essay due 8.24.14 by 5pm EST

READINGS

Islam-ism, Al-Qaeda, and Systems Theory

Week 14: In Week 14 we will look primarily at the rise of Al-Qaeda and Islamism through sociological glasses. The first online reading briefly places Al-Qaeda within a social and cultural context. The second online reading looks at several global sociological frameworks that may have descriptive and explanatory power in our attempts to understand the place of terrorism in the world.

© 2005 Joyce S. McKnight

The "sociological imagination" allows us to link our individual lives with events in the broader world. It enables us to understand how actions a world away and/or many years in the past can result in our lives being changed forever. Moreover, it emphasizes the important idea that human beings create the world by our daily decisions and actions. There is no society without human action. (Macionis, 2002)

In many years of teaching introductory sociology to undergraduates, I have learned that most American students have a hard time with the sociological imagination. They have difficulty seeing how social trends, even in the US, affect their behaviors and, for that matter, how their behaviors affect social trends. This myopia worsens when students are challenged to look at the impact of social and historical trends at the international level. Americans tend to be very ethnocentric and isolationist. Perhaps three centuries of separation from the rest of the world by miles of water has given Americans a sense of safety and isolation. Much of this sense of safety in isolation ended on 9/11. Unfortunately, an abrupt ending to innocence often leads to irrational anger. In my classes immediately after 9/11, I found most students wanting to strike back at "those people" or "those countries" who hurt us. There was a backlash of hatred , references to all Moslems as "rag-heads" and evidence of a complete lack of understanding of historical and social factors that have led to global jihad or even that jihad has multiple meanings within Islam itself. Sociology teaches us, among other things, that we need to put ourselves in the place of the others, to put ourselves in their shoes and to see the world from their perspective without necessarily embracing that perspective. This essay attempts to clarify how Islamists and, especially, Al-Qaeda view the world.

As we have seen from our earlier discussions of systems theory, one has to begin with a focal system that is rather arbitrarily bounded in time, space, and content focus. We will be looking at Islamism, a twentieth century movement that has been likened to similar political movements of that century such as communism, socialism, and fascism We will move from this broad global systems perspective to an understanding of the rise of Al-Qaeda, its linkage to more nationally based terrorist movements, and some reflections based in systems theory.

For sociologists, major social institutions such as family, religion, politics, economics, and education are very much entwined. This is certainly true of religion and politics in the traditional Moslem concept of sharia or law. "Like most religious cultures, Islam classically drew no distinction between religious and secular life. Hence Sharia covers not only religious rituals, but many aspects of day-to-day life."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia Islamism as a movement emphasizes the unity of Islam with legal and political practice. For the Islamist there is no separation between politics and religious practice.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

In the shadowy world of international terrorism and counterterrorism, it is hard to separate accurate history from propaganda. The wikiepedia, an online resource that purports to be a relatively unbiased source of information created and maintained by a web-based community, has identified several roots of Islamism, which appears to have arisen almost simultaneously in different parts of the world, often in reaction to colonialism and neo-colonialism.

Two important predecessors of the current international movement arose in the sub-continent, India and Pakistan.

The Deobandi Movement

"In India, the Deobandi movement developed as a reaction to British actions against Muslims and the influence of Saved Ahmad Khan, who advocated the reform and modernization of Islam. Named after the town of Deoband , where it originated, the movement was built around Islamic schools (principally Darul Uloom ) and taught an interpretation of Islam that encouraged the subservience of women, discouraged the use of many forms of technology and entertainment, and believed that only "revealed" or God-inspired knowledge (rather than human knowledge) should be followed.

Though the Deobandi philosophy is puritanical and wishes to remove non-Muslim (i.e., Hindu or Western) influence from Muslim societies, it was not especially violent or proselytizing, confining its activity mostly to the establishment of madarassas, or Muslim religious schools. The Taliban movement in Afghanistan was a product of the Deobandi philosophy and the madarassas religious schools. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism#The_Deobandi_Movement  

Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi

Sayvid Abul Ala Maududi was an important early twentieth-century figure first in India and then, after independence, in Pakistan. He was strongly influenced by Deobandi ideology. He advocated government by sharia or Islamic law as interpreted by Shura councils (assemblies called for the interpretation of law). Maududi founded Jamat-e-Islami (an Islamist party in Pakistan) in 1941 and remained at its head until 1972. His extremely influential book, Towards Understanding Islam, placed Islam in modern context, but also advocated leaving much of Islamic decision making power with the ulema, or traditional legal scholars.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism#The_Deobandi_Movement

A second thread of Islamism arose in Egypt as the Muslim Brotherhood and later spread to Palestine.  

The Muslim Brotherhood

<"Maududi's ideas were a strong influence on Saved Qutb in Egypt. Qutb was one of the key philosophers in the Muslim Brotherhood movement, which began in Egypt in 1928 and was banned (but still exists) following confrontations with Egyptian president Gamal Abdul Nassar, who jailed Qutb and many others. The Muslim Brotherhood (founded by Hasan al-Banna) advocated a return to sharia because of what they perceived as the inability of Western secular or modern values to secure harmony and happiness for Muslims. Since only divine guidance could lead humans to be happy, it followed that Muslims should eschew democracy and live according to divinely-inspired sharia. The Brotherhood was one of the first groups to advocate jihad (holy defensive war) against all those who do not follow Islam. As al-Banna said:

"[Muslim] lands have been trampled over, and their honor besmirched. Their adversaries are in charge of their affairs, and the rites of their religion have fallen into abeyance within their own domains, to say nothing of their impotence to broadcast the summons [to embrace Islam]. Hence it has become an individual obligation, which there is no evading, on every Muslim to prepare his equipment, to make up his mind to engage in jihad, and to get ready for it until the opportunity is ripe and God decrees a matter which is sure to be accomplished?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism#The_Deobandi_Movement  The Moslem Brotherhood became one of the principle influences on Osama Bin Laden.

The exhortation by al-Banna was followed by the creation of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad organization that was responsible for the assassination of (Egyptian President) Anwar Sadat. Islamic Jihad focused its efforts on "apostate" leaders of Islamic states, those who were secular and introduced Western ideas and practice to Islamic societies. Islamic Jihad operated not only in Egypt but Palestine as well, setting themselves up in opposition to the more secular Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism#The_Deobandi_Movement

A third strand of Islamism came from Saudi Arabia. Wahhabism is the faith of the Saudi royal family and Osama bin Laden.  

Wahhabism

The Wahhabists, who emerged in the 18th century led by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, believed that it was necessary to live according to the strict dictates of Islam, which they interpreted to mean living in the manner that the prophet Muhammad and his followers had lived in during the seventh century in Medina. Consequently they were opposed to many innovations developed since that time, including the minaret, marked graves, and later television and radios. The Wahhabis also considered those Muslims who violated their strict interpretation to be heretics, and thus used violence against other Muslims. When King Abdul Aziz al-Saud founded Saudi Arabia, he brought the Wahhabists into power with him. With Saud's rise to prominence, Wahhabism spread, especially following the 1973 oil embargo and the glut of oil wealth that resulted for Saudi Arabia. The Wahhabists were proselytizers, and made use of their wealth to spread their interpretation of Islam.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism#Wahhabism  Osama bin Laden is a Wahhabist. (Whittaker, 2002, p.42)

 

All of these Islamist movements appear to have been unified by a desire to return to what they saw as the fundamentals of Islam, to governments run by religious law and religious leaders, to societies governed by traditional conservative practices of dress and behavior, and by a mutual disdain for "westernized" Moslems. Osama bin Laden was raised in this volatile atmosphere and at a fairly young age became an important figure.

Osama bin Laden, the son of a multi-millionaire, was raised and educated in Jedda in Saudi Arabia where he was influenced by the radial Moslem clerics who had found refuge there. (Whittaker, 2002, p.42). These clerics, in turn, were influenced by Islamism and influenced it in return.

A turning point in Islamism seems to have come in 1979 with the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union. Islamist attention turned primarily from opposition to westernized Muslims to the "infidels." Osama bin Laden was a young man at the time. He volunteered to help in the Afghan campaign and was assigned to recruit other young Muslims to the cause. By all reports he did his job very well, assisted by the United States, who at that point in the "Cold War" considered anyone who was opposed to communism, and especially the Soviet Union, a friend. (Whittaker, 2002, p.42)

Osama bin Laden appears to have been very involved in the international Islamist movement even during the Soviet-Afghan conflict. He became an ally of a Palestinian, Azzam, who traveled in Britain, the United States, and throughout the Middle East raising money and recruits to the Afghan cause. While Azzam was fulfilling this role, bin Laden provided financial support, handled military matters, and recruited experts in guerrilla warfare and covert operations. Bin Laden was very successful in recruiting and training fighters with the majority coming from Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and Egypt as well as many other primarily Moslem countries. (Whittaker, 2002, p.42)

It is not really clear when bin Laden and his allies made the transition from an Afghan focus to a global jihad. In 1988, a year before the Soviet withdrawal, bin Laden and his partners formed Al-Qaeda, the Base. (Whittaker, 2002, p.42). Its name seems significant as Al-Qaeda was clearly intended to be a base of operations for jihad or Holy War against apostate Muslim governments, Israel, the United States, Great Britain and anyone seen to be in opposition to Al-Qaeda's vision of Islamism. (p.42) Al-Qaeda was designed to provide resources for Islamist struggles throughout the world. It was well funded through Bin Laden's personal fortune, charitable contributions, and the lucrative heroine trade from Afghanistan.(p.42)

Al-Qaeda probably was always an enemy of the United States and its allies such as Great Britain because of the history of colonialism in the Middle East, but active aggression against the US appears to have arisen only after the first Gulf War brought thousands of US soldiers to the Holy Lands of Saudi Arabia. (Whittaker, 2002, p.42)

Since the first Gulf War, the US appears to have been the major target of Al-Qaeda backed terrorism. However, there is some indication that Al-Qaeda operatives also support Islamist movements throughout the world with terrorist operations including the slaughter of school children in support of the Cheznian rebels and the so called 3/11 strike in Spain.

Militant Islamism with Al-Qaeda as an important "base" is primarily a political organization using terrorism as a tactic of war toward those it perceives as the enemies of the Islamic way of life as the militant Islamists define it. It is a jihad, a defensive war mounted to save the faith, and political structures based on the faith, from destruction. From a symbolic interaction point of view, their horrible actions make sense.

Al-Qaeda is an international movement, built on an relatively new organizational structure, a truly multi-national network. Whittaker states:

"Al-Qaeda is a well-organized and highly secretive terrorist network. Bin Laden's executive circle the Shura, includes a dozen aides and representatives of the network in other lands all experienced in mounting a jihad. There are a number of committees, for instance, a military one in charge of training, arms procurement, and terrorist strategies, a financial one whose resources are reputedly awash with vast proceeds from heroin and opium dealing, and a media one, which has impressive technology and competence. All these functionaries take an oath of allegiance. It has been said that Al-Qaeda is not a hierarchical structure, but a loose, rambling one. Whatever its nature there is no doubt of its effectiveness. Apart from the military vanguard, Al-Qaeda draws strength from a web of commercial undertakings in the Middle East. There are companies trading in import-export, chemicals, currency, and explosives. Roads and housing schemes are constructed by Al-Qaeda engineers. There are swathes of Al-Qaeda land, again in several countries, growing sesame, corn, peanuts, and narcotic crops. This brand of international terrorism has a very substantial commercial foundation?" (2002, p.44)

Such a "spaghetti" organization is almost impossible to destroy although it can be wounded. Especially with the reality of modern communications, it needs neither a permanent geographic home nor a permanent leader. For instance, while Al-Qaeda was certainly associated with the Taliban in Afghanistan and it is clear that it had a secure welcome there until the immediate aftermath of 9/11, it is also clear that the elimination of the Taliban cannot be equated with the elimination of Al-Qaeda. It is also likely that while the death of bin Laden himself would be a setback for the organization, the "Base" itself would probably survive as long as the ideology appeals to a significant number of people

This has been a brief history of Al-Qaeda and its place in the broader Islamist movement. Now we turn to ways that sociological theory may be helpful in both an analysis of the organization and some strategies for combating its influences.

The application of systems theory and chaos theory can help us gain an understanding of Al-Qaeda.

· Every existing system is a part of more complex systems. Al-Qaeda can be examined as a part of Islamic religion and culture, as a part of global religious fundamentalism, and as a part of global economic and political patterns. Each of these will be explored briefly later in the module.

· Every existing system is comprised of subsystems. The relationship of Al-Qaeda to other Islamist movements is sometimes cloudy, but it is clear that it sees itself as a resource for Islamist struggles in many parts of the world. Thus, it is likely that any Islamist struggle anywhere in the world from the Balkans, to Africa, to India, to Palestine, to Indonesia, to the Moslem Republics of the former Soviet Union will be able to call on Al-Qaeda as a source of support. In return, is likely that Al-Qaeda is able to depend on all of these Islamist movements for support as well.

· Smaller systems influence larger ones. The interests of Al-Qaeda reflect the interests of the sub-national movements it supports. Al-Qaeda is not a hierarchy or a bureaucracy in the traditional sense, but sees itself as a network holding Islamic interests together. 

· Larger systems influence smaller ones. The existence of Al-Qaeda provides needed support to sub-national Islamist movements not only in the form of finances, weapons, trained fighters etc. but as a unifying ideology and a unified mission that is very powerful. The very existence of Al-Qaeda brings the Islamist's definition of jihad to a global level.

· As systems increase in complexity there is more room for the "chaos effect". Small changes can result in unpredictable results. Since Al-Qaeda is a complex, amorphous system without a clear hierarchy it is difficult to develop a clear strategy to combat it. Worse, it is hard to predict what effect various strategies and tactics such as traditional warfare will produce.

· All systems are "more than the sum of their parts". Al-Qaeda, the Base, is qualitatively different from simply being a compendium of sub-national movements. It is a new entity that must be treated as such. It uses an international strategy with local tactics. 

· Systems are a product of their environment. Al-Qaeda is able to gather followers because of the perception of many Moslems that there is indeed a need for a global jihad to protect the Islamic way of life, and, especially government. As long as there are significant numbers of Muslims who feel that their faith is threatened, there will be those who define jihad, (which simply means "struggle" for the faith) in terms of violence.

· Al-Qaeda has a focused mission Al-Qaeda is much more unified than its enemies in the capitalist world who tend to be pursuing their individual ends. This level of focus tends to make Al-Qaeda a formidable enemy. 

· Al-Qaeda as a focal system should be examined within time boundaries. While it might be argued that Islamism is a product of Islamic faith and practice, it appears to be primarily a 20th century phenomenon as it links religious fundamentalism with revolutionary political objectives, taking its ideology from Islam but its tactics from communism.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

· Al-Qaeda as a focal system should be examined within geographic boundaries. Al-Qaeda is a truly international movement, but it sees itself as "the Base" providing resources to Islamist struggles around the world. Thus, it must be addressed on two fronts, as an international movement and as a unique enterprise in each part of the world where it has identified an Islamist struggle.

· Al-Qaeda as a focal system should be examined within ideological boundaries. While Al-Qaeda identifies itself as representing the "true" Islam, its claims are far from accurate. Islam is a worldwide faith with as rich a heritage and as much variation as Christianity and probably more variation than Judaism. While it is important to understand Islamist ideology, it is probably more important to understand the main teachings of Islam. Islam has five pillars: (1) belief in Allah as the one true God and Mohammed as his last and final prophet (2) to perform obligatory prayers five times per day (3) to pay zakat (a tithe for the poor to benefit the community) yearly (4) to fast during the Holy Month of Ramadan (5) to perform hajj and umrah or pilgrimage once in a lifetime if one is able. Thus, Islam is primarily focused on righteous subservience to the Will of God and care for other Moslems. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/pillars/basiclessons.html#Lesson2   Moderate Islam has five premises: (1) sincerity and truth with Allah (God) to seek His favor (2) to practice what one preaches without hypocrisy (3) gentleness in presenting the message (4) a gradual approach to propagation (of the faith). (5) address every people with what is suitable for them.  http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=503   The following quote from a moderate Moslem writer is definitive: "Islam is much more than a formal religion: it is an integral way of life. In many ways it is a more determining factor in the experience of its followers than any other world religion. The Muslim ("One who submits") lives face to face with Allah at all times and will introduce no separation between his life and his religion, his politics and his faith. With its strong emphasis on the brotherhood of men cooperating to fulfill the will of Allah, Islam has become one of the most influential religions in the world today.  http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=503

· Ideological boundaries of systems may clash. While Moslems, in general, see themselves as seeking only to worship God and live according to their faith, there is a clash of cultures built into Islam and Christianity. Both faiths believe that their founders were the last true revelation of God. Both believe that salvation is only possible through that belief. (John 14: 5-6) Moderates on both sides believe that it is up to believers to convince others of the truth through gentleness and persuasion. Fundamentalists on both sides believe that this approach is impossible. Each fears the other and from fear flows suspicion and from suspicion flows violence. Symbolic interaction theory teaches us that interpretation becomes reality. Thus, in an atmosphere of suspicion there is a tendency for self-protection in the form of preemptive strikes, terrorism or warfare. Even though neither faith sees itself as aggressive, this mutual defensiveness creates a very volatile situation. Millenialists on both sides see the clash of religions as having truly cosmic dimensions, literally a battle between God and the Devil that is a prelude to the end of history. A few on each side probably seek to hasten this eternal end.

· Systems are comprised of inputs, a conversion process, outputs, and feedback. The inputs into the current system at the level of religious ideologies are mutual suspicion and mistrust based on massive misunderstanding cultivated by individuals and groups who view these inputs as beneficial to their goals. This has resulted in a process that has put us all in danger as the system outputs have been increasing violence in the form of terrorism and warfare. Terrorism is like a fire that is constantly being fueled. One way to end a fire is to take away its fuel. It may seem simplistic, but one way to de-fuel hatred and mistrust is to build mutual understanding. Consensus based sociology (also called structure-functionalism) teaches that social structures exist so that people can live together in peace and relative prosperity. It is probably safe to assume that this desire for shalom is at least as strong a force as the conflict based desire for power.

Al-Qaeda as a movement depends primarily on a constant re-supply of young men who are willing to be martyred for the cause. Military responses tend to play into the perception that Islam is indeed threatened and that there is truly something to die for. De-fueling Al-Qaeda will mean demonstrating good faith to the millions of Moslems who do not advocate violence or terror, but who simply wish to glorify God and live together in peace. Ironically, the tsunami in December, 2004 may have given the western "Christian" world a chance to demonstrate care and kindness. Fair treatment of Moslems in Western nations will also de-fuel the perception of the need for defensive warfare. Allowing Moslem nations to choose religious governments without interference will also build credibility. Power comes in many forms, but love in terms of right relationships is one of the greatest. (Hyman, McKnight, and Higdon, 2005) In a super-heated atmosphere of mutual suspicion the injunction to love seems naïve. However, it seems clear that continually expanding violence whether terrorism, counter-terrorism, or warfare is not working very well. What is needed is for people of good-will to work together. This will not be easy, nor safe. History is full of martyrs who were attempting to be peacemakers, but peacemaking is the only intervention that makes sense.

 

Printed Works Cited

Holy Bible (New International Version): John 14: 5-6

Hyman, McKnight and Higdon (2005) Doing Democracy: Conflict and Consensus Strategies for Citizens, Organizations, and Communities. 5th ed. Xanedu

Macionis, J. (2002) Society: the Basics 6th ed. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall

Whittaker, D.J. (2001) The Terrorism Reader 2nd ed. New York: Routledge

Web Resources Cited (retrieved as of 3/18/05)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism#The_Deobandi_Movement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism#Wahhabism

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/pillars/basiclessons.html#Lesson2

http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=503

http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=503

READING 2

7. Old Paradigms: Modernization Theory and Dependency Theory

© 2005 Joyce S. McKnight

The following essay is intended to focus some mid-level sociological theories and the rise of Islamism. Its analysis is by no means definitive as it reflects my thoughts as a generalist sociologist, but it is intended to encourage critical thinking on key issues.

Modernization Theory

Mid-level sociological theories are intended to explain a particular sociological phenomenon, in this case why some nations and/or regions of the world are impoverished while others enjoy high levels of material prosperity.

Ironically, from a sociological point of view, modernization theory is not really "modern" in the sense of "contemporary" or "up-to-date". In fact it has its roots in structure-functionalism and 19th and early 20th century thinkers such as Comte, Durkheim, and Weber. It also has its political roots much earlier in the Enlightenment probably owing much of its impetus to the philosopher Kant. Some of its key components are the idea of progress, the rule of reason, and the continual movement of society away from a communal and largely agrarian past rooted in tradition and mired in ignorance to a bright future of continual change, material prosperity, and the "enlightenment" of reason. From the "modern" point of view, humanity has finally emerged from the darkness of ignorance to the light of a new day. This concept emerged in western Europe, but quickly spread to the United States (which, it might be argued, was in the early 19th century still an economic colony of England, if not a political one.) Modernists believe that progress to a secular, industrial society is inevitable, and that each area of the world is on its own journey toward modernization.  

Modernization theory is "a model of economic and social development that explains global inequality in terms of technological and cultural differences among societies." (Macionis, 2002, p.233) Modernization theory has the following premises. (1) Affluence is a relatively new historical phenomenon that came about because of the industrial revolution in Europe, before industrialization the whole world was poor. At first industrialization fired by capitalism only impacted the rich, but through a "trickle down" process industrial production soon raised most people above the level of "absolute poverty". Technology spurred by capitalism is seen as the source of prosperity (p.233) (2) Modernization has not impacted all societies equally because some cultural values reject materialism and technology. Modernization, and thus material prosperity, cannot be achieved without embracing the capitalist ideology.(p.233).

Those who embrace modernization theory believe that it is an inevitable result of historical change. Most believe that all societies will move through the stages of modernization and industrialization. Rostow (1960, 1978 cited in Macionis, 2002, p.234) identified four stages of industrialization which he saw as inevitable. (1) A traditional phase of economic development where people live much as they have lived for centuries and cannot imagine another way of life. (p.234) (2) A "take-off" phase in which traditional communal ties are replaced by individualism and materialism. These changes are typically sparked by outside influences as traditional societies are influenced by "progressive" influences from rich nations, "including foreign aid, availability of advanced technology, investment capital, and opportunities for schooling abroad." (p.234) (3) Societies then enter a third stage, a drive to technological maturity and material prosperity. Although absolute poverty usually ends at this stage, the transition from traditional life to industrialization may be tension filled, as the pull from past norms and values clashes with the pull toward new ways of life. Typical changes include the sense of anomie and alienation described by early sociologists as well as urbanization as people leave rural villages and farms for the cities.(p. 234) (4) Finally, societies enter an era of high mass consumption where the economy and thus the society is dependent on continuing production and consumption of material goods.(p.234) Modernization theorists believe that this process is inevitable and that it is good. Therefore, those nations that have already achieved a modern status have an obligation to help poorer nations become economically developed through helping them control population (p.235), increasing food production (p.235), introducing industrial technology (p.236), and providing foreign aid (p.236)

Modernization theory probably reached its peak as a source of foreign policy in the US and Europe in the 1950's and 1960's when it was assumed that industrialization held the key to the future. Now a number of questions have arisen about its basic assumptions that industrialization and increased consumption can be sustained, that increased materialism necessarily relates to a high quality of life. Macionis (2002, p. 236) lists several telling criticisms of modernization theory. (1) Modernization theory is a thinly veiled defense of capitalism and its destruction of other political forms (p. 236). Modernization makes western-style industrial capitalism the standard by which all other societies are judged. (p. 236) (2) Modernization theory posits that all societies should be improving as time goes on, but the United Nations lists several countries whose standard of living has either stagnated, or decreased in the last decades. (p.236) (3) Modernization theory fails to recognize that economic development of poor counties is not in the best interest of rich countries and, therefore, rich countries may actively block economic development efforts. (p.236) Moreover, although modernization theory tends to think in terms of nations rather than in multinational terms, much of the world's economy is controlled by multinational corporations, not nation states. (p.347) (4) Modernization theory tends to treat rich societies and poor societies as separate worlds, ignoring how each has affected the other and, especially, how the exploitation of natural resources through colonialism powered the industrial revolution. (p. 236) (5) Modernization theory "blames the victims", by suggesting that lack of prosperity is due to cultural "backwardness" rather than other factors such as exploitation. (p.236) (6) Modernization theory denies that it may carry within it the roots of its own destruction as unlimited growth may not be sustainable in the closed ecological system of the earth. (p.236)

Modernization theory is a consensus based, primarily structural-functional approach to international economics. Its strengths appear to be in the belief that shared technology can lead to global prosperity. Its major weakness, in addition to the ones outlined above, appears to be arrogance and an inability to see how other forms of economic and political life may be best in particular contexts.

Modernization theory is not intrinsically evil. In fact, one can see how its adherents probably feel that they have altruistic motives in bringing all of the world's peoples out of absolute poverty and into material prosperity. On the other hand, one can see how others might see modernization as a thinly veiled support for capitalism and for western domination. (Macionis, 2002, p. 236). Islamists with their emphasis on a return to traditional Islamic forms of government see modernization as one manifestation of "the Enemy", perhaps with some reason.

Modernization Theory and the History of the Middle East

It is clear that the so-called modern era, found the Middle Eastern countries around the Mediterranean ill prepared for change. Centuries of emphasis on understanding and embracing the wisdom of the past and respecting the divinely ordained patterns of governance in the present, left much of the ummah or Muslim lands ill-prepared to face the onslaught of well-organized European powers. (Waines, 2001)

At least some well-educated Muslims became aware of both the threat and the possibilities of modernization in the early 19th century. One scholar, Muhammad el Saffar, representative of the Sultan of Morocco a classically trained Muslim scholar and representative of the Sultan of Morocco to France from was particularly impressed with French organization and forward thinking. His journal is quoted here:

"(The French) are not content with knowing things by tradition, but study the roots of a matter (before) drawing conclusions. Only then do they accept or reject it?If a craftsman does something new his prestige and power are increased. Then the state rewards him, praises him, and makes much of him. In that way, the desire for progress is cultivated among them. Whatever, they hear, see, invent, or learn from others they record in registers and keep forever?" (journal of Muhammad el Saffar translated by S.G. Miller (1992) Travels of a Moroccan Scholar in France in 1845-1846 Berkeley: University of California Press cited in Waines, 2001 p.212)

These thoughts led el Saffar to compare the role of learning and scholarship in the two cultures:

"(A learned man (alim) is someone who is able to invent new and useful (ideas and things) and demonstrate their fine points by presenting sound proofs to those who doubt or oppose their findings. The name alim (roughly "professor") is not limited to someone who has studied the sources of the religion of the Christians and its various branches--they are called priests--for knowing that is rather undistinguished (in their view) as compared with knowing the other logical and precise sciences." (p. 212)

El Saffar may have been one of the first, but he was certainly not the last 19th century Muslim to be fascinated with secular knowledge and the scientific method. Muslim reformers began to look carefully at the West and particularly at the concept of progress. There was a movement from an emphasis on life hereafter, to the responsibility to improve life in the present. There was also a movement from viewing all things European as "Christian" and, therefore, forbidden, and toward viewing technological progress and even constitutional forms of government and concepts such as separation of religion and state as separate from faith. (Waines, 2001). The colonial conquest of much of what had been the ummah or Muslim world occurred nearly simultaneously with this scholarly speculation on the possibility of embracing modernization. (Waines, 2001) The two trends appear to have flowed together through much of the early and mid 20th centuries. The effects of modernization were felt most directly in those parts of the ummah came directly under European colonial rule. There the concept of "nation state" was introduced as the colonial powers carved up and divided the territory. These newly created states became independent at different times. As each became independent, they created new governments. Most of these governments were built on a European model with separation of religious rule from state rule. In addition, most of the new rulers were committed to "modernization" in the sense of embracing science and technology as the way to material prosperity. (Waines, 2001)

The image held by many Europeans and Americans during the mid- 20th century was of the Muslim states moving into the modern, secular world smoothly and peacefully with religion relegated to only matters of personal conscience. This image was probably epitomized by the Shah of Iran who was seen in most Western countries as a symbol of the "modern" Middle East, using the prosperity of his country to bring his people health care, education, and modern ideas. (Waines, 2001, p.247). The western world was utterly shocked when the Shah fell in 1979 and was replaced by a fundamentalist cleric. However, the fall of the Shah may have been simply symptomatic of the weakness in the imposition of modernism on Islamic culture. The changes imposed by the Shah had merely been superimposed on the existing culture. They had not been allowed to grow and take root in a uniquely Islamic way, and thus the backlash. (Waines, 2001). Similar backlashes have occurred and are occurring throughout the ummah in the radical Islamist movement we have been discussing.

The lesson from this history is not so much that modernization in terms of new technology and the scientific method is wrong, but that the imposition of ideas on a culture invites backlash. Time will tell if a post-modern approach can be developed that will blend the best of both worlds, the strength of tradition with the creativity of technology.

Dependency Theory

While modernization theory is based in the structure-functional view of sociology, dependency theory is based in the conflict paradigm. Dependency theory may be defined as "a model of global economic development that explains global inequality in terms of the historical exploitation of poor societies by rich ones." (Macionis, 2002, p.236). While modernization theory states that poor nations are simply behind rich ones on an inevitable path of progress (p.236), dependency theory states that the rich parts of the world are only rich because of the exploitation of poor parts of the world. (p.236) Both relative wealth and poverty are the result of global commerce initiated by Europeans five centuries ago. (p.236) This historical perspective is especially important for Islamism.

Dependency Theory and the History of the Middle East

The following information is taken from an extensive article entitled "Islam and Islamic History in Arabia and the Middle East" retrieved from the web athttp://www.islamicity.com/mosque/ihame/Sec14.htm It is important to remember that during the time in Europe we call the "Middle Ages" or even the "Dark Ages" Islamic culture was at its peak with great universities, highly developed science and mathematics, and a stable, prosperous way of life. Islam appears to have ended years of tribal conflict in the Middle East and parts of Africa. While not everyone in the Islamic world was rich in the Golden Age of Islam, it is clear that the area enjoyed unprecedented prosperity during centuries while Europe languished after the Fall of Rome.

It is unclear exactly when the power of Islam was broken by the Europeans. There is some indication that the crusades were simply minor irritants to the Moslems. It seems that the beginning of trade in the 14th and 15th centuries was far more important, leading as it did to more contact, to military aggression, and eventually in the 19th century to colonial control. Across the years, the Ottoman Empire gradually lost power to the Europeans, but a major turning point came when Napoleon Bonaparte invaded and defeated Egypt in 1798. This shattered the myth of the power of the Ottoman Empire and inaugurated more than 150 years of direct political intervention by the West. Western intervention grew throughout the 19th century. "In 1820 Great Britain imposed a pact on Arab tribes on the coast of the Arabian gulf; in the 1830's France occupied Algeria; in 1839 Britain occupied Aden, at the strategic entrance to the Red Sea, in 1869, the Suez Canal was completed under French sponsorship. http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/ihame/Sec14.htm 

While modernization brought some improvements to the Arab world after centuries of slow decline under the Ottomans, western domination tended to benefit only Europe. "Western and western stimulated efforts to modernize parts of the Middle East ? often led Middle Eastern rulers to incur debts which led to European financial control and then to European political domination." http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/ihame/Sec14.htm

The domination of Arab lands by the Europeans continued. During World War I the remnants of the Ottoman Empire sided with Germany. Great Britain, in response, supported the Arab guerilla revolt against the Ottoman Turks, promising aid and eventual independence. However, the promise of independence was never kept. Instead, Great Britain and France secretly agreed to partition much of the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire between them and eventually obtained mandates from the League of Nations: Britain over Iraq, Palestine, and Transjordan; France over Syria and Lebanon. This, in addition to the control these European powers already had over Egypt, Algeria, and large parts of Moslem Africa, led to a European hegemony in the area. The control of the region by the European Colonial powers led directly to their assumption of the right to declare an Israeli state in Palestine, which was rejected by the Arab peoples, and has led to all manner of violence since then. http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/ihame/Sec14.htm

It is important to note that the European exploitation of Arabian resources and political aspirations is what Macionis (2002, p.238) warns about as one of the primary criticisms of modernization theory and a major defense of dependency theory.

This brief history of the Middle East, supports some of the main premises of dependency theory as expressed by Wallerstein (1974, 1979, 1983, and 1984 in Macionis, 2002) First, that poor nations are poor because of the legacy of colonialism. (p. 236) Second, that the capitalist economies (i.e. the "core" economies) of the world make the poorer economies (i.e. the peripheral economies) dependent on them through the following more or less intentional strategies. (1) Multinational companies who are based in "core nations" exploit peripheral nations by purchasing only a few cash crops from them, making it impossible for poor nations to diversify their agricultural output. In addition, the core nations also have historically used peripheral nations as a source of raw materials (such as oil in the Middle East) while retaining the manufacturing resources within their own borders (p.236)?(Author's note: It is interesting to speculate whether this is still the case since the 1980's and continuing to the present both manufacturing and now information-based jobs have been exported off-shore by multinational companies). (2) Lack of an industrial capacity in peripheral countries means that citizens must purchase manufactured goods and from the richer countries. (p. 236) (3) Unequal trade patterns have plunged poor countries into massive debt. Staggering debt results in high unemployment and rapid inflation. (p.236) Modernization theory holds that the industrialization pulls the rest of the world along toward prosperity. (p.238) Dependency theory states that the industrialized nations became overdeveloped by the exploitation of the rest of the world. (p.238) Poverty is a result of unfair distribution of wealth in a world of "haves" and "have nots". (p.239)

Macionis (2002) points out some of the flaws in dependency theory. (1) Wealth is not a zero-sum commodity in which only a few can be well-off at the expense of the many. Wealth can be created and distributed. (p.239). (2) A direct relationship cannot be proven between contact with the West and poverty. Some countries, like Ethiopia, have had little contract with the West and are very poor while other countries like Sri Lanka, Singapore, Hong Kong, and South Korea have become quite prosperous through their western connections. (p.239). (3) Dependency theory is too simplistic in placing the blame on global capitalism. Cultural factors within particular societies including corrupt leadership. (p.240) (4) Critics of dependency theory fault theorists for downplaying the harm done to poor countries by the former Soviet Union. The Soviets are seen as a colonial power just as the Western powers. (Author's note: It seems that Al-Qaeda would agree with this assessment, as Russia is certainly on their list of enemies of Islam). Fifth, dependency theory encourages poor countries to reject Western style capitalism and forge their own identities. Critics of dependency theory say that this is only thinly disguised socialism. (p. 240) (Author's Note: Islamists probably adopt many of the premises of dependency theory, but do not embrace socialism. Instead, they claim to prefer a return to traditional Islamic government forms.)

Both modernization theorists and dependency theorists have their adherents as you probably noticed earlier in the course in the debate between the philosophers Habermas and Derrida. Certainly elements of each can be seen throughout the world today. Both are useful in discerning what has happened in the world during the last two or three centuries and may be useful in discerning what is likely to happen in the future.

Written Works Cited

Macionis, J. (2002) Society: the Basics 6th ed. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall

Miller, S.J. (1992) Travels of a Moroccan Scholar in France in 1845-1846 Berkeley: University of California Press cited in Waines, 2001 An Introduction to Islam.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Rostow, W. (1960) The Stages of Economic Growth: A non-Communist Manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.cited in Macionis, 2002, Society: the Basics 6th ed. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall

Rostow, W. (1978) The World Economy: History and Prospect. Austin: University of Texas Press cited in Macionis, 2002, Society: the Basics 6th ed. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall

Waines, D. (2001) An Introduction to Islam. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Wallerstein, I (1974) The Modern World System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press cited in Macionis, J. (2002) Society: the Basics 6th ed. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall

Wallerstein, I (1979) The Capitalist World Economy. Cambridge: University Press cited in Macionis, J. (2002) Society: the Basics 6th ed. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall

Wallerstein, I (1983) "Crises, the World Economy, the Movements, and the Ideologies" in Albert Bergesen ed, Crisis in the World System. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage p.21-36 cited in Macionis, J. (2002) Society: the Basics 6th ed. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall

Wallerstein, I. (1984) The Politics of the World Economy: the States, the Movements, and the Civilizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press cited in Macionis, J. (2002) Society: the Basics 6th ed. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall

Web Source Cited--Retrieved 3/18/05

http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/ihame/Sec14.htm