That is why, for instance, there is a propensity to view the violence perpetrated by Transnational Militants simply as “terrorism” – which indicates a focus on its methods and effects – rather than transnationalism – which is a corollary of, and reaction to, the illogicality of the nation-state given the current advanced state of technology. The masses, in other words, do not possess the necessary concepts or the mindset to produce words that describe the phenomena in a cause-effect manner contextualised within a broad historical milieu because the nation-state is viewed as the only body from which any phenomena can come about or can have any meaning.
Hence, “military action” is assumed when it comes from a nation-state but it is “terror” when it does not come from a state. Thus, logically, all actions not being forwarded by a state are seen to be borne of psychosis or cultural deficiencies. It has no “cause” because it does not have the “body” of a state which is perceived to be the first amongst causes in the nation-based geopolitical system. That is why the phenomenon of “transnationalism” is reduced to nothing more than what it makes us feel – terror.
This is not unlike the “terror” one feels upon being confronted with objects moving by itself. A cup being carried across the table by a person is not worth a raised eyebrow. But a cup doing so seemingly according to its own volition is a cause for much fear and terror. It cannot move across the table simply because it has no body that we recognise to be a body to argue for the legitimacy and naturalness of the cup’s movement.
That is exactly how the idea of the “terrorist” can gain as much conceptual currency as it has to-date. It has no legitimate “body” or “state” that can legitimise the existence of a militant wing of a transnational consciousness that is yet to materialise. We must not forget that “terrorism” was always perceived as such whether it was violence directed at the civilian, military installations or political ones. This is a strong indicator of the conceptual basis and biases upon which much of the world uses the word “terrorist” and its other derivatives in an authoritative fashion.
The best way to understand the idea of Transnational Militancy is to appreciate, not its methods or motives, but what it is an unconscious reaction to. That is, a reaction against the inability of the contiguous nation-state to represent a people who are spread across the whole globe. Of course, the first step that ought to be taken is to term this phenomenon in a way that would contextualize it within a geopolitical and historical stage and not use highly egocentric words like “terror” and “terrorist”.
We must remember that there was a time when “Empire” was seen as the only logical and natural state of existence. At that time, the “nationalists” would inevitably have been thought of as “terrorists” or “savages” despite many amongst them using the same methods and means as the “legitimate” armies of the Empire. Now, of course, we see them as nationalists.
These “terrorists” are Transnationalists in their being a logical reaction to the nation-based global framework that expects people to feel familial affinity on the basis of contiguous space. And like the proponents of the naturalness of the Empires of old, our perception of these militants as nothing more than psychotic “terrorists” emerging from a “dysfunctional” ideology or faith is derived from our belief that the nation-state is the only logical state of existence.
It is the only familial form within which one is supposed to form a familial bond. It is the only form from which one can act militarily, politically and institutionally - Just like a human body being a prerequisite for life, thought and action. Well, this could perhaps be argued to be “natural”, provided real-time technology, a technology that enables me to feel familial sentiments with another on the other side of the globe did not exist.
The absence of this technology in the past had enabled me to only feel familial sentiments with a fellow villager or a citizen. With migration, globalisation, and real-time technology, a “fellow villager” is just a click away. “Cultural space” – a conscientious counterpart of physical space - is “folded” and “patriotic” feelings can be garnered with a browser, a click of a remote or the “send” button in mobile device. The myopia induced by the previous state of technology disabled enough to enable nationalism whilst our real-time transnational vision of today disables the national monopoly over our senses.
As the Muslims, unlike many other forms of familial consciousness such as the Proletarian or Christian ones, had never been dismembered by the borders of the nation-state. They had, in effect, remained in stasis across separate nation-states over the ages and maintained intravenously by the observance of a similar faith that denied, from its outset, the state any monopoly over human consciousness.
This was achieved by Mu’hammad supposedly “failing” to bequeath his religious role to a state which basically meant that society was to be the end and not the means for the glorification of the state. If he had done so, it would just legitimise any stat’s claim over the religious conscience of its “citizenry” which would in turn demolish the universality as the heart of Islaam.
All that was required was the aforementioned advances, a historically definable Western “other” and continuous compromising of the Islaamic “family’s” interests by this “other” for it to ossify and produce a militant wing. This is not unlike the military wing formed by the now “United States of America” in the initial phase of the now-legitimised “American” Revolution.
Loyalties were then called upon on the basis of shared physical space. There it was against “Empire”; here it is against the “nationalism”. However, it is unfortunate that these Transnationalists do not know, as mentioned, what they are a reaction to. That is why these Transnational Muslims are seeking for a nation-state of their own.
Sum
Consciousness is not a phenomenon existing apart from social realities. It is a psychological state that is expressed and ordered institutionally and experienced via the adaptation of culture to these circumstances. These in turn envelope humanity paradigmatically and supplies notions and concepts of reality.
What is natural and legitimate; what is true and what is false; what are liabilities and assets; what are natural and legitimate goals and aspirations; what can be considered as natural and legitimate means and methods; arise from and dynamically interact with Consciousness. It is here that “bodies” such as nation-states can be formed, and it is here that the potential for conflict arises in the event illegitimate or unnatural “bodies” are formed. I say “unnatural” because the state’s boundaries ought to coincide with the extent to which a sense of unity can be facilitated. With real-time technology, the state’s boundaries must coincide with the locality of the furthest individual who identifies with a culture. In a globalised village, this can only mean the entirety of the globe.
For instance, the UN is an institution produced by the Relations of Consciousness as expressed in the idea of the nation-state. These provide infrastructural support to enable the globally nation-centred consciousness to express itself within and between national selves. Where consciousness transcends the nation-state, as witnessed in Islaamic Transnationalism, it will necessarily strain against, amongst others, the infrastructural status quo as existing institutions will not have been created to accommodate it.
It will be rendered voiceless and formless though it might comprise members more numerous than most recognised states or many of them put together. Such consciousness naturally, given the human propensity to feel aggrieved when those considered to be “our own” are made to suffer, evolves into insurgence when its grievances can find no podium as significant as the ones created for and by the previous Relations of Consciousness.
Thus, contrary to the views of some quarters, what we are now facing is a period in history, not of the “Clash of Civilisations”, but of the “Clash of Consciousness”. It is a clash between two civilisations with a different conception of cultural space. Religion, or Islaam, is incidental to this phenomenon, though, if this is illogically handled via “wars on terror”, it may increasingly serve to define it in religious and cultural terms. Islaam is not the cause of the scourge of “terrorism” but rather the means through which underlying propensities towards self-preservation and self-determination on the basis of familial loyalties is articulated.
When the contradiction between the antiquated national variant of the Relations of Consciousness - founded upon previous technology - and the emerging Relations of Consciousness – a corollary of new “real-time” technology - are removed, such a conflict will suffer significant cessation.
However, the effectiveness of such a solution will be increasingly compromised if we do not realise this soon enough. People are defined not only by what they are or what they are a reaction to, but also by ongoing circumstances that continuously determine what they become and what they will be a reaction to. In every step of our counteraction of a problem, the application of a flawed solution will result in the evolution of the problem into forms that we will not be able to solve with solutions that would be most effective at an earlier stage.