Global events can develop rapidly and our
attention is often pulled from conflict to conflict, region to region.
In this whirlwind tour the media is frequently our only guide to the context
and background of conflicts.
Unfortunately,
with some honourable exceptions, journalists are ill-equipped to
condense and relate relevant historical context and perspectives.
Without this 'historical memory' our understanding of events will remain
weak and frustratingly simple in a complex world.
Photo credit: Missy |
Of course some journalists do provide deep meaningful context for the events they report on. Robert Fisk
springs to mind, with 30 years living in the Middle East where he files
reports filled with real understanding of the history and cultures of
the region. But the demands of a modern career in journalism makes his
decades-long position in one location the exception rather than the
norm.
More
importantly, it is clear that the modern news media is itself geared
towards mostly (although not exclusively) reporting events and their
immediate triggers. This often comes packaged with a sense of immediate
progression, especially in an era of fast-paced 24 hour rolling news,
the era of CNN is the era of ticking clocks and grand orchestral music
propelling events forward at a breakneck pace.
In Kovach and
Rosenstiel's memorable phrase, this "warp speed" news-cycle has
left us missing important context to the events occurring in the world.
In lieu of this critical background, we often shade in the blank spaces
with our own assumptions and biases, or even worse, absorb the biases
and assumptions implicit in the reporting or narratives pushed by
interested parties.
This can lead to
dangerously vague understandings. The world can appear to be a violent
place full of incessant conflict and little rationality. The complex,
often multifaceted, drivers of conflict become submerged into easier to
grasp grand narratives and questionable statements become simple
common-sense.
We can
demonstrate this by exploring the perceptions surrounding the causes of
the rise of ISIS or Daesh. Popular perception of the causes often breaks
down into two camps, the "US invasion created ISIS" or "ISIS arose
because Muslims/Arabs are inherently violent and irrational".
Given
sufficient historical memory however, and a radically different picture
begins to emerge. The notion that ISIS emerged from the 'essential'
character of Arab Muslims or from conditions created within the last few
years becomes patently ridiculous.
Although
the invasion and occupation of Iraq by coalition troops was clearly
important in understanding the conditions that birthed the Islamic
State/Daesh, it is critically incomplete without understanding the
effects of decade long Western sanctions
on Iraqi society. Iraqi society itself is impossible to understand
without the context of the 1915 Sykes-Picot agreement
and the motivators behind the creation of the borders of the modern
Middle East. Looking at Iraqi society without this context will produce
little valuable insight.
Similarly the
religious impulse behind ISIS is poorly understood without employing our
historical memory. While Islam, and by extension all religions,
are better understood as diverse traditions rather than internally
homogenous entities, we can still trace distinctive lines of thought up
to ISIS.
These lines of
Islamic thought within the ideology of ISIS do little to actually
explain the emergence of ISIS however. Why did such a distinct force
emerge now and not during the last 14 centuries? Examining the historical record gives us strong reason to suspect that events play as strong a part in changing religious trends as religious trends exert influence on events.
No comments:
Post a Comment