Spain and Portugal (did I miss anybody?) showed the way. And the US, leaving aside the Chilean intervention; it's Cuban conspiranoia and the Vietnam adventure, appeared to have clean(ish) hands.

Not so.

John B. Judis in Imperial Amnesia in the July/August issue of Foreign Policy details the chequered history of US imperialism and shows how the amnesic trance quality of the recent actions of the US administration belong to a long-standing US tradition that combines the use of force and evangelism. I'll pull a quote or two here but do read the whole text.

The Philipines
As Judis recounts, George Bush made a speech to the Philipine Congress on October 20 2003 that credited the US with transforming the Philipines into a democracy:

“America is proud of its part in the great story of the Filipino people,” said Bush. “Together our soldiers liberated the Philippines from colonial rule.”

As many Philippine commentators remarked afterward, Bush's rendition of Philippine-American history bore little relation to fact. True, the U.S. Navy ousted Spain from the Philippines in the Spanish-American War of 1898. But instead of creating a Philippine democracy, the McKinley administration, its confidence inflated by victory in that “splendid little war,” annexed the country and installed a colonial administrator. The United States then waged a brutal war against the same Philippine independence movement it encouraged to fight against Spain. The war dragged on for 14 years. Before it ended, about 120,000 U.S. troops were deployed, more than 4,000 were killed, and more than 200,000 Filipino civilians and soldiers were killed. Resentment lingered a century later during Bush's visit.

Judis goes from this echo of current events in Afghanistan and Iraq to outline the historical context for it. He calls it Divine Interventionism. At the end of the 19th century...

... by taking over parts of the Spanish empire, the United States became the kind of imperial power it once denounced. It was now vying with Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and Japan for what future U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt called “the domination of the world.”

There was active American interest in standing tall as a military power and a need to find someplace for US capital to find a home...

But proponents of imperialism, including Protestant missionaries, also viewed overseas expansion through the prism of the country's evangelical tradition. Through annexation, they insisted, the United States would transform other nations into communities that shared America's political and social values and also its religious beliefs. “Territory sometimes comes to us when we go to war in a holy cause,” U.S. President William McKinley said of the Philippines in October 1900, “and whenever it does the banner of liberty will float over it and bring, I trust, the blessings and benefits to all people.”

This belief, as Judis explains, was at the heart of the US establisment. Woodrow Wilson, later president of Princeton University and President of the US, defended the annexation of the Philipines in 1901...

“The East is to be opened and transformed, whether we will or no; the standards of the West are to be imposed upon it; nations and peoples which have stood still the centuries through are to be quickened and to be made part of the universal world of commerce and of ideas which has so steadily been a-making by the advance of European power from age to age.”

...the imperialists of the 1890s believed the United States could create an empire that would eventually dwarf the rival European empires. The difference would be that America's empire would reflect its own special values. Indiana Sen. Albert Beveridge and the Protestant missionaries advocated “the imperialism of righteousness.” God, Beveridge contended, has made “the English-speaking and Teutonic peoples . . . . master organizers of the world. . . . He has made us adept in government that we may administer government among the savage and senile peoples. Were it not for such a force as this the world would relapse into barbarism and night. And of all our race He has marked the American people as His chosen nation to finally lead in the regeneration of the world.”

As Judis outlines, by the early years of the 20th century, this notion of American empire had faded and President Woodrow Wilson had moderated the vision in favour of dismantling imperialism... the United States proved barely capable of retaining its hold over the Philippines. Wilson didn't merely change U.S. foreign policy; he changed its underlying millennial framework. Like Beveridge, he believed the United States was destined to create the Kingdom of God on Earth by actively transforming the world. But Wilson didn't believe it could be done through a U.S. imperium. America's special role would consist in creating a community of power that would dismantle the structure of imperialism and lay the basis for a pacific, prosperous international system. Wilson's vision earned the support not only of Americans but of peoples around the world.

The only way to prevent future war, Wilson concluded, was to dismantle the colonial structure itself. His plan included self-determination for former colonies, international arms reduction, an open trading system to discourage economic imperialism, and a commitment to collective security through international organizations, what is now sometimes referred to as multilateralism.

Sadly two World Wars, a Cold war and countless local armed conflicts intervened to sideline this version of democracy as practice rather than fig leaf.

As the 21st century dawned, the neoconservatives adopted Wilson's vision of global democracy, but they sought to achieve it through the unilateral means associated with Beveridge. They saw the United States as an imperial power that could transform the world single-handedly. But the neoconservatives and George W. Bush are likely to learn the same lesson in the early 21st century that Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson learned in the early 20th century. Acting on its own, the United States' ability to dominate and transform remains limited, as the ill-fated mission in Iraq and the reemergence of the Taliban in Afghanistan already suggest. When the United States goes out alone in search of monsters to destroy—venturing in terrain upon which imperial powers have already trod—it can itself become the monster.

John B. Judis is a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. This quote are from an essay based on his forthcoming Folly of Empire: What George W. Bush Could Learn from Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson (New York: Scribners, 2004)

Here we go - here we go
If the aspect of the crusader tradition that John Judis outlines seems out of reach (as well as being out of control!) then a reminder that the spellbinding trance of imperial righteousness may not only be out there in 'them' but also in 'us' is perhaps in order.

Thus in conclusion, back to the Daily Mail. On the back of the Steven Glover article I mentioned earlier was an obituary of Brian Clough, a renowned UK football manager who died recently.

Clough, famous for his egocentric arrogance, described himself as 'Old Big 'Ead'. He had, as Richard Pendlebury writes, a famous 'directness of approach',

'If I had an argument with a player, we would sit down for 20 minutes, talk about it and then decide I was right'.

Other legendary stories celebrating Clough's domineering style included this one:

'he (Clough) returned home one freezing December night after a match and climbed into bed where his long-suffering wife Barbara was already asleep.
'God, your feet are freezing' she complained.
'Eh, love, you can call me Brian in bed,' he replied.

A few lines later in the article, after describing how as a punishment Clough had once made his football team run through a nettle bed, Richard Pendlebury continues:

His treatment of Justin Fashanu, for whom he'd paid £1 million, was particularly savage once he discovered that his new signing was probably gay - taboo even now in a football dressing room. Fashanu's career never recovered and many years later he committed sucide. (my emphasis).

I wonder why I am so surprised that to be gay would still be taboo in professional football. I mean, come on Denis, what would you expect? All that heroic, testosterone charged 'masculinity'... how could it accommodate such a contradiction as same sex love?

However domesticated the violence on the field in football's nationally and internationally acclaimed spectacles, if Richard Pendlebury is correct, domination appears to run deep and untouched in the veins of the soccer industry. Reflecting, reinforcing, and upholding I suppose, the veins of domination running through the football supporting population.

Fri, 24 Sep 2004

Action research - learning from experience

If you have read some of the earlier entries you see that I regard this blog as a form of research, albeit haphazard, unfunded and outside of academe. And yet it's style has a history and a location in the story of research in general. So... when the The Centre for Action Research in Professional Practice at the University of Bath sent me a flyer for a conference on Action Research, 'Emerging Approaches to Inquiry 10', I signed up.

Having led and participated in Cooperative Inquiry style Action Research for around 20 years, I wasn't looking for some seal of approval. I wanted to check out how this weblog sat in relation to the current perspectives and learning about the Cooperative Inquiry tradition. This four day conference provided a welcome return home in which I was well able to do this.

I explicitly see my psychotherapy work with clients as inquiries and I hadn't been in doubt that what I'm doing with the g.o.r.i.l.l.a.weblog was a valid inquiry too. As I listened to the chat about Action Research and the varieties of experience it entailed, I was surprised and pleased to realize that the life of the Independent Practititioners Network [IPN] group to which I belong has the form of an inquiry. I saw that in an equally informal, haphard way, both it and the broader IPN Network are forms of Action Research. In each, the action and reflection process is intrinscally cooperative and the research outcome is holding accountability to clients. These interleaved processes of inquiry and reflection inform what you are presently reading, and affirmation of them warmed me up considerably.

Discussing this weblog and its intentions with conference participants led me to wonder whether I needed to pay some attention to accountability. To cut to the chase, I realized that, if I don't find, or connect with, a community of other co-inquirers, then some kind of supervision is appropriate, and I'm looking into organising that.

Making Satygraha
Action Research in its several varieties, ranging from strong to informal, is a core example of what I mean by satyagraha - positive programme, 'making the thing we want'. If you are in a situation where you are seeking to live, work, or organise a piece of life in ways that step aside from hierarchical, patriarchal structures of domination, into 'living from love', I believe you'd find some form of Action Research a promising option. Even, I'd go so far as to say, if you manage to make the move to living from love, the result is likely to resemble Action Research. Because for me living from love is not a passive state of grace in which, once it has descended (or we have ascended) we have got 'it'. Living from love implies inquiry, a process of action and reflection, even struggle, to find meaning and validity, preferably while held in a community of other inquirers.

If this sounds very fancy, idealized, out of reach - that would be a pity because in my experience Action Research, at least in the variety I know well, Cooperative Inquiry, is something anyone can learn and practice. For example here is an account of an Inquiry into 'How to Move From Survival and Recovery into Flourishing', that Annie Spencer and I led a while back, and here, as a download excerpt from Letting the Heart Sing - The Mind Gymnasium, is a recipe for setting up a Cooperative Inquiry used in that and other inquiries, and which I have found works very well.

I found 'Emerging Approaches to Inquiry 10' warm, welcoming and very well focused and I'd recommend it's bi-annaual successors to anyone with an active need to develop cooperative or peer assessment structures. If there was a downside, it would be that, on the basis of my experience of this conference community, Action Research seems paradoxically dominated by academic 'discourse', and a puzzlingly symbiotic relation to the process of writing a PhD. As though action research could only be led, or usually is led, by someone with, or researching a PhD. Perhaps as a primarily visual, aural, intuitive person I was blindsided to the value of such determinedly taxonomic conversation as I very often heard in these four days.

And perhaps this is part of the price that has to be paid for establishing this new paradigm of inquiry in the face of a dominant research culture that still believes in doing research 'on' people rather than 'with' people. Holding and nurturing the Action Research tradition as Peter Reason and Judi Marshall at the University of Bath, and John Heron and others have done, is a tremendous achievement. I salute them.

If Action Research as a form of Satygraha still remains a mystery to you, albeit I hope an appetizing one, here are some links through which you can follow it up:
The opening chapter of this Handbook by Peter reason and Hilary Bradbury, and this Introductory article by Peter Reason and John Heron provide concise overviews of Action Research. The Introduction to Geoff Mead's PhD thesis outlines many of the key elements of Action Research, especially the 'first person' inquiry style that this blog follows. Elsewhere, the South Pacific Centre for Human Inquiry holds and reports on inquiries, and publishes introductory material on Action Research.

Wed, 08 Sep 2004

When to kill an old dog 2

Interesting, after some other disagreement, meeting again this evening to discuss Jeannie situation. B. struggling with the feeling and emotion of hating to kill Jeannie, as she keeps calling it, and both of us seeing that even the trip back up north, two days of shuttling about, will be putting her through more than she deserves at this end point in her life. We took some pictures of her riding in her 'walker'
Jeannie in her walker
and 'walking' in her sling.
Jeannie in her sling
Very U shaped. Hardly any muscle tone. And becoming more incontinent. More maybe I suspect than B. is mentioning. So it looks like the decision is emerging - that she goes on Friday... middle of the day I hope. Leaving us time to try to deal with the feelings before we have to travel.

Curious, but perhaps not surprising, how sharply this points up what we believe - the notion that 'she has to show us when she is ready to go'. While very appealing, and the line we have held to for months, this seems likely, if held to too literally, to mean making 'her' wait until 'we' are satisfied. And as I realize even more strongly, to have a pet is to enter into a culture of domination, since we legally have the right to take her life, and even I suppose, since she is our 'property', the duty to do so when it is appropriate.

It seems so 'either or'. Such a huge, immeasurable difference between a dog even a little bit alive, and a dog lifeless. And yet we seem to have reached a point where the caring for the delightful companion, now weakened to the point of complete incapacity, but occasionally full of heart, is outweighed by the need to accept responsibility for the human side of the companionship. That however we construe it, keeping her alive now perhaps tips towards being for us, not her. Tough. Awkward. Ethically challenging. Painful.

Mon, 06 Sep 2004

When to kill an old dog 1

I have been feeling really upset about the Jeannie situation. How do we decide when this once delightful old dog now on her last legs or rather no legs at all, no hearing, blind, that it is time to take her life. Interesting yesterday to have a meeting with Barbara about it. What came out of it, apart from the sheer scale of the stress that 24/7 care takes out of our lives, is how far Karen Armstrong's notions about fundamentalism seem relevant.

We sat with the 'logos' of the situation, the practicalities, thinking through what to do. Are we looking after her well enough? Are we looking after ourselves well enough? Are the criteria for killing her that the vets speak about yet in place? The answer, despite her derlict condition, is no they aren't in place, she eats, demands attention for necessary bodily functions and still has a presence. And local discomforts apart doesn't appear to be suffering. Coping under strain yes, suffering no, so far as we tell.

So having sat and considered all this, everything we could think of, we could see standing apart from all this the 'mythos' as Karen Armstrong (and C. G. Jung) calls it, an over-arching core belief that life is sacred. A different form of domination, the chosen dominant 'mythos', by which we live. Among the occasional distress that caring for Jeannie causes between us and in restrictions on what we can do together, we aren't about to kill her to fix these difficulties.

So this seems an acceptable form of dominance the dominance of an adopted, higher order belief. That some people would call spiritual. When she barks for food or to be taken out, or growls, when a much bigger dog comes up to her, or she smells the out sight neighbour's goats, or wild boar, this animal still has the zizz of life. And interestingly, even our neighbour, a farmer life-long on this land, acknowledged this zizz yesterday.

So as I'm surprised to find, here is a willing submission to a spiritual imperative. A benign form of domination, and anyway another aspect of not supporting any form of meat production.

A second thought that emerged from this is how could this domination mutate into fundamentalism of the kind that is damaging in the world? I guess through holding to it too rigidly, knowing that Jeannie was in a lot of pain and incapable of doing anything for herself and refusing then to take her life. Something like the Jehovah's witnesses refusal to accept blood transfusions for biblical reasons. Then the dom of dominance reverses into the poisonous literalism of those branches of fundamentalism where too much god drives out love and compassion.

Intriguing and a bit shocking for this enquiry to have found in-house an acceptable form of dominance.

Sun, 05 Sep 2004

Fundamentalism? - Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

There are few places where the dialectic between love and domination is more accessible than in fundamentalist religion. This article is the outcome of my inquiries so far into how and why so much fundamentalist religion embraces domination and tries to insist that we submit to their particular worldview. I've looked at what fundamentalism is, how it comes into being, and why it is likely to be harmful.

I was prompted to pay attention to fundamentalism by Katherine Yurica's excellent treatment of Dominionist Christianity The Despoiling of America - How George W. Bush became the head of the new American Dominionist Church/State and from a different direction, by Cardinal Ratzinger's rant about feminism (see my critical review of this article.) Karen Armstrong's book The Battle for God: Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam has been especially helpful and much of what follows draws on what she has to say.

What fundamentalism is
Fundamentalist religions are intensely preoccupied with the protection and recovery of religious beliefs and ways of life that have been compromised, or are felt to be under threat, usually by some form of modernization. Fundamentalism rides on fear. Fear of the unknown; loss of identity; loss of status; loss of understanding; annihilation or extinction.

Each fundamentalism is a law unto itself and has its own dynamic. The term gives the impression that fundamentalists are inherently conservative and wedded to the past, whereas their ideas are essentially modern and highly innovative. px


... all follow a certain pattern. They are embattled forms of spirituality which have emerged as a response to a perceived crisis. They are engaged in a conflict with enemies whose secularist policies and beliefs seem inimical to religion itself. Fundamentalists experience it... as a cosmic war between the forces of good and evil. They fear annihilation, and try to fortify their beleaguered identity by means of a selective retrieval of certain doctrines and practices of the past... eventually they fight back and attempt to sacralize an increasingly sceptical world. Pxi

How fundamentalism comes into being
Karen Armstrong has a handy notion that fundamentalism is primarily a conflict between 'mythos', and 'logos'. 'Mythos', means mythical, often premodern religious stories featuring saints or prophets that embody a revealed truth about what it means to be human, that tell us how to live.

Mythology was an attempt to organize the experiences of the unconscious into imagery which enabled men and women to relate to these fundamental regions of their own being. P16

Myth does not provide a blueprint for pragmatic political action but supplies the faithful with a way of looking at their society and developing their interior lives. P50

'Logos', means practical, pragmatic action based on effective, rational, analysis of the 'facts' of life, planning, building, and administration.

Political life belongs to the realm of logos; it must be forward looking, pragmatic, able to compromise, plan and organize society on a rational basis. It has to balance the absolute demands of religion with the grim reality of life on the ground. p51

'Mythos' is concerned with universals that repeat, that stay the same, and provides imagery, ritual and ceremony that honours and celebrates these eternal verities. By contrast 'logos', deriving from the explosive growth of rationality and its fruits, science and technology, is future-oriented, it presumes perfectibility and progress and it has become the dominant form of 'belief' today.

When a community of believers find the spiritual 'mythos' they are committed to being overthrown, disabled, invalidated, contradicted or damaged by others who believe in the intrinsic superiority of a secular, rational 'logos', or of the intrinisc superioity of an incompatible 'mythos', resistance takes the form of fundamentalism. We attempt to reassert, retrieve, or defend the values beliefs or institutions that seem under threat.

One of the biggest challenges to traditional 'mythos', has been The Enlightenment, a revolution in beliefs involving philosophy, science and industry that, through globalization, is now reaching out to most of the planet. The Enlightenment began with the Copernican revolution that demolished the belief that the earth was at the centre of the Universe, later it confirmed humankind as being merely a branch of the animal kingdom and generated the modern notion that, in contrast to the rationality of science, religion is mythic, a narrative. A Big Story but a story nonetheless.

Fundamentalism – mirror of Western Modernism
Western European industrialization, with its rampant accumulations of capitalism, colonization, advanced technology, improved human rights and individualism isone of the fruits of the Enlightenment intellectual revolution. This modernity and the new thinking on which it was founded, grew quite slowly across several centuries. Despite huge amounts of suffering and privation, people in Europe and America were often able to find some accommodation to these new secular definitions of what it means to be human.

However, as Karen Armstrong details, this galaxy of Western values and practices, along with the ruthless exploitation of the commercial and political advantage they gave, was exported almost overnight to the rest of the world. Empires were built, people enslaved, territory expropriated, resources plundered. The age of Dominant Western Man. To appreciate the genesis of recent fundamentalist religions of rage and revenge, it is worth looking at this at some length, in for instance such countries as Iran and Egypt. In 1798:

Napoleon landed 4300 troops on the beach at Alexandria and took the city shortly after dawn the following day. Napoleon had brought with him a corps of scholars, a library of modern European literature, a scientific laboratory, and a printing press with Arabic type. The new scientific, secularist culture of the west had invaded the Muslim world, and it would never be the same again. P60

Work on the Suez canal began in 1859.

Egypt provided almost all the money, labor and materials in addition to donating two hundred square miles of Egyptian territory gratis. P 121

The Suez canal had given Egypt a wholly new strategic importance, and the European powers could not allow its total ruin. To safeguard their interests Britain and France imposed financial controls on the Kedive. p122

The whole of society would have to be reorganized, an independent industrial economy set on a sure footing, and the traditional conservative spirit replaced by a new mentality. Failure would be expensive, because Europe was by this time too powerful. The powers could force Egypt to finance the building of the Suez canal and then deny it ownership of a single share. p122

Cairo “was not passing through the same stages of a unilinear sequence of development that Europe has already passed through on the way to capitalism.”

Rather it was being made into a dependent local metropolis through which a society might be administered and dominated. The spatial forms grew out of a relationship based on force and a world economic order in which in this case Britain played the crucial role. quote from Michael Gilsenan p123

The whole experience of modernization was crucially different in the Middle east: it was not one of empowerment, autonomy, and innovation, as it had been in Europe, but a process of deprivation, dependence, and patchy, imperfect imitation p123

Iran had a similar experience, beginning early in the 19th century.

Iran had also become a pawn in the power games of Europe... Britain wanted to control the Persian Gulf and the South east regions of Iran in order to safeguard India.

The Europeans presented themselves to the Iranians as the bearers of progress and civilization, but in fact both Britain and Russia promoted only those developments that furthered their own interests, and both blocked the introduction of such innovations as the railway, which would have benefited the Iranian people, lest it endanger their own strategic plans.

The “capitulations” gave special privileges to Russian and British merchants on Iranian soil, exempting them from the law of the land, and fixed tariff concessions for their goods...p125

To improve communications between England and India during the 1850s, the British got concessions for all telegraph lines in Iran. In 1847 the British subject Baron Julius de Reuter (1816-99) gained exclusive rights to railway and streetcar construction in Iran, all mineral extraction, all new irrigation works, a national bank, and various industrial projects. P125

In 1917, British and Russian troops overran the country, After the Bolshevik revolution, the Russians withdrew but the British moved into the area they had vacated in the north of the country while holding on to their own bases in the south. Britain was now eager to make Iran a protectorate. Oil had been discovered in the country in 1908 and the concession had been granted to a British subject, William Knox D'Arcy; in 1909, the Anglo Persian Oil company was formed, and Iranian oil fueled the British Navy. Iran was now a rich prize. p 197

By the late 1930s... Britain still owned the booming oil industry, which contributed almost nothing to the economy and Iran was forced to rely on foreign loans and investment. P 226

In 1953, Operation Ajax, a CIA/British intelligence coup, removed the Prime Minister Musaddiq of Iran, who had nationalized the Iranian oil industry.

In 1954... a new oil treaty was made which returned the control of oil production, its marketing, and 50% of the profits to the world cartel companies. P231

There seemed to be a double standard. America proudly proclaimed its belief in freedom and democracy but warmly supported a shah who permitted no opposition to his rule... Iran was a prime market for the sale of American services and technology. Americans looked upon Iran as a an economic goldmine, and over the years, The United States repeated the patterns used by the British: strong arm tactics in the oil market, undue influence over the monarch, demands for diplomatic immunity, business and trade concessions and a condescending attitude to the Iranians themselves. p231

The peoples of Egypt and Iran and the many nations who were similarly exploited had little or no defence against the dominance, coercion, and violence of Western secular modernity. They were faced with few options: try to join it and succumb to identity demolition due to the alienation and dissociation of modernization - or resist - begin the fundamentalist task of reasserting the existing traditional spiritual 'mythos' of Islam that for generations had 'made sense' of the life tasks of birth, coming of age, marriage, ageing and death.

In Egypt such a re-assertion of Islamic values carried a huge burden of accumulated rage and anger due to the experience of generations of imperial humiliation and exploitation. The result was militant Islamic organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, the assassination of President Sadat, and upwards of 20,000 Islamic militants in concentration camps. In Iran the Shah's brutalities triggered a return to the core beliefs of Islam and led to Ayatollah Khomeini's profoundly fundamentalist regime.

Why fundamentalism is likely to be harmful.
Conflicts between city and country, settled and nomad, industrial and agrarian, will often set 'logos' against 'mythos', modernity against tradition. But the dominant belief in the ultimate righteousness of the secular 'logos' of science, rationality, efficiency and market forces that is often driving such social change tends to have no place for the love and compassion of traditional spiritual 'mythos'. To paraphrase Sartre, Western secular rationality has a God shaped hole in it. That many people would want to resist such an impoverishment is unsurprising and so the seeds of another fundamentalism are sown.

Sadly, as Karen Armstrong shows, when fundamentalist resistance to this secular rationalism uses the 'mythos' of premodern spirituality as a basis for political action—theology becomes ideology—faith coagulates into duty, obligation, and sacrifice, even martyrdom. When this happens, love and compassion, core qualities of all authentic spirituality, tend to be discarded in favour of violence, coercion and domination.

This was a new idea to me, that any version of making the 'mythos' literal, of insisting on acting as if the 'mythos' were literally true, seems to be, by definition, disastrous.

How does this distortion of faith work in practice?

Fundamentalists unconsciously read religious texts in a modern way, i.e. literally. Originally such teachings were experienced as 'a mythical symbolic account of eternal realities'. p91

These movements are not an archaic throwback to the past; they are modern innovative, and modernizing. Protestant fundamentalists read the Bible in a literal, rational way that is quite different from the more mystical, allegorical approach of premodern spirituality. p369

Armstrong tells how early in the 19th Century a millenial movement in the US 'proved' by reference to the Book of Revelation that the Second Coming of Christ would occur in 1843. To paraphrase Karen Armstrong - the Great Disappointment His non-appearance entailed hasn't stopped new generations of Americans, for example Seventh Day Adventists, looking forward to an imminent End of History.

In Iran, one of Ayatollah Khomeini's responses to the attack by Iraq and the subsequent war, was to support the mobilization of 20 million young people, many of them belonging to his Foundation for the Downtrodden, who were eager for action.

The government passed an edict that allowed male children from the age of 12 to enlist at the front without their parents' permission. P328

Tens of thousands of adolescents, wearing crimson headbands (the insignia of a martyr), poured into the war zone. Some cleared minefields running ahead of the troops and often getting blown to pieces. Other became suicide bombers, attacking Iraqi tanks kamikaze style. P328

According to Khomeini:

... they were following the example of Imam Husain, dying in order to “witness” the primacy of the Unseen. It was the highest from of asceticism, through which a Muslim transcends self and achieves union with God. P328

“Dying does not mean nothingness,” Khomeini declared, ”it is life.” Martyrdom had become a crucial part of the revolt against the rational pragmatism of the West and essential to the Greater Jihad for the nation's soul. P328

As Armstrong points out, this took an element of the 'mythos' of Islam and turned it into 'logos'

When Mulla Sadra had spoken of the mystical death to self he had not envisaged the physical voluntary death of thousands of young people. P328

This cult of the child martyr was another fatal distortion of faith, to which fundamentalists in all three monotheistic traditions are prone. P328

... it also shows how perilous it can be to translate a mystical, mythical imperative into pragmatic, military or political policy. P328

...what works well in the spiritual domain can be destructive and even immoral if interpreted literally and practically in the mundane world. P328

Interim summary
What would be 'headlines' of what I have learned so far in this inquiry about fundamentalism?

A community of people who value and are committed to a set of beliefs, usually prophetically revealed, about what it means to be human, find these beliefs being invalidated, or suppressed in favour of what they perceive to be an alien belief system.

Since identity is often tied with this kind of belief that truth is revealed and unified and absolute, challenges to the belief system can be very alarming producing fear, terror, fantasies of annihilation and conspiracy and the sense that the challenged group is a 'righteous remnant'.

A common response by groups who experience their settled faith as threatened, is to revisit the origins of their belief system, selecting key elements of it which are held to be essential and thus articles of faith, i.e. literal truths that require duty, obligation and sacrifice. This is usually coupled with an obligation not to question authority. Leaders of such groups are usually charismatic, authoritarian men.

This reversion to the fundamentals of their tradition is undertaken with little or no awareness of its historicism. i.e. that the detailed textual analysis of 'scripture' is a modern phenomenon, that projects into mythic premodern oral story-telling modern agendas of a desire for security and certainty.

This kind of return to fundamentals may have several outcomes; it may lead to seclusion, withdrawal from the world; active avoidance of people who don't share their beliefs; demonizing of their opposition; public witnessing of their faith; mandatory dress, hygiene, or behavior; evangelical attempts to re-sacralize the world; militant piety, the use of force or coercion to insist on the adoption, public recognition and legal enforcement of their preferences by others.

This seems to define fundamentalism in a broader way than Karen Armstrong and led me, as befits an inquiry, to some surprises - examples of fundamentalism in unsuspected places.

Fundamentalism and psychotherapy
A wider definition of fundamentalism brought a fresh perspective on something very close to home. I was surprised to realize that The Independent Practitioners Network [IPN], one of the organizations to which I belong, and of which I am a founder member, has a gentle set of the ingredients of fundamentalism.

In the last twenty years, many counsellors and psychotherapists in the UK have felt at risk due to an incoming tide of 'professionalization' around licensing, qualification, training and state regulation. This 'secular modernization' has seemed to many of us to be very damaging, both to clients and the practice of psychotherapy and it threatened to put quite a lot of us out of business. We started IPN as a way of doing practitioner/client accountability in an ethically sound way that would contradict this damaging professionalization.

IPN appears to have all the characteristics of a fundamentalist sect; founded in opposition to a culture or tradition that was seen as alien and inadequate; under threat of state regulation that would take away the right of self determination, even the right to work as a therapist; public confrontation by militants of collusive, self-serving, organizations—hostile 'enemies'—that sought to colonize the precious territory of psychopractice and the hierarchical, categorizing, academic, professionalizing style of these organizations; creating an alternative organization that claims to be delivering an exemplary approach to practitioner accountability.

When I said IPN had a 'gentle' set of the qualities of fundamentalism, I meant that, yes, we had a perception of groups who seemed to be 'enemies', many of us felt unfairly side-lined by the 'professionalizer/colonizers' some of whom we knew quite well as colleagues. But in yet another fundamentalist ingredient, we claim a higher order of understanding of the subtle power issues involved in the 'modernization' of psychopractice. And very important, in contrast to the dullards who were busy reproducing or recycling existing and ill-fitting ways of holding the accountability to clients—involving some ultimate line of higher authority in the UK Privy Council no less—we were highly innovative and ingenious in devising a flexible, decentralised network structure with no bureaucracy and no hierarchical leadership. All of which sustained a certain sense of righteousness and dare I say it, superiority. We are doing this 'properly'. Exactly the sort of attitudes that appear characteristic of an early stage of fundamentalism.

Perhaps because some of us have had extensive groupwork experience as well as working as psychotherapists, we have also been busy looking at the ironies and contradictions of this 'fundamentalism', for instance the extent to which we might become entranced by a victim/ persecutor/rescuer pattern. This inquiry into domination is intended to be an example of this reflexivity.

One of the key elements of fundamentalism which Karen Armstrong points to is that while the popular received idea about it is of a return to archaic origins, how this is carried out is paradoxically a form of modernization. Paradoxical, because fundamentalism is almost always involves resistance against some kind of modernization that is perceived to be damaging, or the imposition of what is felt to be an alien tradition. But effective resistance means finding an ingenious, innovative way of holding or securing the tradition that is felt to be at risk.

Again IPN is a good example. We sought to preserve forms of accountability and ways of becoming a practitioner that in our experience seemed essential both for clients and as a route into becoming a psychotherapist. This required a unique piece of social innovation, building a community of practitioner peers in face to face contact who not only pay attention to colleagues work but also to 'where they are in their lives'—so that we can 'stand by' each other's work— and so that for example, a practitioner's slide into unresolved personal distress would become quickly apparent. (IPN details here link).

Where IPN would seem to part company with Karen Armstrong's take on fundamentalism is that the network has a good gender balance, no hierarchical leadership and gives scrupulous attention to how power is deployed and is diligent about sustaining the pluralism of the network and keeping it open and flexible.

Psychotherapy and religion
What counts as human nature and what counts as a viable form of companionship in the task of becoming more fully human - of human flourishing - are key elements of both religion and psychotherapy. Though in my experience not many psychotherapists are sharply aware of either power or their working definition of human nature.

Karen Armstrong's detailed descriptions of the highly contested ebb and flow of fundamentalist 'truths' about human life, how to be a person, how to relate to our inner and outer worlds, was strikingly reminiscent of the flux of definitions and redefinitions of psychotherapy in the last 100 or more years. Might psychotherapy and counselling— generically 'psychopractice'—belong on a continuum of world religions? Indeed as I am inclined to suspect, from a post modern psychological perspective, might not the notion of fundamentalism be a handy notion for understanding the processes of change and resistance to change of psychotherapy, or any other institutions?

While the number of people involved in IPN and the professionalization issues may be tiny and insignificant compared with say the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, the ingredients have a family resemblance. There is, or has been, fear of annihilation, or extinction by a group with alien values around accountability. This has unified a community of people who share the same threatened values, focused their attention on finding ways of preserving what is precious to them and resisting efforts from any direction to make psychotherapy into a 'state religion'. It's too soon to know this perspective on IPN will affect my participation in it. IPN-style I'll circulate this article and report later on what responses, if any, there are.

Bringing it all Back Home
A foot note. Through my local example of IPN, I found that fundamentalism is not only 'out there' but has found a fertile location in-house. Is it also driving some of the agendas of our political systems?

For instance, suppose the 9/11 attack was an inflection point, the point in the curve of history where a fundamentalist voice, speaking as it were for the oppressed down the ages, says to New York City, over-arching symbol of modernity, 'this is enough now!' This quotation from J. C. Scott certainly supports this notion. The American response to this attack—an unending 'war on terror', obsession with security, suppression of dissent , propagation of a climate of threat and fear, displacement of rage onto scapegoats, Afghanistan and Iraq, loyalty oaths with client state allies, patriotic fervor, itself looks strikingly like a classic demonstration of fundamentalism—the defence of traditional American values in the face of a new phase of (OBL style) modernity.

To briefly re-iterate the earlier definition, fundamentalism is the defence of beliefs and ways of life that are felt to be under threat, often from the threat of annihilation by an alien culture. Fundamentalism rides on fear. Fear of the unknown, loss of identity, loss of status, loss of understanding, annihilation or extinction. And curiously, at the point when America had reached a peak of overwhelming global military and economic dominance, OBL found an Achilles heel in this supposed invulnerability: emotionality - fear. Like two wizards jousting with their magic, Bush and OBL each cast spells entrancing whole populations of people. OBL in effect says 'get your foot off the neck of my people' – President Bush responds with a 'War On Terror' -that I have elsewhere here described as a trance induction, a spell - that makes his home population, 294 million people spread across 3000 miles, much more fearful than the level of danger would appear to justify.

In both actions the key ingredients of fundamentalism are in play. The mythos of Islam is enacted literally, denying the Prophet's teachings that emphasize the sacredness of life and using selected passages from His teachings to justify massive death and destruction. The US 'mythos' of 'democracy', 'freedom' and 'one nation under (a Christian) God' is enacted literally, in Afghanistan and Iraq with arbitrary, irrational violence that denies, as though it had evaporated, the Jesus, Sermon on the Mount story of love and compassion. Result - an impenetrable gulf of misunderstanding between the protagonists. And huge numbers of people in the West and the US successfully entranced, hypnotized into feeling some of the same fear and dread as indigenous peoples perhaps felt when the bulldozer of modernity arrived and demolished their centuries old certainties.

So a relatively benign, if painful outcome of this item of my inquiry may indeed be to notice what it feels like to be on the receiving end of domination. That if we feel anxious that a plane we fly in, or a train we travel on might be attacked, or a city we live in be wrecked by a dirty bomb, that this is what it feels like to have modernity thrust on you by a colonizer who is alienated from your values, who doesn't care if you live or die, whose purposes are entirely detached from your interests.

For example, following the Balfour Declaration establishing the Zionist project of a State of Israel - the 750,000 Palestinians who were displaced from their homes. Or those Palestinians who throw stones at bulldozers as big as a house that are demolishing their homes.

In the first six months of 2004 - Israel civilians killed by Palestians: 31, Palestinians killed in the occupied territories by Israeli security forces: 362 Source:
B'Tselem The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories

Fundamentalism seems also inescapably political, about power, who has it, who abuses it. Who feels abused. Who bystands these events.

Sat, 04 Sep 2004

Fundamentalism - Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition

I've had the idea for a while that fundamentalism might provide a promising line of inquiry into understanding domination and the love of power. Events in Russia, Iraq, Israel and Palestine in the last week have been a reminder that fundamentalist religion is now on all of our agendas.

I was prompted into pulling fundamentalism up into the foreground by two pieces I have mentioned here previously, Dominionist Christianity by Katherine Yurica and Cardinal Ratzinger's rant against Feminism. and my critical review response to it. First line of research turned out to be Karen Armstrong's article in the Guardian Monday December 29, 2003, 'When God goes to war', which prompted me to get her book 'The Fight for God'.

I've looked at what fundamentalism is, how it comes into being, and why it is likely to be harmful. And... as befits an inquiry, I found some surprises - examples of fundamentalism in unsuspected places.

I've written up my researches to date in this article, 'Fundamentalism - Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition', which you can read on-line, or download.

Writeback comments, objections, or amplification would be welcome.