Ideas Lead to Movements, Interests Lead to Walls
Mulling over ideas and interests, I want to take the time to look at the Arab Spring to better understand what happened. How is it that an idea, harbored by different cultures and populations, manifested in one single incident in Tunisia? It seems crazy to think that one man's act of self-immolation led to the cry against tyranny from a generation. Was this truly sparked by an idea, or were interests at bay that set this course in motion?
The first piece of this puzzle seems to fall within an ideational concept itself, religion. While Syrian, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Egypt and all other affected countries have vastly different cultures, they all share a unique connection through Islam. Perhaps the ideals of Islam were able to transcend borders and allow these oppressed peoples to come together as one for a single cause. It should be noted, that globalization and technology played a large role in the intercommunication between nations, as Facebook and Twitter set the stage for mass rallies to amass in the streets. Religion seems to be the glue that allowed many seemingly week individuals to unite as one movement against tyranny.
While it is beautiful to focus on the motivational aspects of the Arab Spring, we must also consider interest-based reasons that this incident took place. Western influence to rid these countries of dictators played a major role in the success of the movements. The international community united behind a call for Democracy, whatever definition of Democracy the people had in mind. Unfortunately, this didn't bold well for other interest groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt gets its election, Morsi wins, and somehow he is ousted by the military to the delight of the United States, among others. It would seem that outside interests had a very strong hand in the events that unfolded when we step away from the Cinderella story.
Some seven years later, it would appear that interests won out in the long run. Civil war in Syria, proxy wars in Yemen, a military Junta in Egypt, but hey, at least Tunisia is doing alright? Just forget about the rampant anarchy that is everyday life in Libya which serves as a constant reminder that perhaps it is best that internal affairs are left to the citizens. What happened to those ideas of the people? They still exist, and they will continue to exist. Interests may have defined the infantile ideas that spawned the Arab Spring, but the spirit of the people lives on. What form that life takes, however, remains to be seen. Interests create walls that corral ideas into a specific mold, be it for good or ill.
The existence of ISIS is as much a product of the Arab Spring as it is the Iraq War. Interests brought chaos to downtrodden people, who in turn, looked to anything to save them from the onslaught of oppressive forces. While some good is slowly coming from the Arab Spring, (see Saudi Arabia slowly liberalizing, if only skin deep), negative outcomes like ISIS are unavoidable. Thus is the power of ideas, again, super-charged by globalization, the spread of technology and communication, and enhanced by the common bond of religion. It is human nature to sway from idea to idea, trying to find our calling to better our lives. When oppression strikes, it is only a matter of time until one idea sparks the next movement. The downside, of course, is that it only takes one rotten interest to throw it all into chaos.
The first piece of this puzzle seems to fall within an ideational concept itself, religion. While Syrian, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Egypt and all other affected countries have vastly different cultures, they all share a unique connection through Islam. Perhaps the ideals of Islam were able to transcend borders and allow these oppressed peoples to come together as one for a single cause. It should be noted, that globalization and technology played a large role in the intercommunication between nations, as Facebook and Twitter set the stage for mass rallies to amass in the streets. Religion seems to be the glue that allowed many seemingly week individuals to unite as one movement against tyranny.
While it is beautiful to focus on the motivational aspects of the Arab Spring, we must also consider interest-based reasons that this incident took place. Western influence to rid these countries of dictators played a major role in the success of the movements. The international community united behind a call for Democracy, whatever definition of Democracy the people had in mind. Unfortunately, this didn't bold well for other interest groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt gets its election, Morsi wins, and somehow he is ousted by the military to the delight of the United States, among others. It would seem that outside interests had a very strong hand in the events that unfolded when we step away from the Cinderella story.
Some seven years later, it would appear that interests won out in the long run. Civil war in Syria, proxy wars in Yemen, a military Junta in Egypt, but hey, at least Tunisia is doing alright? Just forget about the rampant anarchy that is everyday life in Libya which serves as a constant reminder that perhaps it is best that internal affairs are left to the citizens. What happened to those ideas of the people? They still exist, and they will continue to exist. Interests may have defined the infantile ideas that spawned the Arab Spring, but the spirit of the people lives on. What form that life takes, however, remains to be seen. Interests create walls that corral ideas into a specific mold, be it for good or ill.
The existence of ISIS is as much a product of the Arab Spring as it is the Iraq War. Interests brought chaos to downtrodden people, who in turn, looked to anything to save them from the onslaught of oppressive forces. While some good is slowly coming from the Arab Spring, (see Saudi Arabia slowly liberalizing, if only skin deep), negative outcomes like ISIS are unavoidable. Thus is the power of ideas, again, super-charged by globalization, the spread of technology and communication, and enhanced by the common bond of religion. It is human nature to sway from idea to idea, trying to find our calling to better our lives. When oppression strikes, it is only a matter of time until one idea sparks the next movement. The downside, of course, is that it only takes one rotten interest to throw it all into chaos.
I sometimes think it may take another 30-40 years to truly be able to analyze the Arab spring in theoretical terms to explain what happened and why. In many regards we are still seeing it unfold and its destiny is not quite sealed yet. Like you mentioned, the ideas and values that motivated the people are still there. You wall analogy is very interesting. So you see interests as molding ideas and behaviors? I kind of see it the other way around, but to be 100% honest I feel like people could debate that all day long and I am so ready to get to the next section and hopefully not have to write about interests and ideas anymore. lol.
ReplyDelete100% in agreement. I suppose I only see interests as molding ideas due to the power stratification in our world. I think, truthfully, one really can't completely define the other because a lot of the definition has to do with who has enough power or influence to establish their position as "truth." While revisionist history might have something to say about my next comment, history is usually told by the victor. In that sense, I would think that interests (motivated by personal and group desires) have an easier time shaping ideas. Most definitely, in a few decades we might better be able to tell if ideas or interests had more power in the Arab Spring. A short term view seems to suggest interests, but perhaps interests only define ideas in the short term, yet the gradual evolution of ideas lays the foundation for interests. Either way you lay it out, I'll be glad when less focus is put on either side of this argument.
ReplyDelete