Category Archives: Society

Calling All Muslims: It’s Time For An Anti-imperialist Secular Awareness

20 Tuesday Jun 2017

Posted by in Geopolitics, Politics, Society

≈ 3 Comments

SYRIA-CONFLICT

Given that June 20 is World Refugee Day I want to take the opportunity to share some observations and opinions that may ruffle some feathers, but urgently need to be stated, especially by Muslim immigrants in the west. [1]

Part I. An Encounter With a Syrian Refugee

The other day I met a Syrian refugee family that had recently come to Canada. They moved next door to some friends of mine and I said hello to them in Arabic when I saw them sitting on the porch. The wife, a bubbly hijabi woman named Amira who is around my age, was overjoyed to meet someone that spoke Arabic and quickly struck up a conversation with me.

In a matter of minutes I learned that the family had left their small Syrian village three years ago for neighbouring Lebanon and lived there till they were approved to come to Canada as refugees, just three months ago. I also quickly learned that Amira and her husband, like many Syrian refugees, are ardent haters of Bashar Al Assad and critics of secular culture. Amira told me (in Arabic) that, while it was hard for her to leave her family back home, it my be fate that they ended up in Canada so that they can “spread the Muslim faith.” Uh oh…

To a secular Muslim—or, more appropriately, someone that can be described as culturally Muslim, since I was raised by Muslim parents in a Muslim immigrant household but do not practice religion—this set off some alarm bells. This woman left a secular Muslim country—yes, for all the supposed concern over radical Islam, the west is currently trying to destroy a secular Muslim country, with a very open and tolerant mixed society—for asylum in a western secular country and hopes to spread her religious beliefs here? Is that what we’re dealing with, Muslim missionaries? Amira seemed excited about the prospects of spreading the faith and told me that she felt Canadians were far more accepting of Muslims, and receptive to Islam, than Christian Arabs in Lebanon. She also offered to give me “religious advice” in exchange for English lessons in the future.

While Canada is a multi-cultural country that prides itself on religious tolerance and diversity, as a secular or non-religious person, I should also be tolerated and respected, and not subjected to religious peer pressure or attempts to make me “more religious.” During my conversation with the newly arrived Amira, I was asked why I do not wear the hijab (Muslim headscarf), if I practice Ramadan fasting and if my husband was a Muslim. While she was very friendly about it, the conversation quickly digressed into a religious guilt trip and interrogation. This is something I have experienced many times from “deeply religious” and rather prying Muslims that are “concerned for my soul” for one reason or another. As she talked, I could see her looking me up and down with a judging smirk, as if to evaluate my holiness, or lack there of.

I do not tolerate religious sermons from my own family members, even when I am visiting family over seas. And I should not have to experience it from a complete stranger that has been here for mere months, and is my age if not younger. Now before any apolitical liberals or fake lefties—who fail to see the connections between certain segments of the Syrian refugee population and western sponsored political Islam and Wahhabism—accuse me of being Islamophobic let me remind you that a) I am Muslim and b) I would not tolerate religious lecturing or “shaming” from someone of any other faith as well.

While some might assume that Amira felt comfortable lecturing me in this way because I am Arab and Muslim, and, that she likely would not submit non-Arabs and non- Muslims to the same pressure and religious guilt trip, let me remind you that she specifically told me that she believes that she was destined to end up in Canada so that she “can spread the faith.” While all Syrian refugees probably do not think this, the fact that even some do, is worrisome in a secular country such as Canada. Practicing one’s faith is one thing, pushing it on others is another thing altogether. While non-Arab or non-Muslim Canadians may be too afraid or polite to say this, I believe that I have a responsibility to say it as a secular Muslim.

And so do other secular, non-religious, cultural or “moderate” Muslims. We have a responsibility to speak out against the radicalization that is occurring in the Arab and Muslim world—which has been largely sponsored by the imperial west and its allies in the region like Israel and Saudi Arabia—and the ease with which overly religious people are able to encroach on the public and private lives and views of non-religious or secular types. [2] I should note that I do not like the word (or prefix) “moderate” because it implies that the majority of Muslims are non-moderate or fanatical. While Muslim radicalization has indeed increased and while Arab secularism has practically vanished—phenomena driven partly by the imperial geopolitical aims and objectives of certain states—not all Muslims are fanatical, radical or even practicing, for that matter.

And those Muslims that are secular, “moderate” or wary of religious radicalization have a responsibility to speak out against it. More importantly, we must speak out about the causes of this radicalization. Part two of this article explores some of those causes.

Part II. The End of Arab Secularism and the Rise of Radicalization

In order to understand the increase in outward religiosity and religious radicalization that has been occurring in the Arab/Muslim world for decades, a critical and historical understanding of geopolitics and western imperialism/Empire is necessary. Without it, we are simply criticizing the symptoms of a much deeper and extremely nuanced problem.  Western imperialism is not the only radicalizing factor in the region. There are other internal factors at play, which may or may not be linked to western imperialism. For the purposes of this article I focus mainly on the former.

As I have noted elsewhere, the Muslim/Arab World was once secular and “modern.” It is well known that “from the 1950s to perhaps even the 1980s, the strongest political trends in the Arab world were secular.” [3] This trend shifted for several reasons; a major one being that the west—and the US in particular—started to pursue a full fledged agenda to radicalize Muslims, aligning and allying itself with Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism, which is a Saudi interpretation of Islam; and a very fundamentalist and archaic one.

Before Saudi Arabia and the US fully joined forces in radicalizing the region, there was the bygone era of Arab secularism. “That world can be glimpsed in old newsreels from the Arab cities of the 1950s and 1960s. The cities of the post-war period – Cairo, Beirut and Damascus, Baghdad and Aden – look much the same as many developing countries of the time: American-built cars, European-style suits, a certain easy mingling of men and women.” [Ibid.] It was also the era of the secular pan-Arab Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser. Nasserism and secular pan-Arabism are far too broad and nuanced a topic to cover here.

For now, I simply want to point out that Nasser’s attitude towards political Islam and Islamic groups like the Muslim Brotherhood reflects much of the public Arab sentiment around religion at that time: That religion and religious practice is a personal matter than cannot and should not be dictated publicly.

A well-known antidote that demonstrates this point comes from a speech given by Gamel Abdel Nasser in the years after the Muslim Brotherhood was suspected of attempting to assassinate him. In that speech, which is available online, Nasser recounts a meeting with the Brotherhood’s leader in 1953 wherein he asked Abdel Nasser to make the wearing of the hijab or tarha (as Egyptians call it) mandatory in Egypt. Nasser tells the crowd that he told the MB leader that wearing the hijab is a personal matter and choice. Nasser also tells the Muslim Brotherhood leader that he knows that he has a daughter studying medicine, and she doesn’t wear the hijab: “Why haven’t you made her wear the hijab?” Nasser asks, before delivering a now famous punchline: “If you cannot make one girl – who is your own daughter – wear the hijab…how do you expect me to make 10 million women wear the hijab, all by myself?” The crowd roars and laughs in approval.

As Faisal Al Yafai explains, Nasser’s joke reflects the worldview of Egyptians, especially educated middle and upper class Egyptians, back in the 1950s: “that it was ridiculous that the wearing of the hijab could be enshrined in law.” As Yaifa explains, Egyptians “…considered the proper role of religion to be private, outside the realm of government and politics. Nasser himself explicitly declared the same thing.” He continues, “Contrast that with today’s Egypt, and indeed the wider Arab world, and it is clear how much has changed in just half a century”  [Ibid.]  Yafai maintains that Nasser’s punchline–millions of women wearing the hijab–has become Egypt’s reality and that secularism as a worldview has disappeared in the Arab world. Yafai explores only the internal or Arab causes for this change,  failing to even mention western meddling and external influences. Still, he is correct that the once secular Arab and Muslim world has changed tremendously in the last half century. In my opinion, it is a change for the worse.

I am not criticizing Arab/Muslim people for wearing the hijab, far from it. I have the utmost respect and tolerance for people’s religious beliefs and practices. I simply want to demonstrate that once upon a time in the Arab/Muslim world, religion was rightly a personal matter and practice, rather than a public expression and pressure. When I hear Syrian refugees like the friendly and chatty Amira tell me that she feels that it is her destiny to spread the Islamic religion in Canada, I interpret that as a public mission rather than a matter of personal religious observance. To me, that is alarming; and it reflects the de-secularization and Islamic radicalization occurring in the Arab world.

The West’s Connection to Islamic Radicalization

The forces of Islamic radicalization are very nuanced and complex. The motives for radicalizing the Arab world are also nuanced and complex. A large part of the motivation is controlling Mid East oil and the oil trade. Much of the radicalization efforts came after the formation of OPEC and the Saudi-US oil alliance, which forced the world to use the US dollar to purchase oil while also securing the pre-eminence of Saudi Arabia and its promotion of Wahhabi, extremist Sunni Islam throughout the region.

Wahhabism is a strict orthodox Sunni Muslim sect founded by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703–92). It advocates a return to the early Islam of the Koran, rejecting later innovations; the sect is still the predominant religious force in Saudi Arabia.* The phrase “rejecting later innovations” implies that there were innovations to the orthodox or literal interpretation of Islam and that Muslims were modernizing or becoming less literal in their practice,like most people do with time. While Wahabbism was the predominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia, it had not deeply impacted (and infected) the rest of the Muslim world. This is evidenced by the reality—which I spoke of earlier—that the political and public sentiment of the Arab world was largely secular till the early late 1970s and early 1980s.

While there are internal factors that contributed to the death of secularism and the rise of a more literal, orthodox and archaic form of religiosity, there is a big external factor that cannot be overlooked: the massive oil alliance that was formed between the United States and Saudi Arabia after the oil embargo of 1973 (that occurred due to conflicts with Israel). This is when Saudi Arabia buried the hatchet with Israel and the US, and became oil partners and staunch political allies. In exchange for Saudi Arabia only accepting US dollars for oil, giving the US and its currency global economic hegemony, the US allowed and (indirectly) helped the Saudis to spread Wahhabism and radical Sunni Islam (and terrorism) across the Middle East.

Strategically, both the US and Israel benefit from the rise of radical Islam. For Israel, having “radical neighbours” in the region helps legitimize its illegal occupation and actions towards the Palestinians. It also ensures that the Muslims and Arabs will be busy fighting among themselves over sectarian religious issues and conflicts between Sunnis and Shiats. The US also benefits from these internal divisions and conflicts. The exploitation and exacerbation of divisions between Sunnis and Shias—the two main Muslim sects—goes a long way towards servicing the imperial agenda of divide and conquer. Moreover, the existence of terrorist groups–that are often created and or aided by the US–allows the US to justify its global war on terror and the billions spent on it.

For the US, the rise of Islamic radicalism and terrorist groups allows these groups to be deployed against secular Muslim countries and leaders that do not play ball with the US and do not accommodate its interests (e.g., Iraq, Libya, Syria).  While it has cozied up to and allied with fundamentalist states like Saudi Arabia, the US has simultaneously pursued an agenda of attacking and destabilizing secular Muslim countries and leaders that do not bend to its imperialist demands and agenda (i.e., put their own national interests before that of the US’). These include Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi and, presently, Syria’s Bashar Al Assad. But the attack on secular Muslim leaders began even earlier with the joint US-UK 1952 coup against secular Iranian president Mohammed Mossadegh, for instance. He had committed the sin of nationalizing his countries oil and attempting to reclaim it from the UK.

Undermining Russia

Another US motivation for radicalizing Muslims was to undermine communism and the Soviet Union. The US has been arming and backing Islamist radicals and terrorist groups for decades, especially in its efforts to undermine the influence of Russia in the region.  As the US admitted in the 1990s, American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen—presently known as the Taliban—in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet-Afghan war began in 1979, suggesting that the terrorist group was partly a creation of the US (in collaboration with countries like Pakistan). Ultimately, promoting Islamic extremism and terrorism was one western response to the so-called communist threat (read as the threat to NATO and US power) posed by the Soviet Union. [4]

The same is true today of the US’ indirect support of terrorist groups like ISIS in Syria. As I argue elsewhere, “an obvious yet unspoken component of the US/NATO campaign in Syria, as well as their efforts in Ukraine, and the so-called Missile Defense Shield in Europe, is to undermine Russia’s ability to not only project power but also to defend itself strategically.  These are examples of the West’s attempts to militarily and economically contain Russia.” [Ibid.]

This is something secular anti-imperial Muslims should oppose, not least because Russian and Soviet influence in the region has been a secularizing force (or one that reinforced the already secular politics of post-war Arab countries). Arab countries aligned with Russia after WWII and during the Cold War (and even those that were officially non-aligned) tended towards notions of secularism, anti-foreign interference, and, with the rise of the Soviet Union, socialism. But Arab secularism was not a by-product of Russian influence alone; it is a truly Arab tradition. “The secular conception of the state that animated both nationalist and pan-Arabist politics was widespread in political life.”  In the 1950s, 60s and 70s, there was a deep degree “of popular attachment to a secular state among the political class.”  Indeed, “with the exception of Saudi Arabia, no country of the Arab world, from Sudan and Yemen, to Iraq, to Algeria in the Maghreb, was without its secular, nationalist parties.” [5]

But since the 1980s, Saudi Arabia, bolstered by it relations and alliance with the US, has been able to promote Wahabbism in the region. Saudi Arabia has spent millions and billions of dollars propping up and arming Islamist movements and groups in the Arab world; while other Gulf countries, such as (former) Saudi ally Qatar, have been bolstering media outlets that are sympathetic disseminators of extremism and political Islam. These heavily funded entities have been able to influence the culture and population of various Arab/Muslim countries, guiding them even further away from secularism and towards greater and more regressive religiosity.

Western Intervention/Destabilization and Migration Patterns

Alongside all of the above there have been decades of foreign intervention, destabilization, and war making in Arab and Muslim world by western powers. One result of this policy of war and destabilization in the region has been the dramatic increase and influx in immigrants and, especially, refugees from the region. Simply put, the west is “forced” to take refugees and immigrants from countries that they create conflicts and destabilization in, in the first place. If we look at the trends in migration by Muslim people to Europe and North America over the last 30 years, a pattern emerges. Many, if not most, Muslim refugees and immigrants have come from countries that NATO and the US have invaded, attacked, destabilized, regime changed or all of the above.

These include countries like Somalia and the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s; Iraq and Sudan in early to mid 2000s; and more recently, Libya and Syria. All of these countries have suffered from western meddling and destabilization efforts, which have included the support and propping up of radical Islamist or Salafi regimes. And many of those that fled and are currently fleeing to the west as migrants and refugees are people that may be  hostile to the pre-invasion (often secular) governments and may indeed support a very radical or extremist Islamic ideology and practice. This is something we must take into consideration when exploring whether certain migrants and refugees are compatible with secular western culture. This is not Islamophobia. I say this as a secular Muslim immigrant in the west that is well aware that political Islam/Islamism is an Empire serving form of religiosity that may not be compatible with secular society and culture; be it Western or Middle Eastern.

Final Thoughts

One can only hope that as certain secular and/or non-Islamist countries such as Syria (with the help of the Russian military) and Egypt continue to resist and withstand the US-Saudi-Israeli sponsored Islamist offensive against them, and as other countries in the region—such the duplicitous Turkey and the recently changed Qatar—move away from the western-Islamist alliance/agenda and cozy up to Russia, that political Islam will fade, leading to a much needed de-radicalization and re-secularization of the region. But it will be an uphill battle, since the forces of radicalization are strongly and deeply rooted.

The great irony in all of this is that while the west, and the US in particular, claims to be at war with Islamic terrorism and radical Islam, it is actually directly and indirectly in bed with it. Directly, the US is a major ally and financial beneficiary to and of Saudi Arabia, which has a radical and extremist interpretation and practice of Islam. Indirectly, the US sells weapons to Saudi Arabia and others—that turn around and arm terrorist groups in the region. It also provides clandestine support for various terrorist groups in the region. Such is the case with ISIS in Syria, a “conflict” that is mainly fueled by western interests and the west’s incessant “meddling”  in the region.

US support for terrorism (including against the Syrian government) has been noted by numerous independent news media as well as by US congress members, such as former Rep. Cynthia McKinney and current Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. When Rep. Gabbard visited Syria in 2016 she reported that the US was giving support to terrorist groups like ISIS, Al Qaeda and others. [6] It is important to note that most if not all of these murderous terrorist groups claim to be Islamist and deeply religious. Now, of course, no one that commits such horrific acts as these groups do–such as the brutal beheading of a young boy by the US-backed “moderate” terrorist group Nour al-Din Zenky in Syria last year–can be said to be truly holy or god fearing. But the fact that these terrorist groups operate under the banner of political Islam and extremist religious ideology, is reason enough to be wary of political Islam or any form of political (and public) religiosity.

Many—but certainly not all—of the Syrians that fled the country and are now living in Canada and Europe, as refugees, are sympathetic to the radical religious ideology of these lunatic groups. If you are Arab and/or Muslim it is pretty easy to suss out if a person is pro-Wahhabi/Salafi Islam—which is a very extremist and archaic interpretation of Islam—in just a few conversations, since politics and religion invariably come up in conversations with people from the region. Such was the case with my aforementioned conversation. As a secular person living in a secular country I get nervous about extreme forms of public religiosity by people of any faith.

Another strange irony is the undiscerning support for religious extremists—including refugees [7] —by so-called progressives. Many of these progressives do not see a contradiction or tension in supporting things like women’s rights and gay rights while simultaneously fighting for the human rights of certain extremely religious Muslim refugees or migrants, whose orthodox religious views would potentially see them ideologically pitted against women’s rights or gay rights. Lacking nuanced ideological discernment and anti-imperial analysis, so-called progressives’ blanket and apolitical defense of “human rights” does not allow them to see how their genuine concern could be co-opted or exploited for imperial ends. In Egypt and the Arab world in the 1950s and 1960s it was the educated middle class that supported secularism and rejected religious dogma and orthodoxy. Today, ironically, in the west, it is the educated middle class–especially the young identity politics “left” and  campus “social justice warriors”–that are advocating and demanding the unequivocal tolerance of, and support for, even the most extreme forms of public religious expression, in a non-religious (i.e., secular) society.

Secular Western states are presently scurrying to accommodate refugees that could potentially have religious extremists, or individuals that are intolerant of secular culture, among them. [Ibid] There is a two-fold irony in this current refugee crisis a) The west created or helped to create the conflicts in the refugees’ home countries in the first place; meaning it helped create the conditions of displacement and b) The west contributed to radicalization in these countries, which may now affect western states as blowback.

I wish to close by stating that there is a marked difference between my critique of radical Muslims and refugees and those that come from racist and Islamophobic sources. In addition to being bigoted, the latter are often also pro-Empire and pro war.  On the contrary, mine is an anti-imperialist and anti-war perspective that identifies the dangers of and collaborations between radical Islam, political Islam, and western imperialism.

To all those Muslims that share my position and analysis, it is important to speak up and call for a return to secularism in the Arab/Muslim world; a return to a politics and society that does not promote and exploit religious sectarianism and religious  extremism in the service of Empire.

 

 

 

 

 

*Author’s Note: Many believe that Wahhabism is not a return to literal or early Islam but rather a complete contradiction of and or movement away from it; meaning Wahhabism is not Islamic at all. This clarification should have been made in the article.

 

Notes

[1] My Parents immigrated to North America from the MENA region when I was just two years of age.

[2]  Everyone is free to believe and practice their faith, and to whatever extent they wish. I simply want to stress that people do not have the right to pressure, guilt or shame those that may not believe or practice the same thing (or to the same extent), and vice versa.

[3] http://www.thenational.ae/arts-culture/the-death-of-arab-secularism#page5

[4] http://www.globalresearch.ca/on-syrias-continued-resistance-russia-and-the-threat-to-western-power/5566176

[5] http://www.thenational.ae/arts-culture/the-death-of-arab-secularism#page5

[6] http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-why-is-the-us-helping-al-qaeda-and-other-terrorist-groups-rep-tulsi-gabbard/5571358

7] It goes without saying that this is not referring to all Syrian refugees. Most refugees coming from Syria are likely not religiously extreme. There are also many secular (Muslim and Christian) refugees.

 

We Need to Talk About Women: The Problem With Western Liberal ‘Feminists’

08 Wednesday Mar 2017

Posted by in Current Events, Politics, Society

≈ 17 Comments

femen-not object-2.jpegToday (March 8) is International Women’s Day. No doubt there will be numerous articles about women’s issues, women’s struggles and women’s triumphs. In this article I take a different route and address an issue that is rather taboo and off-limits, but ought to be discussed. Before I do, I want to stress that women in the west have come a long way and have a lot to be proud of. Western women have fought hard and bravely for rights and privileges that were denied to generations of women before them and have made vast strides towards greater equality and representation in society. For this, western women and traditional feminism should be applauded.

At the same time, the version of feminism that presently functions in the west—liberal, consumer, mainstream feminism—has become problematic. That is what I wish to address in this article. I want to honestly address the issue of women. I don’t mean “women’s issues”; those have been discussed at length. I mean the issue with women, meaning the problem with certain segments of the female population in the west, namely: liberal, mainstream, consumer feminists. Before you bring out the PC (politically correct) lynch mob, please read on to understand what I mean by this.

There is a segment of the female population in the west today that is very puzzling and frustrating, especially to traditional or former left-wingers, such as myself.1 I am referring to the slut marching, pussy rioting, liberal consumer feminists that fancy themselves progressive or liberal or “left wing,” today. These are the women that fight the sexual objectification of women by sexually objectifying themselves (topless FEMEN protestors anyone).2 Or the women that talk about ‘girl power’ then turn around and applaud when a Woman of the Year Award is given to a male-turned-female woman. Or the women that think revering and emulating cheesy, female pop stars—like Madonna or Beyonce or Niki Manaj—makes them ‘fierce feminists.’

While they may think themselves politically avant guarde, many of these women come off as rather apolitical and seem to have purchased ‘feminism’ as a media constructed/promoted lifestyle; hence the term consumer feminists. Their ‘feminism’ or girl power is reflected largely in the products they purchase or the lifestyle choices they make. These consumer feminists mistake buying Activia yogurt (a product marketed solely to women) or practicing yoga (in stylish and expensive yoga outfits) for being political or “progressive.” Newsflash ladies: these are lifestyle choices, not political acts or movements.

Western Liberal Feminism and the US Presidential Election

And when these liberal, consumer feminists do attempt to tackle politics or political issues, it is often done through reactionary identity politics, which substitutes the personal—personal identity, personal feelings, etc—for the political in a manner that negates broader politico-economic understanding and analysis. For instance, women that support candidates like Hillary Clinton simply because she is a woman—despite her many political and geopolitical crimes and blunders. Mired in identity politics, their femaleness forces them to support a female candidate simply because of her sex, while ignoring her political actions and behaviour; however heinous it may be.

This reflects one of the many follies of identity politics: It excuses the crimes of people like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama–which includes the slaughter of innocent women and people of colour all over the world–based on their gender or race. As I argue elsewhere, it is not rational to support a president or presidential candidate simply because they are a racial minority or a woman. And I say this as a female racial minority.

Nor is it constructive to build a “political” protest movement centred mainly on feelings of personal offense.  A few days ago I was offered a pink hat with cat-shaped ears on it (the “pussy hat,” as it is being called), to wear as a symbol of “women’s resistance to Trump.” The pussy hat is part of the Pussyhat Project, a project begun by two American women following the 2016 US election. According to Business Insider, the hat’s name was inspired by Trump’s 2005 comments in the Access Hollywood audio leaked in October 2016, “in which he bragged about grabbing women by their genitals.”3

pink march.jpgAccording to one of its co-founders, the Pussyhat Project is “about women refusing to be erased from political discussion,” reports Business Insider.  While I am not sure exactly what she means by this, it seems to suggest that given that Hillary Clinton is a woman, and given that she lost the election, women—especially those women that voted for Hillary Clinton—are now being “erased” from political discussion. That does not make much sense. Are we to believe that Hillary Clinton lost the election because she is a woman? Last year in the UK, a female Prime Minister, Teresa May, was voted in and replaced the former male Prime Minister, David Cameron. Does that mean that men in the UK are being “erased” from the political discussion?

While there is a disproportionate amount of men in western politics in general, this did not begin with the 2016 US election, and statements about women being erased from political discussion need to be politically and historically situated and qualified. The Pussyhat Project and the sea of pink at the “Women’s March on Washington D.C.” on January 21 (the day after Trump’s inauguration), with thousands of women adorned in fuzzy pink ‘pussy hats,’ served to confirm something I have thought for many years now: That western women—especially liberal, consumer ‘feminists’—are extremely conformist and easy to manipulate as well as contradictory.

Where was the female indignation during the eight years of the Obama administration, when Obama and a female Secretary of State (in the first four years) repeatedly and systematically war mongered and deployed drones to kill scores of innocent people overseas, many of them minorities and women? Where was their women’s march on Washington, D.C. then? It simply did not exist. There were no mass women’s marches or female protest movements against the previous US administration, despite its myriad political, economic, and geopolitical crimes and atrocities.

While the Obama administration was among the most imperial and war mongering in US history, continuing and intensifying many of the policies of the George W. Bush era, and while Obama failed to keep any of his campaign promises, such as his promise to close Guantanamo Bay or to end the war on terror, there was no mass female uprising against him and his administration. Of course, during the Obama administration, the mainstream media were its biggest cheerleaders. The media was not helping to “trigger” women and rile them up as they are at present.

But protesting topless or wearing a pink hat does not, in and of itself, make you political. At best it makes you a cliché and, at worst, it makes you controlled (or fake) opposition. For there is nothing genuinely political or oppositional about following a herd trend, even if that trend is said to be a political statement or a “symbol of political resistance.”

Identity Politics is a Diversion From Bigger Issues

Identity politics is a form of political capitulation that gives into the establishment. It is a distraction from, and substitution for, a failed economy and a failed political system. Identity politics replaces political and economic power and choice, or lack there of, with personal choice and personal empowerment. The personal freedoms granted under identity politics—for instance, the freedom to choose among the ever-growing number of genders, etc—can mask how politically and economically un-free and powerless we are.

Under the present global neocon/neoliberal politico-economic mono-culture, people are increasingly politically and economically disenfranchised and dis-empowered. Rather than focus on the ever-creeping economic collapse, escalating unemployment, political dis-empowerment, the growing police and surveillance state, and the general economic despair that plagues much of the world’s population, identity politics (and contemporary progressives in general) points our attention towards differences, personal identity and personal choice. How convenient for the global power structure/elites. This is especially true among that segment of the western female population—liberal, consumer ‘feminists’—that I describe above.

Western Liberal Feminists are Largely Apolitical

pussyhat

While Donald Trump’s misogynistic comments may  warrant criticism, the problem with pussyhat wearing mainstream/consumer feminists is that they protest against him largely because they are personally offended. These women are apolitical in the broader, general sense. While they are raging against the pussy-grabbing Trump, they are silent on—if not oblivious of—the myriad other political, economic, and geopolitical problems and crises that plague humanity at present.

If these women were truly politically or critically minded, they would not have rallied behind the likes of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. This is not about “defending Trump,” but about pointing out that a lack of political perception and critical analysis makes many ‘feminists’ blind to the crimes of the previous US administration as well as to the globalized, militarized, neoliberal/neocon politico-economic power structure in general.

Western, liberal mainstream/consumer feminism is different than radical feminism, socialist feminism, and, especially, third world feminism. This topic is too complex to address here. For now I merely wish to note that much of what passes for ‘feminism’ in the west today would potentially be questioned by veteran feminists and/or more political and class-based understandings of feminism as well as by third world feminism.

For instance, unlike many western feminists, who tout gender neutrality and the “anything you can do, I can do better” mentality, “African feminists do not attempt to rob the man of his value and worth. They simply want to be given value and worth, as well.” As Dr. Hildra Tadria of Uganda, member of the African Women Leaders Network (AWLN) and co-founder of the African Women’s Development Fund explains, “For us, the fight is to dignify what the African woman does, not to try to get her to do what the African man does.” 4

For African feminists one of the most curious aspects of western liberal feminism is its emphasis on “sexual liberalization” or hyper-sexuality. Most third world feminism is not about sexual freedom but freedom from over sexualization and over objectification. While mainstream western feminists often use the term “rape culture” to describe the west, there are many countries in the world wherein women do indeed live under the constant threat of rape–where rape and sexual violence are rampant and ignored by the state. For these women, feminism includes the desire and struggle to be less sexualized.

Ironically, while contemporary western ‘feminists’ also claim to oppose the sexual objectification of women, they often employ sexual objectification as a tool to fight or denounce it (see the slim and sexy FEMEN protesters in the picture above). While this tactic may be aimed at reclaiming the female form and female sexuality, it is ultimately counter-productive in a society where the naked form (both male and female) is still seen as sexual. Protesting topless or naked takes attention, especially media attention, away from the issues these women are protesting, and focuses it instead on bare breasts and naked bodies. Here, the image ultimately distracts from—and upstages—the message.

I am aware that criticizing these types of women may be seen as catering to the divide and conquer tactics of the power establishment on some level; since we should seek to unite with others, not criticize them. But the liberal feminism of the fake left has reached a point of absurdity and counter-productiveness that simply cannot be ignored. And western women have to have the courage to call it out.

While wearing a fuzzy ‘pussy hat’ or slut marching topless may be said to be a symbol of ‘resistance;’ I ask, resistance to what? It most certainly is not resistance to globalist power or the US establishment. Let us not forget that, prior to Trump’s victory, there was very little anti-government dissent among so-called feminists and progressives in the US. Nor was there much resistance or opposition among them to the imperial war machine and western interventions abroad, which was as robust as ever—if not more robust—under the supposed feel-good regime of Barack Obama and his sidekick, Hillary. Indeed many on the new/fake left (including liberal feminists) support these imperial, regime change interventions, in the name of liberating oppressed women or protecting human rights,etc.

Final Thoughts

It appears that second and third wave western feminism has degenerated into something that is at once apolitical (or faux political), consumerist, and a service to the global establishment. In the midst of the feel-good, reactionary spectacle of contemporary western feminism, there seems to be very little that is political or left wing in the traditional sense, meaning politics and protest that is critical of hegemonic power, Empire, imperial wars, economic collapse and despair, unemployment, and class issues.5 You know, all those “old fashioned” and un-hip issues that the left used to care about before identity politics took over and/or forced its way in.

It also appears that contemporary ‘feminists’ have been manipulated through marketing and mainstream media and sold a clichéd lifestyle as politics and political opposition. Yet, as mentioned above, their form of politics—i.e., identity politics—actually serves the establishment inasmuch as liberal feminists, and liberals or ‘progressives’ in general, readily support imperial wars, policies and interventions. In this way, these groups have (unwittingly) become pawns and proxies of the global politico-economic power structure.

While the personal may be political, it will never be more political than actual politics and political consciousness. In reality, identity politics is the opposite of politics, in that, traditionally, politics or public engagement dealt with common issues, whereas identity politics further fragments consensus and is extremely divisive. Identity politics–women competing with men or racial groups pitted against one another–reflects the divide and conquer desires and strategy of the elite, since the masses are always weaker when they are divided. It forces a false polemic that stands in the way of consensus building, collective identity, and unity. As the old activist saying goes, “the people united will never be defeated.” Identity politics flies in the face of this and does the exact opposite; it divides people at a historical juncture when unity is most urgently needed.

Western liberal feminism has succumbed to the divisive and diversionary agenda of identity politics. I for one am not moved by the media-driven, diversionary spectacle of women in pink hats or topless FEMEN protestors, which is reactionary and provocative but lacking in deeper political thought and analysis. Like so much else on the establishment or fake left, it reeks of simulacra, or, put another way, it is more spectacle than substance.

So you can keep your pussyhat, ladies, this woman has more on her mind than what’s between her legs.

 

 

 

 

 Notes

1 I no longer use the term left wing due to identity politics. It should also be noted that I do not identity as a feminist. If I had to use a label it would be anti-imperialist humanist.

2 I am not “shaming” women for going topless but simply pointing out the contradiction of doing so in order to oppose the sexual objectification of women.

3 While misogynistic comments—such as those made by Trump—may warrant criticism, he made those comments privately. As Hillary Clinton once told a group of Wall Street banking executives in an email exchange leaked on wikileaks, “you need both a public and private position.” I’m sure Hillary’s husband Bill’s private “position” on women would be even more shocking than Trump’s. Bill is a notorious womanizer and his private comments on women and their bodies would likely leave many horrified.

4 http://www.newdmagazine.com/apps/articles/web/articleid/76478/columnid/default.asp

5 Today class is not just about money or income, nor is it simply about the means of production. Today class it is arguably equally about, if not more about, similarities in the way people live and the things they do.

The “New Left” and the Limits of Identity Politics-Revisited

18 Friday Nov 2016

Posted by in Current Events, Politics, Society

≈ Leave a comment

identity-politicsToday is the two-year mark of this blog site. The very first post was entitled “The ‘New Left’ and the Limits of Identity Politics.” I thought it fitting to revisit that topic on its anniversary, especially in light of the recent US presidential elections, which I argued in a recent post may represent the decline of liberal identity politics in the US.

When I was a young student, protesting economic globalization/empire and global politico-economic power, our views and actions were considered that of a fringe anti-establishment minority. Today, the new liberal “left” activism, with its obsession with personal feelings and personal identity and its almost non-existent broader politico-economic analysis, seems oddly to represent a pro-establishment “majority.” I use the word majority in parentheses here because, while the mainstream media would have us believe otherwise, the majority of people are probably sick to death of liberal identity politics and stifling political correctness.

While identity issues such as gender and race are important, without a larger politico-economic analysis and fabric to hold it all together, identity politics and special interest issues can quickly break down into diversionary and even trivial issues. Over the past decade, many young, middle class and or economically privileged liberals took on, or appropriated, the label ‘left wing’ to describe their feelings over a host of increasingly inconsequential personal issues. Oddly, the previously radical mantra of “fight the power”—which used to mean literally fighting the system—morphed into fighting the social stigma of various personal issues. Basically, the contemporary liberal identity politics ‘left’ reflects a moment away from the political to a focus on the personal (personal identity, personal feelings, feelings of personal offence, etc)

While it’s okay to believe that “the personal is political,” in the contemporary liberal left/identity politics world, the personal has become the only thing that is political! But what about the political—meaning the process and practice of political power—or the geopolitical or the politico-economic, aren’t these things also political? Aren’t they much more political? To a contemporary social justice warrior, maybe not.

When I was a student dissident, the issues we were protesting (on and off campus) were things like imperial wars abroad, Big Business and corporate greed, the institutions of economic globalization (such as the WTO, IMF and World Bank), etc. But even within that movement—i.e., the anti-globalization movement—individuals with an explicitly anti-Empire stance and or analysis were a minority. Many anti-globalization groups and individuals were concerned with single issues or identity issues—such as race, gender, sexuality, and the environment. But this tended to occur within the context of a broader analysis of militarized global capitalism/Empire and how it creates and or exacerbates issues such as race, gender and environmental injustice. In other words, while earlier dissidents may have dealt with single-issues or identity politics, they still named a global system of power.

Many of today’s young dissidents—including many of those that support Hilary Clinton simply because she is a woman—don’t really seem to be aware that there is such a thing as a militarized, global system of politico-economic power. Otherwise, they would not be have backed one of its premier members, Hilary Clinton!

While it remains to be seen whether or not Donald Trump will live up to some of the anti-establishment hype surrounding him, [1] one thing that may come out of his victory (a.k.a Hilary Clinton’s defeat) is a movement away from identity politics. The fact that Trump claimed to be for things such as scaling back economic globalization—and the unemployment it creates—and US interventions abroad, and the fact that many in the US voted for him, suggests that these are the issues on people’s minds. It also suggests that the public imagination is moving away from stifling political correctness and the divide- and-conquer trap of identity politics[2] and towards the more universal issues of economics and the despair wrought by economic globalization/Empire.

 

 

 

 

 

Notes

[1] While Donald Trump is no doubt part of the elite by virtue of his immense wealth and corporate power, as I point out in another article the elite are not a monolith and there may be factions within the global elite that wish to take the global establishment in a different direction. Whether that direction is good or bad or worse, remains to be seen. Trump’s place in it also remains to be seen.

[2] While identity politics is presented as being an agenda for equality, in practice it represents the movement away from politics and political capitulation. In focusing solely on difference, identity politics pits people against one another, placing us into individual camps (men vs. women, blacks vs. whites, heterosexual vs. homosexual, etc) that can be manipulated, exploited and/or co-opted by elites. While this may or may not be the intention, it is the outcome; and what results is a movement away from unity–realizing that we share much in common (especially economic despair and class issues) regardless of our differences–in the name of so-called equality.

A Reflection on Womanhood: A Taboo Subject in Taboo Times

08 Friday Apr 2016

Posted by in Culture, Philosophy, Society

≈ 2 Comments

nude-6

With International Women’s Day already a month behind us I’d like to reflect a bit on a currently taboo or off-limit subject: womanhood. It is taboo because, in the current climate of hyper-political correctness, we are not even supposed to acknowledge notions such as womanhood and manhood for fear of excluding or offending someone, somewhere, somehow. One definition of womanhood is the state or condition of being a woman. And one reason the topic may be taboo is that it is currently widely accepted that words like woman/womanhood and man/manhood are social constructs. While they are indeed social constructs, the notions of male and female are biological realities that cannot be escaped. So in order to not offend anyone, though I suspect that parts of this post may still offend some pc people, I will speak about “femalehood.”

For me, and I suspect for many other women, my physical and biological femaleness has largely shaped the state and condition of being a woman. What this means is that my biological sex, and the organs, body parts, hormones and functions that go along with it, have very much affected my state and condition of being a woman. While these are not the only things that have shaped that condition, they have been and remain very instrumental, and at times foundational, to my experience of being a woman. Continue reading →

The “Sharing Economy”: Using Soft Language to Rebrand a Failing/Failed Economy

30 Wednesday Mar 2016

Posted by in Political Economy, Society

≈ Leave a comment

Depression Headlines

While we may not hear much about it in corporate mainstream media, today, more and more people in the west are facing unemployment, underemployment and general economic despair. This includes well educated, (formerly) middle class people that have seen their jobs down sized, outsourced or completely disappear as well as those that have spent years and a small fortune (much of it borrowed and expected to be returned with interest) on fancy university degrees only to be unemployed or underemployed after graduation.

How do I know this? Well, for starters, I am among the latter. With over a decade in university, a PhD from a very fancy school and numerous “prestigious” awards and accolades, I find myself unconventionally and sometimes marginally employed two and a half years after graduation. Traditionally, PhDs—especially those with research awards and academic publications—were almost guaranteed to find a tenure track teaching position or professorship. Today the reality is much different: Many PhD graduates are having trouble finding even just sessional or adjunct teaching positions (which typically come with much less pay and no health and pension benefits). And if you didn’t somehow manage to rack up years of teaching experience while completing a doctorate—which was my reality but is not true for all doctoral students—then your chances are more slim.

So it is that despite my fancy education I was ‘forced’—admittedly, I’m primarily a writer. I enjoy teaching university but it is not my first passion—to join the world of freelance writing and editing and become part of what is often referred to as the “sharing economy” or peer-to-peer (P2P) economy. While my freelance and contract work allows me to dedicate time to my personal writing (such as this blog) and other projects and passions, it also means less money in a world that is becoming more and more expensive to live in. Still, I am more fortunate than others. The overly educated and under-employed, as I like to call my sub-group, are fairing better than the outright unemployed, a segment that is climbing at an unacceptable rate in the west. Continue reading →

Why Do Women Get a Pass? The Double Standard Around “Sexual Harassment”: Leslie Mann & Dakota Johnson

02 Tuesday Feb 2016

Posted by in Culture, Current Events, Society

≈ 1 Comment

Chris-Gayle-small girls-2

I don’t often comment on pop culture, especially celebrity culture, but every once in a while something catches my attention that I have to comment on. Last month I read about an Australian cricket player, Chris Gayle, who was fined $10,000 Australian dollars (and almost suspended) for “making inappropriate comments to a female reporter in a live TV interview.” In the interview, Gayle comments on the reporter’s “beautiful eyes” several times and then says he hopes to be able to go on a date with her and calls her “baby.” He was punished for “sexual harassment,”  fined and almost suspended for the incident.

Yet today I saw a video of two Hollywood actresses very relentlessly hitting on a male reporter, without any resultant public uproar, fine or reprisal. While the incident may have been scripted (I do not know one way or another), it depicts two women very aggressively objectifying a male reporter and going way beyond anything Chris Gayle said and did in his fine-worthy gaff last month. The women blatantly tell the reporter that he is handsome then point at him, motioning for some other women to come over and have a look at the “hot man.” At one point they even ask the male reporter to undo the buttons on his shirt in order to show them his “swollen” muscles. And the male reporter obliges them as they ogle and comment on his physique and good looks. Even if it was just a stunt (and I suspect it may be scripted) it is presented as a real exchange between these randy women and the “hot” male reporter. There has been no shaming of these women for objectifying him. Instead mainstream entertainment media is applauding the actresses and telling them to “Work it, Ladies!” Continue reading →

Reflecting on Burqas…and Butt Cheeks

05 Thursday Nov 2015

Posted by in Culture, Current Events, Society

≈ 3 Comments

burka1shorts

During the whole Stephen Harper burqa or nikab (face covering worn by some Muslim women) controversy, friends and acquaintances often asked me my opinion on the matter. I assume this is because I write about political and social issues. But it is likely also due to the fact that I am of Middle Eastern origin and was raised by Muslim parents.

While I do have an opinion on the matter I have purposely stayed away from the topic for a few reasons. The main reason is that I am not a proponent of identity politics and am not really able to comment on, or even think about, single issue politics (in this case, “women’s issues”) without a broader look at the political, economic, and geo-political factors involved. Second, as a staunch critic of Empire,  I cannot comment on the issue without eventually commenting on the history of imperialism in the Muslim world, and that may get a bit wordy for some people’s tastes (and for a single article).

Moreover, I would not want my personal opinion on the burqa to be unwittingly used—as some female Muslim commentators’ views have been—to feed or justify some disingenuous imperial pretext of opposing and destabilizing Muslim countries in part to “liberate” oppressed Muslim women. As noted scholar and author Leila Ahmed argued in her work entitled “The Discourse of the Veil,” western imperialists (she was writing about the British Empire in Egypt) do not care about women’s rights anywhere, including in their own countries. They simply use the liberation of veiled Muslim women as part of an excuse to invade, occupy and exploit certain nations. [1]  Continue reading →

The United States is a confusing place: On the lack of government public spending

13 Sunday Sep 2015

Posted by in Society

≈ Leave a comment

Lobbyist Paul Miller is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, March 20, 2009. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

The other day I was speaking with a dear friend who happens to be an American living in the US. He had injured his foot and suspected he may need stitches and a tetanus shot but did not want to go to the hospital cause of the expensive co-pay he would have to pay (over $1000). I couldn’t wrap my head around this for a couple reasons. First he works in the medical industry and makes a six-figure salary. If anyone in the US has good health insurance, surely it is he! Second, and most importantly, as a Canadian I literally cannot wrap my head around the idea of having to pay (twice) for health care.

In Canada we have universal health care, meaning all doctor and hospital visits, all medical tests and treatments (from blood work to vaccines, MRI’s to chemotherapy) are covered by our (provincial) health care plan. Many Americans like to call this free health care, but in reality universal health care is not “free” since all of us pay for it—to varying degrees—through our taxes (income taxes, sales taxes, etc), which are higher than US taxes. While certain provinces, like the one in which I live, have a semi two-tiered system where you may have to pay for a service (like blood work or an ultrasound) if you see the physician at a private practice, there is always the option to have these things done for “free” if you visit the physician at a hospital.

While I am well aware that the US does not have any form of universal health care, I assumed that those in a high-income bracket had full health coverage through their employers. I guess I know much less about the US than I thought. Now, I am not trying to promote the myth of the “Canadian utopia.” I am very critical of Canadian government policies in much of my research and writing elsewhere, especially in matters of foreign policy and geo-politics. And the wait-time for public health care is getting worse and worse. However, following another conversation with an American friend living in Canada, about the fact that few employers offer paid maternity leave beyond limited period and that there is no government subsidized child care anywhere in the US, it has dawned on me how behind US public spending is compared to other industrialized nations.

Almost all western European nations have universal health care and some level of paid maternity leave and subsidized child care. And they have Canada beat when it comes to subsidizing post secondary education! Though thanks to globalization, the EU, and the spread of “American-style” capitalism and economic austerity around the globe (which often entails the privatization of social services like health and education), public spending in all areas is declining in Europe. But even with ever-declining government social services (which are largely paid for through public taxes), the rest of the first world is light-years ahead of the US. Ironically, the “leader of the civilized” world seems rather uncivilized by comparison. Continue reading →

What Educated Women Are Not Allowed to Say in Today’s PC World…

05 Sunday Jul 2015

Posted by in Culture, Society

≈ 1 Comment

men in trees

I’m about to say something that is completely taboo in both the mainstream and so-called progressive culture today, especially among intellectuals… Something so politically incorrect and so forbidden that I suspect that as soon as I type the words, the earth may open up and swallow me whole, hurling me into a PC purgatory more frightening than hell.

Saying these words is tantamount to social and academic suicide, especially among the “new Left.” But try as I might, I cannot hold my tongue. These words have been on the brim of my mind and lips for years, and I have to get them out. Are you ready? Progressive and “enlightened” and politically correct (PC) people of the world, are you sitting down. Here it goes: I…miss…MASCULINE…men!

Okay, wait…breathe. Take a minute… And let me take a minute to make sure I’m still here, and that everything is in one piece. Okay, my limbs are intact, I still have my sight…I’m looking outside my window, and no, the sky didn’t fall. And as far as I can tell, I’m still on this earthly plane. It’s hard to believe that I have not been stricken dead, for I have just used one of the most forbidden words in the English lexicon, according to the PC mafia: “masculine.”

As the postmodern obsession with policing language—borne largely but not solely from the movement in academia (in the Humanities and Social Sciences) towards postmodern paradigms and theories—evolved over the last two decades, the concept of “masculine” became anathema to all those who fancied themselves progressive and liberal (though not necessarily radical, and there is a huge difference). Much of the disdain for the term masculine comes from feminist and queer theory (which are two different schools of thought), where masculine came to be associated with oppressive and dominant traits and aspects in society that were traditionally treated as superior in a hetero-patriarchal system. While these theories made some important observations about power and society, etc., one social and cultural effect was to make it almost forbidden to use the word masculine, even as a descriptive term, unless it was used negatively to denote power, oppression, domination, violence, subjugation, etc.

As such, using the word as a physically descriptive term for men, or, as a (gasp!) favourable and even desirable male quality became practically synonymous with being intellectually backwards and archaic. Well, at least in heterosexual circles. Ironically, while the pejorative notion of the “masculine” partly grew out of queer theory, the male gay community is one of the only spaces where “masculine” or “macho” men are still celebrated and desired (or allowed to be) without shame. In the male gay community a whole spectrum of tastes and desires (from effeminate “twinks” to big hairy, masculine “bears” and “leather daddies”) exists, and the big, strong, hairy, rugged “masculine man” enjoys a comfortable spot on that spectrum.

But in the heterosexual community one is more or less banned from using such oppressive and essentialist language and displaying such archaic tastes. While men who are attracted to men are free to desire and celebrate a more “old fashioned” kind of guy, women who are attracted to men do so at the risk of social backlash.

Ironically, as straight men have become more “metro-sexual,” both gay men and straight women find it increasingly difficult to “differentiate” between gay and straight men, on the surface. How do I know, because I have had this conversation many, many times with both straight women and gay men (as well as from my own experiences). Now before anyone gets all bent out of sorts and starts hurling accusations of homophobia at me, just chill. Almost all of my male friends are gay and my two closest friends are both gay men. And they have all told me that when checking out guys, it is becoming increasingly harder for them to tell if the guys are gay or straight.

One reason is outer appearance and overall aura. While straight men are dressing and speaking in a more traditionally (or stereotypically) “gay manner,” many gay men are hitting the gym, growing their scruff and walking around like uber-rugged hunks. This is not homophobia, gender bias or gender essentialism, etc. It’s just an honest  observation (you know what I’m talking about and you know it’s true) by a woman (and many of my gay and straight friends) that lives in a big city–where metro-sexual guys and skinny-jean wearing hipsters are everywhere–and misses the sight of rugged, scruffy “masculine” dudes. True, the bearded hipster lumberjack look has recently taken off, but there’s still sometimes a hint of the metro-sexual afoot in that.

Ok. There. I’ve said it! Is that such a crime?! Are women allowed to have tastes and comment freely and openly about those tastes?! Indeed, popular culture started to address this topic several years ago but it never gained much steam. Back in 2007, a much-less-known Katy Perry came out with a song called “Ur So Gay,” where she satirically laments about being in a relationship with a metro-sexual guy. While the song was not intended to be homophobic (it’s been described as satirical social commentary and “Queen of pop” Madonna even once called it her new favourite song), some interpreted it that way. But the following year Perry came out with the song “I kissed a Girl” and her near brush with pc controversy was all but forgotten.

Anyway, maybe I’m a lone, “educated woman” in a politically correct prison,  err island, but I often miss the sight…and sound…and smell, etc., of old school “masculine” men.

Contemporary Youth are Non-Threatening (to the Status Quo)

18 Thursday Jun 2015

Posted by in Culture, Society

≈ Leave a comment

packaged rebellionThere’s something a bit off about youth (teens to mid-twenties) today. By that, I don’t mean that they are out of control and a threat to society, quite the contrary. While many youth may seem “wild” and rebellious, contemporary “youthful rebellion” is as pre-packaged, mass produced and apolitical as bologna and juice boxes.

Present day youthful rebelliousness–and coolness–feels artificial, scripted, corporate-mediated and, quite frankly, lame. This is also true of many hipsters, who may consider themselves to be edgy or controversial/defiant, but are usually far from it.  Contemporary hipster youth seem like clueless (i.e., with little knowledge of history or the many authentic and often politically radical counter-cultural movements and sub-cultures their surface-style is based on or emerged from) posers who are all style and no substance. Many come off as uber-sheltered, coddled novices who’s supposedly non-conformist coolness has in fact been packaged and dictated for them by the corporate mainstream media and/or corporate-mediated “alternative” culture. It’s like Disney meets phony punk rock,  and the resultant “edginess” or coolness is both strange and artificial. It’s simulacra on pop culture steroids: an imitation of a lame imitation…of an even lamer imitation…at infinitude.

I am at an age where I am no longer considered youth and can speak from a slightly wider historical perspective. At the same time, I am both old enough and young enough to have a more coherent view of contemporary youth. Unlike someone much older than me, who may think that today’s “wild” youth are “a threat” to society and order, I am young enough to be able to compare today’s youth to that of my own time and earlier and see the glaring reality: today’s youth are “wild and rebellious” in a way that in fact serves the corporate-consumerist culture and political power structure like never before. Unlike previous eras, where youthful or coming of age experimentation and rebellion was much more organic as well as cognizant, critical and defiant of the system of power, today’s so-called rebel youth have actually been created and coddled by the establishment itself. While images of young pop stars engaging in raunchy and hedonistic behaviour is rampant in the media, theirs is a rather staged and orchestrated decadence that reeks of corporate sponsorship (Miley Cyrus, anyone). Most importantly, it is debauchery for the sake of spectacle and corporate profits.

While youth partying or experimenting with sexuality, etc., may be scary for parents, in and of itself, it does very little to challenge the status quo as long as it is devoid of any intellectual or ideological (or heaven forbid, genuinely dissident) analysis or larger agenda. Today’s youth are among the most uninformed and uncritical thinking youth in history (due largely to a lack of critical thinking training in the educational system and the dumbing-down effect of corporate media and corporate culture). They, like many adults in today’s society, have been dumbed-down and historically removed from anything to do with ideology, philosophy or general social and political critique. Many lack the critical faculties to ask deeper questions about the world and society in which they live. Rather than confront power in the historical, ideological sense (as the student and civil rights movements of the 1960s and 1970s were beginning to do before they were co-opted and fragmented by divisive identity politics) today’s youth, even many of those that consider themselves progressive or left wing, do not really understand or address issues of power.

Whether they’re into pop culture, alternative culture or hipster culture, being outrageous is not the same thing as being a threat to power. As “outrageous” as some may be, or pretend to be, much of today’s youth seem more malleable and less threatening (to the status quo) than ever! Image, style and decadence without substance and critical thinking are ultimately lame, non-threatening…and reinforce power.

Please Note: It is not my intention to paint all youth with the same brush. As someone who has taught university in the past, I know very well that there are some deeply critically minded and amazing youth! For this reason, I hold on to hope for a critical awakening among future generations.