Conflicts of Interest and the Human (even Muslim) Soul
Okay, so I've gotten lots of attention in the past few days, mostly of the negative sort. Unfortunately, it's been so full of vitriol and profanity and epithets I haven't actually posted most of the comments, but suffice it to say I've managed to be both some sort of dirty Muslim fundamentalist who is beneath the contempt of other Americans, and an enemy of Islam (I'm virtually quoting from blocked comments). Which it's impressive that I could pull both off, but leaving that aside, there was one sort of area of real sensitivity I seem to have hit on the Shi'i Muslim side, that I thought could sort of lead me into another blog post.
What upset some of the Shi'a readers seemed to be what they understood to be the suggestion of an earlier post, that the high clerics of Shi'ism sit around in Najaf and plot and plan how to exercise total dominion over the earth without concern for anything or anyone but themselves, the Hilary Clintons of Iraq, I suppose. I think that's a broad misunderstanding that sort of miscomprehends what I'm trying to suggest about the nature of Muslim interpretation of Holy Texts in our times.
I don't have a doubt, or at least I certainly don't seek to question, the good intentions of the clerics of Najaf or anyone else. I don't think Sistani believes he is doing anything but what he feels is best for the Shi'a, and that this concern, and its close relationship to serving God in his mind, is what motivates him to do what he does. That is not the point.
The point is that it's a mistake to suggest that because this is the case, those positions that are going to serve the marja'iyya's narrow interests are not going to be a factor, perhaps subconsciously, in his ruminations and development of interpretation. Let me take a more personal example to try to make this point better.
My university has a policy instituted by our Provost. If I assign my book to my students, I have to pay back the royalties I might make from the sales of those books. Now there is some wisdom to the policy, I think. The concern is that I'm going to be assigning my book to make some cash on the side, and students will be forced to give me that cash if they want to succeed in my course. I think a lot of you reading this might think it makes sense too.
But I hope those reading this also realize that neither I nor any of my fellow faculty members would ever think for a moment about making our own decisions on what to assign even partly on the basis of self interest. We would all argue, me as much as anyone else, that we intentionally gave up practice, which involved much more money than we make now, to do what we love, that is to teach, and the idea that a few hundred dollars is going to lead us to cheapen the educational experience by assigning something beyond what the course requires, or something worse than another potential item, well that's just insulting. Not one of us, I think, would ever believe we're doing that. We're writing the books precisely to fill the void we think exists with respect to something, not to duplicate and make money in the process.
But still, questions remain, and legitimate ones. Okay someone might fairly ask me, you don't think that you do this, but you know you're getting money, might that factor play a nonconscious role in your deliberations? Is any human being truly capable of disregarding his or her own interests when making decisions that affect their interests? Isn't it possible their decisions will be skewed OR (my point with the Najaf clerics) what is brought to their attention most pressingly are things that threaten their own position and perhaps other matters that are less threatening to them personally take a while to filter to them, and even then don't seem as urgent. So that a few things in the world are bad, but one thing gets emphasized more than others.
It's not conscious, it's not deliberate, but ultimately it's human and it's the nature of the way we behave when assigning class materials, making laws or interpreting them.
All I'm suggesting is the same biases, assumptions, presumptions, tendencies, associative thought processes that we would attribute to any single one of us, including law professors, we should assume the same of the high clerics of Najaf, who after all are not Infallible, but as human as any one of us. And when they rule that certain heresies must be stamped out, and that the state must assist, or that tithing (to them) is a fundamental duty, or anything else that we in assessing these matters, don't lose sight of the material interests that might be involved, even if we assume good faith. Certainly we wouldn't with anyone else.
HAH
What upset some of the Shi'a readers seemed to be what they understood to be the suggestion of an earlier post, that the high clerics of Shi'ism sit around in Najaf and plot and plan how to exercise total dominion over the earth without concern for anything or anyone but themselves, the Hilary Clintons of Iraq, I suppose. I think that's a broad misunderstanding that sort of miscomprehends what I'm trying to suggest about the nature of Muslim interpretation of Holy Texts in our times.
I don't have a doubt, or at least I certainly don't seek to question, the good intentions of the clerics of Najaf or anyone else. I don't think Sistani believes he is doing anything but what he feels is best for the Shi'a, and that this concern, and its close relationship to serving God in his mind, is what motivates him to do what he does. That is not the point.
The point is that it's a mistake to suggest that because this is the case, those positions that are going to serve the marja'iyya's narrow interests are not going to be a factor, perhaps subconsciously, in his ruminations and development of interpretation. Let me take a more personal example to try to make this point better.
My university has a policy instituted by our Provost. If I assign my book to my students, I have to pay back the royalties I might make from the sales of those books. Now there is some wisdom to the policy, I think. The concern is that I'm going to be assigning my book to make some cash on the side, and students will be forced to give me that cash if they want to succeed in my course. I think a lot of you reading this might think it makes sense too.
But I hope those reading this also realize that neither I nor any of my fellow faculty members would ever think for a moment about making our own decisions on what to assign even partly on the basis of self interest. We would all argue, me as much as anyone else, that we intentionally gave up practice, which involved much more money than we make now, to do what we love, that is to teach, and the idea that a few hundred dollars is going to lead us to cheapen the educational experience by assigning something beyond what the course requires, or something worse than another potential item, well that's just insulting. Not one of us, I think, would ever believe we're doing that. We're writing the books precisely to fill the void we think exists with respect to something, not to duplicate and make money in the process.
But still, questions remain, and legitimate ones. Okay someone might fairly ask me, you don't think that you do this, but you know you're getting money, might that factor play a nonconscious role in your deliberations? Is any human being truly capable of disregarding his or her own interests when making decisions that affect their interests? Isn't it possible their decisions will be skewed OR (my point with the Najaf clerics) what is brought to their attention most pressingly are things that threaten their own position and perhaps other matters that are less threatening to them personally take a while to filter to them, and even then don't seem as urgent. So that a few things in the world are bad, but one thing gets emphasized more than others.
It's not conscious, it's not deliberate, but ultimately it's human and it's the nature of the way we behave when assigning class materials, making laws or interpreting them.
All I'm suggesting is the same biases, assumptions, presumptions, tendencies, associative thought processes that we would attribute to any single one of us, including law professors, we should assume the same of the high clerics of Najaf, who after all are not Infallible, but as human as any one of us. And when they rule that certain heresies must be stamped out, and that the state must assist, or that tithing (to them) is a fundamental duty, or anything else that we in assessing these matters, don't lose sight of the material interests that might be involved, even if we assume good faith. Certainly we wouldn't with anyone else.
HAH
Comments