Notes on Res Sentiment

THE Rev. Jesse Jackson wants to cut Barak Obama’s “nuts” off.

Mr. Jackson made thus crude comment to another host, himself black, a few days ago on the FOX News Channel while it switched to a station break. While the cable-news network took a break, the microphone did not.

Here’s the context of the whole statement. He laments to another host on FOX that Barak Obama, the Democratic nominee for president of the United States, talks “down” to black people whenever he makes speeches in black churches throughout this nation. According to Jesse Jackson, Barak Obama is not talking about concrete solutions for black poverty or black unemployment; he’s not talking about concrete solutions for the skyrocketing rates of black male incarceration; he’s not talking about concrete solutions for the high rates of foreclosures, of which many black homeowners are its current victims.

Then, unexpectedly, the Reverend said it.

We all know that Jesse Jackson really won’t cut anyone’s “nuts” off, but his frustrations overshadowed his logical thinking. It is, after all, just a wish. But fulfilling the wish is another matter. Wish fulfillment can translate into violence.

Does Jesse Jackson actually believe that Barak Obama is able to solve any, if not all, the pervasive problems plaguing the black community in America? No. But he wished he could.

Europe’s conservative philosophers John Locke, Immanuel Kant and George Hegel argued that republican political institutions be made separate from civil society in order to advance commerce and industry.

Europe’s “radical” philosophers have long asserted that, as modern republican systems of government makes its assent on the world stage, it will demarcate mankind, in essence its societies, among rigid socioeconomic parameters. This is a fancy way of saying that modern republican systems of government divide mankind among the haves and have-nots.

The German philosopher Karl Marx asserted this rigid demarcation as inevitable. The only possible alternative for dismantling this demarcation is revolution. This is his contribution to European philosophy, according to today’s conservatives. Vladimir Lenin carried Marx’s logic to its inevitable conclusion – the Bolshevik revolution of 1917.

French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau heralded the arrival of modern republican institutions reluctantly, but he grudgingly accepted this reality. His philosophy centers on methods of achieving a more harmonious society, a more moral society. However, he asserted that these same political institutions degrade individuals into mere “machines” and renders them self-centered; he is often quoted as saying that men are motivated by money only. His solution: civil society must abandon their individual “wills” through emotional gymnastics and form a “general will” so as to procure some level of human happiness within civil society. At the heart of this “abandon” of individual will is human sentiment – a moral attachment to others through love or empathy. Somehow, argues Rousseau, we are able to and must transform our emotional selves to social action.

Many critics of Rousseau’s thinking now say that this emotional “transformation” to social action for a specific objective is well-nigh impossible, as man’s emotional state is too numerous to be channeled into social action. Besides empathy and love, there is anger.

The opposite of sentiment is re sentiment, its reverse; while sentiment refers to a moral attachment to human beings, re sentiment connotes no attachment to anyone. It is at this point that re sentiment often, but not always, translate into violence. It is at this point that psychopathology develops. Re sentiment, or resentment, is characterized by a sense of hostility directed at that which one identifies as the cause of one’s frustration.

The German “radical” philosopher Nietzsche coined the term re sentiment to mock Rousseau’s thinking, asserting that his philosophy is guided by a Christian morality that has stunted humankind for hundreds of years. Neitzsche posits a genealogy, or origin, of morality; from the end of Greek antiquity to modern times, a master-slave dynamic developed, during which the master posits what is “good” (they are!) and what is “bad” (of course, the slave). The master-slave dynamic occur everyday: in our offices, in our homes. However, it is the rule of law that prevents society from disintegrating into a violent chaos. Neitzsche dared others to go “beyond” what is good and evil, to become a new species. He detested any form of government.

The Caribbean-born psychiatrist Frantz Fanon took Neitzsche’s thinking to its logical conclusion. If only the oppressed among mankind – the colonized - (and here he was living within a colonial context) – understand fully their “degraded” situation, they will be able to throw off the yoke of colonialism and achieve optimal freedom. Besides, the colonizers determine what is good (here I speak of the oppressors) and what is evil (the oppressed).

Some time ago I read a piece in DailyMuslims.com by the esteemed Imam Abdur-Rashid, in which he asserted that Muslims should not in any way be tempted to engage in social action; every form of social action must conform with the Holy Qu’ran and the prophet’s (SAW) Sunna. A Rousseauian form of social action is impressive, but it often leads to property destruction. How are a group of people to channel their emotional energies to such an extent that it sends a ripple-effect to political elites who guard the very political institutions they swear to protect?

I return to the Reverend Jesse Jackson and Barak Obama. My thinking is that Jesse Jackson’s re sentiment stems from a slight feeling of inferiority vis-à-vis Obama – maybe Obama continually rebuffs or recognize Jesse Jackson’s political agenda, one that goes way back to the civil rights movement. Whatever the reasons, it is clear that res sentiment eats away at the human soul. It is here that religion teaches us that whenever re sentiment sets in, it should immediately be discarded by various methods.

The prophet (SAW) cautioned the believers, in a hadith, that if anyone of us has anger for anyone, he or she should sit down; and if that doesn’t work, he or she should lie down, for a while if possible.

A few days ago I spoke with a Jehovah’s Witness who asked me why Islam is the fastest growing religion today. I told him that in my estimation Islam allows Muslims to view the world historically, while centering their spiritual energies on Tauhid, or the Oneness of Allah (SWT). Muslims are not naïve to the historical process, particularly regarding human sociability and its attendant socio-economic and racial injustices, but Muslims do not partake in terrorist activities to rehabilitate society through re sentiment. Muslims believe that even atheists deserve life; no one is allowed to do so. Those who partake in these activities share the res sentiment of others who want to kill innocent human beings; and as a consequence, they direct their hatred against modern governments who support modern human societies. True, modern morality is grounded in being-with-others, and human nature as social. Nonetheless it is essential that this salient point be realized in modern times prior to spiritual development. Human beings must progress through three stages: from the animal to the social to the spiritual; but many continue to wonder how many people, particularly those stunted by historical injustices, cannot achieve this cherished state prescribed by Almighty Allah (SWT)? How is it that a child is able to learn when he or she is hungry?

The problem for modern man is that he looks to human history itself for a totality that humanity previously sought in transcendental terms, and here he finds despair and resentment because of the corrosive nature of human society. He or she encounters a universal society consisting of equal nations that can be fully developed through powers of capitalist production, and equal men and women. Consider the paradox in this modern era in which a person’s dismal interpretation of life, say, a young man experiencing Israeli occupation, is repeated innumerable times; how does he or she respond? Yes; terrorists find no consequences for their actions as resentment grows within; his or her human will becomes the only standard, the only source. No civilized nation will allow itself to be dragged to a state of nature, a state that is antithetical to commerce, industry and its ordered society. This is the situation in which Muslim and non-Muslims find themselves in these troubled times.

Yet as res sentiment grows in our hearts we must direct our energies on a faith that recognizes both temporal historical conditions and a spiritual reflection on the Divine who, through His final prophet Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi salam) inspires us to do good and forbid evil. Muslims neither hasten their own deaths nor any one else’s. Muslims do not affirm a state of nature that terrorists endorse, a state of nature that is not dependent on Divine Guidance.

The writer is a recent revert to Islam and can be contacted at: drummondhugh@verizon.net