Many people still believe that the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were not just acts of political terrorism, but part of a cultural war, a clash of civilizations. The two things that get people most excited in cultural conflicts are religion and sex, specifically the way that men treat women. They are of course intimately linked: Religion is commonly used as a way to regulate sexual behavior and relations between the sexes.
The cultural interpretation of Sept. 11 as a civilizational clash explains why a number of former leftists have joined conservatives in their hostility to Islam. In the past, most US leftists would have regarded the war in Afghanistan as a neo-imperialist venture. However, since Sept. 11, the tone has changed. The Taliban subjugated women, stopped them from being educated and kept them wrapped in burqas. So a war against the Taliban and their guest, slain al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, could be construed as a war for female liberation.
It is, in fact, unlikely that feminism played any role in then-US president George W. Bush’s decision to take the US to war. However, cultural concerns allowed him to recruit quite a few unlikely allies.
The response to Sept. 11 and to former IMF managing director Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s recent encounter with an African chambermaid in a New York hotel have very little in common, except for one thing: Once again, cultural conflict was invoked in a misleading way.
Whatever happened between Strauss-Kahn and his accuser, the fact that he was arrested and paraded in front of the press as a criminal suspect has been much criticized in France. One allegation, made recently by a well-known French publicist, is that the arrest was typical of US puritanism. The French, he alleged, being from a Latin culture, have a more liberal understanding of sexual behavior. They are more tolerant of human frailties and have a more refined appreciation of the art of seduction.
More than that, the arrest of Strauss-Kahn was supposedly revenge for France’s protection of another man accused of sexual crimes, film director Roman Polanski, and for the French ban on the burqa. In other words, the Strauss-Kahn case was part of another clash of cultures over sex, and, if only tangentially, religion.
One problem with the cultural argument is that it is often used to defend or excuse the behavior of the powerful against the weak. Taliban men no doubt believe that the subjugation of women is a cultural privilege, as well as a religious duty. Authoritarian leaders in Asia routinely claim that their countries are culturally unsuited to democracy.
However, even in the more liberal West — let alone in countries with less liberal traditions, such as Japan — culture comes to the rescue of the powerful more often than it protects the weak. Both Polanski and Strauss-Kahn were engaged in sexual activities with women who were far from being their equals, in age and social status, respectively. Understanding their “human frailties,” then, comes down to excusing the behavior of powerful men toward women with no power at all.
The rather strict use of law in the US to regulate sexual behavior might reflect a puritanical culture, but it is more likely the result of cultural diversity. In a society of immigrants, people come from a wide variety of traditions and faiths, with very different views of sex and the treatment of women. Since Americans cannot rely on homogeneous mores, the law is the only way to regulate behavior. Old societies have customs and traditions; new ones have courts and legislatures.
However, that is not the whole answer, either. Sweden, a country of limited cultural diversity, has even more stringent laws on sexual behavior than the US. And France, beneath its veneer of republican equality, is culturally and ethnically diverse.
One cannot expect the law to solve all cultural conflicts, but it can play a positive role as a tool of emancipation. At best, the law is a great equalizer. The end of the Western slave trade did not come because European culture changed, but because the British changed their laws.
In Japan, sexual harassment of women has sometimes been excused — by Japanese males — to foreigners as part of Japanese culture, and the female victims often put up with it by thinking that this is true. No doubt many Afghan women in burqas are equally convinced that covering their faces is a cultural command — and therefore a natural duty.
However, more and more Japanese women are fighting back against unwelcome male attention, not by denying tradition or culture, but by going to a lawyer and suing. Their problem is not with sex, or the art of seduction, but with the abuse of power.
Muslim women in strict authoritarian societies do not usually have the option of seeking the law’s protection. Men who wish to maintain their control over women will no doubt continue to use culture and religious tradition to justify their dominance.
It would no doubt be better, especially for women, if the citizens of countries like Afghanistan were equal before the law. Likewise, it would be better if powerful Frenchmen were to stop using “Latin culture” as an excuse for abusing their social inferiors.
However, the solutions to these problems are political and legal. That is why Strauss-Kahn was arrested. As for women in Muslim countries, there may not be much that people in the West can do to improve their lot, but it is unlikely that much good will come from bombing them.
Ian Buruma is a professor of democracy and human rights at Bard College.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS