The Nazis and “The East”: Jedwabne's Circle of Hell

Slavic Review ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 476-482 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norman M. Naimark
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Mass Murder ◽  
The Other ◽  
Individual Choice ◽  
Subjective Response ◽  
Social Death ◽  
Anti Semitism ◽  
To Come ◽  
The One ◽  
The Individual

In this forum onNeighborsby Jan T. Gross (Princeton, 2001), four scholars respond to the book and to the issues of evidence, causality, and interpretation that it raises. Janine P. Holc summarizes the contents and the book's approach and explores the roles of individual choice, on the one hand, and ethnic identity categories, on the other, in Gross's presentation of the causes of the massacre of the Jewish residents of Jedwabne by their non-Jewish neighbors. She argues for an approach to readingNeighborsthat links the emotive mode in which some of the narrative is expressed to a productive engagement with traumatic or violent historical episodes. This type of history resists finality and closure and creates an avenue for active engagement by members of ethnic (or other) communities with violent and traumatic pasts. Wojciech Roszkowski discusses three aspects of the debate onNeighborsin Poland: the credibility of the book, the facts of 10 July 1941 and their moral meaning, and the representativeness of the Jedwabne case and the question of “innocence” or “guilt” of nations. While arguing that the credibility ofNeighborsis low and that Gross's thesis that “one half of the Jedwabne inhabitants killed the other half” has not been proven, he writes that it is impossible to deny Polish participation in the massacre. Yet, as with other documented cases of Polish wartime evildoing, it is unfair to blow this incident out of proportion and produce unwarranted generalizations. Past and present realities are always more complicated than simple stereotypes that “Poles” or “Jews” are to blame or that they have always been innocent. William W. Hagen argues that Gross vacillates between a robust positivism promising that “a reconstruction” of “what actually took place” is possible, such that guilt and motive may confidently be assigned, and an interpretive pessimism suggesting that “we will never 'understand' why it happened.” In his assignment of causality, Gross offers a largely unconnected, in part inferential or speculative, array of determinants and motives. Although some ofthecauses Gross adduces are certainly persuasive, his analysis does not address the Jedwabne perpetrators' and witnesses' perception of the cultural meaning of the inhuman violence their Jewish neighbors were suffering. Hagen offers some suggestive historical evidence on the Poles' subjective response to the Jewish genocide and to their own wartime fate, arguing that the Jedwabne Poles' participation in the mass murder of the Jews must be conceived as a response, mediated by the penetration of ideological anti-Semitism into the countryside, to profound anxiety over the individual and social death menacing Polish identity under Soviet and Nazi occupation. Norman M. Naimark argues that the appearance of Gross'sNeighborshas created an entirely new dimension to the historiography of World War II in Poland. The book demonstrated, as has no other work, the extent to which the Poles were directly involved in the genocide of the Jews. The clarity and force of Gross's presentation provides Polish historiography with an unprecedented opportunity “to come to terms with the past.” The essay also suggests that the Jedwabne massacre needs to be looked at in the context of overall German policy “in the east” and in comparison to similar horrors taking place roughly at the same time in Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus, and Latvia. The Nazis intentionally (and surreptitiously) sought to incite pogroms in the region, filming and photographing the horrific events for audiences back home. Their own propaganda about the “Jewish-Bolshevik” menace both prompted and was ostensibly confirmed by the pogroms. In his response, Jan T. Gross replies to Roszkowski's criticism concerning historical credibility.

Working through Jan Gross'sNeighbors

Slavic Review ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 453-459 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janine P. Holc
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Mass Murder ◽  
The Other ◽  
Individual Choice ◽  
Subjective Response ◽  
Social Death ◽  
Anti Semitism ◽  
To Come ◽  
The One ◽  
The Individual

In this forum onNeighborsby Jan T. Gross (Princeton, 2001), four scholars respond to the book and to the issues of evidence, causality, and interpretation that it raises. Janine P. Holc summarizes the contents and the book's approach and explores the roles of individual choice, on the one hand, and ethnic identity categories, on the other, in Gross's presentation of the causes of the massacre of the Jewish residents of Jedwabne by their non-Jewish neighbors. She argues for an approach to readingNeighborsthat links the emotive mode in which some of the narrative is expressed to a productive engagement with traumatic or violent historical episodes. This type of history resists finality and closure and creates an avenue for active engagement by members of ethnic (or other) communities with violent and traumatic pasts. Wojciech Roszkowski discusses three aspects of the debate onNeighborsin Poland: the credibility of the book, the facts of 10 July 1941 and their moral meaning, and the representativeness of the Jedwabne case and the question of “innocence” or “guilt” of nations. While arguing that the credibility ofNeighborsis low and that Gross's thesis that “one half of the Jedwabne inhabitants killed the other half” has not been proven, he writes that it is impossible to deny Polish participation in the massacre. Yet, as with other documented cases of Polish wartime evildoing, it is unfair to blow this incident out of proportion and produce unwarranted generalizations. Past and present realities are always more complicated than simple stereotypes that “Poles” or “Jews” are to blame or that they have always been innocent. William W. Hagen argues that Gross vacillates between a robust positivism promising that “a reconstruction” of “what actually took place” is possible, such that guilt and motive may confidently be assigned, and an interpretive pessimism suggesting that “we will never 'understand' why it happened.” In his assignment of causality, Gross offers a largely unconnected, in part inferential or speculative, array of determinants and motives. Although some ofthecauses Gross adduces are certainly persuasive, his analysis does not address the Jedwabne perpetrators' and witnesses' perception of the cultural meaning of the inhuman violence their Jewish neighbors were suffering. Hagen offers some suggestive historical evidence on the Poles' subjective response to the Jewish genocide and to their own wartime fate, arguing that the Jedwabne Poles' participation in the mass murder of the Jews must be conceived as a response, mediated by the penetration of ideological anti-Semitism into the countryside, to profound anxiety over the individual and social death menacing Polish identity under Soviet and Nazi occupation. Norman M. Naimark argues that the appearance of Gross'sNeighborshas created an entirely new dimension to the historiography of World War II in Poland. The book demonstrated, as has no other work, the extent to which the Poles were directly involved in the genocide of the Jews. The clarity and force of Gross's presentation provides Polish historiography with an unprecedented opportunity “to come to terms with the past.” The essay also suggests that the Jedwabne massacre needs to be looked at in the context of overall German policy “in the east” and in comparison to similar horrors taking place roughly at the same time in Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus, and Latvia. The Nazis intentionally (and surreptitiously) sought to incite pogroms in the region, filming and photographing the horrific events for audiences back home. Their own propaganda about the “Jewish-Bolshevik” menace both prompted and was ostensibly confirmed by the pogroms. In his response, Jan T. Gross replies to Roszkowski's criticism concerning historical credibility.

A Response

Slavic Review ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 483-489
Author(s):  
Jan T. Gross
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Mass Murder ◽  
The Other ◽  
Individual Choice ◽  
Subjective Response ◽  
Social Death ◽  
Anti Semitism ◽  
To Come ◽  
The One ◽  
The Individual

In this forum on Neighbors by Jan T. Gross (Princeton, 2001), four scholars respond to the book and to the issues of evidence, causality, and interpretation that it raises. Janine P. Holc summarizes the contents and the book's approach and explores the roles of individual choice, on the one hand, and ethnic identity categories, on the other, in Gross's presentation of the causes of the massacre of the Jewish residents of Jedwabne by their non-Jewish neighbors. She argues for an approach to reading Neighbors that links the emotive mode in which some of the narrative is expressed to a productive engagement with traumatic or violent historical episodes. This type of history resists finality and closure and creates an avenue for active engagement by members of ethnic (or other) communities with violent and traumatic pasts. Wojciech Roszkowski discusses three aspects of the debate on Neighbors in Poland: the credibility of the book, the facts of 10 July 1941 and their moral meaning, and the representativeness of the Jedwabne case and the question of “innocence” or “guilt” of nations. While arguing that the credibility of Neighbors is low and that Gross's thesis that “one half of the Jedwabne inhabitants killed the other half” has not been proven, he writes that it is impossible to deny Polish participation in the massacre. Yet, as with other documented cases of Polish wartime evildoing, it is unfair to blow this incident out of proportion and produce unwarranted generalizations. Past and present realities are always more complicated than simple stereotypes that “Poles” or “Jews” are to blame or that they have always been innocent. William W. Hagen argues that Gross vacillates between a robust positivism promising that “a reconstruction” of “what actually took place” is possible, such that guilt and motive may confidently be assigned, and an interpretive pessimism suggesting that “we will never 'understand' why it happened.” In his assignment of causality, Gross offers a largely unconnected, in part inferential or speculative, array of determinants and motives. Although some of the causes Gross adduces are certainly persuasive, his analysis does not address the Jedwabne perpetrators' and witnesses' perception of the cultural meaning of the inhuman violence their Jewish neighbors were suffering. Hagen offers some suggestive historical evidence on the Poles' subjective response to the Jewish genocide and to their own wartime fate, arguing that the Jedwabne Poles' participation in the mass murder of the Jews must be conceived as a response, mediated by the penetration of ideological anti-Semitism into the countryside, to profound anxiety over the individual and social death menacing Polish identity under Soviet and Nazi occupation. Norman M. Naimark argues that the appearance of Gross's Neighbors has created an entirely new dimension to the historiography of World War II in Poland. The book demonstrated, as has no other work, the extent to which the Poles were directly involved in the genocide of the Jews. The clarity and force of Gross's presentation provides Polish historiography with an unprecedented opportunity “to come to terms with the past.” The essay also suggests that the Jedwabne massacre needs to be looked at in the context of overall German policy “in the east” and in comparison to similar horrors taking place roughly at the same time in Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus, and Latvia. The Nazis intentionally (and surreptitiously) sought to incite pogroms in the region, filming and photographing the horrific events for audiences back home. Their own propaganda about the “Jewish-Bolshevik” menace both prompted and was ostensibly confirmed by the pogroms. In his response, Jan T. Gross replies to Roszkowski's criticism concerning historical credibility.

After Neighbors: Seeking Universal Standards

Slavic Review ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 460-465 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wojciech Roszkowski
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Mass Murder ◽  
The Other ◽  
Individual Choice ◽  
Subjective Response ◽  
Social Death ◽  
Anti Semitism ◽  
To Come ◽  
The One ◽  
The Individual

In this forum on Neighbors by Jan T. Gross (Princeton, 2001), four scholars respond to the book and to the issues of evidence, causality, and interpretation that it raises. Janine P. Holc summarizes the contents and the book's approach and explores the roles of individual choice, on the one hand, and ethnic identity categories, on the other, in Gross's presentation of the causes of the massacre of the Jewish residents of Jedwabne by their non-Jewish neighbors. She argues for an approach to reading Neighbors that links the emotive mode in which some of the narrative is expressed to a productive engagement with traumatic or violent historical episodes. This type of history resists finality and closure and creates an avenue for active engagement by members of ethnic (or other) communities with violent and traumatic pasts. Wojciech Roszkowski discusses three aspects of the debate on Neighbors in Poland: the credibility of the book, the facts of 10 July 1941 and their moral meaning, and the representativeness of the Jedwabne case and the question of “innocence” or “guilt” of nations. While arguing that the credibility of Neighbors is low and that Gross's thesis that “one half of the Jedwabne inhabitants killed the other half” has not been proven, he writes that it is impossible to deny Polish participation in the massacre. Yet, as with other documented cases of Polish wartime evildoing, it is unfair to blow this incident out of proportion and produce unwarranted generalizations. Past and present realities are always more complicated than simple stereotypes that “Poles” or “Jews” are to blame or that they have always been innocent. William W. Hagen argues that Gross vacillates between a robust positivism promising that “a reconstruction” of “what actually took place” is possible, such that guilt and motive may confidently be assigned, and an interpretive pessimism suggesting that “we will never 'understand' why it happened.” In his assignment of causality, Gross offers a largely unconnected, in part inferential or speculative, array of determinants and motives. Although some of the causes Gross adduces are certainly persuasive, his analysis does not address the Jedwabne perpetrators' and witnesses' perception of the cultural meaning of the inhuman violence their Jewish neighbors were suffering. Hagen offers some suggestive historical evidence on the Poles' subjective response to the Jewish genocide and to their own wartime fate, arguing that the Jedwabne Poles' participation in the mass murder of the Jews must be conceived as a response, mediated by the penetration of ideological anti-Semitism into the countryside, to profound anxiety over the individual and social death menacing Polish identity under Soviet and Nazi occupation. Norman M. Naimark argues that the appearance of Gross's Neighbors has created an entirely new dimension to the historiography of World War II in Poland. The book demonstrated, as has no other work, the extent to which the Poles were directly involved in the genocide of the Jews. The clarity and force of Gross's presentation provides Polish historiography with an unprecedented opportunity “to come to terms with the past.” The essay also suggests that the Jedwabne massacre needs to be looked at in the context of overall German policy “in the east” and in comparison to similar horrors taking place roughly at the same time in Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus, and Latvia. The Nazis intentionally (and surreptitiously) sought to incite pogroms in the region, filming and photographing the horrific events for audiences back home. Their own propaganda about the “Jewish-Bolshevik” menace both prompted and was ostensibly confirmed by the pogroms. In his response, Jan T. Gross replies to Roszkowski's criticism concerning historical credibility.

A “Potent, Devilish Mixture” of Motives: Explanatory Strategy and Assignment of Meaning in Jan Gross'sNeighbors

Slavic Review ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 466-475 ◽  
Author(s):  
William W. Hagen
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Mass Murder ◽  
The Other ◽  
Individual Choice ◽  
Subjective Response ◽  
Social Death ◽  
Anti Semitism ◽  
To Come ◽  
The One ◽  
The Individual

In this forum onNeighborsby Jan T. Gross (Princeton, 2001), four scholars respond to the book and to the issues of evidence, causality, and interpretation that it raises. Janine P. Holc summarizes the contents and the book's approach and explores the roles of individual choice, on the one hand, and ethnic identity categories, on the other, in Gross's presentation of the causes of the massacre of the Jewish residents of Jedwabne by their non-Jewish neighbors. She argues for an approach to readingNeighborsthat links the emotive mode in which some of the narrative is expressed to a productive engagement with traumatic or violent historical episodes. This type of history resists finality and closure and creates an avenue for active engagement by members of ethnic (or other) communities with violent and traumatic pasts. Wojciech Roszkowski discusses three aspects of the debate onNeighborsin Poland: the credibility of the book, the facts of 10 July 1941 and their moral meaning, and the representativeness of the Jedwabne case and the question of “innocence” or “guilt” of nations. While arguing that the credibility ofNeighborsis low and that Gross's thesis that “one half of the Jedwabne inhabitants killed the other half” has not been proven, he writes that it is impossible to deny Polish participation in the massacre. Yet, as with other documented cases of Polish wartime evildoing, it is unfair to blow this incident out of proportion and produce unwarranted generalizations. Past and present realities are always more complicated than simple stereotypes that “Poles” or “Jews” are to blame or that they have always been innocent. William W. Hagen argues that Gross vacillates between a robust positivism promising that “a reconstruction” of “what actually took place” is possible, such that guilt and motive may confidently be assigned, and an interpretive pessimism suggesting that “we will never 'understand' why it happened.” In his assignment of causality, Gross offers a largely unconnected, in part inferential or speculative, array of determinants and motives. Although some ofthecauses Gross adduces are certainly persuasive, his analysis does not address the Jedwabne perpetrators' and witnesses' perception of the cultural meaning of the inhuman violence their Jewish neighbors were suffering. Hagen offers some suggestive historical evidence on the Poles' subjective response to the Jewish genocide and to their own wartime fate, arguing that the Jedwabne Poles' participation in the mass murder of the Jews must be conceived as a response, mediated by the penetration of ideological anti-Semitism into the countryside, to profound anxiety over the individual and social death menacing Polish identity under Soviet and Nazi occupation. Norman M. Naimark argues that the appearance of Gross'sNeighborshas created an entirely new dimension to the historiography of World War II in Poland. The book demonstrated, as has no other work, the extent to which the Poles were directly involved in the genocide of the Jews. The clarity and force of Gross's presentation provides Polish historiography with an unprecedented opportunity “to come to terms with the past.” The essay also suggests that the Jedwabne massacre needs to be looked at in the context of overall German policy “in the east” and in comparison to similar horrors taking place roughly at the same time in Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus, and Latvia. The Nazis intentionally (and surreptitiously) sought to incite pogroms in the region, filming and photographing the horrific events for audiences back home. Their own propaganda about the “Jewish-Bolshevik” menace both prompted and was ostensibly confirmed by the pogroms. In his response, Jan T. Gross replies to Roszkowski's criticism concerning historical credibility.

Panem et circenses / Bread and circuses – nowadays

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 155-163
Author(s):  
Józef Węglarz
Keyword(s):  
The Body ◽  
The Other ◽  
Social Structures ◽  
Physical Culture ◽  
Individual Choice ◽  
Human Needs ◽  
Individual Preferences ◽  
Physical Affection ◽  
The One ◽  
The Individual

Human needs have their own hierarchy and are significantly dependent on the lifestyle of the individual. They are also culturally conditioned. The satisfaction of one’s needs determines the level of human existence and location of a person in social structures as well as individual preferences. Taking care of the body, in our world, can be understood in two ways. On the one hand it is a socially postulated custom encouraging to participate in a physical culture and on the other hand it is an act of individual choice. The latter marks the attitude towards physical affection as a need. Body kindness must be taught by showing its value. This is to be done, among others, by physical education as an organised pedagogical process.

Letters of S.P. Timoshenko to V.I. Vernadsky recently discovered at Columbia University’s library, with analysis of his attitudes

2021 ◽  
pp. 108128652110220
Author(s):  
Isaac Elishakoff
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
New York City ◽  
20Th Century ◽  
The Other ◽  
Columbia University ◽  
Bolshevik Revolution ◽  
Anti Semitism ◽  
The Usa ◽  
To Come ◽  
The One

This paper reproduces the translation of letters sent by Stephen P. Timoshenko—well known specialist in elasticity, vibrations, stability, and structures, in the 20th century—to his colleague Vladimir I. Vernadsky. Letters originated from the USA where Timoshenko resided at the time, and were directed to France, where Vernadsky was working while also looking to come to the USA having left Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution. By a twist of fate, these letters turned out to be housed at the Library of Columbia University, in New York City. This happened since the first five letters were acquired by Bakhmeteff Archive at Columbia University where Boris Bakhmeteff, formerly the Ambassador of the Russian Provisional Government to the USA, was employed as a professor of civil engineering during the years 1931–1951. Timoshenko could not have imagined that these private and candid letters would be available for public viewing at the library, and especially, in the country that he criticized harshly. Each letter is accompanied with a discussion. It appears that these letters shed some light on Timoshenko’s personality in addition to what can be inferred by reading his autobiography As I Remember. The motivation of this study is two-fold: (a) to bring to the attention of readers the translations of letters of S.P. Timoshenko, addressed to V.I. Vernadsky, and to provide (b) discussion on his attitudes, on the one hand, to the Jews, and anti-Semitism in the USA as compared with Ukraine, and on the other, to the USA.

Bringing Economics into the Third Millennium

2020 ◽  
pp. 225-244
Author(s):  
Edward Fullbrook
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Individual Choice ◽  
The Third ◽  
Third Millennium ◽  
The One ◽  
The Individual

Many economists, including heterodox ones, seem unaware of the hold on and significance of the orthodox notion of economics as a ‘science’ of individual choice, the individual being conceived atomisticly. It is this idea—which pervades the economist’s mindset—that economics is the ‘science’ of the choices of isolated individuals with fixed and quantified preferences that, on the one hand, enables economics to proceed in a formalistic manner and, on the other, justifies its ignoring economic phenomena that do not fit its methodology and this narrow agenda. This chapter proposes a diagnosis and an antidote.

On Rates of Mortality and their Causes. (Continued from page 61.)

1874 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 212-223
Author(s):  
W. Lazarus
Keyword(s):  
Single Case ◽  
Human Life ◽  
The Other ◽  
Gradual Transition ◽  
Life And Death ◽  
Organic Life ◽  
To Come ◽  
The One ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Scientific Exactness

We are so accustomed, even when we do not aim at scientific exactness, to regard every phenomenon as produced by causes,—as the resultant of forces,—that we cannot help looking on what we call “life” as the effect of certain definite forces, and on death as the consequence of the extinction of those forces. But when we thus contrast life and death, we must always bear in mind not only that what we call “life” is a condition which presents itself under circumstances of unexhaustable variety, but that in all probability quite as many differences in its manifestation entirely elude our observation. Given the effect, we reason as to the cause; when the effects are different, we infer that either the causes are different, or the conditions on which the effect depends. But if the differences are so numerous that we can scarcely find two cases exactly alike, we can draw no conclusion either as to the causes or as to the conditions. Since in no single case can we recognize the various conditions under which the cause of life works, we cannot hope to decide how the effect is connected with the conditions and how with the causes. Death too is a phenomenon as to which we have not the least idea why it happens; whether because the vital force in the individual has sunk below a certain degree which is necessary for the maintenance of life, or whether as a result of wholly different forces. On this point we scarcely know more than that the possibility of organic life depends upon certain conditions, that it can exist so long as these conditions remain within limits more or less wide, and that a transgression of the limits causes death. We do not, however, know exactly what these conditions are, and still less do we know the limits within which human life can exist; and if we reflect how complicated are the circumstances to be taken into account, we can scarcely hope to see these relations settled for some time to come. It is further to be observed that life, being regarded as the effect of a force, and death as its extinction, there must be a gradual transition from the one to the other.

Whither the people in the ASEAN Community?

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 43-57
Author(s):  
See Seng Tan
Keyword(s):  
Southeast Asia ◽  
Political Ideology ◽  
Management Development ◽  
The Other ◽  
Asean Member ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
The People ◽  
Droits Humains ◽  
The One ◽  
The Individual

Abstract: The longstanding effort to develop a people-based regionalism in Southeast Asia has been shaped by an inherent tension between the liberal inclination to privilege the individual and the community under formation, on the one hand, and the realist insistence on the primacy of the state, on the other. This article explores the conditions and constraints affecting ASEAN’s progress in remaking Southeast Asia into a people-focused and caring community in three areas: disaster management, development, and democratization (understood here as human rights). Arguably, the persistent gap in Southeast Asia between aspiration and expectation is determined less by political ideology than by the pragmatic responses of ASEAN member states to the forces of nationalism and protectionism, as well as their respective sense of local and regional responsibility.Resumen: El esfuerzo histórico para desarrollar un regionalismo basado en las personas del sudeste de Asia ha estado marcado por una tensión fundamental entre la inclinación liberal de privilegiar el individuo y la comunidad y la insistencia realista sobre la primacía del estado. Este artículo explora las condiciones y limitaciones que afectan el progreso de la ASEAN en la reestructuración de Asia sudoriental en una comunidad centrada en el cuidado de las personas en: gestión de desastres, desarrollo y democratización (i.e., derechos humanos). La brecha persistente en el sudeste asiático entre la aspiración y la expectativa está determinada por las respuestas pragmáticas de los miembros de la ASEAN sometidos a las fuerzas del nacionalismo y proteccionismo, así como su respectivo sentido de responsabilidad local y regional.Résumé: L’effort historique pour développer un régionalisme fondé sur les peuples en Asie du Sud-Est a été marqué par une tension fondamentale entre l’inclination libérale qui privilégie, d’une part, l’individu et la communauté et, d’autre part, l’insistance réaliste sur la primauté de l’État. Cet article explore les conditions et les contraintes qui nuisent aux progrès de l’ANASE dans le cadre d’une refonte de l’Asie du Sud-Est en une communauté centrée et attentive aux peuples dans trois domaines : la gestion des désastres, le développement et la démocratisation (en référence aux droits humains). Le fossé persistant en Asie du Sud-Est entre les aspirations et les attentes est vraisemblablement moins déterminé par l’idéologie politique que par les réponses pragmatiques des États membres de l’ANASE soumis aux forces du nationalisme et du protectionnisme ainsi que par leur sens respectif de la responsabilité locale et régionale.

Ummah’s Rights or Human Rights? Universalism, Individualism, and Islamic Ethics in the Twenty-first Century

2010 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie-Luisa Frick
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
First Century ◽  
The Other ◽  
Moral Code ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Islamic Ethics ◽  
Specific Content ◽  
Societal Needs ◽  
The One ◽  
The Individual

Against the background of the trend of Islamizing human rights on the one hand, as well as increasing skepticism about the compatibility of Islam and human rights on the other, I intend to analyze the potential of Islamic ethics to meet the requirements for vitalizing the idea of human rights. I will argue that the compatibility of Islam and human rights cannot be determined merely on the basis of comparing the specific content of the Islamic moral code(s) with the rights stipulated in the International Bill of Rights, but by scanning (different conceptions of) Islamic ethics for the two indispensable formal prerequisites of any human rights conception: the principle of universalism (i.e., normative equality) and individualism (i.e., the individual enjoyment of rights). In contrast to many contemporary (political) attempts to reconcile Islam and human rights due to urgent (global) societal needs, this contribution is solely committed to philosophical reasoning. Its guiding questions are “What are the conditions for deriving both universalism and individualism from Islamic ethics?” and “What axiological axioms have to be faded out or reorganized hierarchically in return?”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document