Pegida protests in Dresden, terrorist attacks on “Charlie Hebdo” in Paris – the last few weeks have once again been increasingly dominated by the “clash of civilizations”. On the one hand, xenophobic and racist attitudes are becoming more visible, while on the other, individual extremists are adding fuel to the fire of right-wing conservative hatred. How should the worsening developments be interpreted from a humanist perspective? Frieder Otto Wolf, President of the Humanist Association of Germany, sees few reasons to sound the all-clear and believes that “these problems will initially continue to worsen and not disappear.” But even if solutions to the complex crisis are not easy to find, it is first and foremost the task of all citizens not to allow the political community to be poisoned by intellectual arsonists.
Mr Wolf, around 18,000 supporters of the “Pegida” movement recently demonstrated in Dresden against the “Islamization of the West”. Attempts are also being made to form these protest marches in other cities. Up to 6,000 supporters are expected in Leipzig next Monday. Why are these groups so popular?
I think there has been a strong economic polarization in our societies since the 1990s and also a new mass poverty created by economic policy. This scares many people, even if they are not individually affected. And such fears can easily be projected onto alleged threats and scapegoats. Since the beginning of the century, the mass media has been working hard to identify Islam with Islamism and to propagate a new threat in place of the “Soviet bloc” as the enemy, which can be used to justify militarization and overarmament. Stupidly, Pegida supporters are now taking this seriously, even after the failed Arab Spring and in a situation where there is no even minimally humane alternative to Europe and Germany taking in many more refugees, they are allowing themselves to be persuaded that they are socially and culturally threatened by these refugees. They don’t want to know that this is complete nonsense because they are afraid of confronting those who are really responsible for the economic polarization and the mass impoverishment in our societies. The extent to which they are a child of the mind in this attitude can be seen in the way they define demands for gender justice as a threat to themselves. There is nothing humane – and certainly nothing humanistic – about wanting to make the existing discrimination against women the norm again in the long term!
Do you see any legitimate concerns from a humanist perspective in the ranks of Pegida supporters?
I don’t see any legitimate concerns there, despite some hypocritical attempts at softening the blow in their list of demands. They are quite simply calling for racist, sexist and xenophobic discrimination. This is not only inhumane, but deliberately anti-human. There can be no “humanist understanding” of this. It is quite different with the real problems, to which they are simply reacting wrongly with their demands to be rejected. A decent minimum wage and a basic living income – but also sustainable regional development in all regions, if the constitutionally required equality of living conditions cannot be achieved – would make a considerable difference. And the mutual respect of cultures and traditions, including religions and world views, does not simply happen by itself, but requires the prerequisites of communication and education, which have yet to be created!
Why do most other statements that attempt to deal with this and related issues from an explicitly non-religious humanist perspective ignore more detailed analyses on a larger scale like yours above?
I fear this is because they themselves are afraid to talk about the historical situation in which humanity finds itself today. And think that they can avoid the responsibility of looking the grim reality in the eye if they want to act politically. It is much easier to get worked up about individual events or about alleged “trends” that have been taken out of context and are therefore simply cheekily claimed. But real politics must always begin with a clear understanding of the situation in which we are trying to act!
So far, there have been numerous counter-demonstrations to Pediga, usually with significantly more participants. In your opinion, is that enough to respond to the problems that characterize Pegida?
Certainly not, even if it is an urgently needed first step! Perhaps we should remember the time after “Lichtenhagen”, when a lot of commitment and official support was put into building up anti-racist contexts. And last but not least, guarantee social minima for everyone – including refugees, of course!
What is happening in Dresden is by no means a completely new phenomenon. Groups of old and neo-Nazis can be found there, but other groups such as the “Identitarians” have developed in recent years. Being right-wing and “politically incorrect”, being a nationalist, a patriot, a patriotic European – this is clearly meeting with more approval among people again, including in other European countries.
I think this is an effect of the fact that large sections of the left have fallen for the theory that there is “no alternative” and have no concrete, tangible alternatives to offer. So those for whom the existing conditions stink, sometimes even for good reasons, vote for right-wing “alternatives” which, as we know, are mere sham alternatives…
What role do the political parties play here?
The failure of the political parties here has a long history, not just that of their own ignition with corresponding resentment: for the most part, they have already failed to point out and fight for alternative development paths. Accordingly, they are no longer credible political addresses for all victims of polarization and mass poverty, as the falling voter turnout shows.
There are apparently also quite a few atheists who express clear sympathy for Pegida & Co – at least that’s the impression you get when you read the comment columns in the media reports.
Atheism as such does not protect against either stupidity or malice. Just as religion does not automatically entail stupidity or malice. Or to put it less crudely: Breaking away from traditional beliefs is by no means automatically associated with liberation from prevailing ideologies – I only have to remind you of the social Darwinism in the age of imperialism, which – as we now know – was falsely based on scientific enlightenment, or of the fantasies of so-called eugenics in the 20th century, especially among scientifically educated doctors, some of which were linked to this.
Yesterday, an attack was carried out on the editorial offices of the French satirical magazine “Charlie Hebdo”, in which 12 people were murdered and others injured. The perpetrators were most likely Muslims. This is grist to the mill of extremist groups, but also of atheists critical of Islam. Why are they still not right with their warnings?
Islamist terror is no more a consequence of Islam, which – as is then claimed – reveals its inner truth, than the autodafés of the Inquisition revealed the “truth” of the Catholic Church or the witch burnings revealed the “truth” of Protestantism. It is certainly necessary to investigate why such perversions could have occurred in such faiths, but to refuse to take the first step of any reason, namely to distinguish between Protestantism and organized witchcraft, between Catholicism and the terror of the Inquisition, and also between Islam and Islamism, is completely unreasonable and humanistically unacceptable. Incidentally, a distinction must also be made between other forms of Islamism and terrorism that legitimizes itself through Islamism, even if this may sometimes be difficult. Of course, all religions and world views should also be discussed critically – but false equations are precisely the opposite of criticism, which always begins with making the right distinctions! In principle, however, it should also be noted here that it would also be wrong to simply equate Pegida with all these variants of anti-human criticism of religion and Islam, in which Muslims are simply denied religious freedom. The masterminds of Pegida limit themselves to the insinuation that terrorism is somehow “inherent” in Islamism and Islamism in Islam – and in doing so, they only fall prey to the hair-raisingly arbitrary “theology” of the Islamist terrorists.
Humanists worldwide were also shocked by the terrorist attack on the editorial office of “Charlie Hebdo”. Sonja Eggerickx, President of the International Humanist and Ethical Union, condemned the attack by “Islamo-fascist terrorists”. However, shortly after the attack became known, Eggerickx warned against reacting to barbaric acts with such acts:
Europe stands in the tradition of humanism, in which both freedom of opinion and freedom of thought and belief, including freedom of religion, are respected and guaranteed by law. Criticizing beliefs, even through satire and ridicule, does not restrict the freedom of belief of others. Rather, criticism is the essential core of the right to freedom of expression. In contrast, murder is the ultimate obliteration of all freedoms of a person and their existence. It is our sincere hope that Europe will neither bow to nor rise up against this violence. We will not be provoked to fall into the same barbarism. We will resist terror and we will defend freedom of expression, because it is fundamental to a free and fulfilling life.
How should you react?
We should make more effort here so that the other currents of Islam also become visible to us – not only the so-called “moderate”, mostly traditionalist forms to which the majority of poor farmers in their home countries adhered, who then became migrant workers, or the reactionary Salafism as promoted by the Saudis in Europe, but above all the “enlightened” approaches of “Western Islam”, as it has been developed by Islamic intellectuals in France and Great Britain since the 1960s. On the other hand, however, the justified outrage at the inhumane terrorism of these murderers must also be translated into a sober examination of the strategic question of how this terrorism can be effectively combated. And I think that it is actually quite clear here: a strategy à la Huntington, who wants to mobilize the “West” against the Islamic “East” in a “clash of civilizations”, is also completely counterproductive in terms of realpolitik – in that it plays into the hands of Islamist propaganda in the opposite direction.
Radical Christians here, fanatical Muslims there – why is it not primarily the task of the religious communities concerned to take action against their radical groups?
First of all, quite simply because these religious communities are not the only ones affected! As humanists, we too have an interest in taking a clear political stance against anti-human advances and inhumane practices. However, this does not mean that we should release this religious community from its responsibility to ensure that its believers are not helpless in the face of such perversions of their faith!
And what specific responsibility do people with humanist convictions bear in this respect?
First of all, it is the responsibility of all citizens to ensure that their political community and culture are not poisoned by spiritual arsonists such as the masterminds of Pegida! Otherwise, I don’t see any particular responsibility on our part – at most, to take action against crazy atheists and thus specifically to protect those people who hold humanistic convictions from mentally straying into complete distortions of our ideas.
Would you like to estimate how long it will take for the waves of cultural upheaval caused by globalization to subside?
I’d rather not, so no prediction about the duration of this problem constellation! I fear that these problems will continue to worsen for the time being and not disappear. And that is because they are not just contingent cultural upheavals: Rather, humanity is in the midst of a complex historical crisis, the resolution of which the prevailing political system only ever puts off. Only when there is a reversal in this respect, i.e. sustainable attempts to shape the future together politically, will there be hope that such irrational and anti-human impulses of a completely imaginary crisis management can be pushed back and overcome.
What arguments do humanists have until then, given the extremists on all sides?
Above all, the simple argument of human reason, which appeals to the common interest of all people in the survival of human culture and civilization: There is simply no alternative to continuing to struggle for common solutions for the whole of humanity, however difficult this may be, as we have had to see since the 1992 “Earth Summit” in Rio. All attempts not to solve the problems, but merely to pass them on to others, will fail. With the ultimate consequence of a common downfall. It may happen in slow motion, it may happen as T. S. Eliot put it in “Night of the 20th Century”: “not with a bang but a whimper” – but it will still be a downfall. And all people could and should develop an interest in avoiding such a downfall of civilized humanity!
Mr. Wolf, thank you very much for the interview.
