Bit more on literalism…
As promised earlier, I thought I’d expand a bit more on the ‘literalism’ motif I mentioned I was writing about elsewhere.
The central idea of the book is that there are two modes of perception - or perhaps two ‘types’ of perceiver - the ‘literal’ and the ‘metaphoric’. Actually I am not too happy with these terms and will change them when other more suitable ones suggest themselves but for now they will do. Basically the ‘literal’ is seen as a rigid mode of fixed, inflexible thought. This is not to be equated with what is called ‘fundamentalism’ (in fact the book will argue that this is a nonsensical and artificially constructed term which is of little use) but rather is the position taken when someone is, for example, convinced they are always right regardless of any evidence to the contrary. Obviously this condition is prevelant in religion to a considerable extent for various reasons which are explored but it can and does also occur in politics, science and in everyday life but in the context of the work under discussion it is explored particularly in relation to Islamic thought as well as, to a lesser extent, other religions such as Christianity.
A parallel manifestation of the sort of literalism we are considering may be seen in the work of the science fiction writer A E Van Vogt who postulated what he called the Theory of the Right Man. This theory was first outlined in Van Vogt’s Report on the Violent Male and envisages a type of man who can never accept that they are wrong. They believe that something is true simply because they believe it - the fact that they believe it and they can never conceive of themselves as being wrong is proof of it’s total validity. Hence no supporting or contradicting evidence is necessary and reason flys out of the window, facts are ignored and evidence sometimes suppressed if the sufferer of this condition is in a position to do so.
Van Vogt also found evidence of surprising and alarming links between men of this type and acts of extreme violence. The author Colin Wilson writing in his Criminal History of Mankind
“He is a man driven by a manic need for self-esteem” - to feel that he is a ‘somebody’. He is obsessed by the question of ‘losing face’ so he will never, under any circumstances, admit that he might be in the wrong. . . . the Right Man is an ‘idealist’. that is, he lives in his own mental world and does his best to ignore aspects of reality that conflict with it. Like the Communists’ rewriting of history, reality can always be adjusted later to fit his glorified picture of himself. . . . The Right Man hates losing face; if he suspects that his threats are not being taken seriously, he is capable of carrying them out, purely for the sake of appearances. . . . the central characteristic of the Right Man is the decision to be out of control, in some particular area. ”
Leaving aside the link with violence (although it is obviously relevant in regard to certain expressions of religious literalism), the important points to note are that the ‘Right Man’ cannot admit that he is wrong, is not interested in debate or research of data and is at pains to promulgate his point of view aggressively and occassionally with actual force. What we might term the ‘Metaphoric Man’ serves as a counterpoint to this aggressive type - someone who is not hampered by literal thought, who can easily conceive that they may be wrong and who is prepared to examine the facts and draw conclusions form them wherever they may lead.
To return to the considerations of these two types in the Islamic context which is what the book is primarily about: the book essentially charts the development of Islam in the non-rigid sense and documents the emergence of the ‘Rightist’ (to coin a phrase) elements within the tradition and the effect of equivalent elements acting on it from elsewhere.
The purpose of this endeavour is to essentially ‘map the territory’ of Islam in a time when it is much misunderstood. That sounds a bit trite but when closely examined in the framework of the model above, it can be seen that the nature of this misunderstanding is most interesting for just as the Literalist elements within Islam try to suppress the Metaphoric elements and portray their literal interpretations as the only orthodoxy, then they are aided to a significant extent by equivalent Literalist elements outside the religion who also support their view (in the sense that they claim it is authentic Islamic belief rather than actually agree with it) and also portray Islam in the same way that it is portrayed by what are called ‘fundamentalists’.
Hence we have the strange situation where the Literalist Wahabis (say) are falsely claiming that their sect is authentic Islamic belief and where also Literalist Christians are falsely claiming that the doctrines equivalent to those of the Wahabi (say) are what is conventionally taught by Islam. And people believe them. The problem is that they are both incorrect - both do not base their postions on facts but that does not actually bother them as they are both convinced they are right and need no such support.
Although they have convinced people that they are two opposing positions they are in fact the same position: literalist. The operate a hegemony through a form of unspooken conspiracy of sorts - a pretend dance that has the sole purpose of each portraying themselves as the opposite of the other when in actual fact they are the same. The book on literalism and metaphor aims to introduce the hitherto obsured position which is the true opposite of them both - the real division is not Islam vs Christianity or East vs West, it is rather a division of literal vs figurative or perhaps even the ‘Right Man’ versus the ‘Wrong Man’ (one could construct an interesting counterpoint in a figure of the ‘Wrong Man’, I suppose Jesus would be the archetypal figure of this type).
I was going to post an example of the sort of literalist influence in the Islamic tradition but this is getting a bit long so I will post it later under a new heading.
