Where is the reconciliation?

ONE of the consequences of the end of the cold war is that it is no longer possible to cast global conflicts in simplistic ideological terms. Key figures while rushing to proclaim how the current stand-off between the US-led coalition and the Taliban is not between the West and the East, not between religions (Christianity and Islam) fumble for adjectives. It is a fight, depending on who you listen to, between: good and evil; democracy and anti-democracy forces; the believers and the infidels; open and closed societies and so on.

Cultural historian Riane Eisler provides an unusual perspective by eschewing conventional classifications and discussing current events, instead as a contest between two underlying ways of structuring relations in families and in societies. Central to her argument is the concept of a ‘dominator’ society. A ‘dominator’ society consists of rigid hierarchies (men over women, adults over children etc.) in which the family and the environment take for granted the imposition of will of the powerful over the weak by the use of force. In an interview with an American weekly Eisler claims that “people in dominator societies learn to accept control from the top, gross inequities in living standards, a high degree of violence and fear in day-to-day life. The basic model for domination is the punitive parent, specifically the punitive male head of household. And since you can’t go against this powerful figure, you learn to project onto ‘evil enemies”.

Fundamentalists such as Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, according to this line of reasoning, cultivate hatred of the US not so much for all the real injustices that they may or may not have suffered at the hands of the Americans but for fear of its cultural influence — freedom for women, the undermining of traditional authority and so on — and the threat that Western democracy poses to their domination, and to a system based on rigid rankings. If the thesis seems to favour the West then Eisler is quick to point out that there are dominator elements in every country, not least the US and recent years have witnessed a worldwide dominator regression visible in: multinational sweatshops, environmental rollbacks, the widening gap between haves and have-nots, the IMF’s structural-adjustment policies and in the resurgent religious fundamentalism, in the East and the West, aimed at putting women back in ‘their place’ and reinstating the absolute authority of the father.

Her suggested long-term solution is a cultural transform- ation based on the opposite of the dominator model which is what she terms the ‘partnership’ or ‘respect’ model where power is nurturing and empowering, rather than fear-and-force-based and disempowering, where the male and female halves of humanity are valued equally, and there is a high value placed on care giving, empathy and non-violence.

In practical terms for the US this translates as stopping the export of its violent media; giving up self-serving but unjust aspects of its foreign policy (such as supporting dictatorships) and joining with pro-democracy forces; channeling aid directly to women and children for health-care, nutrition and educational programmes rather than promoting enterprise that primarily benefits the elites of the developing and developed world which in turn strengthens the top-down socio-economic structures integral to the dominator model from which violence inevitably comes.

“We need a long-range plan, and we need to do this together with people all over the world.” Oddly after the rhetoric of revenge and retribution emerging from the US after the terrorist attacks last month, Tony Blair, British prime minister and currently the US president’s closest supporter, struck a similarly idealistic note in his speech at the recent Labour Party conference in Brighton. Describing the present time as ‘an extraordinary moment for progressive politics’ he painted a glowing picture of what the ‘power of the international community’ combined with ‘justice’ could achieve: the prevention of repression, succour to the suffering in places like Afghanistan and Africa, the implementation of environmental agreements, the calm and ordered resolution of differences; greater understanding between nations and faiths and so on. He even emphasised the need to provide more aid, ‘untied to trade’; writing off debts; help with infrastructure and encouraging ‘access to our markets so that we practise the free trade we are so fond of preaching’.

Strong words. But a week later the air strikes have begun in Afghanistan and so have the protests in various parts of the world. The first heart rending pictures of the victims are beginning to appear and so are the cracks in the coalition. “The kaleidoscope has been shaken” claims Blair. “The pieces are in flux. Out of the shadow of this evil, should emerge lasting good.” Is that really possible?

Earlier Columns