There's a review of a book by Stefan Collini called That’s Offensive! Criticism, Identity, Respect. He's discussing the way that people take offence at criticism and especially the way that western liberals ease off on minorities out of "respect".
Here's what the reviewer thinks is the central passage: “Where arguments are concerned—that is, matters that are pursued by means of reasons and evidence—the most important identity we can acknowledge in another person is the identity of being an intelligent reflective human being.”
This is not even wrong. People who get upset because you make a joke about their prophet or their product are not engaging in an argument - an exchange and mutual examination of views where both parties are prepared to alter those views if the criticisms are good enough. They are engaging in a dispute - which is about prevailing against the other side. You publish cartoons about my prophet, I claim offence and disrespect and threaten to kill you and burn down your offices. I have no intention of listening to arguments about free speech - I want you to back down, never do it again and I want all the publicity I can get to re-inforce my standing in my community. I can do all that and be an "intelligent, reflective human being" as well - my very grasp of PR and TV and my ability to use your liberal values to my advantage prove that. You're the dummy who can't see what I'm up to.
If I may paraphrase: the most important identity we can acknowledge in another person is the identity of being someone who wants something. If they are prepared to compromise, horse trade and dicker to get it, then we can do business, and if they are not, then we have to be prepared to call their bluff, tell them to go to hell, steer around them or call out the riot police.
The reviewer then summarises: "The related point, which Collini also touches upon, is that if one decides to criticize a culture or a tradition or a work of art, doing so is not an act of Western arrogance. Criticism is not Western or Eastern or Christian or Jewish, and those facing criticism—and those societies and cultures facing criticism—should respond in a spirit of openness about truth. To withhold criticism from certain communities or religions is, in Collini’s word, a form of condescension towards them. It denies these groups the ability to engage in constructive dialogue, and to fortify their own values. In the final analysis, everyone loses."
The actual position is this: if one decides to criticise a culture or a tradition or a work of art, one first needs to understand what one wishes to achieve by doing so and if one cares about the response from the spokesmen for that culture, tradition or artist. One then needs to decide if they are likely to exploit the criticism for publicity, ignore it or make death threats. It may be that your criticism will actually recruit for their side: there is, after all, no such thing as bad publicity (unless you are a badly-behaved corporate giant). Having decided it is worth doing, tailor your criticism for the best audience: to borrow from soccer, you will not going to win friends criticising the team, but you can never make enemies slagging off the manager. And bear in mind that there is a possibility that everyone from the man at the top to the woman who washes his cook's clothes, knows the whole thing is a scam.
To withhold criticism from certain communities or religions can be condescending, but it can also be a useful energy-saving tactic. We cut crazy, dangerous or dysfunctional beliefs so much slack because we don't want to get involved with a bunch of crazy, dangerous or dysfunctional people, and then only when we can insulate ourselves from them. This lets the crazy people identify and advertise themselves and so create their own ghetto, rather than us having to do it for them. Less competition for us, less competition for our children. And the crazy, dangerous or dysfunctional people don't really want to be the Responsible Adults – they want some feed from the trough and to be left alone in their fantasy worlds. When they get it, they go away.
An analysis of the concept of offence won't give newspaper editors, politicians, local government officials and university administrators a spine when it comes to threats from extremists. If you think you're going to be sued and lose, or dismissed, disciplined or sent to Siberia by management, you're not going to stand up. You're going to back down. A fish rots from the head, and an organisation collapses from the top.
No comments:
Post a Comment