[轉貼]CLAIRE BISHOP與JULIA BRYAN WILSON的對谈

智慧的不安：Claire Bishop 與 Julia Bryan Wilson的對谈

來源：www.art-ba-ba.com

过去十年，美术史学家和评论家Claire Bishop从来都不畏惧的去写自己的观点和看法，有关于装置到合作都广泛的成为教课题材，引用和争论。她的新书《Artificial Hells: Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship 人造的地狱：参与性艺术和观看者政治》（Verso, 2012），一本重新评估参与在二十世纪当代艺术作为一种意识形态，肯定再度惹起争论。这个访谈，我和Claire视屏对谈，比电邮的干燥对答更好。在2012的六月她在巴黎，而我则在Oakland。以下是我们稍微更改过的对谈抄本。

Julia Bryan-Wilson——我想问问你写作的过程。你是怎么由比较短的文章到有争议和批评性的（比如你有名的〈Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics对抗和关系美学〉再到这个长篇关于艺术史的书呢？

Claire Bishop——〈对抗〉这篇文章很快在我的博士论文把事情翻过来；它原本是一篇独立的带有争议性的文章，我也把它合拼在装置艺术的书里面。这本书的核心是由〈Social Turn 社会的转向〉在2006年在Artforum登过的一篇争议文章，当这篇文章得到那么大评击我就知道我必需写长篇一点。我感觉到这些问题是可以用一个不标准的历史来写的，当初我还不知道会变成一本跨二十世纪的长篇巨作。

JBW——对我来说我对你用话剧和行为的角度来从写艺术史很感兴趣。

CB——我跟我的朋友经常聊到如果通过话剧的角度来教二十世纪的当代艺术意义会很重大，用 Brecht（Bertolt Brecht）替代Greenberg（Clement Greenberg）。 这个是我谦虚的非主流方式通过话剧和行为来看待二十世纪的艺术，好比通过绘画（正常的教书方式）或者是现成品。

JBW——这本书的开头是未来主义，也是你说经典的“行为艺术”的第一批文章出现的时候；也就是说把先锋派的艺术史重新定位，把那些行动看作为主要的并非把他们看成一个括号。

CB——对，未来主义是出发点。这个也是与Rose Lee Goldberg部分重叠，但重要的是第一章说到先锋派的艺术是要显露三个不同政治立场也有赞成可参与艺术——就是说中断守旧对参与总是左派的假设。

JBW——那些意识形态的差异很重要，像你看的原法西斯主义参与，共产主义参与，无政府主义参与等等。你也讨论到Augusto Boal和其他对行为艺术的重要检验标准在艺术史没有占太大的影响，比如说Brecht。对你来说，有没有学科界行为学者从话剧史出来或者美术史出来做行为艺术的区别呢？

CB——这个在我新书在纽约的发布会Carrie Lambert-Beatty问我的第一条问题！

JBW——我发誓我们没有预谋！  

CB——让我想想看能不能给你一个更好的回答。 我看来在模式上是有很多的重叠，但是最终我给予项目和作品的特权都是他们首先看待自己是视觉艺术家为首；我是可以把更多做行为艺术的独立艺术家或者是组合写进去，比如Rimini Protokoll，但是他们所提出的问题跟在视觉领域的艺术家有所不同。

JBW——行为艺术和视觉艺术，被机构化的，的界线已经非常模糊，比如今年Whitney双年展的行为和它最近在Tate Modern 的结合。

CB——我也同意界线是模糊了。对我来说的问题是：为什么会有这样的发展呢？一来，我觉得对用物体为主的艺术已经有不满了 （这个也是二十世纪一直都有的问题，只不过再次浮现出来）。二来，美术馆已经进入活动文化，行为变成一种带有期待的兴奋环节。

JBW——这也是一种让美术馆跟其他行业比如时尚或者电影来做一个交叉推广。

CB——在某些机构，是绝对有的。

JBW——你提到Marina Abramovic在洛杉矶 MOCA， 在美术馆设宴，里面有表演家作为“主要摆设”。一个活动，让某些人，觉得没有品味的一个演出，受关注的也是低工资的志愿者。

CB——的确是一个受到不太好反应的活动，但是我不认同Yvonne Rainer对这个作品的批评。对Rainer来说是工资的问题：这些行为演出只得到150美元的工资。但是把焦点放在这个问题上等于是忽略这个作品本身是非常弱。此外，在行为演出的领域里面150美元其实不少了。艺术界本身就是依赖一些拿不到工资的实习生来支撑着，纽约的Guggenheim有超过150名员工是没有工资的。如果要谈经济的话，对我来说这个比Abramovic的演出者得到150美元更感到惊讶。作品本身就算Abaramovic是给他们500美元也不会让作品更好——依旧是一个不好的作品，这种自我利用以自己的名气来服务LA MOCA的名人捐款。

JBW——（在你的书里面）吸引我的是你讨论参加者是喜欢被展示的，就算被“利用”也一样。你能不能在说一下自我利用的“迷恋否认”？重要的是要清楚很多人参加据你说的“委任行为”在演出他们也会得到什么，这个所谓的“什么”不一定是金钱上的交换。

CB——对的，普及来讲很多人都享受在一个作品的“自我利用”，在探讨行为艺术的时候这一点经常受到忽略。是我从不同的访谈和自己组织的活动时发现的。我经常会问演出者他们感觉怎么样，有没有觉得不舒服或者闷不闷等等的问题。但是很多人都非常喜欢能参与一个作品，尤其是在画廊里。会燃起某一种自恋受到认同。

JBW——好几次你提到BDSM （性虐）为一个另类的方法去看待这些问题。你能不能再说一下你怎么看BDSM作为一个框架对于怎么消化疼痛和享受，怎样延伸到参与性艺术的关系？

CB：哈！真有眼力。对我来说，BDSM和喜剧提供两种不一样的框架来看待身体本身怎么在一个空间的发挥。关于当代艺术有很多道德的讨论，但是喜剧也很有效的探讨一些尖锐关于政治上的问题，用一种乐趣来呈现。另外一种的是，在BDSM里不同的“情景”很多人（对他们来说）也是一种享受和乐趣，虽然说他们在现实生活并不最求这样的一个关系。两者不同的经历都是现实生活的拖延，但也是参与性的——我觉得它们都有对参与性艺术很重要的双重存在论。

JBW——当然，都是权力，也是不平等权力的一种玩法——会产生一种危险和愉快。

CB——你认同吗？这都是我近来想到的问题，所以才会在书里面占一小块儿。

JBW——非常诱人的想法，但是可惜太短了。有时候我觉得学者讨论BDSM，都会过于抗拒的的浪漫，或者过于单调乏味，但是你是认可全力动态的复杂性。想搞清楚的是，当你说喜剧的时候，你是指单口相声吗？

CB——对，Performa去年做了一个系列的单口相声。不是很成功，但是让我思考了很多。

JBW——你在单口相声有那个最爱吗？Lenny Bruce？Aziz Ansari？

CB——我对单口相声不是很熟悉，但是想在英国的评论当中，比如说Ricky Gervais会说一些跟恋童癖有关的笑话，都让我感到兴趣也提出艺术是容许违诫的一个空间。你怎么看这些围绕着“有用的艺术”的讨论呢？我是在想 Tania Bruguera，或者是Artur Zmijewski的柏林双年展（第六届柏林双年展）。

JBW——柏林双年展非常容易去批评，导致大家都在批评。我主要的感觉是，拨开所有问题，不感兴趣去看，太平庸了。

CB——这个是只想到“效用”而忽略表现导致的问题。Zmijewski 2000年时候的作品平衡这两者是非常成功的——所以看到他那么崇高地仰慕工具化和效果让我很失望。但是，我在那边也过了很精彩的一天， 也肯能是非典型的经验：我去了Kunstwerke那边，跟策划人Joanna Warsza见面，跟我聊了一下那些斜向的雕塑还有我没有去看的话剧活动。然后我去了别的场地然后我的一天在Elizabeth-Kirche的绘画和Pawel Althamer那边达到高潮。非常完美的。让我觉得他们应该连展览这个模式也去掉只有活动，我感觉是那一部分是最强的。

JBW——听起来你的一天真的蛮好，我就不太一样了。我去的那一天灰蒙蒙的早上，唯一在Occupy空间发生的是一个男人躺在地上睡觉。我们的经历出入太大了，这个是一个非常严重的问题。在你的书里面你用个人观点去描述Hirschhorn的作品，它的不规则，不可控制的活力和无限的能量。你也自我意识到你的写作建立在你当时在场的必要性，才能看到那些活动有多宽和充满挑战性。时候觉悟的话，事情永远看起来都很干净。我想问有没有过往的参与性活动，你看来也是不是一样充满失败。换句话说，我们今天对过往历史性的活动都是被净化过的叙述。某程度的混乱是这种艺术的本质，在你书里面很少提到。这样说合理吗？

CB——当然。这都是真的，但是我觉得最好的作品当中都带有这样的混乱，或者指出一些艺术家以外的剩余。即使当时没有人对一个项目感兴趣去写一篇文章也可以告诉我们一些事情（比如是肯定）我们也怀疑有可能没那么有趣。在这里面可以看到两点：第一点就是对过往的历史研究——如果不存在反应的话，我们还可以给观众一个档案吗？第二就是关于当代的写作——我们能找到别的声音，不依赖差劲的照片无法叙述当时的复杂的经验？这样项目性作品一直在挑战我们史学家和评论家。

JBW——这本书是跟历史有关对你来说又多重要？你怎么看艺术史和批判性的写作的巨大划分的讨论？

CB——我可以反复谈论这个问题。很多时候我觉得所有好的历史写作都带有批判性的目的，同时所有批判性的写作也有历史性的目的。也有时候我发现他们重叠的地方并不多。那篇关于关系美学的文章之后我发现我当时过于以评论者身份来写的，作为美术史学家我往自己的脚开了一枪：哪一代的艺术家过了五年才肯跟我说话。对一个研究当代艺术来讲是一件非常不好的事情。

JBW——真的？五年？

CB——差不多，就像他们兄弟之间联合起来对付我一样，我就必须开发另外的策略。

JBW——这个提到另外一个问题。Claire，你是女权主义者吗？或者换一个问法，女权主义的理论和政治对你来说重要吗？这本书里面很少提及到性别。

Claire Bishop slap portrait by Ellie Harrison

CB——我当然会说我是女权主义者，也当然是建立在上一代的女权主义者的成就。但是，我觉得没有需要或者意思去拿身份问题作为2012年参与艺术的一项功能。我比较感兴趣的是阶级，不仅仅是因为这个是参与艺术一开始就专注的问题。我不想为了平等才把女艺术家插进；另一方面，我也想推广一些没有她们男性同行的知名度高的艺术家，所以我每一本书的封面都是一位女艺术家。

JBW——这样说也有道理，但是很参与艺术都来自女权主义的艺术运动。

CB——在美国是；在欧洲不是，我觉得。

JBW——我也认同你选择的策略，不涉入北美。但是Mary Kelly在1970年代的英国做了一个跟女工人有关的项目，还有像Argentine Graciela Carnevale处理一些女权主义有关的问题。

CB——你跟我说说，你怎么看Carnevale的作品是女权主义的？

JBW——一些涉及到局限的问题，尤其是在一个空间的问题（像她在1968年的Entrapment and Escape），我来看是跟家庭的问题同样地也跟机构批判有关。

CB——一般来说，我必须承认我对身份政治在美国学术界感到很累——无止境地生产无法否定和批判的女权主义或者后殖民的博士论文……当时是有需要的——但是我没有把他们放进我的写作的欲望。我想比较低调操控我的写作，但是我也知道很有可能会被忽略的可能性。

JBW——但是女权主义大过于“美国的身份政治”。

CB——请继续！

JBW——女权主义包含各种的理论，哲学和政治的可能性，包括评论阶级和性别怎么共同铰接的，所以不是在探讨一个展览到底有多少个女艺术家参展。是在讨论劳动，复制和公共／私人的划分，以及政治经济……

CB——但这些都不是女权主义的议题……还有我想说就是我对这些问题都感兴趣，只不过不是从女权主义的角度来看这些问题。

JBW——好吧。我们谈一些别的，我发现了一些在“人造地狱”里是被认可的词语。

CB——别告诉我——说服力，困扰……

JBW——嗯。其他有“困难”和“忧愁”，两者都是有共鸣的词，但是都具有挑战性去牵制。

CB——我会把它称为“人造的地狱”是因为我想抓住不怕实验性和矛盾的某一种艺术的价值，有可能在那当下不被看重 （像巴黎1921的达达春天）。这本书可能会带动某些东西随后的一代才会被认可……如果我没有记错Breton指的是这些实验为地狱般的“美味”。凄美是需要被感动的——一种穿越正常认可或者不认可的影响。换句话说，就是引起社会参与性艺术带情感不单单只有效。

JBW——失败也是这本书里面的重要题目。你怎么定义失败？

CB——当这种工作涉及到社会领域，很明显有两种失败：作为一个社会项目上的失败（改变情况的失败）还有就是作为一个艺术作品的失败。

JBW——我想知道对你来说一个作品怎么样才失败。

CB——归根到底我还是一个老派的浪漫主义者，像很多先锋派的，对他们来说最可怕就是感到沉闷。 别让我看到平庸。对我来说，失败就是平庸，因为我们都是被平庸包围的。

JBW——我认同你一部份的说法，但是我们也被“极端”包围。暂停在疯狂里事被欢迎的。但是，我会把它归类为谦虚，不是平庸。

CB——我也当然很喜欢用另类的方法来展示闷的艺术作品，像On Kawara或者Bruce Nauman，我非常喜欢一个作品带有经济在里面——简洁是非常棒的。

JBW——我有一个关于你的搞笑趣闻。我在UC Irvine教课的时用了你的〈The Social Turn社会的转向〉有一个学生问到，“所以说，Claire Bishop认为好艺术就是要被大一枪？”因为他理解为你想要的是极度不安（Major Discomfort）。一个礼拜后我在威尼斯双年展碰到你，我问你目前在展览看到的那个作品好，你就提到……

CB——Tania Bruguera！  

Tania Bruguera, Self- sabotage (Autosabotage), 2009

JBW——对，她刚刚玩完俄罗斯轮盘——完全证实我的学生的想法。

CB——那一次是一个非常可怕的经验——过了好几个月我才能跟她对话，Tania做了一个关于到底做一位政治艺术家有什么意义的演讲，她每一篇读完了（大概有五篇左右）拿起一把枪，把它放到头上，开枪。每一次都是空的，但是她最后向天花板开的一枪是真的有子弹的。整个房间都非常狂乱：我记得Rainer Ganahl 和 Alfredo Jaar要求策划人让她停止。那一次恐惧让我失去行动能力。

但是这不是我认为好艺术的意思。过于轰动而且过于愚昧的危险；焦点完全是那些子弹上而不是演讲的内容。一个而死的政治艺术家有什么作用？所以跟你的学生说是要有智慧的不安。是要让人思考，感觉……不单单是轰动的恐慌。

JBW——最后一条问题：你怎么看第十三届文献展里面有参与性的项目和行为和同时有物体性作品？据你看来你觉得这一次文献展是不是意味着你在书里面提到的潮流的高潮，例如从外部采购和重新技能？

CB——这一届得文献展的确反应了很多当代艺术的潮流：存档的冲动（旧色玻璃柜），被边缘化的现代主义者的复原，高预算的录像，行为，社会项目，基于研究的艺术，当然也有参与性艺术。特点在于很多参与性艺术不是带有治疗性（Pedro Reye’s Sanatoruam，Raimundas Malasauskas’s 的展览馆被催眠，在Bahnhof碰到And And And的工作坊，还有 Jerome Bel的残疾话剧或者逃避现实的娱乐）。根据文献展来看，今天的参与是治疗性的或者是逃避现实的娱乐——是好是坏也完全融入展览结构里了。

延伸閲讀：Ryan Wong: Art Cannot Provide a Way Out | http://hyperallergic.com/55068/claire-bishop-artificial-hells/

[轉貼] Tariq Ramadan—Islam Reviewed From Within

PENANG MONTHLY editor Ooi Kee Beng and Roketkini editor Wan Hamidi Hamid interview Professor Tariq Ramadan on the sidelines of the 3rd Penang in Asia Lecture organized by Penang Institute at the Traders’ Hotel, 17th July 2012. The writings of Tariq Ramadan have often been criticized for being contradictory, and in this conversation, they to understand the apparent tension between the thinker and his audience. Tariq Ramadan is Swiss-born and is Professor in Contemporary Islamic Studies at Oxford University, and was listed among the 100 most influential people in the 21st century by Time Magazine in 2004. He is the author of many noted books, the latest of which is on the Arab Spring, titled The Arab Awakening.

Ooi Kee Beng: Thank you for taking the time to talk to me after your very long day. Again, welcome to Penang. The point you made in your speech today, which struck me the most, was that about the lack of confidence on the part of Muslim societies today. I know you have talked often about this, and you have a list of seven “C’s”, the two most intriguing of which I find to be Confidence and Compassion. Can you elaborate on these for us?

Tariq Ramadan: I mention the seven “Cs” in my book What I Believe (2009). I was referring generally to Muslims in contemporary times.  I witness in my travels, be it to Africa, the Middle East, or here to Malaysia, that Muslims today suffer from a severe lack of Confidence—the first “C”; we are in something very close to a psychological crisis in how we deal with our own references and our own principles.

The starting point of everything if you are engaged in political change is to believe, and through being strongly rooted in your own traditions, to be convinced that you have something to bring to the discussion, and that your presence is useful and necessary. There will be no reform and no change if you are not confident.

Common to all religions and all philosophies is the teaching that you must start with yourself. As far as you have to trust someone, you need the last “C” as well, which is Compassion. And also with compassion, you have to start with yourself.

I was speaking in Kuala Lumpur a few days ago [on Rethinking Islamic Reform at a fundraiser jointly organized by the Islamic Renaissance Front and the Institute for Policy Research], and I was telling the Muslims that our message is one of love and forgiveness.

We have a word in Arabic—Rahma—which means to be merciful and to be kind to oneself; to be amending and no condemning; to be loving to Nature. We are now coming into the month of Ramadan [starting on 20 September], a month that the Messenger, peace be upon him, called the Month of Rahma, the month of mercy.

Muslims, I think, are often obsessed with rules and they forget meaning, and that is why they lack confidence. They are obsessed with limitations and they forget the ends. They lack compassion in many of the things that they are doing. We are too quick to be judges and not enough in being welcoming of people in our heart and with our ears.

Ooi Kee Beng: This is partly what you mean when you talk about revolution having to come from the bottom upwards, isn’t it? You are appealing to the individual Muslim, and to changes within him, are you not?

Tariq Ramadan: Yes and no. In understanding yourself, you have to understand your references, your religion and the dynamics within your society. But you should not sacrifice yourself in the name of your community. That is why in all my lectures, I end by asking my listeners, “Take good care of yourself.” This is important because in a movement we can all easily get lost and end up, not as a group of activists but as a group of agitated people. We end up with a lot of agitation and little vision. This is connected, and of course I think revolution has to be connected in this way, to the idea that changes to come from the bottom up.

I advocate national movements that are based on local initiatives. In Malaysia, for example, it is important that states and local dynamics drive changes, instead of things being imposed from on high.

Wan Hamidi Hamid: Speaking of obsessions, why are so many Muslims so obsessed with the Islamic state, with sharia law, and with hudud?

Tariq Ramadan: When you are under threat, you tend to defend yourself by referring to rules and principles, lessons and meanings that you are familiar with. This goes for everybody, not only Muslims. The European secular states do the same when they feel themselves threatened by immigration, for example.

This is a natural reaction or reflex to this. Having said that, natural does not mean it is right. I think it is wrong. We have to go beyond that. The rational and intellectual attitude should be to respond with meaning, to economic imperialism and other such threats.

Sharia, as I mentioned in my talk earlier, is not a set of repressive laws; it is a set of high noble objectives—respecting justice; the dignity of human beings, be they men or women; freedom of expression; and equality before the law. In Malaysia, if you want to be true to the Sharia, you start by acting against corruption.

Wan Hamidi Hamid: But in Malaysia, these obsessions have become populist politics.

Tariq Ramadan: This is the way we react. When people are scared, they are more emotional. And when they are more emotional, they are less open to arguments and more open to slogans. Emotional politics drives people not by content but by slogans—“to be harsh is to be Muslim”; “Islamic state”, etc. They are attracted by superficial slogans. All politicians have a responsibility here to stop this, and you as a journalist have the responsibility to work against this. We must not play this game. Politicians will play with the mind of voters, and journalists will play with the minds of readers; but what they are doing in the long term is to undermine the things that bind us together as a society.

We will not be able to write the narrative of the future, but will instead be divided by very superficial issues.

Ooi Kee Beng: The world at large, and the Muslim world as well, have had a period during which it had had to deal with modernity, if I may use that word broadly. As you have rightly pointed out, there have been many responses of very different types, which have not been very positive. Now, in naming your latest book The Arab Awakening, are you denoting a broad awakening from the negative effects of these responses?

Tariq Ramadan: No, I am using The Arab Awakening in contrast to popular terms like “Arab Spring” or “Revolutions”, because I don’t believe that what we are witnessing in Tunisia, in Libya, in Egypt, in Syria, in Yemen or in Bahrain, are revolutions. In fact, some of them are military coup d’etat, like in Egypt.

“Spring” is a very positive term used by the media and others to express dynamics coming from the bottom. But what is happening is also a chess game between new political and economics actors, between new economic and political realities. The BRIC countries are challenging American interests and European presence in the Middle East.

So the message of the book is to be cautiously optimistic. What has to be taken positively in itself is of course the shift, the mindset shift in the Arab world towards the idea that “we can remove a dictator”, and do it through street protests. This is very important. Now, are we witnessing a revolution—economic, political and social? I don’t see it so far.

Wan Hamidi Hamid: State authorities and others are saying that pluralism is a bad thing. What does this mean?

Tariq Ramadan: No, no.  You can’t in a country say that pluralism is a bad thing and try to give it your own normative definition. Pluralism denotes a social situation where various religions and cultures exist together.

In Malaysia, pluralism is a fact, like it or not. You have to live with it. So, to say that pluralism is a bad thing, to say No to pluralism, is to confuse the issue.  Acting as if pluralism on theological grounds undermines our religious preeminence is simply not correct. I am not simply saying I respect the Christians, I respect the Buddhists, I respect the Hindus, I respect those without religion. I am saying I respect my religion, and so I respect others. I show confidence in my own values. It is this state of confidence that you need to place in your way of dealing with pluralism. In my book called The Quest for Meaning (2010), the subtitle is Developing a Philosophy of Pluralism. You do that by saying that pluralism is a fact.

Now you have to go beyond this fact and manage pluralism by giving equal rights to citizens, by respecting their freedom of worship, their freedom of conscience; by respecting the choice of the people. You cannot say “I respect the choice and the dignity of the people, but I don’t respect your freedom of choice and your freedom of conscience”.

That is not the sign of a society. That is the sign of a repressive state.

You have to use the term and try to get normative understanding. The best message you can send out is to show that you are not scared of your fellow citizens who are not Muslims.

Ooi Kee Beng: You rightly pointed out that education should be at the centre of this revival. But we do have a chicken-and-egg situation here, as I am sure you would have sensed. How do you go beyond the individual and get regimes to initiate educational systems as the main point in the agenda, which can effectuate values such as the emancipation of women, when these regimes are in all probability the enemy?

Tariq Ramadan: You are right. This is what I try to say in the book. Something dangerous is happening in the Muslim world. There is a polarization going on between the so-called secularists and the Islamists. And both sides are taking their legitimacy by being opposed to the other side.

The secularists say to the Islamists, “You want a theocracy; you are backward. We are the progressives; we are leading the country towards enlightenment”. But in doing that, they have been supportive of dictators. In doing that, they cut themselves off their own society. But election figures now show that these people are totally disconnected from the people. They are marginal.

On the other side, we have the Islamists who say, “You are westernized; you are colonized; and you represent the ideology of others. We are the guardians of our religion”. But then what you have among them is a very superficial legitimacy.

What we end up with are not visions, but polarization. We have to stop this and come to the real questions. This is where we need political activists among our citizens; people on the ground setting the priorities.

If you are serious about social justice, if you are serious about women’s rights, it is not a matter of asking the people to wear this and not to wear that. We have to ask, “Are we talking about education? Are we talking about equal opportunities? Are we talking about equal salaries for the same skills for men and women, which is essential?

It is a reform process. We need a radical change of mindset. We need politicians who simply say “We are not into this very superficial process of polarization. Let us go towards political visions that we can sufficiently share.”

We have many people now seeing clearly the prevalent divide-and-rule strategy throughout the Arab world, and of course here in Malaysia as well.  So you might have to come with a political vision with the minimum agreement on the priorities in our societies.

And it is not about qualifying the state. It is about promoting global education for all. This is where Buddhists, Christians, and others can also be faithful to their ethical principles. How are you going to have democracy if the people are not educated about their duties and their rights? That is a contradiction in terms.

Ooi Kee Beng: That was one of the points I appreciated most in your book.

Tariq Ramadan: Thank you.

Ooi Kee Beng: The other is this.  You worry about how ignorance is used the norm, even as a goal, instead of knowledge. That is a danger of course. This ties in with how one is to cut through these curtains of confusion that are in the way, and you mention cultural strength — your Islamic references –- as a way out of this dichotomy.

Tariq Ramadan: Yes, I highlight the fact that we keep repeating that politics is important; economics is important. And that is all true. But there is the third dimension that is critical in the global world, which is culture. That is not only in the Muslim world. Of course, as a Muslim, you need to be thinking about Islamic ethics and culture. I usually say there is no culture without religion; and there is no religion without culture. But religion is not culture. So there are differences, and we need to think about that. It is important from an ethical viewpoint, and also from a cultural viewpoint.

If you look at the Middle East and ask what has been produced by the Arab cultures over the last half century. What? In thinking, in sciences, in entertainment, in art, in poetry; only very superficial stuff. And you want to celebrate and to feel good in your society; it is essential (that excellent things are produced).

It is not enough to be a citizen. You need to have a sense of belonging. When you travel, and people don’t talk your language, you don’t feel at ease. You don’t have points of reference. This is very important.

So how do you make people facing global culture feel at home; to feel at home not with Coca Cola, but with local drinks? Coca Cola is a way of life; and they were right in saying they were going to fight Chinese Tea because Chinese tea is also a way of life; a way of drinking together. It’s not Coca Cola versus Chinese Tea. It’s one philosophy of life versus another. We need to take this difference very seriously. Globalization is not happening only on economic terms; it is happening on cultural terms. The world culture is another name for westernization; and westernization is consumerism.

You have to work on creativity; you have to work on imagination. What is the genus that is coming out of your culture? The Arabs are not asking that. What is being done in Malaysia? When Malaysians show me the Twin Towers and say they are as good as them, what “them” are they talking about; what inferiority complex are they nurturing?

Let us come to what is really Malaysian, to that which is part of the narrative, and to that which is part of the culture here. We need to come to a very deep awareness of this kind of resistance.

You tend to react to fringe issues; and you tend to react with prohibitions. But the issues are not central to your culture, to your narrative. The point is what is creative in your culture. What do you celebrate in your culture? What? I don’t know. I think this is central to the liberation process.

Ooi Kee Beng: Yes, I would agree with you. Now, looking at how your ideas have developed over the years, do you think that somewhere along the way, sometime soon, you will have to develop a theory on economics as well? As you say, democracy without economic empowerment does not mean very much.

Tariq Ramadan: You know, I have three fields in which I am working. I work on Islam from within; on Islamic jurisprudence, principles of ethics, I am working on Muslims in majority societies; and I am working on Muslims as minorities in the West.

In my book, Radical Reforms (2008), I write about the fundamentals of Islam at the point where we are now. The subtitle is Islamic Ethics and Liberation. So the main point is about how we go about the process of liberation, and I mention seven case studies such as medical science, education, gender, etc. One of them is Environment and Economics, because this is where we have to work. This was a book full of questions because I was setting the framework and trying to see where lie they problems.

What I am starting to do now at the Centre of Islamic Legislation and Ethics (CILE) between Oxford and Qatar, based in Qatar, to do now is take the seven fields plus four others to analyze the question of applied Islamic ethics. One of the fields is economics. I am not happy with Islamic economics and Islamic finance. I am challenging this and saying that we have to go further.

So yes, it is a field where we have work to do, along with culture and art. Gender is another issue where I think we should only focus on women, but also on men. We do have a big problem with men.

Ooi Kee Beng: What would you say to people who say your thinking is reminiscent of socialism?

Tariq Ramadan: Well, I don’t have a problem with that. You know, many Muslims already in the 1960s have been saying the socialism actually came from Islam. As a Muslim, I am close to socialism. I don’t know who came up with it first, but there are things…if you look at me, I am definitely on the left-hand side of the political landscape.

Now, I am taking from my own experiences, but also from my references. Now, there are things in my thinking that may appear Marxist, but I did not get them from the Marxists. One can see that some things Marx said were not far from the religious traditions. For example, we do have the idea that the economy should be at the service of the people and not the other way around.

Wan Hamidi Hamid: It is often said that Marx said that he was not a Marxist. Is Tariq Ramadan afraid of and tired of being misunderstood by others?

Tariq Ramadan: Yes I am. I see it all the time. Even here in Malaysia, I hear people say that they are following Tariq Ramadan’s advice, and yet what they say is not exactly what I have been saying.

I have to be exposed to this, and keep on explaining and talking. Sometimes it is my fault. I have not explained myself well enough. I have to be clearer and expose my thoughts better. You move around, you speak a lot, but people may not read, and they misunderstand without knowing it. So I have to be very cautious, and I keep referring people to the books or my websites.

Ooi Kee Beng: I think that your approach is not run-of-the-mill so it is harder for people to catch on. Misunderstanding is probable.

Tariq Ramadan: Yes. Many here in Malaysia do tell me they feel at ease listening to what I have to say. They gain some confidence. But then, it is also easy to gain confidence and yet remain on the surface of what I am saying.

You know, sometimes, I am more understood by people of other faiths than I am by Muslims. They go further in understanding the consequences of what I am saying. Muslims sometimes don’t do that.

But that is why I have a responsibility, and I keep writing books. I am close to 30 books now. I try to make things clearer. I get criticized in the West for being too Muslim and in the Muslim for being too Western.

Ooi Kee Beng: Let me say that until yesterday, I was quite confused by this Tariq Ramadan. But today, listening to your comprehensive Penang-in-Asia lecture, I could understand you. You made perfect sense.

Tariq Ramadan: There is something I repeat. I like what the philosopher Charles Taylor said of me once. You know, people were saying that Tariq Ramadan is confusing, he says one thing here and other things there…it sounds like double talk and there are a lot of ambiguities in what he says. Now Charles Taylor said that Tariq Ramadan does not have ambiguous talk. What he says is very clear but it is aid in between two ambiguous universes of references.

Ooi Kee Beng: Yes, I do get that. I had wanted to ask you who is it you actually talk to. Who is your target audience?

Tariq Ramadan: Everyone. I am not talking only to Muslims. You must listen to the substance. If you one day see that the substance of what I say to Muslims and what I say to others seems difference, please come to me and tell me this. It would be most helpful, really.

I try to keep the substance constant. The referencing must of course be different. I use Muslim references when speaking to Muslims, and not to others. The level of language also differs. When I talk to my students, I use different references than what I would use when talking to ordinary people.

This is not always easy, and I get criticized. You know, what I said today about how we have deal with migrants and how we have to be self-critical does not make me a lot of friends, for example.

Wan Hamidi Hamid: I want to ask you, to your mind, Is there a difference between being a good human being and being a good Muslim?

Tariq Ramadan: Yes, there are differences. Fundamentally, it is the same because our natural state is dignity. But being a good Muslim refers to a revelation, and to things required of you. The difference between being a good human being and being a good Muslim then, lies in the Six Pillars of Faith, the Five Pillars of Practices. You can be a good human being without God, but you cannot be a good Muslim without God. This is a deep difference.

The important thing to learn here is that the origin of goodness is not standardized. In my book The Quest for Meaning, I say that at the summit we may have universal values, but the humility for all of us is to accept that there are many paths to get there, not one path. No one has monopoly over the right route.

Wan Hamidi Hamid: Are you comfortable with the practice of adding adjectives to Islam—Moderate Islam, Liberal Islam, etc.?

Tariq Ramadan: No, I don’t use these things. I don’t like them, but of course you do use qualifications coming from within. You can have mainstream and less mainstream. So in my book Western Muslims and the Future of Islam (2003), you can have literalists, you can have reformists; you can have mystical Sufis; you can be rationalists. Not moderate, though. Moderate in what sense? You can be liberal religiously but dogmatic politically, and even support dictators and anti-democrats.

Liberal is a very confusing term as well. Liberal democracy may be about human rights and such values while Liberal economy may just be the exact opposite.

We have to differentiate between the religious categorization and the political stance. Just because you are an Islamist, it does not mean you are an anti-democrat; and just because you are a secular Muslim does not mean that you are promoting democracy.

Ooi Kee Beng: You speak quite a bit on individual dignity. Can you say something on that, in conclusion?

Tariq Ramadan: Dignity in itself is important. I is also important when we speak of behavior we don’t like. I am asked often about Islam and homosexuality. My answer is: Islam, like Christianity and other religions do not accept homosexuality. But as Muslims, we need to understand that although we don’t agree with what you do, we respect your dignity as a person. Your dignity is not touched by the way I am dealing with you.

This is a great teaching from the very beginning. You may condemn behaviors but be careful condemning beings.

About Ooi Kee Beng

Dr OOI KEE BENG was born and raised in Penang, Malaysia. He is the Deputy Director of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies; editor of the Penang Monthly; and Visiting Associate Professor at the Department of Public and Social Administration at Hong Kong City University. He was also Adjunct Associate Professor at the Department of Southeast Asian Studies at National University of Singapore (2009-2011).