Theodore Dalrymple has another stunningly simple piece in City Journal this month. His argument is simple and consequently does not stand up to scrutiny. First he moves through a comparison between Communism and Islamism, conflating the two to as Lenin and Qutb, respectively. They are similar because 1. they call for the abolition of the state, 2. they do not shy away from violence and finally they believe in vanguardism and not mass movements. To say that theses differences make them the same, except the obvious different telos, is laughable (even if allowing the conflation of the two writers as emblematic of the two ideologies.)
He then spends some time to mark the ideological approaches offered as laughable for two reasons. First, the preachers of the idological movements are privileged.
Avoiding material failure gives quite sufficient meaning to their [the struggling] lives. By contrast, ideologists have few fears about finding their daily bread. Their difficulty with life is less concrete.
Dalrymple then marks this academic-cum-liberator lifestyle as “the treason of the clerk”, a phrase coined in 1927 by Julien Benda. If that argument has been floating around so long and still has not gained traction then maybe Dalrymple should investigate that instead. His argument for dismissal of ideologists as privileged is actually the very argument advanced by Lenin, and maybe Qutb, for liberation. By a vanguard. Maybe Dalrymple is writing to an audience that does not have the background to dismiss this argument as easily turned and handled by the ideologists.
Dalrymple’s second argument is that ideology stands as a form of fetishistic disavowal, it serves as a token allowing the ideologists to avoid confrontation with what they are realyl upset about. One can almost hear Dalrymple calling Qutb a homosexual in this passage. Maybe there are larger questions at stake, more personal questions for individual activists, but that does nto change the veracity of their criticisms. These are ad hominems. Maybe if Dalrymple could show how the personal baggage affects the credibility of the theory, then there would be an argument. Never mind the fetish is a Marxist form of interrogation to criticize the world as we know it.
Why then does Dalrymple go through these moves? Surely he is not writing to dismiss Marxism and Islamism, as though the reader of City Journal needs such prodding. Dalrymple then turns to environmentalism, claiming that it to is an ideology and ergo ought to be held under the same scrunities. Except he, at no point, tries to show environmentalism as callign for 1. state dissolution or 2. violence or 3. vanguardism. Dalrymple cannot even identify a voice that leads this new ideology.
The problem is that environmentalism is not an ideology, it is a platform. It is a goal and a way of evaluating policies; it is not a cohesive story told to flatten out contradictions. It rests upon a belief in purity, a belief shared by Islamism and modern day political conservatism.
This understanding is an easy one to make if someone believes, as Dalrymple does, that she is outside of ideology: that ideology is the space of an other, a marginal other. Dalrymple’s other is a traumatized (impure) body, so all of us normal folk (pure) who enjoy buying things and selling our labor are immune to the vagaries of ideology. Just the obverse, it is when ideology is most invisible that it works its magic on us the most.