Contemporary Arab thought has not undergone a deeper and harsher transformation than the gradual - and sometimes painful - shift 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 comprehensive system for interpreting 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 thought, in contrast, is the opposite: relative, historical, open to review, not claiming to possess the ultimate truth, and not monopolizing the future. Yet it was long 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, leftist, religious, and revolutionary. Ideology then resembled a doctrine that tolerated no doubt, granting its followers a moral sense of superiority and simplifying reality into sharp binaries: right and wrong, progress and backwardness, belief and disbelief, revolution and betrayal. This rigid framework diminished the gap between thought and power, opinion and truth, promise and reality. Every rigid ideology claimed to hold the ultimate solution for society, to understand history, and to chart the path to the future.

Yet time does not favor closed ideas. With accumulated failures, repeated shocks, and a widening gap between slogans and results, rigid ideologies began to erode from within. Their power to persuade weakened, followed by their capacity to organize, and then their ability to present a successful model for state, economy, and society. Every political, economic, or social failure allowed doubt to creep into their intellectual foundations, sometimes leading to complete breakdowns or transforming them into mere protest rhetoric devoid of concrete programs.

Flexible thought, by contrast, emerged slowly, gradually, and sometimes hesitantly. It does not promise salvation, issue grand slogans, or offer ready-made prescriptions. Its defining features are the ability to learn from mistakes and adapt to changes. It acknowledges the relativity of truth, the complexity of reality, and the governance of society through interest management and balances, not absolute certainty.

The transition from rigid ideology to flexible thought is not merely cognitive but represents a profound psychological and cultural transformation. The believer in 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, evolving world where alliances shift, interests intertwine, and truths blend with perceptions. This gray world is psychologically exhausting because it lacks the comfort of closed doctrines, but it more accurately reflects reality’s complexity.

The collapse of rigid ideologies has created an intellectual vacuum in many Arab societies. Some moved from absolute certainty to absolute doubt, from comprehensive interpretation to cognitive chaos. In this vacuum, new modes of thinking emerged - not focused on grand visions for the future, but on managing the present, minimizing losses, and achieving what is possible rather than the ideal. This encapsulates the essence of flexible thought: moving from “what should be” to “what can be.”

However, flexible thought is not without risks. Without a moral compass, it can degenerate into cold pragmatism that justifies everything in the name of necessity or interest. Without long-term vision, it can become mere daily management, devoid of a civilizational project. The challenge lies not only in dismantling rigid ideology but also in cultivating flexible thought that maintains a moral foundation, strategic vision, and a capacity to balance principles with practical interests.

The current Arab scene clearly illustrates this conflict: one mode of thinking remains imprisoned by old certainties, interpreting the present through the lens of the past, demanding that society pay the price for slogans no longer relevant. The other mode attempts to adapt to a fluid world of open economies, changing politics, and rapid technology, often without complete intellectual tools to guide this adaptation.

The transition from rigid ideology to flexible thought is not a weakness, as some may believe, but a mark of historical maturity. Societies cannot fully embrace modern statehood while seeking a “saving doctrine.” Stable states are founded not on absolute certainties, but on continuous revision, recognition of mistakes, and the ability to correct course.

Ironically, flexible thought is humble but enduring; rigid ideology is loud but short-lived. The former moves slowly but rarely falls, while the latter moves quickly but often crashes. This makes the contemporary Arab mind’s struggle a battle of time, not slogans - a battle of building, not shouting.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar