Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West
By Christopher Caldwell
(Doubleday, 422 pp., $30)
As its subtitle makes clear, this is a book about immigration, Islam, and the West. But at the same time this is also a book about a particular moral culture, a set of attitudes, habits, and beliefs that has developed in Western Europe over the past sixty years. There isn’t a good shorthand way to describe this moral culture. Sometimes it is called “political correctness,” though politics as such does not define it. Sometimes it is called “the culture of tolerance,” though at times it is not tolerant at all. Christopher Caldwell mostly winds up calling it the “European project,” which is not bad, since it implies that it is something that Europe is still building, an ongoing but incomplete enterprise, a “project” for the future.
The focus on the future is correct, for the source of these attitudes, habits, and beliefs--the European mentality that is Caldwell’s subject--is a deep desire both to forget and to atone for the past. At the heart of the European project lies a set of memories: of the vast physical destruction left in the wake of World War II, of the cycles of hatred and violence that followed the Nazi invasion of most of the continent, of the tyrannies of communism, and above all of the Holocaust. The primary task of this project is to purge these memories. This may be done in two ways: by rejecting anything reminiscent of traditional nationalism and traditional religion, and by promoting a halcyon form of cultural relativism. Early in his book, Caldwell explains:
The war supplied European thinkers with all their moral categories and benchmarks, whether the issue at hand was the progress of civilization, criteria for ethical statesmanship, or rationales for military intervention. Avoiding another European explosion meant, above all, purging Europe’s individual countries of nationalism, with “nationalism” understood to include all vestiges of racism, militarism, and cultural chauvinism--but also patriotism, pride, and unseemly competitiveness. The singing of national anthems and the waving of national flags became, in some countries, the province only of skinheads and soccer hooligans.
Raymond Aron inquired into the same phenomenon back in the 1970s, observing that Europeans “would like to exit from history, from la grande histoire, from the history that is written in letters of blood.” The most obvious achievement of this project, the European Union itself, is explicitly designed to do just that. Indeed, it is no accident that among the EU’s original founders--Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy--were nations whose elites felt deep guilt about their wartime aggression or collaboration. For some, the sacrifice of a part of their sovereignty seemed a small price to pay for the chance to become “European” instead of, say, “German.”
Caldwell is not the first to describe this culture, though he does so in a blessedly objective way--his interest, he says, is “neither to defend it as common sense nor to reject it as claptrap,” and his book lives up to this stringent standard. This is important, in this context. For many of the arguments about Islam in Europe are really arguments about the European project--and about racism, militarism, cultural chauvinism, patriotism, pride, and competitiveness--which is why they often become so quickly inflamed. Frequently they deteriorate into name-calling, as one side accuses the other of different forms of fascism. I am not sure that Caldwell has avoided all of the pitfalls of this difficult debate, but at least he has tried to do so. This is a book written in good faith.
What does all this have to do with Islam? Quite a lot, as it turns out. Caldwell’s central argument is that the European project, which was never designed with immigration in mind, let alone Muslim immigration, became the foundation upon which millions of Muslims came to live permanently in Europe. Certainly the European project shaped the conditions under which Muslims and others were initially invited to the continent. In the past this would not have happened, if only because immigration officials would never have allowed so many people, and certainly not from such foreign cultures, to settle permanently in their countries. In postwar Europe, however, bureaucrats did not allow themselves to take into account cultural differences, even when considering immigration requests in large numbers: cultural differences were not supposed to matter anymore, because that way lies fascism and its corpses.
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (17)
How does one go about encompassing a culture "objectively"? Based on whose criteria? Is there a way to describe the culture of Europe so that all people recognize it as, indeed, an acurate portrayal? No, of course not. People with different political agendas, personal experiences, moral philosophies, religious values, upbringings etc. will always see it from their own particular existential vantage point.
But describing a culture is child's play next to imagining that one can encompass, in turn, what any given culture should be.
In particular, the paradox embedded in modern culture is that, while it tugs some people passionaitely toward it, it drives others away just as passionaitely. And fo ... view full comment
How does one go about encompassing a culture "objectively"? Based on whose criteria? Is there a way to describe the culture of Europe so that all people recognize it as, indeed, an acurate portrayal? No, of course not. People with different political agendas, personal experiences, moral philosophies, religious values, upbringings etc. will always see it from their own particular existential vantage point.
But describing a culture is child's play next to imagining that one can encompass, in turn, what any given culture should be.
In particular, the paradox embedded in modern culture is that, while it tugs some people passionaitely toward it, it drives others away just as passionaitely. And for the very same reason: the ambiguity people often feel about freedom.
For some, the more options afforded them the more content they are; but for others, an endless plethora of choices is disorienting, even disturbing. They insist instead there be but one option, one agenda: God's for example.
And this conflict will never go away because it is not a conflict that can be ever be resolved. There will always be arguments for choosing one path rather than another.
In Europe, some sort of reconcilation between orthodoxy and heterodoxy will always play itself out. But Europe has the advantage of having lived through two totalitarian nightmares. And not from across the sea. So it is not likely they will ever tolerate another. Colonial guilt or not.
There is always some manner of reconciliation that can be achieved between national identity, ethnicity and the rule of law. What becomes crucial in the end is that the rule of law wins out. There are behaviors that must not be tolerated regarding relationships between men and women, racial groups, differing sexual orientation and the like. Either the immigrants accept these basic rights of all citizens or there will be punitive consequences. But this will always be both fluid and problematic. Still the bottom line seems obvious: Either Muslim immigrants adopt the approach Muslims in America have respecting the rights of all citizens [however imperfect] or the conflicts will grow.
An Islamic Europe by the end of the century? Not likely. But it is easy enough to make predictions like this with 90 years still to go. Or if making such predictions is aimed at riling up folks you'd like to see leading Europe instead.
George walton
d/a
Given how much Applebaum was willing to compromise what many would consider bedrock principles with respect to Roman Polanski ( http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/09/the_outrageous_arr... ), is it surprising she would see considerable room for "cultural compromise" with respect to Arabs/Muslims in Europe? If she doesn't see any problem with drugging/raping a woman (Polanski's flight due to fear of "irrational punishment"), why would those "Muslim attitudes towards women" Caldw ... view full comment
Given how much Applebaum was willing to compromise what many would consider bedrock principles with respect to Roman Polanski ( http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/09/the_outrageous_arr... ), is it surprising she would see considerable room for "cultural compromise" with respect to Arabs/Muslims in Europe? If she doesn't see any problem with drugging/raping a woman (Polanski's flight due to fear of "irrational punishment"), why would those "Muslim attitudes towards women" Caldwell discusses be so hard of a problem for Europe to overcome?
"Don’t Underestimate Europe’s Ability to Integrate Its Muslim Minorities"
or vice versa.
"Don’t Underestimate Europe’s Ability to Integrate Its Muslim Minorities"
or vice versa.
She reminds me of my first wife.
Finally, it didn't work out.
There's only so much interest you can have in a gorgeous, olive skinned woman who can model bikinis and sunglasses.
I then married a stolid, solid woman with a moustache, who, like a fullback, had a very low centre of gravity, and was hard to tackle. She could model nothing, but had read all the works of Boleslaw Prus, and you just can't find people like that very often.
Lucky I am!
She reminds me of my first wife.
Finally, it didn't work out.
There's only so much interest you can have in a gorgeous, olive skinned woman who can model bikinis and sunglasses.
I then married a stolid, solid woman with a moustache, who, like a fullback, had a very low centre of gravity, and was hard to tackle. She could model nothing, but had read all the works of Boleslaw Prus, and you just can't find people like that very often.
Lucky I am!
Itzik. That cracks me up. Thanks for the smile to go with my coffee this morning.
Itzik. That cracks me up. Thanks for the smile to go with my coffee this morning.
Jacko: just curious, do I know you?
I have my suspicions, but am not sure.
Jacko: just curious, do I know you?
I have my suspicions, but am not sure.
My apologies. I jacko, formerly boxofrox, had mentioned as much in some earlier postings. I swore off for about a year but then finally decided that you guys couldn't really thrive without me. It is an act of selfless generosity which finds me once again gracing these rarified climes. I bid you welcome in advance.
My apologies. I jacko, formerly boxofrox, had mentioned as much in some earlier postings. I swore off for about a year but then finally decided that you guys couldn't really thrive without me. It is an act of selfless generosity which finds me once again gracing these rarified climes. I bid you welcome in advance.
Jacko, my man, lovely to see you again!
Jacko, my man, lovely to see you again!
Thanks and likewise!
Thanks and likewise!
That's what I call good company for breakfast.
That's what I call good company for breakfast.
How about a trans Atlantic breakfast club?
How about a trans Atlantic breakfast club?
Sounds good!
Sounds good!
Oy vey: now the impementation!
Oy vey: now the impementation!
"Impementation": is that a new means of inserting hot-'n-spicy bon mots into the conversation?
Jacko - welcome back.
When I first read the headline, I thought it said, "interrogate"; to which my answer was, "perhaps, subject to three days of rioting in the suburbs." Integrate, eh? It would be useful to see the anti-immigrant advertising campaign in Switzerland - the KKK would be considered too politically correct by the standards of Blöcher. As for the liberals - I'm afraid Jackson might be right; there is not-insignificant part of the European left who would gladly trade gay rights and women's equality in the name of "understanding" vis-mins, battling capitalism and socking it to the US.
"Impementation": is that a new means of inserting hot-'n-spicy bon mots into the conversation?
Jacko - welcome back.
When I first read the headline, I thought it said, "interrogate"; to which my answer was, "perhaps, subject to three days of rioting in the suburbs." Integrate, eh? It would be useful to see the anti-immigrant advertising campaign in Switzerland - the KKK would be considered too politically correct by the standards of Blöcher. As for the liberals - I'm afraid Jackson might be right; there is not-insignificant part of the European left who would gladly trade gay rights and women's equality in the name of "understanding" vis-mins, battling capitalism and socking it to the US.
..."Impementation": is that a new means of inserting hot-'n-spicy bon mots into the conversation?...
"Implementation" was my noun of choice in the old days when I was chasing women.
..."Impementation": is that a new means of inserting hot-'n-spicy bon mots into the conversation?...
"Implementation" was my noun of choice in the old days when I was chasing women.
Thank you iarusr. Anne Applebaum is a typical liberal idiot, full of neurotic self hatred and hesperophobia.
The star and the crescent and the swastika are one and the same. Islam is the world's stupidest religion, and it has a lot of competition.
Thank you iarusr. Anne Applebaum is a typical liberal idiot, full of neurotic self hatred and hesperophobia.
The star and the crescent and the swastika are one and the same. Islam is the world's stupidest religion, and it has a lot of competition.
Bulbman - please do not pollute my post with your vomitous diarrhea.
Basman: there is much to be said for Implementation or Implantation for that matter.
And I am not spam.
Bulbman - please do not pollute my post with your vomitous diarrhea.
Basman: there is much to be said for Implementation or Implantation for that matter.
And I am not spam.