The title in itself is a paradox. Rational and extremism isn’t words that are normally used together…

On the issue, the answer would be no. Extremism tends to breed in isolation. Peer pressure breeds conformity. Any trend towards extremism ironically makes it mainstream which loses its extremity.

Iranian extremism wasn’t a result of globalisation. Instead, its roots finds itself in the confines of the Middle East conflict which generally started in 1948 with the partition of Israel and was fueled by the cold war. Both of which were partisan actions rather than globalised ones.

Whilst the topic is thought-provoking, the answer is historical.

If the topic is focussed instead on the impact of globalisation on the spread of radical extremism in religion, that would be another issue.

I have to disagree with lim.
The title itself does not in any way connote an inherent paradox, but rather seeks to complement each other. En Min’s essay seeks precisely to establish and analyze the response of the pariah states to the onslaught of globalization- North Korea’s protectionist stance is perceived as an extremist one by the rest of the world, but is still a rational response to the encroaching western values which clearly challenge their own.

Clearly, the cause of Iranian extremism would, to a certain degree have its roots in historical causes. En Min’s essay does not seek to disprove that. However, her essay seeks to further examine the developments of this particular brand of extremism exacerbated by developed countries having applied punitive measures on these nations. This antagonistic approach had the effect of disenfranchising the pariah states like Iran and North Korea, providing their governments with more reasons to shut the rest of the world out. This leads to a vicious cycle where they further isolate themselves from the world, utilizing extremist policies out of a rational interest to protect sovereign autonomy and domestic ideologies.

In essence, En Min’s essay seeks to understand how this form of extremism practiced by rogue states is rationally motivated by the need for self-preservation.

Nation is an artificial word is it not?
I mean it is a concept created by someone somehow some long long time ago.
There has been no change to this concept and is still followed till today.

I no no why.

I would think that the title is quite apt. Rational would be from the ‘extremists” point of view and extremism would be from the ‘majority’s’ point of view. It reminds us that while most of us regard certain neo-Stalinist and theocratic policies as extremist, it seems completely justified to the lawmakers who created them.

North Korea, China and Iran chose to block out foreign media and/or shun democracy and other western ideals as a natural step towards preserving their isolationistic state and thus deviate greatly from the norm where democracy and free flow of information is embraced. I think the magnitude of this deviation would categorize it as extremism already. Again, it all boils down to a matter of definition.

The Islamic revolution towards a theocratic constitution was caused by the displeasure towards Shah Pahlavi’s attempts to ‘westernize’ Iran. The resulting Shi’a Islamic ideology stemmed from the idea that Western culture was a plague or an intoxication that alienated Muslims from their roots and identity and must be fought and expelled. This is congruent to what the author is trying to say.

A recent report by The Straits Times revealed the North Koreans as people unwilling to trust foreigners easily due to the bad press received about their country. Perhaps this reflects a simpler analogy behind the extremism mentality. When people’s culture, practices and especially power over their own socio-political sphere is threatened, they tend to regard the aggressor with suspicion and switch to defensive mode.

That is the situation that becomes clear after Ms Cheong’s analysis. Perhaps other historical factors too contribute to the development of extremism but globalization would be the catalyst, the rational for the extremism.

I can think of other forms of rational extremism prompted by globalisation. In the USA, blue collar workers are particularly concerned if American manufacturers were to move their factories to India and China.

On one hand, it is about them loosing their jobs and on the other hands, their jobs are being transferred to countries which have extremely low standards of labour and welfare, so more people in poorer countries would be exposed to the modern slave trade.

The modern slave trade is best characterised by people being paid S$0.01/h for working 18h/day and if you refuse to work 18h/day, you will get fired and there is no alternative employment. One is as good as dead without a job in such a setting.

The fundamental concept of what has been espoused is not too difficult for even a carpenter to grasp. However, I am glad we are developing young talents to reach their personal extremist rationalization in global content for extremist payout.

Isn’t that an extremist problem in itself?

For a start, cut down on the big words. 90% of your essay can be reduced into simpler sentences without any loss in accuracy or change in semantics.

Next, I am not getting your point. I agree with most of your writing. You have given us a few cause-effect cases. But what is your point?

Nick said:
“The title itself does not in any way connote an inherent paradox, but rather seeks to complement each other. En Min’s essay seeks precisely to establish and analyze the response of the pariah states to the onslaught of globalization- North Korea’s protectionist stance is perceived as an extremist one by the rest of the world, but is still a rational response to the encroaching western values which clearly challenge their own.” – Nick

Therein lies the difficulty in the definition. From my perspective, I am defining extremism in a very narrow dictionary context (which it rightly should be). North Korea’s protectionism is regarded as extreme to Nick but not in the context of what is actually extreme.

For example, the Order of the Solar Temple believed in mass suicide (and did precisely that). Whilst of course they might argue that their thoughts were rational to themselves, the concept of rationality in this case is clearly considered extreme by others.

Also by definition (according to Merriam webster which can be accessed by http://www.m-w.com), to be rational is to be reasonable which in itself means not extreme or excessive. By definition, it would be an impossibility for anything that is rational to be extreme. In English, the two words is therefore an oxymoron. Of course, Oxymorons do exist (as do paradoxes hence the existence of the words).

To summarise in north Korea’s case, if the regime is regarded as extreme, it cannot be by definition rational. If it is rational, it cannot be extreme.

biggest extremist ideas: Gopalan’s charge that all PRCs are spies

I don’t agree with lim. What on earth does the order of the solar plexus have anything to do with real world situations here?

We’re not talking about cults, we’re talking about nations and about their governments doing what they feel is necessary (though how “right” it is is very subjective) to protect their interests and their people.

Dissecting the term “rational extremism” and analysing it to your own advantage is far from the intended definition. In which case, it seems that you have a better idea of what this article is about than the author.

One case in point is the US vs the Muslim world. The Muslims are viewed as terrorists while the US present themselves as the world’s superhero. And as a result of the harsh conditions laid out onto the Muslim world by the US, they resort to things like terrorism. Why? Cause to them, there’s no other better way to ensure their own survival and that they don’t get constantly bullied.

CC (#9):

Can you verify your claim?

Thanks for all the comments and feedback! :)

In reference to the title, the term I coined, Rational Extremism, was foundered upon the concept of Rational Action (espoused within the Rational Actor Model). Essentially, the core assumption of this theory is that individuals will always make decisions which ensure self-preservation and reflect their personal values and beliefs, regardless of what the norm (external influence) is.

For example, if you felt that your life was under threat and the only way you thought you could survive was to kill your aggressor, you’d probably do just that. Killing in principle is an extreme action, but your choice to do so to ensure that you lived another day can be considered rational.

The Rational Actor Model is a popular one in Social Science and is often used as a tool of analysis for observing the trends in International Relations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_analysis
http://www.unm.edu/~gleasong/a/notes/topic2.html

Moving on to the obvservations in the article. Basically, my points are as follows:-

1. The perspective from which one views any given situation / scenario will determine whether he/she considers the actions taken to be rational or extremist, and this can be extended to the global arena to explain how states interact and why they behave in certain ways.

2. Globalisation is a force which appears to favour the more powerful nations because:

(a) It is so instrumental in promoting the values and ideology of western democratic nations.

(b) Due to the fact that it is seen as crucial to development and international integration, if states which are caricatured as pariah or non-conformist do not coorperate with the powers-that-be in the world, they lose out on reaping the benefits of globalisation until they are perceived to be a “team-player”. (eg. China’s WTO accession – it was not granted membership until it cleaned up its human rights record).

(c) The manner in which developed countries such as the United States and its allies treat nations that choose not to adopt democracy as the basis for governance does not encourage good relations between the two camps because it exacerbates tension and leaves pariah states with a high level of suspicion for developed nations and everything that is associated with them, including globalisation.

Finally, the objective of this piece was to illuminate the fact the world is often defined by the victors, whether it be in war or economic supremacy. However, might is not necessarily right, and in order to achieve engagement, governments of the more powerful nations should rely more on soft-power diplomacy premised on an understanding of alternative schools of thought. Sorry if this wasn’t clear!

Also, I think Donaldson has touched upon an interesting related issue. I’ll be writing a follow-up article, and that could be something to include in it.

“Dissecting the term “rational extremism” and analysing it to your own advantage is far from the intended definition. In which case, it seems that you have a better idea of what this article is about than the author.”

There is no advantage to be gained by a skewed definition.

People need to understand what “extreme” and “rational” means. By definition, they are diametric opposites. Governments are either rational or extreme but normally not both at the same time, though they can swing from extreme to rational and vice versa. That is a fact not an opinion.

There is no such thing as rational extremism cos it’s an oxymoron.

“12) lim on September 23rd, 2008 9.14 am
People need to understand what “extreme” and “rational” means. By definition, they are diametric opposites.”

While you are right, people being people being human beings will tend to define matters in respect with their real life situation. Affected / involved parties will always have this emotional attachment (baggage ?). Unaffected parties will have the luxury to be independent and clinical about matters and words.

Now tell me what is the different among soldiers having to kill enemies, terrorists and freedom fighter.

Medicine in hospital are clinical tested and approved by the Drug Admin. The process from research to end user may take decade! Manufacturer has to recall back medical product as and when necessarry. Likewise for aircraft spare parts. It must be airworthy.

New financial product has no warranty. There is not enough regulation. They are alternative medicine. Take your own risk if side effect or no healing effect.

We can now safely say prestige bank was selling “alternative medicine” .

Where is American civilization along the Wall Street?

Why was American government (the superpower in the world) has no housing program for the worker class and the poor?

I find that globalisation is something that inevitably everybody and every country will have to face eventually. With the internet, global trade, international communications, air travel etc. globalisation will have an impact on everybody’s lives.

I think the lack of respect for different idealogies and opinions, especially in sensitive areas such as culture, religions, races, and also economy, foreign talent etc. leads to people perceiving globalisation as a threat. However globalisation has 2 sides of a coin, the good and the bad, but the important thing is that everybody has to face it sooner or later.

I like how the article tries to show a different side of the story then what we are used to seeing about the “Axis Of Evil”. Perhaps the better way to tackle global political problems would be tryign to understand each other rather than imposing our ideals on each other.

A good way to start is to understand the topic “Rational Extremism” rather than imposing our ideal definition on the author as to what we feel is right =).

Hi Chloe, actually, I don’t disagree with focussing on the topic. If you read the first post, you’d find that that my post had covered my view of what I tot the author was trying to say regarding extremism in the context of Iran.

Its just that many posts try to disassemble the definition but I’m just maintaining a fact.

Lim, I see where you are coming from pertaining to what you view as a paradoxical title. You find the two words contradictory because in your opinion, anything that reflects rationality/reason cannot at the same time be extreme, and I respect that.

My stance is simply that extremist policies are not formulated out of pure obstinacy or a burning desire to oppose what is seen as the norm, but are conceived with a rational intent to achieve reasonable objectives, and that’s where the contention of what is acceptable or not typically lies – with policy outcomes.

I agree with anon about the language used. The easier the better, lest we would always be arguing/discussing about the words used instead of focusing the on the issue. Semantics seems to be problem with people who are fueled with passion and wish to see it their way. No one is truly right or wrong in this ’socially constructed’ world of ours.

Lim has a valid point on the Iranian govt and I have to agree with him. History plays a very significant part in a government’s ideology. A good example would be when China was still communist and had a closed door policy. Min could you elaborate more on the/your Iranian example? Maybe use another example in contrast? China? Then maybe we can have a better understanding of your ‘Rational Extremism’.

Also, could the opposite exist? Extreme rationalism (Nitchze’s uberman)?
I hope Lim does not blast me for taking it a bit further. haha. It is just an equiry on my part. Either that, or I don’t understand what this article is about and am displaying my stupidity for everyone to see. Haha.

disclaimer: Forgive my usage/abuse of the language here. :/ if need be, just ignore this comment.

Don read Gopalan’s entry. it is a well known one

“My stance is simply that extremist policies are not formulated out of pure obstinacy or a burning desire to oppose what is seen as the norm, but are conceived with a rational intent to achieve reasonable objectives, and that’s where the contention of what is acceptable or not typically lies – with policy outcomes.”

Hi Min, thanks for the response. As mentioned in my earlier more extreme example (ie the Solar Temple), I am not sure the judgment on extremism can be solely determined by what the originators intended but whether it should consider how the rest of society sees it.

Therein lies the paradox. That the originators may see it as rational but the rest of society sees it as extreme. Perhaps one needs to assess this dichotomy from a timing angle as well. The easiest example I can think of is the concept of a round world. The originators would have been regarded as rational whilst the rest of the world tot it extreme at that time and the duration it took to achieve globally-recognised rationality was quite a while.

Similarly, the concept of democracy and communism would at some points in time be considered extreme but the rate of spread is perhaps relevant to answering the question of whether globalisation facilitates such concepts. It is interesting to look at this. Communism failed when it came up against democracy (which appears to suggest that globalisation didn’t work). Similarly democracy hasn’t taken root in islamic countries.

On specific topics, I do think there is evidence that globalisation does facilitate this. The concept of pre-emption in Bush doctrine has taken hold fairly quickly despite that some do regard that as extreme. The use of balkanisation has similarly taken root (the latest being Russia’s application to Georgia) but the results are uneven.

If you’re looking specifically at the global spread of islamic fundamentalism and correlating that to the spread of Islam vis a vis, the global spread of democracy and correlating that to the spread of christianity, one might find some interesting results. The topic is very broad.

“Hi Min, thanks for the response. As mentioned in my earlier more extreme example (ie the Solar Temple), I am not sure the judgment on extremism can be solely determined by what the originators intended but whether it should consider how the rest of society sees it.”

That’s the whole point, isnt it? That rationality / extremism depends on whose perspective you’re looking from. Unless you’re making the point that the perception differs even within the country itself but your examples dont seem to suggest so.