Alternative Cleveringa-lecture 2004:

Alternative Cleveringa-lecture 2004:

“Stigmatising is the goal” [1] – the anti-islmanism[2] at the University of Leiden
Maria Trepp M.Trepp@wanadoo.nl

This lecture will take place (mainly, but not only) in Dutch on Saturday november 27th, 18.00 in Leiden at the corner Groenhovenstraat/Maliebaan and will be combined with a little flute-concert. Both lecture and concert will also take place in bad weather!

The Dutch version (including the original quotes in Dutch) can be found on www.passagenproject.com/cleveringa.html

See also www.passagenproject.com/english.html

Last year I gave my alternative Cleveringa-lecture[3] standing on the trash-container right here. This year I am not standing on the container: thus you can say I have promoted. But also this year my lecture has some grotesque aspects: I have been asked, because of security reasons, to avoid some names and words, especially in the internet-version of my lecture (some of my mistakes are thus made on purpose). The result of my self-censoring is a Verlan-like street language, that quite fits this street-situation here as well as my personality.

With the name Cleveringa our thoughts go back to World War II, and to the resistance against the German occupation. The wellknown Leiden professor and anti-islnamist I call here “Pieter Cornelis” writes a lot about the nazis in his books and he sees also a lot of parallels between nazi-times and our times. I want to take this opportunity to look at his ideas about fassism.

In his boek Moderne Papoea’s (Modern Papua-people) Cornelis is pleading for a monocultural society. According to him, the Dutch society has to be more like a Papua-culture, which for him is the same as a monoculture.[4] I bought Cornelis’ book immediately after it came out, because I am very interested in Papua’s for biographical reasons. My father was a Lutheran minister and a teacher at a school for missionaries, who were sent to Papua New Guinea. I remember asking him, why the Papua-people had to be Christianised. He answered, that the Papua-people are very afraid of each other and very often out of fear would attack another village. When they became Christians, he said, they stopped murdering each other.

I know (as well as my father certainly did) that there are nuances to this “The happy and peaceful-Christian”-story, but I strongly disagree with Pieter Cornelis, that we have to become modern Papua people. I have no intent to criticise the original Papua-culture, but the concept of “Modern Papua-people” as a positive example for modern society I consider a leap back into barbarism, pretty much in the way Adorno describes the developmental leap back that one-dimensional enlightenment can make to barbarism (in Dialectic of Enlightenment).

When speaking of his desire for a monoculture Cornelis also speaks of the Nazi-culture, and he says:

“Also the German Third Reich was a multicultural society. Even if the elimination of the Jewish culture, the gipsy culture or the homosexual culture had succeeded, than still it would not have been a monoculture. [..] The monocultural dream in its most radical form is thus an illusion.”[5] [my unauthorized translation]

[“eliminate” I consider a euphemism that does not fit the circumstances]

Cornelis thus admits, that the Nazi’s had the goal of a monoculture, and that a couple of people have died while they pursued this goal. Cornelis thinks that he is fundamentally different from the Nazi’s because he is not following the unrealistic dream of a total monoculture. And, yes, there is some difference between his and the nazi monocultural dream. But do not forget, that the Nazis have always been very practical and realistic, in spite of their crazy ideas, and at any given moment only did do what was possible and doable. They have, for instance, when it came to antisemitism, always tested the ground, and took a step back, when it seemed wise and when they met real opposition.[6] The goal of a monoculture for the Nazi’s was not static, it was a dynamic goal. They were testing how far they could go. My strong opinion is, that any pursue of a monocultural society is very dangerous, and the monoculturalists have to meet democratic resistance, and if possible, decent resistance.

I am using the word “decent” because Pieter Cornelis used this word in the title of one of his recent newspaper-articles,[7] where he claims, that the right of expression of opinion is limited by decency. Also in this article Cornelis is writing about the Nazi-times. He says to be glad, that the Volkskrant columnist Jan Blokker was not allowed to write that the ideas of Pim Foruyn are similar to the ideas of the Dutch NSB (fascist)- leader Mussert (As many fundamentalists- and Cornelis is an enlightened fundamentalist, busy with some kind of liberal jihad- Cornelis often does not to understand irony.[8] Jan Blokker is famous for his column De nieuwe Duce[9] that claimed the similarity of the ideas of Fortuyn and Mussolini). Cornelis’ article makes the implication, that the limits of decency are trespassed, if an analogy is made between now-a-days thinkers and the fascists. I want to make two remarks concerning this implication:

1. Cornelis himself makes comparison between the Nazi-period and contemporary times and he compares his own anti-ilsnamism with anti-fascism. [10] In this question Cornelis is in line with his mental friends Pim Fortuyn and Frits Bolkestein. Fortuyn attacked not only the violent and fundamentalistic ilsnam, but also explicitly the liberal ilsnam. [11] Fortuyn, too, made an comparison between the ilsnam and the Third Reich. He argumented for a bipolar world and a fight between Good and Bad. Because we lost communism as an enemy we need a new enemy, or as he implies, a new devil: the ilsnam.[12] Also the new Leiden professor and former VVD-party politician Frits Bolkestein sees a clear connection between the islnamitic people in the Netherlands and the German occupier. I cite Wim de Jong, who writes in his Television-column in de Volkskrant:

“As somebody ‘who has been onder German occupation’ Bolkestein finds it a big worry, that the Moslems will soon be the biggest population groep in the big cities. This makes him feel “intimidated’ and ‘unfree’ “[13] [my unauthorized translation]

It makes me angry, that on November 7^th, a few days after the murder of Theo van Gogh, when the danger of a negative spiral of violence was obvious, Bolkestein found it necessary to make such a tasteless and indeed indecent comparison between the Moslem population and the German occupation. When he makes this comparison, my thoughts go back to a Nazi poem, that expresses the feeling of being occupied by the Jews ( “Economy and business, everywhere the Jew…almost every toilet is occupied”) [14]

Also the Leiden law scholar Afshin Ellian makes a comparison between the Nazi’s and the Moslems when saying, that he doesn’t trust the Dutch, because they surrendered in only five days against the Germans. [15] Ellian is alluding to Moslem extremists, but still the comparison is tasteless and exaggerated, especially from a man who says to become nauseous, when people compare anti-ilsnamism to anti-semitism. He considers this demagogy. Exactly!

So far my commentary on the decency of the comparisons Cornelis and his congenial thinkers make.

2. The comparison between the ideas of Fortuyn and Mussert, a Dutch fascist leader, was made by Bart van der Boom, historian at Leiden University, who saw correspondences in Fortuyns anti-establishment-tone and in his ideas about leadership. Does Cornelis consider this “indecent”?

In his reaction to the first part of my lecture, Bart van de Boom says, that according to him there is some difference between scientific comparisons and comparisons made by journalists and politicians. In science, one takes a look at correspondences and differences, and this is never indecent, though it sometimes is fruitless (and this might according to him be true for the comparison Fortuyn-Mussert). In public argumentation “to compare” means to say that certain phenomena are the same, especially in a moral sense, and this, when it to comes to the comparison Mussert-Fortuyn, is offending, and perhaps indecent.

Fortuyn, Cornelis, Bolkestein, Ellian compare in their public writing fascism and the ilsnam in a very judgmental way. I find this stigmatising (and Cornelis says, that his goal indeed is to stigmatise) [16] , offending , and indecent. And I find it very important to compare these moral judges to their own standards. If they condemn their political opponents or all the Moslems as fascist- or Nazi-like; than they themselves may be asked about their own affinity to fascism.

[In the Dutch version I am referring to a couple of quotes bij Henk Hofland who compares nowadays society to the pre-nazi-times. He sees a big difference, but he is uneasy about the high degree of dissatisfaction in society, the culture of hatred, and the weak leadership in Holland. I am also skipping parts of the discussion about decency and polemics. My opinion is: polemics are not dangerous if they obey some basic rules of fair play, and if they are not meant to stigmatise groups of innocent people and/ or to polarize society. Pieter Cornelis, Fortuyn and Bolkestein have in my opinion not obeyed these rules for decent polemics. The NRC columnist Frits Abrahams has, in reaction to Cornelis “Decency”-artikel pointed out, [17] that Cornelis found Van Goghs book Allah weet het beter “excellent and entertaining”. In this book Van Gogh did not only speak of goats (and I will not repeat these quotes) but also wished the death of Paul Rosenmöller, announced to piss on his grave, and accused mayor Job Cohen of having a nazi-like personality.]

In any public debate it is very important to seek compromise and understanding as much as one seeks, and sometimes must seek, confrontation. Fortuyn has not been seeking a dialogue, and Bart van der Boom says, that here again is a correspondence between Fortuyn and Mussert: there was no spirit of openness or fairness, there was no admitting that the other could be right. [18] But at this point I am obliged to state a big difference between Fortuyn and Pieter Cornelis, who has invested time and energy in an internet-debate with me,[19] where he and I discovered that we have, next to basic differences, also a lot in common. I agree, that Cornelis asks the right questions (and I agree, that because of this, he is not completely wrong in considering himself as a modern Socrates) even if I think that he gives the wrong answers. Also, Cornelis and I have something in common on a personal level, as we discovered: an almost missionary motivation.

I recognise much of myself in Cornelis, and exactly this is the reason, that I feel justified to polemise against him. I certainly do not see him as the substantially different other, as The Barbarian. To the contrary: I want to convince him, to give up his plans to make us modern monocultural barbarians- in his terminology: modern Papua people.

The Amsterdam sociologist Kees Schuyt writes on November 17^th in de Volkskrant, with the murder of van Gogh in his mind, that we do not have to wait for the barbarians, as in Kavafis’ poem, because they are already among us.

The murder of van Gogh seems to justify the earlier warning signals of the anti-ilsnamits. But I do not view the situation like this. I think that it was a major and very dangerous mistake, to attack the ilnam, and not the violent criminals. A lot of energy has been spent on stigmatising a religion and innocent citizens instead of seeking the danger where it was. Cornelis says in our internet-debate, that fear is good, that fear and anxiety must be taken serious. I agree, but I insist, that fears must be articulated as specific as possible, and not as general as possible. Certainly scientists have the obligation to not only generalise, but also to be as specific as possible. On the book cover of God heeft gezegd (God has said; 2003) from the Leiden ilsnamologist Hans Jansen an attempt is made to differentiate - an attempt I do not encounter in Cornelis’ books (may be I have overlooked it). The text says:

“A religious or political movement is not a massive, concrete rock. It is more like a basket of fruit, which always [after a while….] will show a rotten spot. Every grown-up movement with self-respect, it may be Christianity, Socialism or the Islam, has a very broad range [….] It would be strange if there were no problematic ideas in any such broad range of opinions.“ [my free and unauthorised translation]

The writer and criminologist Herman Franke writes in his review of Coetzee’s Waiting for the Barbarians (and ithink he is right), that the fear for barbarians comes down toe a misplacement of aggression [20] and he states :

“Not tolerance or ’soft’ respect for immigrants has led to murder, arson and extremism, but the slowly dispersed intolerance and the hatred between population groups.” [21]

In my opinion, the polarization that came from Fortuyn and his followers is at least one of the important factors behind the violence we see.

Cornelis writes often about the barbarians in his books and describes the picture of barbarians in Ancient Greece. He writes:

“What is cultivated? The ancient Greeks had no difficulty with answering that question. Cultivated, that was thems. What was outside [their culture] was uncultivated or barbarian. “[22] and: “The Greek had a superior culture.” [23] [my translation]

Cornelis, who also considers Western civilisation as superior (and he speaks from a socialdarwinist attitude) [24] identifies himself strongly with the ancient Greek. But: the Greek used the word “barbarian” in three different meanings: neutrally, meaning “foreigner”; negatively as “uncultivated; and positively as “nobel savage”. [25]

Ancient Greece is very important for Cornelis. Not only does he describe himself repeatedly as a modern Socrates, he also gives in Moderne Papoea’s his own point of view or standpoint: he thinks himself as someone who has in a platonic way mad himself free of time, space and bodily circumstances, by having climbed up from the earth-cave to universal values. The price for dissociating himself from his body and human limitation is, as he knows, a dualistic, dichotomic view of the world. [26] And I, who describe myself as a monist in the tradition of Giordano Bruno (and many other emotional monists) say: it is this dualistic view of the world that has made it possible for him to see other human being as totally and fundamentally different from him, as barbarians. It is his platonic dualism that makes the nonsense-division of the world in cultivated versus barbarian possible. (It is interesting to note, that Cornelis, who is raised in a Christian or Christian-secularised environment chooses a dualistic Platonism. Christian Platonism has historically been more monistic than dualistic! )

The German correspondent of the newspaper Die Süddeutsche (The Southern German) says after the election of Fortuyn as the Greatest Dutchman of all times:

“You [Dutchmen] have lost touch with the ground.” [27]

And I, as a Southern German, thinking of Fortuyn-fan Cornelis hovering above us, agree.

Kees Schuyt speaks in his already mentioned column about Enlightenment. He cites the study of Ira Katznelson Desolation and Enlightenment (2003), where the question is asked why the modern enlightened thinking was not able to resist the barbarism [here the word barbarism is not directed against outsiders: the barbarians are among us, and are a lot like us] of fascism and communism. The reason that is given according to Schuyt, is, that the modern enlightenment in its scientific naivety and one-dimensional rationalism forgets the value of ethics and of religion, that is to say, the human and moral sides of enlightenment.

In my opinion is Cornelis’ enlightened thinking an example of this dangerous one-dimensional rationalism. From his books it becomes clear, what his model of enlightenment is: an authoritarian enlightenment. He prefers Fredric The Greats (an authoritarian enlightened monarch) quote “Everybody must try to be happy in his own way” above Kant’s important critical essay Was ist Aufklärung (What is enlightenment?). [28] Cornelis is right, that Fredric the Great was tolerant against other religions[29] especially against Moslems, but in this respect Cornelis is definitely not a follower of Fredric The Great.

As an answer to Cornelis’ one-sided intolerant version of enlightenment I cite Kees Schuyt:

“Not the free-from-doubt enlightenment-thinking, that dominates with harsh rationalism has to be our leading idea in our fight against new barbarism, but the human enlightenment, that has overcome the doubt of its own moral and political power, and strongly and effectively can resist terror and new criminality. Without giving up truth, righteousness and tolerance. “

[1] The Leiden professor Paul Cliteur in: Tegen de decadentie, p 41.

[2] I am changing some words and names in my lecture, in order to avoid that the wrong kind of people will be able to find this file on internet.

[6] See Helmut Berding, Antisemitismus in Deutschland.

[7] 6 oktober 2004 in de Volkskrant, Fatsoen begrenst vrije meningsuiting, October 6th 2004 in de Volkskrant.

[8] Another example of Cornelis’ non-understanding of irony is his citation of Georg Bernard Shaws article Capital punishment. Shaws article is a sharp satire against capital punishment, but Cornelis cites this article as being in favor of capital punishment.

[13] Wim de Jong, Heilige Oorlog, de Volkskrant, 8 november 2004 over het progamma Buitenhof op 7 november.

[14] Karl Kraus, Dritte Walpurgisnacht, p. 59.

[16] The Leiden professor Paul Cliteur in: Tegen de decadentie, p 41.

[25] Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum “Barbar”, Jahrgang 10, 1967, p 251 ff.

[27] De Grip op de weg kwijt ?, NRC, 16.november 2004, p 20.

[28]Moderne Papoea’s p 20, zie ook het debat op de Passage(n)-project-site.