Contemporary Arab thought has undergone no deeper and harsher transformation than the gradual – and sometimes painful – passage from the world of rigid ideologies to the realm of flexible thought. When ideology first took root in modern Arab consciousness, it was more than ideas; it was a closed certainty, a complete system of interpretation of the world, a promise of salvation, a weapon in conflict, and an alternative identity to the state and society. This was essentially a methodological transfer of Western national thought. Flexible thinking, on the other hand, is the opposite: relative, historical, open to revision, not claiming to possess ultimate truth, and not monopolizing the future. However, it has long been inaccessible to the Arab mind, marginalized and often distorted.
Since the mid-20th century, Arab societies have lived to the rhythm of rigid ideologies in all their forms: nationalist, left-wing, religious and revolutionary. The ideology then resembled a doctrine admitting no doubt, granting its supporters a moral feeling of superiority and simplifying reality into sharp binaries: right and wrong, progress and backwardness, belief and disbelief, revolution and betrayal. This rigid framework narrowed the gap between thought and power, opinion and truth, promise and reality. Each rigid ideology claimed to have the ultimate solution for society, to understand history, and to chart the path to the future.
However, time does not favor closed ideas. With accumulated failures, repeated shocks, and the growing gap between slogans and results, rigid ideologies began to erode from within. Their power of persuasion faltered, followed by their organizational capacity, and then their ability to present a successful model for the state, the economy and society. Each political, economic or social failure has allowed doubt to intrude into their intellectual foundations, sometimes leading to complete collapses or transforming them into mere protest rhetoric devoid of concrete programs.
Flexible thinking, on the other hand, emerged slowly, gradually, and sometimes hesitantly. It does not promise salvation, state grand slogans, or offer ready-made recipes. Its defining characteristics are the ability to learn from mistakes and adapt to changes. It recognizes the relativity of truth, the complexity of reality, and the governance of society through the management of interests and balances, and not through absolute certainty.
The transition from rigid ideology to flexible thinking is not only cognitive but represents a profound psychological and cultural transformation. The believer in a rigid ideology inhabits a well-defined world with clear enemies and allies, and a straight line to the future. The flexible thinker inhabits a gray and evolving world where alliances shift, interests intertwine, and truths mingle with perceptions. This gray world is psychologically exhausting because it lacks the comfort of closed doctrines, but it more accurately reflects the complexity of reality.
The collapse of rigid ideologies has created an intellectual vacuum in many Arab societies. Some have moved from absolute certainty to absolute doubt, from global interpretation to cognitive chaos. In this void, new ways of thinking have emerged – not focused on grand visions for the future, but on managing the present, reducing losses and achieving what is possible rather than the ideal. This encapsulates the essence of flexible thinking: moving from “what should be” to “what can be”.
However, flexible thinking is not without risks. Without a moral compass, it can degenerate into cold pragmatism which justifies everything in the name of necessity or interest. Without a long-term vision, it can become simple daily management, devoid of a civilizational project. The challenge lies not only in dismantling rigid ideology but also in cultivating flexible thinking that maintains a moral foundation, a strategic vision, and an ability to balance principles with practical interests.
The current Arab scene clearly illustrates this conflict: a way of thinking remains imprisoned by old certainties, interpreting the present through the prism of the past, demanding that society pay the price for slogans that are no longer relevant. The other mode attempts to adapt to a fluid world of open economies, changing policies, and rapid technology, often without the comprehensive intellectual tools to guide this adaptation.
The transition from rigid ideology to flexible thinking is not a weakness, as some might believe, but a mark of historical maturity. Societies cannot fully embrace state modernity while seeking a “saving doctrine.” Stable states are based not on absolute certainties, but on continual revisions, recognition of errors, and the ability to correct course.
Ironically, flexible thinking is humble but enduring; rigid ideology is loud but ephemeral. The first moves slowly but rarely falls, while the second moves quickly but often breaks. This makes the struggle of the contemporary Arab spirit a battle of time, not of slogans – a battle of construction, not of shouts.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the authors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar
