"The slaughter of the innocent in Brussels:

These attacks are identical to acts of murderous violence targeting identically-innocent people in different cities."

By Hamid Dabashi 

I exchanged emails with this author, once upon a time.  He is interesting and very intelligent, but I think here he has bitten too hard on the “everything is one harmonious whole” thinking that I find very annoying because it is so naive.  I see this as the meta-logic of quite a few Western intellectuals these days.

The meta-logic is that we are all the same, we are all human, and as such we should all be able to get along.  This gets extended to rights and freedoms as well, and it follows that as long as we are fighting for more freedom and more rights, we are working towards unity and stability.  Yes, the belief seems to be that things will just work out fine for everyone as long as we don’t let anyone divide or oppress us because unity and freedom are the natural state.  As a result of this kind of thinking, ISIS and the islamophobes are one and the same because they divide us when we are really united.

I find the premise that we are all the same and can all just get along very naive, and so the analysis that follows from it is ridiculous.  This meta-logic also allows for him to say that terrorism is not a response to Western actions but a logical extension of it.  It is logical, but it is a logical response to it, not an extension.  It is logical to return violence with violence. To get beyond this, first we need to get over the meta-logic of oneness.   Then we need to analyze the idea that violence is a logical response to violence.  I think we will find the answer to this beyond logic.  We need to do this by going back to the assumptions and foundations of the logic we are using and the civilization that gave raise to and sustains it.

Saying that answering violence with violence is logical is very true, but it leaves out things like context, intention and values.  Yes, dare I say it: sometimes you have to go against your values to defend them.  Sometimes your intentions and goals are good though your actions are questionable, at best.  Sometimes the context that you see things in and make decisions from is very different from that of others.  It is a very dangerous place to be, but because no values are actually controlling the way the world works, sometimes you need to step outside of your value system to defend them against others who don’t share them.

A sort of example can be seen in one interpretation of Machiavelli.  Machiavelli did not say that there are no morals and that power is always right and can do what it wants.  His point was that a good leader provides stability for the people, which in times when there was rarely a peaceful transition of power from one party or faction to another meant that the leader had to first of all stay in power.  To do that it was acceptable to be a-moral because the stability of the kingdom was more important.

This can very easily become abuse and lead to atrocities that end up effacing those very values. It is a thin line and slippery slope, but unless you attribute some sort of divine power or divine providence to the values you hold, it is the cold, hard and ugly reality of it.

So, we need to step outside of the logic of saying that when violence is responded to with violence, this is only to be expected and is natural…  not only that but the logic goes further and says that as a result, the counter-violence is just as legitimate as the initial violence.  This logical trap needs to be recognized and passed over.  (And logical traps are always to be found in any system because if post-modern philosophy taught us anything it is that all systems are essentially circular.)

We need to realize that we may need to use violence and that if we are vigilant in our judgment, with intentions that support our values—even if they go against them—violence is not an acceptable response because we believe our values to be superior to the other’s values.

But here again I come up against the naive assumption that we are all the same and that really our values are all the same…  But that is simply not the case.  Sometimes they are very different and that difference requires stepping outside of normal logic and realizing that no matter how dangerous it is to take that step out, sometimes it is necessary to defend and sustain the values that we have and that we truly believe are better.  Because even if we haven’t yet, and maybe never can, fully implement the values of democracy, liberty, etc. they are worth keeping and pursuing even in the face of the paradox of having to violate them (while insisting that others don’t) to safeguard them.