The End of Modernity by Charles Hill, The Hoover Institution
The era called “modern” inexorably began to come to its end when, in the second decade of the twenty-first century, a concatenation of foretold events unraveled the so-called modern world order.
As always, the foreordained collapse was generated from internal weakness. We need to look no further than Europe to understand why. It has become evident that the European Union, a contrivance designed to do away with the structural elements of that international order—the state as its basic unit and the sovereign borders of its various nations—created nothing in its place capable of coping with an economic crisis, fending off threats to its security, or absorbing history’s Great Migration.
Long before this, however, the modern international system, which had welcomed into its ranks Muslims in more than a score of delineated “states,” had begun to feel the rise of believers dedicated to overthrowing the military, monarchical, and autocratic regimes of those very state entities formed in the wake of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and Caliphate after the First World War.
The dynamism of this cause would, by the twenty-first century, produce two massive Muslim powers: The Islamic Republic of Iran which, by its 1979 Revolution, won recognition as a state in the modern world order while at the same time vowing to destroy that very system; and, a generation later, the fearsome rise of the Islamic State, which by its title proclaimed the goal of all the faithful: a new world order ruled by one, and only one, Order. Thus eventuated the fulfillment of American speculation that the only serious challenge to the modern international state system could come if events such as the 9/11 attacks were, in the words of Francis Fukuyama, “driven by a systematic idea of political and social justice that claims to supersede liberalism.” Precisely so: Islam claimed to be advancing a political and social model that rivaled and would replace Western modernity.
With this entire region of the globe, “its hour come round at last” as Yeats put it, moving to cast out the international system, the four other world power centers, each in its own way, headed toward a similar outcome…
Comments
Parts of this article seem flawed. If I am reading it right, the author claims the world order has always collapsed due to internal weakness? In Europe, many changes to the world order since the establishment of the Westphalian State System was due to States increasing their strength enough to challenge the existing order. He claims the EU is weak, and that NATO is at risk of falling apart. The EU argument he provides a little evidence for, but he doesn't support his argument that NATO is at risk. In fact, Russia's behavior seems to be strengthening NATO.
He claims the world order welcomed Muslims into its ranks. The reality is a little different, because in fact the West imposed a state-based system upon these tribal societies. These states and their people were "strongly" encouraged to participate in the Westphalian State based system. More than welcomed, they were compelled into the international order. If one reads Islamist literature, they reject this system as illegitimate (regardless of whether or not the West welcomed them into it). This is one factor in our conflict with the Islamists today.
We have opposing world views, and the Islamists are moving to replace the Westphalian state based system with a global society ruled by Sharia law, and then, and only then can there be peace. This isn't something that is new, it started in the 1920s and then continued to gain steam overtime. It certainly isn't limited to Muslims in the Middle East as one commenter suggested, thousands of Muslims from around the world have joined ISIL to pursue the dream of a caliphate. While many Muslims in Southeast Asia, as one example, may have a different character than the Arab Muslims, they are immune from extremism. Furthermore, some predominately Muslim countries in Southeast Asia such as Malaysia and Brunei are moving to a more fundamentalist implementation of Sharia law. This challenge of opposing world views will be with us for some time.
Just because Russia is smashing states (Georgia, Ukraine), that doesn't make them anti-Westphalian. In fact, both China and Russia believe the U.S. doesn't respect the Westphalian principle that all states are sovereign, legitimate, and equal. The first rule of the new fight club, is thou shall not interfere in the internal matters of other states. That means no unconventional warfare, no support to colored revolutions, and no imposing one's values upon another state. Unlike the author's claims, the Westphalian didn't represent the values of open expression,consent of the governed, and universal human rights. It actually meant states could what they wanted within their borders. These
Overall the article seemed excessively negative. With the right leadership, the U.S. can maintain the critical element of the World Order, and facilitate evolving the order as required to reduce unnecessary tensions between states. If you are interested in the topic, you would be much better off reading Kissinger's "World Order."
My God I am getting tired of this crap. This is not the end of Modernity because there is no such thing, anymore than Democracy was the "end of history." Humans act in accordance to the conditions we live in. Where conditions are harsh, we band together is tight, tribal groups. These communal groups have harsh rules intended to ensure the survival of the group, not any one member. This is what you see when you look at Islam as practiced in the Middle East - a harsh religion for a harsh environment.
Where conditions are favorable, humans begin to enjoy life. They seek individual pleasures. They "Modernize", although modernity has nothing to do with it. Liberal ideals and liberal governments are born out of an environment of plenty. That is just the way humans are.
Now, the key is, there is no difference between the Arab Muslims and the West. The only difference is the conditions in which they live. You want proof. look to Indonesia. Slightly wealthier, and much more moderate form of Islam.
Flagg is right, we are only 50 centuries out of the caves. We have not evolved since our ancestors wondered the plains looking for food. We have spent even less time in the land of plenty. We have not learned how we react to conditions that are totally foreign to our evolutionary psychology, like not having to hunt for our dinner or fear every other person not a member of our immediate family, because they could be a threat. There is no "modernity." There are only changed conditions.
Don't go looking for answers in history, you wont find them. Because those people did not live in our conditions. Their views are a product of their time. If you do not realize it, you will apply the wrong salve to the wound.
Now, that said, it is possible to apply historical solutions to people who still live in those historical situations, then you are correct. However, the flip side comes into play where the liberal people from the land of plenty want to apply their standards to people who live under harsh conditions and have no concept of liberal standards. My point here is, be careful how you apply the comments of someone from 19th century America to the issues of the Middle East today. Conditions dictate attitudes and values. Keep that in mind when looking to the past for solutions to the present.
I would extend modernity to include "modernity 2.0" and the accelerating technological revolution of just the last 40-50 years.
One of the biggest problems I perceive in the west is the growing disconnect between technological revolution and human evolution.
I think far too many of influence display a dangerous level of naïveté assuming technological revolution will magically lead to human evolution.
There is simply no evidence to suggest human evolution is mirroring technological revolution.
Technology will not translate completely incompatible political/social systems.
We are no closer to human enlightenment than we were 50 or 500 years ago.
We have the technology to put people on the moon, but we are still psychologically living in caves.
This is possibly the most succinct yet powerful critique of the state of our nation-state international system and the threat to it. I commend every to read and ponder this.
Coincidentally I am re-reading Charles Hills' book on Grand Strategies: Literature, Statecraft, and World Order today. His chapter on the Enlightenment and Gibbon's as well as Washington Irving's (yes the author of the Legend of Sleepy Hollow, et al) treatment of Islam is very much worth reading (p. 126-133).