For the pre-class blog on ideas and interests I wanted to explore Goldstein and Keohane notion that "for traditionalist or religious fundamentalist societies even today, the individualistic and secular scientific premises of this world view remain intellectually and morally alien."(Goldstein and Keohane 9)
When I first read this I immediately thought about the Mexica and the founder's purposeful creation of a religion and a history that established a world view that required specific acts by individuals as well as the society. The Mexica understood that if they were going to be a great tribe they needed a great history. They destroyed their written history and created a new one with the intention of erasing the past and inspiring for the future. They also created a religion that explained the cosmic battles and the role that the tribe was required to play. This kind of intentional creation of a world view seems to go beyond what the authors delineate in their three concepts of World view, principled beliefs, and causal beliefs. It seems that at least the elite of the Mexica manipulated religion and history because they understood the function that these play in shaping the actions of individuals and the institutions of government.
But I also wondered about the modern fundamentalist. During some of the bleaker periods of the GW Bush's administration I seem to recall a number of blogs and comments arguing that Bush's actions (or inactions in the case of climate issues) were partially due to his evangelical Christian world view. Why worry about climate change if the judgement day is coming? Why not hasten the battle of Armageddon by embarking on non-stop wars in the Middle East? I am not sure that any of this analysis actually applies to the Bush administration, but I wonder how Goldstein and Keohane might apply their framework to Bush's decision. The U.S. has many interests in the Middle East, was the decision to attack Iraq based on these interests or on ideas? Were the ideas principled beliefs (Iraqis deserve democracy), or were they causal beliefs (getting rid of Iraq's wmd will bring peace)?
Amit, it's interesting you bring up the US invasion of Iraq. I spent good portions of the years 2003-2006 either in the country or preparing to go. When I first arrived in late 2003 through when I left in early 2004, there was little talk or concern about what type of government the Iraqis were going to have or how long the Provisional Authority would remain in control of Iraq's governance and WMD was what mattered.
ReplyDeleteWhen I returned in the middle of 2004, there was little to no talk of WMD and the only topic of concern was providing a secure enough environment to transition to the Iraqi Interim Government.
I think the beliefs driving everything changed by necessity to address what was actually happening versus what someone (or group) wanted to happen. I'm not sure either rationale was well thought out but the change reflected a significant shift in ideation. I'd also say there was little to nothing interest-based in the US invasion.