268. Wrestling with the Problem of Ishness

Remember "Turkishness"?  It was one of those sets of tribal traits that, if you insisted on it as a nation, kept you out of the European Union.  The Western tribe welcomed only universalists, people who, recognizing the equality and fraternity of all people, rise above peculiarly tribal values, or "ishness."

And now what are we about to get in Britain?  As strong a call for "Britishness," I'll bet, as we have heard in a long time. After the release of findings by the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills investigating conditions in five schools in Birmingham (NYT, 12-7-14) it's hard to imagine any other response.

I may be wrong but you, fellow American, can easily test whether I am or not.  Under the name Americanism you share most of the values in question.  Try bringing them to these findings: that "some teachers and [Muslim-dominated] school board governors... were encouraging homophobia, anti-Semitism and support for Al Qaeda, sometimes inviting speakers who endorsed the establishment of a state run under Sharia law"; that one school "stopped music and drama lessons as well as Christmas and Diwali celebrations, and subsidized trips to Saudi Arabia for Muslim students"; that in another school, "girls and female teachers were discriminated against, and compulsory sex education, including discussions about forced marriage, was banned. Girls and boys seen talking for too long or considered flirtatious were reprimanded, while boys were given worksheets that said a wife had to obey her husband."

The report concluded that there had been a “coordinated, deliberate and sustained action, carried out by a number of associated individuals, to introduce an intolerant and aggressive Islamic ethos into a few schools in Birmingham.”

If that happened here would you still be a universalist?  To the degree that our Declaration of Independence expects you to be?  My guess is that you'll be saying, "That's a violation of American values that can't be tolerated" — if you're not, as a lumpen patriot, already saying to Muslims what you said to Communists: "Get your heart in America or get your ass out."

 Before getting the more genteel British response I'd like to hear a replay of some of the lectures to the Turks about their insistence on Turkishness, and their punishment of insults to it.  How it was a relic of autarchy, and interfered with the nation's "maturing as a democracy," the sort of thing fully developed nations had abandoned long ago.  Only the insecure would be so touchy about insults.

And now, by George, what do we have, right in our faces?  The most brazen insult to Britishness ever heard in these isles.  Imagine, ending Christmas celebrations.  Telling boys that their wives had to obey them!  Having pupils listen to talk about Sharia as if it weren't a lot of medieval nonsense!  No idea whatsoever of British calm and reserve, no history of laughs at religious "enthusiasm," no abhorrence of zealotry.  And no, absolutely no, sense of progress, away from anti-semitism, away from homophobia.   Really, put that with support for Al Qaeda and a fellow's ready to stick something on his bumper.  Tolerance does have its limits.

The problem has its amusing aspects, but it gets tough once you see that universal values don't stand up by themselves.  They need support, and the only one around is tribal.  Democracy needs a tribe whose members are willing to deal and compromise and stick with the system.  Go universalist and you let anybody, regardless of race, creed, or color, be a member.  You value inclusiveness.

Then wham, you discover that some people hold to a creed that won't let them stick to the system.  They'll just appear to do that until they are strong enough to substitute their own.  So if you include them you could lose deals and compromises and all the other things valued in a democracy, including inclusiveness.  That's a real possibility and you, mugged by it, suddenly find yourself making the statement that will make you the butt of every comedian in your democracy: "To preserve inclusiveness we're going to have to exclude certain people."

That is, you're going to have distinguish them, and learn their profiles, and use these profiles to protect yourself and your tribe, the tribe of universal values and general inclusion.  And, it appears, of a thousand ironies.  Map "Jewishness" onto the population of Israeli liberals and you'd see it, practically one irony per household.  Or Frenchness onto French liberals.  Almost as many.  An enlightened society just can't value ishness without producing ironies.

Whether England is going to compete with these two isn't clear yet.  I'm sure that over there they know the difference between values necessary to keep the democratic system going — only three, really, regular elections, acceptance of their outcomes, and minority rights — and values necessary to maintain tribal comfort.  Ending Christmas celebrations disturbs tribal comfort but is no threat to elections.  A principled democrat will live without Santa Claus until he can persuade the majority to bring him back.  If he can't persuade he accepts.  Sharia is another matter.  Will it end elections?  Can boards of education let visitors preach it to youngsters?  Those are matters to be clarified in discussion with those best qualified to speak for British Muslims.

A lot will depend on the answers, because if they show insistence on values that threaten British democracy then exclusion will be justified, and inclusionists — multiculturalists, pluralists, universalists — will have to live with the multiplying ironies.