Lesson Time
Anthropologists are reliable sources of you have to understandism. Pnina Werbner does her bit.
There are some lessons (the British) learned from “The Satanic Verses” that I’m afraid others in Europe still need to learn. One of them is the simple lesson that blasphemy is a double-edged sword.
Okay, now it’s time for anthropologists to learn a simple lesson: words like ‘blasphemy’ and ‘haram’ and ‘apostasy’ don’t apply to people who don’t subscribe to the religion in question. It’s a rather disgusting form of coercion to pretend that they do.
But there was no gain on either side in terms of reaching mutual tolerance or understanding. The novel just inflamed peoples’ feelings – Muslims felt they had been disrespected and their feelings disregarded.
Another simple lesson for anthropologists. Here it is. So what. Is every novel ever written supposed to respect the feelings – the alleged feelings, the attributed feelings, the assumed feelings, the guessed-at in advance feelings – of ‘Muslims’? If so, does that apply to the feelings of everyone? Might that be a tall order? Such a tall order that compliance would simply shut down novel-writing entirely? And by extension all writing and all thought? Do you really – academic that you are – want to say that ‘feelings’ about writings should necessarily be respected? If you do, I think you’re an imbecile. That’s a simple lesson.
The Satanic Verses affair taught people in Britain a lesson about the depth of religious feelings among Muslims. Although the affair died down, it remains an underlying, painful memory for British Muslims even today.
Yes. It did. And not only people in Britain – people over here, too, and other places as well. It taught us the lesson that religious zealots were willing to threaten and kill people over a novel they didn’t like. It taught us to fear and despise people like that. It did not, however, teach us to admire or respect or love or think good the ‘depth of religious feelings among Muslims’. It’s not clear whether Werbner grasped that part of the lesson or not.
Even if an artist had failed to find someone to illustrate a children’s book on the Prophet for fear of reprisals, this does not constitute an attack on freedom of speech. It could be construed as recognition and respect for the sacred taboos of another religion.
Yes, it could, and that is a good thing why, exactly? Because all ‘sacred taboos’ are benign and harmless? Are they?
It is a matter of having some kind of voluntary understanding – one that says that the price one pays for a sort of entertaining bit of journalism is not worth it because there are people who will feel genuinely offended. It is difficult for us Westerners with our secular upbringing to understand and sympathize with the depth of feeling of believers. Their passionate belief is puzzling and alien to us.
Here’s another simple lesson. We’re not required to sympathize. Understand, yes, but sympathize, no. I don’t sympathize with the depth of feeling that motivates school boards to order science teachers to read religious statements to their students, or to murder abortion doctors, just as I don’t sympathize with the depth of feeling of Nazis or Fred Phelps of ‘God Hates Fags’ or people who think Howdy Doody is God’s messenger. I don’t, and I don’t have to. Sympathy is not the right subject here, because the beliefs in question have content, and we are allowed to evaluate the content. We are not obliged to give sight-unseen unconditional pre-judgment sympathy to any and all feelings provided they are deep enough, and as a matter of fact we ought not to do that, we ought to do the opposite. That’s not hard to understand, is it? Even for us with our secular upbringing that makes it so hard for us to understand things?
…it could be construed as….
It could be, yeah, but my immediate reaction was that it was more likely a desire not to stir up and alienate potential customers, not to mention the possibility of getting a fatwa of their own.
Those cartoons were published months ago. If their feelings were so outraged, why did they take so long to erupt? I think there is something going on here besides a bunch of Muslims feeling dissed.
And, generally speaking, why are their religious feelings assumed to be deeper than our secular feelings?
“Rushdie’s novel depicted the Prophet as as great man, but nevertheless a real man, full of base desires and passions. That offended Muslims who were not interested in the complex symbolic interpretation of the novel.”
Not to mention countless millions who never read it and would never have heard of it if its author hadn’t been sentenced to death.
“Rushdie feared the consequences for intellectuals within the Muslim world of the rise of the Islamists. Freedom of speech was genuinely under attack. I don’t see that the Danish cartoonists had any real sense that their freedom of speech in Europe was being threatened.”
At last, the magic formula. Some free speech may be defensible if it’s already under attack. If it isn’t, just shut up.
“why are their religious feelings assumed to be deeper than our secular feelings?”
I keep asking. To no avail.
“If it isn’t, just shut up.”
Yeah – not to mention, if the Danish cartoonists didn’t have any real sense that their freedom of speech in Europe was being threatened, they certainly do now! That’s quite a good formula too. Be sure not to think your free speech is being threatened, because if you do, and decide to test it, you’ll find out it damn well is. So, again, we learn that we have it only provided we don’t actually use it.
“countless millions who never read it and would never have heard of it”
That’s the thing. I’ve just been marveling at that as if from the beginning. The position seems to be quite simply that no one, no one, no one is allowed to publish anything in any newspaper or novel that would (or could? might? and how do we know?) offend Muslims’ deep religious feelings. That is really quite a colossal demand, if you think about it. We’re all simply forbidden to mention the subject, and that’s that.
It strikes me that the problem isn’t that secularists don’t understand depth of feeling (given that, as already pointed out above, it is a false claim). It’s that religious fanatics don’t understand depth of thinking. But how do you reason with someone who refuses to, or perhaps hasn’t a clue how to, think?
“someone who refuses to, or perhaps hasn’t a clue how to, think”
Possibly as a result of being brought up in a system that discourages it so successfully that even those hailed as its greatest thinkers don’t seem to understand that anything is limiting them, let alone what it is.
Yes, there seems to be some sort of consent that, religous, holy or sacred feelings somehow trump and are more important than mere human feelings. The insult to Mohammed is more insulting to Muslims than the insult that Homosexuals feel when told they will burn in hell or are a threat to society. Its as if they think they are better than us ungodless ones.
An implied discimination here perhaps?
wmr asks if “something else is going on?”
I think there is. This is the wacky, crazy conspiracy side of me, but isn’t it convenient that we have crowds of enraged muslim protestors just as The Cabal is ramping up for an invasion of Iran? Interesting, no? :)
Also, Steve, I might suggest that it goes beyond insult, because homosexuals (and apostates, and loose women, etc. etc.) don’t have to wait for judgement. The Guardians of Islamic Purity are more than willing to make the burning (or the shooting, or the burial in a pit, or the stoning to death by an enraged crowd of aggrieved male relatives) happen right here and now.
OB: ” I don’t sympathize with the depth of feeling that motivates school boards to order science teachers to read religious statements to their students, or to murder abortion doctors, just as I don’t sympathize with the depth of feeling of Nazis or Fred Phelps of ‘God Hates Fags’ or people who think Howdy Doody is God’s messenger.”
OB, which school board ordered science teachers to murder abortion doctors, or did it themselves? For that matter, which Christian organisation did so or conspired to do so? Were any of them convicted?
“It is difficult for us Westerners with our secular upbringing to understand and sympathize with the depth of feeling of believers. Their passionate belief is puzzling and alien to us.”
I’m an athiest but threaten one of my children and you’ll learn about “depth of feeling”.
What I don’t understand, and will never sympthize with, is how fundamentalists can be SO convinced THEY are right on these matters of FAITH that they feel justified in, or even required to, murder non-believers.
This type of “passionate belief” may well be “alien” but it neither admirable or justifiable.
I thought the proof of her odious, clueless patronizing (of everyone, really) was “If Rushdie was seeking to create a more enlightened Islam, he certainly didn’t achieve that goal with his book — (Muslims) did not and could not understand the complex meanings of the book.”
Muslims couldn’t understand? LIke they lack native intelligence? Just turban-heads? They may be our adversaries and we may detest their medieval values but let’s not underestimate them.
Virtually every para in the interview contains some oddity.
ChrisPer: You’re not reading Ophelia’s clauses correctly. She didn’t mean the school boards are ordering abortion doctors murdered, but believers certainly have.
As for no group has ordered said deaths. Don’t be disingenuous. Of course there are churches and sects out there ordering or at least smilingly supporting such murders. Interestingly enough, of course, it’s the radical splinter sects, but they represent a not insignificant slice of evangelical protestantism.
Pretty well everyone seems to be in violent agreement again, so perhaps it’s time for some nuances.
No-one, I hope, in the liberal democracies that house most of us, believe that the newspapers or the cartoonists sholud be subject to any legal penalty or other sanction.
Nevertheless, what they did was dumb. They should have realized that it would be extemely provative (and, as it seems the cartoon were submitted as part of a competition, it was apparently intended to be provocative). Provocativeness (huh?) is OK when there is some other purpose, beyond demonstating that you can provoke. Provocation for its own sake is often, and was in this case, dumb.
Way back, when we discussed fundamental Christians verbally atacking museum guides, I used the expression “extreme bad manners” and I think publication of the cartoons is in a similar category.
More like schoolboys (or schoolgirls) competing to see who can fart loudest without being caught by the teacher.
Let me make it clear, I am not suggesting any penalty in the case we are discussing, beyond, perhaps wearing a sign for a day or so saying “I have done something dumb”.
On matters of legal free speech, I am almost an absolutist. “Bush is a warmonger”, “Teddy Kennedy is a fraud”, ” Fundamentalist Christians are irrational and sholud not be trusted with the education of children” “Mao Zedong was responsible for more deaths in the 20th century than Hitler or Stalin or anyone else” are all fine and useful statements, especially if backed by evidence and further argument, as I belive they can.
Other, less useful, statements or cartoons still deserve legal protection but not protection from criticism and comments like “I wish you hadn’t done that”.
And the violent reactions of gangs in some countries to the cartoons does not, in retrospect, make the editors less dumb for publishing them in the first place.
To repeat: I believe publication of the cartoons was dumb because there was no purpose other than to show they could.
Ken
Yep – this is pretty much the point that the Danish Prime Minister has been trying to get across I think – not the most sensible thing a bunch of journalists has ever done but they are entitled to do it nevertheless.
Ken I agree with you.
It may well be my right to walk through the streets of a notoriously crime-ridden quarter, wearing a lot of bling and carrying flashy gadgets. But would it be wise? Yet robbery, is robbery, is robbery.
It may well be my right, when visiting some provincial backwater in Molvania, to wear a miniskirt and display my breasts prominently. But would it be sensible? Yet rape, is rape, is rape.
I told a friend that I would attend assertiveness training once. She commented that, sometimes, assertiveness gives an excuse to people who are already bullies to take advantage of others and that this kind of classes, sometimes, condone and promote an “in your face” approach to handling conflict that could just as easily backfire and escalate it.
Gill
Well the prof did do us all a favour there:
“Even if an artist had failed to find someone to illustrate a children’s book on the Prophet for fear of reprisals, this does not constitute an attack on freedom of speech.”
So, then this merely constitutes a climate of fear and latent violence. It only constitues an oppressive political and cultural climate, which *cannot* be construed as detremental to free speech…
Sorry, have I missed something ?
Nick, that was the single most puzzling thing for me too, amidst that sea of puzzling incoherent patronising.
Either you have fear of reprisals, OR you have freedom of expression!
Especially when “reprisals” = murder.
How can she construe fear of being killed as “respect” for the taboos that fanatics are ready to kill for? More like ‘respect’ for self-preservation instinct.
I wonder what she’d make of a typical Sopranos episode. ‘Hey Tony, I’m not taking away your freedom, just saying you’ll be dead if you don’t kill your cousin’. That could perhaps be construed by Professor Werbner as respect for the honour codes of the mafia, I imagine? What a joke.
Well, that was one of the refreshing things about the Muriel Gray piece I referred to in a previous thread. Her paper hadn’t printed the cartoons, she agreed that it shouldn’t have, but only in order not to put the lives of staff at risk. She was so explicit about saying that the reason for the self-censorship was (a reasonable) fear and that Muslims have got to be kidding themselves if they think respect had anything to do with it.
How can people even pretend it’s possible to discuss the issue in the way it deserves in a climate of fear and threat? The only reaction that makes the turban-bomb cartoon seem like a provocation is one we’re not seeing.
Satire datelined Atlanta, Georgia:
‘Intending to capitalize on the fervor generated by the 12 Danish cartoons satirizing the prophet Mohammed, a fundamentalist Christian group has published its own set of cartoons lampooning atheism. “We saw what cartoons could do, we saw their holy power,” said Nelson Barbour, the group’s pastor, “And we wanted a piece of that.’
Later in piece: ‘”Well they aren’t that good, are they?” said noted atheist Richard Dawkins, when shown the collection of satirical cartoons, “They aren’t funny, nor poignant, nor even intelligent. They seem a bit forced, like one might toss together under pressure.” One cartoon depicts a man wearing a “Darwin rules!” t-shirt and drinking beer in front of a television, while his wife, wearing a prominent crucifix thinks, “But what if you’re wrong?” Perhaps the most inflammatory cartoon portrays an atheist considering whether or not to devour his own child.’
Whole thing at http://www.thebentinel.com/060208-atheist-cartoons-dont-incite.html
I’m not sure I agree with Ken on this. I agree that there are “levels” to this thing and that the “offensiveness” of the cartoons is real but is at a lower level than the necessity for freedom of speech. However motivation is important. Given that they wanted to promote a debate on free speech then there was an argument to publish them. I don’t think it was simply to prove that they could.
Having said that if you want a debate on free speech then it might have been wiser not to publish these particular cartoons. This is a matter of best tactics rather than restrictions on freedom of speech. A good cartoon causing this outrage would have been much easier to defend that the rather poor ones actually produced.
If someone is still in any doubt that respect here is a code word for fear:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/09/ncart109.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/09/ixnewstop.html
EU commissioner urges European press code on religion
Mr Frattini, a former Italian foreign minister, said the EU faced the “very real problem” of trying to reconcile “two fundamental freedoms, the freedom of expression and the freedom of religion”.
Millions of European Muslims felt “humiliated” by the publication of cartoons of Mohammed, he added, calling on journalists and media chiefs to accept that “the exercising of a right is always the assumption of a responsibility”. He appealed to European media to agree to “self-regulate”.
Accepting such self-regulation would send an important political message to the Muslim world, Mr Frattini said.
By agreeing to a charter “the press will give the Muslim world the message: we are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression, we can and we are ready to self-regulate that right”, he said.
— “we are aware of the consequences” = we are shitting our pants at the prospect of having another global diplomatic crisis like this, so please, dear journalists, humour me here
I think it’s a safe bet the journalists will not be impressed by this sort of political interference. At least, those who have any self-respect for their profession.
Nick, and Nina, exactly, about the fear of reprisals. I didn’t notice that until after I posted the comment – it went right past me. A pretty revealing comment! She no doubt would have caught it and corrected it if it had been in writing, but since this was an interview, she didn’t. But that’s exactly what a lot of this boils down to – refrain from offending deeply felt beliefs for fear of reprisals, and label that ‘respect’ and ‘sensitivity’ – thus putting a pretty gloss on surrender to intimidation and violence. Peachy.
Similar with charter idea, as Nina points out.
By the way, as you may have read, a EU intervention to ban insults to religious is what Hezbollah demanded. Clearly no such thing can be done (or can it?? how quick can press independence be dismantled?), but diligent doormats like Frattini have found the closest thing is an “invitation” to the press to “selfregulate”.
I AM OFFENDED by Mr Frattini’s suggestion that the media should self-censor. Where do I hand in my demand of apology? Which embassy should I burn to have my feelings taken into consideration? How long does it take for me to organise my own Hezbollah so I can have a voice that *my* own political representatives will listen to, huh?
Chrisper,
I forgot to put a new subject in that clause, didn’t I. My mistake.
The name of the Xian organization, however, is Operation Rescue.
OB, it went past me the first time I read that interview too, each paragraph was so full of nonsense it was hard to process the single bits.
And I too wonder if maybe she would have caught herself if it’d been in writing. But I have a feeling she would have simply put the same concept in slightly less obviously oxymoronic terms.
Yes – she probably would have taken more care that the reprisals didn’t appear quite so close to the boilerplate about recognition and rethpect.
I feel a cartoon coming on. Journalist lying on the floor under a guy with a cleaver, squawking ‘I respect you, I respect you!’ Not particularly funny, but apposite.
Nina, OB – yes, and it was redolent of the kind of talk we used to get coming from both sides out of Northern Ireland. E.g. The Ulster Unionists’ marches were felt to be grossly intimmidating by many Catholics as they pased through the Catholic streets. The Orangemen defended their right to free democratic expression and ‘peaceful’ assembly and to protect their traditions. On the other hand, You could drink in any Irish pub in Kilburn any time, but when the collection jar – regularly – came round, you just put in, no questions…
Actually, there are probably lessons in all that horrible piece of recent UK history for all of our current commentariat.
Nina – the Sopranos – yes! The similarities regarding the use of autrocratic but arbitrary honor codes to stomp personal liberties have occurred to me before… Tingey – they’re all running numbers, just like you said.
OB,
re: your cartoon. I suggest you have the journalist standing next to the guy with the cleaver. He has sticking plaster over his mouth and he’s holding up a little sign he’s written, saying “We may not always agree, but there’s something about him you’ve just got to respect.”
You don’t have to imagine that cartoon, it’s already been done – 20 pages of cartoons on the Mohammed cartoons:
http://cagle.com/news/Muhammad/
Let’s hear the cries of “offensive and inappropriate” now?