LENIN'S TOMB

 

Friday, January 09, 2015

Pseudo-explanations for a massacre posted by Richard Seymour

There's only so much stupid from the internet that I can tactfully ignore.  So let me say this.  No: as it happens, I don't think the racism of Charlie Hebdo toward Muslims by itself even approximately explains the massacre.  Much less do I think the killings a 'natural' response to racism, as this Charlie suggests.  Really, internet?  Really?  I have to say this?  Okay, apparently I do.

I very explicitly suggested that it was "too soon" for a complete political narrative of the killings themselves. The rush to understanding invariably leads to people reaching for what they already know, which is usually not much.  And I also very clearly said that Islamophobia is an inescapable element of the political context which shapes the immediate political instrumentalisation of the murders.  I said that the pressure to engage in a mawkish and narcissistic solidarity with "people like us" - in this case, with a magazine which put out crass racist stereotypes - would be part of that instrumentalisation.  In this, I have been borne out.  The reactions demanding that the Charlie Hebdo cartoons be widely republished, or that news media rebrand themselves 'Charley Hebdo' (dixit Michael Moore), are at the very best obtuse as to the message that will send.  At worst?  Well, if readers will look to their left, they will see the literal proximity of such 'solidarity' with violent racism in the form of a seemingly popular call for the extermination of Muslims.  

To put this in some context, notice that the Right has been absolutely unapologetic in the instantaneous way in which it has deployed these murders, before the blood was dry and the bodies cold, to score reactionary points about 'Western values' and immigration.  Samaras was crude in the way he did this, to bash Syriza.  Cameron, Hollande and Merkel are more subtle and strategic, but the re-affirmations of what Cameron calls 'muscular liberalism' were more or less to script, and more elaborate articulations cannot be far off.  And that very much is about providing an explanation, or pseudo-explanation, for events: we have people among us who don't share our values, and every now and again some of them go off on one and start killing.  This is linked to a spurious 'tolerance'.  Tolerating someone implies that they're a burden, that we're just putting up with them, and that essentially is the view of Muslims.  The 'good' Muslims can stay, but they have to assimilate, they have to moderate their presumed values, culture or beliefs, and accept something called 'Western values'.  They have to root out the evil within.  Most importantly, they have to stop their attempts to mobilise politically in their own interests, to address their structural oppression, to articulate anything but the most tame obeisance to patriotic truisms.  We're watching them.  Tolerance in this sense is a disciplinary mechanism.

Yet hypocritically, there is always an implied blackmail levelled at the Left at such times: don't you dare question the manner of our politicisation of this massacre, or we will hold you responsible for politicising a massacre.  Worse, we will accuse you of defending it - never mind your bona fides.  Of course, those suggesting that we have to observe decorum and good taste when we're discussing Charlie Hebdo are probably unaware of the irony of their position.  It is more than a little odd, isn't it, that Charlie's reactionary defenders - to a man, vigorous exponents of anti-PC laffs and the 'right to criticise' - are suddenly so humourlessly morose and politically correct about this.  Of course, some elements of the liberal-left, with wearisome inevitability, gave in to this blackmail, pleaded innocence before the imaginary tribunal, and reduced their politics to sweet nothings, windy exhalations, vacuous assertions of the obvious.  It is, of course, a psychoanalytic truism that when people begin to stridently assert that which no one has denied, or which seems obvious - killing is bad, free speech is good - one should start asking questions.  But the pissy, sanctimonious and usually breathtakingly stupid reactions not just to my article but to those thoughtful articles which merely attempted to take a distance from the feelgood #jesuischarlie hashtaggery, betray the capitulation here.  They may not literally say 'how dare u support the isis u fukkn sick cunt fuck off back to afghanistan', but the educated variants of this basic sentiment are no less stupid.

On top of this, we see once more the mobilisation of what Dan Hind called the 'folk Enlightenment', the invocations of some disembodied principles from French or English 18th century philosophers, and the completely unironic claims for the authentically French or European or Western nature of certain values, such as 'freedom of expression': in the same states where such freedoms as the right to wear a hijab, or 'mock the troops', or tell the Prime Minister he has blood on his hands, or protest against Israeli massacre are routinely suppressed.  As always, the Enlightenment is a contested legacy, and this mobilisation of a fetishised 'folk Enlightenment' which is somehow the property of a geopolitical axis or an imagined community called 'the West', is part of an attempt to capture that legacy for exclusionary, racist, authoritarian and imperialist ends.  What can I say?  It's all very 2001.

As we get more information to hand, we will be able to start to piece together the beginnings of some sort of serious political understanding of the killings.  But to even begin that process, we will have to unpick the pseudo-explanations.  For example, there are reports that the killers were 'radicalised' by a jihadi organiser of the 'Nineteenth Arrondisement Iraqi Networks' named Farid Benyettou.  'Radicalisation' is a problematic term, embedded in counterinsurgency discourses.  In the sense often applied to Muslims, it means that they have become more 'extreme' in their Islam, more Islamic than before, less 'moderated' by their assimilation to 'Western values', by virtue of being exposed to 'extremism'.  So the critical thing, then, is to surveille Muslim students and communities, to make sure they don't get too much exposure to 'radical preachers'.  This, of course, doesn't explain anything.  People have to make a choice to listen to someone like Benyettou, decide that he is convincing, begin organising, and take up training to become a footsoldier.

There are also reports that the killers were 'radicalised' by the 'war on terror' and the deployment of torture by the CIA.  Again, this is an essential detail, but it will be totally inadequate by itself as an explanation.  Millions of people have been radicalised by war and imperialism, and the accompanying politics of racist authoritarianism.  Less than a handful of people went into the offices of Charlie Hebdo, declared themselves loyalists of 'Al Qaeda', and executed people at point blank.  And now, of course - almost as if from central casting - another less-than-handful reportedly linked to the suspects in the Charlie Hebdo massacre, are holding hostages and killing people in a kosher supermarket.  The rational kernel in the 'values' argument is that the perpetrators have gone out of their way to solicit the disgust and outrage of the social mainstream, to distinguish themselves as unapologetic, hard-headed footsoldiers who reject what they undoubtedly regard as utterly hypocritical liberal values.  Anyone who follows the propaganda from ISIS, for example, will know that they make a quite explicit and unabashed argument for rape and slavery.  So, we need to start filling in the gaps, the mediations, that lead from birth to 'radicalisation' to becoming glad instruments of a frankly sociopathic agenda.

We need to understand the politics of the jihadi groups involved, which have their own particular dynamic, their place in the French social formation, and their relationship to imperialism.  We have only the beginnings of a narrative here.  The two lead suspects, we are told, are second-generation French Algerians.  They were both raised as wards of the French state after they were orphaned, both ended up poor and unemployed.  That much is an old story: the way in which France has imported labour from the former colonies and then dumped them on the unemployment rolls and in the banlieues when they were no longer required.  They both went to the same mosque in the Stalingrad quarter when they turned 20, in around 2003: the same year in which the Woolwich killers began to have contact with a British Islamist sect.  Here, a familiar logic of proselytism seems to have played out, as their acquaintance with Benyettou - only a year older than them - provided them with a sense of comradeship, worth and moral purpose.  They gave up drugs and tobacco, soon began fitness and armaments training, and by 2005 were being trained in Salafi schools before crossing the border to join the Iraqi insurgency.

So, here are some obvious questions to start with.  What is it about the lived experience of being a working class second-generation French Algerian Muslim at the margins of society that might lead to Salafist ideology making some degree of sense?  What is it about the structures of global politics that the jihadi mentality can make some sense of?  What is it about the nature of French politics, and particularly working class politics in the suburbs, which means that this section of the working class is somewhere that religious reactionaries can recruit?  What is it about this strain of Islamist politics, its history, its patterns of organising that would appeal to detached, marginal, racially oppressed French Muslims?  What is it about fighting a guerilla war against an occupying force in Iraq that may have killed around a million people, both directly and through General Petraeus's trained death squads, that would consolidate and 'radicalise' the jihadi politics of those involved?  And what kind of strategic impasse would lead to them brutally lashing out at two, what I must imagine are utterly peripheral targets from their perspective: a satirical publication, albeit one with a line in crass racist humour about Muslims, and a kosher supermarket?  It's important at least to ask, because if you leave it to the mainstream news, the tacit pseudo-explanation viz. "Muslim nutters threatening our way of life" will be the one that dominates.

4:21:00 pm | Permalink | Comments thread | | Print | Digg | del.icio.us | reddit | StumbleUpon | diigo it Tweet| Share| Flattr this

Search via Google

Info

Richard Seymour

Richard Seymour's Wiki

Richard Seymour: information and contact

Richard Seymour's agent

RSS

Twitter

Tumblr

Pinterest

Academia

Storify

Donate

corbyn_9781784785314-max_221-32100507bd25b752de8c389f93cd0bb4

Against Austerity cover

Subscription options

Flattr this

Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Recent Posts

Subscribe to Lenin's Tomb
Email:

Lenosphere

Archives

September 2001

June 2003

July 2003

August 2003

September 2003

October 2003

November 2003

December 2003

January 2004

February 2004

March 2004

April 2004

May 2004

June 2004

July 2004

August 2004

September 2004

October 2004

November 2004

December 2004

January 2005

February 2005

March 2005

April 2005

May 2005

June 2005

July 2005

August 2005

September 2005

October 2005

November 2005

December 2005

January 2006

February 2006

March 2006

April 2006

May 2006

June 2006

July 2006

August 2006

September 2006

October 2006

November 2006

December 2006

January 2007

February 2007

March 2007

April 2007

May 2007

June 2007

July 2007

August 2007

September 2007

October 2007

November 2007

December 2007

January 2008

February 2008

March 2008

April 2008

May 2008

June 2008

July 2008

August 2008

September 2008

October 2008

November 2008

December 2008

January 2009

February 2009

March 2009

April 2009

May 2009

June 2009

July 2009

August 2009

September 2009

October 2009

November 2009

December 2009

January 2010

February 2010

March 2010

April 2010

May 2010

June 2010

July 2010

August 2010

September 2010

October 2010

November 2010

December 2010

January 2011

February 2011

March 2011

April 2011

May 2011

June 2011

July 2011

August 2011

September 2011

October 2011

November 2011

December 2011

January 2012

February 2012

March 2012

April 2012

May 2012

June 2012

July 2012

August 2012

September 2012

October 2012

November 2012

December 2012

January 2013

February 2013

March 2013

April 2013

May 2013

June 2013

July 2013

August 2013

September 2013

October 2013

November 2013

December 2013

January 2014

February 2014

March 2014

April 2014

May 2014

June 2014

July 2014

August 2014

September 2014

October 2014

November 2014

December 2014

January 2015

February 2015

March 2015

April 2015

May 2015

June 2015

July 2015

August 2015

September 2015

October 2015

December 2015

March 2016

April 2016

May 2016

June 2016

July 2016

August 2016

September 2016

October 2016

November 2016

December 2016

January 2017

February 2017

March 2017

April 2017

May 2017

June 2017

July 2017

August 2017

Dossiers

Hurricane Katrina Dossier

Suicide Bombing Dossier

Iraqi Resistance Dossier

Haiti Dossier

Christopher Hitchens Dossier

Organic Intellectuals

Michael Rosen

Left Flank

Necessary Agitation

China Miéville

Je Est Un Autre

Verso

Doug Henwood

Michael Lavalette

Entschindet und Vergeht

The Mustard Seed

Solomon's Minefield

3arabawy

Sursock

Left Now

Le Poireau Rouge

Complex System of Pipes

Le Colonel Chabert [see archives]

K-Punk

Faithful to the Line

Jews Sans Frontieres

Institute for Conjunctural Research

The Proles

Infinite Thought

Critical Montages

A Gauche

Histologion

Wat Tyler

Ken McLeod

Unrepentant Marxist

John Molyneux

Rastî

Obsolete

Bureau of Counterpropaganda

Prisoner of Starvation

Kotaji

Through The Scary Door

Historical Materialism

1820

General, Your Tank is a Powerful Vehicle

Fruits of our Labour

Left I on the News

Organized Rage

Another Green World

Climate and Capitalism

The View From Steeltown

Long Sunday

Anti-dialectics

Empire Watch [archives]

Killing Time [archives]

Ob Fusc [archives]

Apostate Windbag [archives]

Alphonse [archives]

Dead Men Left [dead, man left]

Bat [archives]

Bionic Octopus [archives]

Keeping the Rabble in Line [archives]

Cliffism [archives]

Antiwar

Antiwar.com

Antiwar.blog

Osama Saeed

Dahr Jamail

Angry Arab

Desert Peace

Abu Aardvark

Juan Cole

Baghdad Burning

Collective Lounge

Iraqi Democrats Against the Occupation

Unfair Witness [archive]

Iraq Occupation & Resistance Report [archive]

Socialism

Socialist Workers Party

Socialist Aotearoa

Globalise Resistance

Red Pepper

Marxists

New Left Review

Socialist Review

Socialist Worker

World Socialist Website

Left Turn

Noam Chomsky

South Africa Keep Left

Monthly Review

Morning Star

Radical Philosophy

Blogger
blog comments powered by Disqus