Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.
As stated in a previous post, I recently finished reading “Part I: Domination and the Will in Western Thought and Culture” by John L. Hodge which appears in Cultural Bases of Racism and Group Oppression: An Examination of Traditional ‘Western’ Concepts, Values and Institutional Structures Which Support Racism, Sexism and Elitism (1975) by John L. Hodge, Donald K. Struckmann and Lynn Dorland Trost.
According to Hodge,
One of the core concepts which leads to and supports social domination in the West is the Western notion of the will, and of the relation of the will to the self and nature. (p.9)
Tracing the origin of the Western concept of will to the thinking of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, Hodge suggests that the Western self has tended to frame itself as non-physical (‘spiritual’) and rational, as opposed to physical (embodied) and sensuous (passionate, emotional etc.) As he states,
Two closely related and direct outcomes of the basic value-emphasis in Western culture placed on the will are the Western emphasis placed on technological development and the general Western distrust of and aloofness from sensuality and the body. Both of these attitudes have a very close relationship to the growth of the Western form of racism. The particular quality and quantity of technology in the West is the result of Western man’s centuries’ old desire to extend his will over nature … Allied with the Western dream of control over nature has been the notion of controlling the passions and emotions, for the passions and emotions have traditionally been linked to the body, and the body linked to nature. (pp.38-39)
Yet Hodge is nuanced in his exploration of the relationship between the will and domination. On his view,
We commonly speak of a person having “will power.” This common notion of will power essentially accords with the philosophical concept of the will. The will is thought of as being that aspect of the person which is his power to control his actions and emotions. The error in these conceptions is not so much the belief that something like a will or control-center exists in people but in the importance and emphasis placed on this aspect of the self relative to the other aspects of human existence. (p.22)
Again,
Control is thus the very essence of the will, control which is unilateral and non-reciprocating. This type of control should more accurately be called dominating control, or simply domination, to distinguish it from the kind of mutual influence which might occur between equally cooperating individuals. It is this type of control, the type of control which emanates from the will, which is the essence of domination, the kind of domination which is the essential ingredient of racism, colonialism, and imperialism, and— we can now add—which is the essence of hierarchical control. (p.36)
To see that there can be a different way, however, does not mean that the Western way has to be rejected as completely wrong, or as ‘bad’ … [Rather,] these criticisms are directed at an overemphasis predominant in Western culture. (pp.43-44)
In short, for Hodge it is an overemphasis of will-to-control that lies at the foundation of Racism (White Supremacy) as a system of domination. From an Islamic Counter-Racist perspective, I suggest that this overemphasis is usefully framed in terms of an exceeding of limits (Arabic taghaa), ultimately resulting in the emergence of a ‘God-Complex’, viz. taaghoot (false-god-ism)*. I should also like to suggest the pertinence of the following Qur’anic ayaat (signs/indicators), viz.
(96:6) No! [But] indeed, man transgresses
(96:7) Because he sees himself self-sufficient.
Another important issue raised by Hodge in connection with his exploration of the Western will-to-control/dominate is how it turns on fustrated externalisation or ‘exteriorisation’ of this will and its link to the colonising drive/impulse:
The exercise of will is the exercise of control. The individual will controls the individual, his emotions and behavior. The individual, on the other hand, seeks control over others. As a member of society, he submits his will to a higher authority for the sake of social stability, but he competes with his peers for ever higher positions of power within that society and exercises whatever control is permitted to him over those beneath him on the social ladder. What frustrations he absorbs through his inability to achieve greater control within his society, he releases by participating in and identifying with his society’s increasing control over other lands. His very identity depends on his expression of will and on his identification with the expression of will by others. Thus the move from his identification of himself with will, to his participation in a niche in an institutional hierarchy, to his support for the colonialistic and imperialistic endeavors of his society, is smooth and continuous. (p.36)
Again,
When the cultural foundation of a society is based on expression of the will, or ego, then we can expect that society to be imperialistic, to be a society with oppressed social classes, to be a society consisting of individualized beings in competition with one another on one level, while being united on another level under the rule of authority. We can expect such a society to manifest all of the various neuroses which occur in people who know so little of harmonious cooperation and the feeling of sensual continuity with their fellow beings and with nature. For the typical Westerner, social unity is generally achieved only through the exercise of fascist-like political and police controls, and is most often unity-against, against an enemy, a scapegoat. It follows that in a society consisting of a hierarchy of one will over another, that someone has to be at the bottom, and that if no such scapegoat is visible, one must be invented. (p.41)
From an Islamic Counter-Racist perspective, at least two issues loom large here: (1) the etymology of the name Iblees which is traced to the triliteral verb ablasa meaning
Insofar as such confounding can result in a feeling (mood, disposition) of frustration, I should like to suggest a link between the will-to-control/domination foundational to White Supremacy (Racism) and the Ibleesian archetype; on this point, see REFLECTION: The Spectre of Racism (White Supremacy); (2) what also needs to be considered is the arising of a friend-enemy distinction based not so much on existential considerations motivated by the need for defense, but rather based on the production/construction of a perceived threat through projection of negative/hostile traits associated with the ‘self’ onto the ‘other’. In this connection, consider the distinction which The Qur’an [=Final Proclamation of God/Allah to humanity] makes between
- the Adamic archetype, as that which ‘slips’ (not falls) from an originary state of felicity on account of its own actions – albeit prompted by the ‘whisperings’ of the Shay’thaanic [=alienated and alienating] personality type – yet takes ownership of its actions, and
- the Ibleesian archetype, as that which asserts itself as superior (Arabic anna khairun minhu, I am better than / preferable to him) and is thereby condemned by God/Allah for arrogance (Arabic istakbar, seeking greatness), scorn (Arabic ibaa) of the Adamic, and ingratitude to The Divine (Arabic kufr), yet projects the source of such arrogance onto The Divine rather that take ownership of it upon itself.
Peace
* In this connection, see previous blog posts entitled Counter-Racism and the Kalimat of Tawheed and Why Bother With White Supremacists?.
The BANDUNG2 Blog 