The uses of polemic
Some further thoughts on ‘offensive’ writing and cartoons and such. One issue is whether or not we know in advance that people will be outraged. I claimed, sweepingly, in comments, that we can’t know, and Jerry S prodded me into acknowledging that sometimes we can. Fair point. It’s easy (he demonstrated!) to come up with something we can be quite confident will outrage some people. True; and I also agreed that I don’t like or value mere abuse, and feel no need to make a principled defense of it. But I do value polemic, including polemic that can be considered harsh or mocking and that thus can be considered very likely to outrage at least some people. The further thoughts are about why I value it and think it can be worth the risk of offending some people.
I value it because even though we can know that polemic X will (almost certainly) offend some people, we can’t know how many, and we also can’t know how many people in the group or ‘community’ likely to be offended will be not offended but amused, surprised, startled, even shocked, without being offended. We can’t know how many people might be surprised or shocked into thinking in a new way, a way which would be beneficial to them. People do change their minds, after all; people do learn new things, and move, and adapt, and grow (or shrink). That does happen, and it seems to me that it is lively, sharp, combative writing or cartooning that is likely to spark such change. I don’t think it is inherently bad for people to have their settled ideas challenged; on the contrary, I think it’s good. I think writers like Dawkins wake people up in a way that politer, more mollifying writers don’t. I think a certain amount of bluntness and even scorn (for ideas or beliefs, not for people) wakes people up in a way that respect doesn’t.
In other words, scorn and mockery can be liberating. They can be and they very often are. We can suddenly realize ‘Oh – we can laugh at that!’ That’s a huge relief for some people. For others it’s an outrage. That’s the difficulty. I suppose one reason the prior restraint by respect idea makes me bristle is that it is biased toward the people who will be outraged, at the expense of the people who will be liberated. And that’s where not knowing comes in – we really don’t know how many there will be of either. I think the respect idea tends to push us in the direction of assuming there will be lots of people outraged and hurt, while forgetting the possibility of other people being liberated. Even more insidiously, perhaps, I think it pushes us in the direction of worrying more about the potentially outraged than we do about the potentially liberated. I’m not sure that’s the right way to allot our concern. It’s bad to hurt people, so it is right to take the risk into account – but then if when taking it into account it seems to us that 1) the people who are hurt are hurt for dubious reasons and 2) the potentially liberated need concern just as much as the potentially hurt do, then – you get the drift.
Are people sleeping and need to woken up or do they simply have different ideas and world views than you and I do?
The idea of waking others up is almost religious, isn’it? Buddha is the awoken one. Wouldn’t it be better to speak of truth and error than of those who sleep and those who are awake?
Waking up was a metaphor, obviously. But no, I don’t think the people in question ‘simply’ have different world views. Of course they do in a sense, but in the sense you imply, I don’t think so. The people in question are the ones who belong to groups considered likely to be offended or hurt by disrespect for religious beliefs. I don’t think that description applies to people who are accustomed to critical thinking. I think people who get offended or hurt in that way are products of authoritarian cultures. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be offended or hurt. What I have in mind are people who have never even had the opportunity to be exposed to a different world view. Opening a window in a situation like that can feel like being woken up. It wouldn’t be better to talk about truth and error because that’s not what I mean. I mean mental isolation; intellectual protection; the state of being sheltered from unfamiliar ideas.
Believe it or not. We have some points of agreement. I agree that the people we are talking about have lived in a state of mental isolation, under an authoritarian culture and that waking them up would be good. However, I don’t think that people whose only experience of ideas is that of an authoritarian culture can be jolted out of their dogmatic slumbers by mocking them or by irony. Mocking them will only produce a defensive reaction. Perhaps irony and a bit of humor may convince me that I’m being unreasonable, but only because I’m used to the give and take of ideas. Mocking someone who is not used to the give and take of ideas will not wake them up. Someone not used to the give and take of ideas will probably see your mocking as aggression, because he or she has no experience of the use of mocking with good intentions. Mocking in closed, authoritarian cultures is a form of humiliation.
Of course not mocking them – I’ve said that over and over. But mocking the forces that control them? That’s different.
I said in the post that I’m talking about ideas. Of course I’m not recommending mocking people. The Sec Gen said we should respect all religious beliefs; that’s what the subject is.
Actually, there’s a problem in your argument. You admit that only people isolated in an authoritarian closed culture can react so excessively to a supposedly lack of respect for their religious symbols. We’re in agreement about that. However, you affirm that mocking their symbols will wake them up. How can mocking their symbols wake them up if an authoritarian culture, in your opinion and in mine, disposes them to react excessively or defensively to a perceived lack of respect?
Crossed mails once again. People in a closed authoritarian culture tend not to have a very clear idea of the forces that control them, to use your words.
In fact, they often tend to identify with the very forces that oppress them.
I find this whole debate surreal. Try this thought experiment: go to those protesting against the cartoons and offer them this bargain: “We’ll give up publishing stuff you find offensive when you reciprocate. In particular, remove from your holy book everything that offends any of the rest of us. “
You’d be lucky to get out alive.
There is an imbalance at the heart of this debate: on one side you have people who will never compromise and who are willing to kill to get their way and on the other are people trying to be reasonable. Reasonableness is the wrong response.
I disagree. Since the first reaction of the other side involved death threats, the first thing to do is to deal with them. And it is incumbent on all those on the other side to address the death threats first.
In case it is not clear: the other side is making unreasonable demands in an unreasonable manner.
The demands are unreasonable because no matter how much they get to censor the rest of us, they will never censor their holy book .
Their manner is unreasonable because they give themselves the right to (threaten to) kill cartoonists (and by implication excuse themselves from having to obey the ordinary law) while expecting the rest of us to obey new laws introduced to suit them.
There are two completely unrelated issues involved in this debate, but at times they get confused.
1. The right of free speech of the cartoonists or of anybody else. Free speech may offend, but it is a right.
2. The best way to “wake up” people who live in oppressive, authoritarian cultures, whether mocking them will wake them up or merely reinforce their mindset, their idea that we (western liberals) are attacking them, are their oppressors.
amos, they are related in as much as: the ‘Danish’ Imams who had been granted sanctuary in Denmark, but who were dissatisfied with the reaction of the Danish Government and police in not prosecuting people at Jyllands-Postene, who then toured the Middle East in 06 in order to exacerbate poor relations during a time of Islamic terrorism. They proseltysed, aggressively, to ‘wake up’ the unneducated and oppressed and low waged to the ‘evils’ of the ‘Islamophobic West’ with no or minimal fear of reprisals.
OB says that she does not mean that we ought to mock religious believers. Well, why not? Have you read through the Qu’ran? Surely, there is a lot there to be mocked.
Think of Voltaire, and how mocking he was, how quite deliberately mocking he was both in tone and language of those beliefs that he held to be ridiculous.
Page after page of the Qu’ran (and the Bible, whether Jewish or Christian) deserves mocking of the most strident kind.
Think of the Jesus of John’s gospel, who goes around talking about himself as the truth, and claiming that his detractors deserve what is coming to them for they know the truth and have deliberately ignored it. There’s an unlovely megalomania running throughout the gospel of John, and the megalomania is to be found in the Qu’ran in proportions that exceed by a very large factor those of John. The only way do deal with this sort of nonsense is to mock. Mocking might be offensive to some, but only mocking will really do. You can’t discuss it seriously.
Nick S,
Don’t forget, they actually ADDED 3 other images to the collection, that they’d made up themselves, in case the original cartoons weren’t seen as “offensive” enough – one of these extra pics was originally of a French bloke at his local village ‘pig festival’, as I recall..?
There’s also a nice little bit of icing on the cake to the whole story – one of the Imams [afraid I can’t be bothered googling for the exact name/reference, sorry! :-)] found himself caught up in the middle of severe rioting, and had to be rescued by…(yup, you’ve guessed it) the Danes!
:-)
I suspect that part of the problem with the Motoons and similar ‘outrages’ is that people in the grip of strong beliefs cannot make the distinction that Ophelia makes so easily between mocking those beliefs and mocking them as persons. To a large extent their personality is a reflection of their beliefs, hence the ferocity with which they react to any attack on the latter.
Outside the field of religion I have noticed this was often the case with those who caught James Randi’s attention – makers of perpetual motion machines etc. – who were so tied up in their conviction that they’d defied the laws of physics that any suggestion that this might not be the case was greeted with vitriolic ad hominem abuse or worse.
It’s bad to hurt people, so it is right to take the risk into account – but then if when taking it into account it seems to us that 1) the people who are hurt are hurt for dubious reasons and 2) the potentially liberated need concern just as much as the potentially hurt do, then – you get the drift.
This dilemma is far from unique to religion. How do you make a point without being offensive AND without sacrificing the strength of your point? If you have to be offensive, which you often do, then you need to consider whether the beneficial effects of what you’re saying will be worth it. Who are you liberating, how many of them are there and what are you liberating them from? And how does that stack up against the harm you do?
Venue and context are also important to judging these things. Mockery by a comedian is different from mockery in a sedate newspaper, which is different again from a seminar or a face-to-face conversation. Comedians ought to have more license for scorn and disrespect, for instance.
I’d question what you mean when you say people are hurt for “dubious reasons.” I don’t think irrational hurt is necessarily “dubious.” It’s part of being human and something we should all learn to live with and accommodate to some degree. On the other hand, if they are hurt for reasons that are implicated in harming others–for instance, if a male supremacist is hurt by the criticism of patriarchy–that’s a different thing entirely.
But I agree that there are moral claims that can oppose the need for “respect.” The question is, how do you balance them?
“The best way to “wake up” people who live in oppressive, authoritarian cultures, whether mocking them will wake them up or merely reinforce their mindset”
amos, I just got through saying I’m not talking about mocking people. Please don’t simply repeat allegations that I’ve just repudiated.
“OB says that she does not mean that we ought to mock religious believers. Well, why not? Have you read through the Qu’ran? Surely, there is a lot there to be mocked.”
Aaaaaaargh. Beliefs, not believers. In this particular discussion I’ve been talking about beliefs all along. The Sec Gen said we should respect all religious beliefs, and that is the subject here.
Actually Chris, I suspect those expressing the outrage most vehemently understand perfectly well the distinction between mocking people and mocking beliefs. It’s the idea that such a distinction can be made, and might be made by those in their power, that terrifies them and fuels the rage.
Of course, given the amount of self deception needed to maintain a theistic worldview, you’re probably right as well. Still, self deception can be broken through, perhaps even by mockery.
‘I’d question what you mean when you say people are hurt for “dubious reasons.” I don’t think irrational hurt is necessarily “dubious.”‘
No, I don’t either, just as I don’t think it’s irrational for people to prefer an object that has sentimental value to an exact replica of same. But there are degrees of irrationality. I don’t think irrational hurt is necessarily dubious (and I didn’t say that, either), but I do think it sometimes is. I think the Motoons is an example of hurt that is dubious because of the irrational disproportion and selectivity.
I think what amos is trying to say here is that some people identify so strongly with their beliefs that there really is no separation between poking fun at the belief and mocking the person.
No doubt this is what rather a lot of religious authorities would like us to believe.
Yes, I got that, but then later he simply repeated the specific claim that I had just rejected.
I think what is often overlooked in these cases is that ‘being offended’ is actually a choice you make – consciously (as is often the case in these whipped-up religious things) or unconsciously through some kind of thought-free reflex. Therefore, as Stephen Fry said, the only answer to the cry of ‘this offends me’ is ‘so what?’
Well of course what he really said was ‘So fucking what?’
I do like Stephen Fry.
I’ll try ot come at this from another angle to avoid repeating myself.
Those demanding respect and demanding the right not to be offended are making demands on everyone else. They have no intention to stop being offensive themselves. They will not censor their holy books to make them inoffensive. They will not cease using the term “infidel” – “kafir” in particular – as an insult. Therefore this is not a debate on the limits of acceptable behaviour generally. It is about them imposing their double-standards on everyone else.
I believe your scorn & mockery are very typical of those which are well off and too lazy to use their free time in more productive ways.
“typical of those which are are well off and too lazy ?”
typical of those *who* are well off and too lazy.
tsk.
See – we argue about the difference between mocking persons and mocking beliefs and JoB kindly provides us with a classic example.
I may by a millionaire or a pauper, working 24/7 or sitting on my a*se all day, but I can’t for the life of me see how this affects this debate or my contribution to it.
Having read a JoB contribution to another strand I can now see the possibility that his remark is a subtle joke in which case please ignore my previous comment.
Distinguishing “mocking the beliefs” from “mocking the believer” may make sense — I don’t know — but it’s not obvious to me. (“Hate the sin, not the sinner” is similar.) I have a nagging suspicion that it may be facile.
Similarly, mock the silly clothes someone wears and not the person him/herself. I’m laughing at your clothes, not you. That you happen to believe those clothes are not silly has nothing to do with it. Don’t take it personally.
Nick, granted: my English is less than perfect, I’m not an exception. Whether pointing that out is the best reaction to my statement is something else.
Chris, hole in two ;-)
Jeff, fryslan, Many people would indeed contend that their beliefs cannot be as surgically separated from their selves, as some of us might believe they should (be able to be separated). But in cases where we mock and scorn we needn’t have this separation in mind, it suffices if we do not target a specific individual, and if we do not misrepresent groups as all believing something because some of their icons believe that something. For instance, it is just gross to represent all muslims as wanting to restrict this or that freedom as a reaction to Danish cartoons.
JoB,
I agree to some extent. However when you say “it suffices if we do not target a specific individual” I have to wonder. Say that you mock people (in general) who wear burkas, not a specific indiviual. How do you think a person wearing a burka will respond to that? I’m guessing she will take it personally.
what I meant to say : “Say you mock burkas” , not “say you mock people…”.
Well done catching that, because of course that is the distinction that people love to overlook.
Say you mock burqas. People who wear them will take it personally. Well so what? Say you mock deliberately-torn blue jeans. People who wear them will perhaps take it personally. So what?
There’s a limit to what we can be expected to take seriously in the way of taking things personally.
I don’t think ‘facile’ is the right word for distinguishing between beliefs and the people who hold the beliefs.
On the one hand, of course people can always feel under siege when their beliefs and ideas are criticized. That’s always an available option. But on the other hand, if everyone took that as a reason to refrain from criticizing beliefs and ideas that any actual living people hold – you can surely see the inevitable result. So what can we do? What can we do but go on saying that dissing beliefs is not dissing people, even though in practice it does often feel like that?
The problem here is that free open discussion and mental life absolutely rely on the distinction. Without it we’re fucked. Without it we can’t discuss or say anything. So there’s a kind of social contract to maintain the distinction.
“Say you mock burqas. People who wear them will take it personally. Well so what? Say you mock deliberately-torn blue jeans. People who wear them will perhaps take it personally. So what?”
They “will” take it personally. If mocking the belief does IN FACT result in the people who hold the belief taking it personally, then the distinction seems murky. (I’m not addressing the “so what?” part here; only the asserted distinction between the beliefs and the believers.)
Does it really make sense to say we mock (or otherwise trash) a belief but not the believer? If I think astrology is stupid, and say so, aren’t I also inevitably saying something about those who believe in it? And isn’t what I’m inevitably saying about those people something along the lines of “they’re stupid?” (It may not be this stark. It could be something closer to “they’re ignorant.” But isn’t it something along a continuum toward “they’re stupid,” and isn’t it about them, personally?)
I think I understand the point about keeping the distinction for appearances sake, to facilitate at least a facade of civility. (I’m not sure I buy this, but I think I understand it.)
Not everyone does take it personally. Not taking it personally is part of thinking critically; it’s part of rationality. It is actually possible to discover one is wrong about something without being ‘offended.’ So it’s a mistake to assume that everyone takes it personally when a belief is disputed or mocked.
Besides…even if no one is able to separate the two when it comes to precious self – the distinction is still a real distinction. Ego gets in the way of clear thinking; that’s not a news flash; but it doesn’t follow that the ego’s conclusions are the right ones.
“Ego gets in the way of clear thinking”. Agreed. But I’m supposing that many religious people are not very good critical thinkers and that when you mock their beliefs they feel personally mocked or offended. So although you rightly make the necessary distinction, it is lost on them and the strategy backfires on you. I agree people should be more rational, but if they were we probably wouldn’t need this particular discussion.
Of course; some do; probably most do; but all I claimed was that we don’t know how many people are in each set. We don’t know how many people there are for whom mockery of familiar beliefs can be a window opening.
I haven’t claimed that mockery in general is an actual strategy; I’ve been expressing (strong) reservations about ruling it out for the sake of chronic ‘respect.’
It’s very hard to see how any statement that could be accurately paraphrased along the lines of “your deeply-held personal beliefs are stupid!” can be taken other than as personally offensive, if the target is the kind of person for whom deeply-held personal beliefs comprise a core part of their self-conception.
It requires a level of separation from one’s own stated beliefs rarely found outside the cut-and-thrust of the philosophy seminar [and not that often found there, I suspect] to be quite so self-effacingly reasonable about such things.
I have noticed, occasionally, that even the saintly OB can get *quite annoyed* about disagreement…. ;-)
JoB – no, wait, I thought you were joshing, and was vainly attempting some Stephen Fry-esque witticism, but it failed miserably. I’ll go now. ;-<
Saintly?! Bad-tempered and hostile is more like it.
I do indeed get annoyed – though I think (I have been asking myself about this in the last couple of days) more about misreading or subject-changing and the like than about disagreement as such. That sounds extremely self-serving, not to say No true Scotsmanesque – but I think it’s true all the same. Well-argued disagreement interests me much more than it annoys me. But at any rate, I don’t get offended by it. I don’t think about respect, or disrespect.
Dave said: “It’s very hard to see how any statement that could be accurately paraphrased along the lines of “your deeply-held personal beliefs are stupid!” can be taken other than as personally offensive….” I agree, but also look at it from the viewpoint of the person making the statement and not just the recipient, offended or not. I’m still inclined to think that if you say “your deeply-held personal beliefs are stupid” you have said something about the holder of those beliefs as well as something about the beliefs themselves. Irrespective of whether the recipient is offended, where’s (what’s?) the distinction between saying something about beliefs vs. saying something about believers?
Whether someone’s “changing the subject” or not is open to interpretation. I don’t recall anyone bringing up Clinton vs. Obama. One thing that irked you was people talking about respect in one-one-one dialogue, which strikes you as entirely another subject. I myself don’t think it’s entirely another subject. I think there’s enough room for disagreement about this that, well, respect was called for. Or something, but not annoyance, as if the kids were not listening and not following the rules.
“Say you mock burkas …”
Why would I mock burkas, burkas do well on their own mocking themselves, don’t they.
Anyway – “what people take personally” is not quite a workable notion. I mean I can take remarks about my lousy English very, very personally but that doesn’t make the fact any less clear that my English is so very lousy. If people “take” something an action is “taken” on their side & they’re responsible for it, not I (see I at first put me but then I adjusted, thanks Nick!). I’m quite sure that most burka-warers are aware that it is they that ‘take’ personally and not I who punches personally. I don’t mind how they take it as long as they don’t punch me in the nose for it.
JoB,
I think there’s this belief that words can’t actually physically hurt you, and even if they did it is because you allow them to. In other words, there is either no real harm or if there is you did it to yourself (it has nothing to do with me)
I don’t agree. I think that words can cut deep in one’s psyche and that it is just callous disregard to say “I don’t mind how they take it as long they don’t punch me in the nose for it”
On the other hand I can see how being overly sensitive to how your words are taken can work as a self-imposed straightjacket and used by others to blackmail you.
And, as you say, people are responsible for their own actions. It’s just that I think speech acts can sometimes be just a hurtful (physically) as actually punching someone. Especially when it concerns deeply held beliefs. Even, or maybe especially, in the case of false beliefs.
In which case the person speaking should take more responsibility for his speech acts. You figuratively punched first, so
don’t be surprised if some people literally punch back.
fryslan,
So, let me get this absolutely straight – you’re saying that if I make a statement that someone else takes offence to, then (regardless of the statement’s accuracy or intent) they have the right to commit physical violence as a result?
Andy,
I wasn’t talking about rights. I’m talking about the possibility (and obviously not always the case) that speech acts can cause real physical pain. And that, if that is sometimes the case, a natural response (nothing to do with rights) might be to respond in kind (cause physical pain).
Jean, I wasn’t talking about you. And of course changing the subject is open to interpretation; so is annoyance, so is respect.
Aha. I was sure I was the culprit. Whaddya know.
It was meant to be a general point (despite reference to particular narrow time frame – but that referred to when I was pondering the question, not to the question itself).
‘I’m still inclined to think that if you say “your deeply-held personal beliefs are stupid”‘
But that’s not the issue. The issue is criticizing and/or mocking beliefs – without “your deeply-held personal” attached to the front. And there are ways of criticizing and mocking other than “are stupid”.
OB — You lost me. Get rid of “your deeply-held personal” if you want. We’re left with “that belief is stupid.” It still looks to me like we’ve said something unflattering about the holder of that belief. How did the issue change?
Of course there are ways of criticizing and mocking other than “are stupid.” We could, for example, criticize or mock an article of clothing because it was ugly. That would seem to say something unflattering about the wearer, which seems to raise a similar question. Or did you mean other ways of criticizing or mocking beliefs, specifically? Maybe so, but “are stupid” seems a pretty good example of the kind of beliefs-mocking under discussion.
[Dave wrote] “It’s very hard to see how any statement that could be accurately paraphrased along the lines of “your deeply-held personal beliefs are stupid!” can be taken other than as personally offensive, if the target is the kind of person for whom deeply-held personal beliefs comprise a core part of their self-conception.”
[And Jeff wrote] “Does it really make sense to say we mock (or otherwise trash) a belief but not the believer? If I think astrology is stupid, and say so, aren’t I also inevitably saying something about those who believe in it? And isn’t what I’m inevitably saying about those people something along the lines of “they’re stupid?” (It may not be this stark. It could be something closer to “they’re ignorant.” But isn’t it something along a continuum toward “they’re stupid,” and isn’t it about them, personally?)”
Of course you’re saying something about the believer, but that doesn’t invalidate the distinction. I think astrology is silly. I tell anyone who asks that I think astrology is silly. One of my friends (well, probably more than one, but one in particular) believes in that astrology nonsense, despite my eloquent explanations of why it’s a pile of crap. Yet I still think she’s a cool person – lovely, and not stupid. Is she a little offended at my dismissing of her beliefs in this regard as “silly”? Yeah, probably. Is she deeply offended? Does she assume I define her intelligence and her worth as a human being entirely by her silliness on this one issue? No.
Am I calling her stupid because she adheres to this particular bit of stupidity? No, I’m not.
I wouldn’t mock someone for wearing a burka. (Okay, I’d mock a male friend for wearing a burka, but you know what I mean.) I would not mock a woman for wearing a burka per se. But I might mock the Teleban for their ridiculous stance on the issue – believing as they do that is okay to force all women to wear burkas. I might also mock the common response of some western liberals to criticism of such things: That us “westerners” should not judge Afghanistan society by our values. (As if the Teleban automatically represent Afghan society’s values, for one. And as if us westerners shouldn’t be so intolerant of the Teleban’s … umm, intolerance. But I digress.)
Would a Teleban rep be personally offended by my mocking of his misogynistic views? Yes. But so? His misogynistic views are personally offensive to many women.
Would the relativist liberal be offended by my mocking of their views on this matter? Maybe, but not necessarily. I have had this very argument many times, in relation to treatment of women by other cultures, and ironically a couple of times with women defending the other culture’s values (or their right to them). One of those women is still a friend, and the other was an ex-flatmate who I haven’t seen since flatting together, but our estrangement has nothing to do with our disagreement.
I guess what I’m saying is the distinction (between attacking the belief and the person) is valid, and needs to be made. However, sometimes, when there’s little but difference of opinion on virtually all subjects (ie between the average “western liberal” and, say, the Teleban) there’s little point in maintaining a pretence.
Two further comments, from related quotes earlier on W&B:
“Frattini is appealing for the European media to agree to “self-regulate”. “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.”
Why would extra care be taken in regard to offending the Muslim world? And if not, is he saying the same “self-regulation” applies to Christians, and, of course, Hindus… and, of course, atheists, libertarians…?
“”The right of freedom of thought and of expression, as contained in the Declaration of Human Rights, cannot imply the right to offend the religious feelings of believers,” Vatican spokesperson Joaquin Navarro-Valls said.”
Then it’s not really freedom of speech, is it?
“Why would I mock burkas, burkas do well on their own mocking themselves, don’t they.”
Michael Palin on location once in Ribat, Tunisia, spoke of the women in the market looking like bottles, which I thought was both accutely well observed and typically gentle of him.
I read ealrier that a misdemenour such as a broken oath to once’s deity is a considered ‘probable enormity’, but one should contact a local scholar for confirmation. Now please note people, this is not at all even remotely funny.
G Tingey: “Namely the “puritan” urge, that seems to infect some people, and/or the desire to control and restrict – especially others, because it makes YOU feel bigger and better.”
How dare you write of OB like that!
I think the main effect of scorn and mockery is the liberation of the unreligious. Sure, it’s a relief knowing you can be “out” about being an atheist. That’s a good thing. But if religion is sometimes a damaging force in the world, there need to be books that talk effectively to the religious. Those are not the mocking, scorning types of books. I have no interest at all in someone “waking me up” (like Christian friends who have given this a go). Most people find that sort of thing insulting. Religious people will read non-hostile writers like Karen Armstrong and drop some of their exclusivism. They’ll read a scholar like Bart Ehrman and understand how the bible was put together, which tends to undercut the idea of biblical inerrancy. You have to decide who you want to liberate before choosing a writing style.
Well put, Jean.
If you blithely mock people, then only the horrendously naive would expect no response. After all, what is the mockery meant to achieve? Other than an ego boost for the mocker?
Ask the Marx Brothers.
Sure there need to be books that talk effectively to the religious – but we don’t all have to write books of that kind. So what is the point of all this insistence? People who want to write books of that kind should by all means write them, and people who want to write different kinds should write those.
Jeff – but I’m not talking about “that belief is stupid.” I’m not talking about mere abuse, and in fact I’ve already disavowed mere abuse.
The point of the insistence is that there’s a prima facie problem with books that mock, provoke, outrage and offend…and its a little dicey defending all that by saying you’re waking people up and liberating them, because for the most part that kind of writing just liberates people who aren’t religious. It helps people “come out” as Dawkins says. It relieves them of the oppressive feeling that they have to revere other people’s gods.
That’s a positive thing, but it seems more important how religious people respond, because they’re the ones running around issuing fatwas, and holding onto land for religious reasons, and promoting anti-gay policies in the name of Jesus, and all that. They need to be convinced to give up some of their convictions in the interests of people who are seriously harmed by them. I think it’s important to consider whether scorn, mockery, etc. etc. are effective strategies if that’s the goal.
I didn’t say I was waking people up or liberating them, I said that’s a possibility and that we don’t know what the numbers are on either side – the potentially offended and the potentially liberated.
As for books that mock, provoke, outrage and offend – what is it that you like about Katha Pollitt, again?
Presumably you mean books that could mock, provoke, outrage and offend; books that have the potential to do that. But you haven’t given any examples, apart from Hitchens’s God book. If you agree with Serafina (as you mentioned you do), you don’t think Pollitt’s books are examples – so what are all these terrible books? What are all these books that mock, provoke, outrage and offend?
I’m one of those unreligious people who enjoys Dawkins, Harris, etc and finds them liberating. When Harris wrote the End of Faith there was an atmosphere in the US that said it was absolutely forbidden to criticize Islam. This made sense because of the risk of anti-Islamic reprisals after 9/11. But I did find it refreshing that he made it OK to look at religion head on as a sometimes incitement to violence. Good for him.
But would Muslims read and be persuaded by Harris? Maybe those who are liberal already but the rest would find him utterly insulting, I think. Of course I’m not basing this on an empirical study I’ve done, but on general knowledge of human psychology and my own reactions to anti-atheist diatribes. They definitely don’t interest or convince me.
As for Katha Pollitt. She has the same reservations about strident atheism that I do. See here–
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071203/pollitt
I generally find her a feisty writer, but warm and not strident.
Of course some Muslims would find Harris insulting, but again, so what? Why is that a problem, prima facie or otherwise?
I understand your point less and less. You found Harris refreshing; good for him; but many Muslims would find him utterly insulting. And? Therefore he shouldn’t have written the book after all? Therefore we should shake our heads over the book even though we’re glad he wrote it? What?
It’s okay to be ‘feisty’ but it’s not okay to be ‘strident’…No, that’s no help, because I have no idea how to tell them apart.
Well let’s see, we live in a world where a lot of injustice and violence is fueled by religious extremists. But it’s NOT important how we talk to them or whether we persuade them of anything. Hmm. I just don’t really get it.
I didn’t say it’s not important. Maybe that’s why you don’t get it.
But what’s the thinking here? It’s important what religious extremists believe, therefore – what? Therefore any particular book ought not to be frankly and bluntly atheist? What is the connection? What is the connection between the thought that it would be highly useful to be able to persuade religious extremists not to be that any more, and the thought that “strident” atheists are morally wrong? Do you think that if, say, Dawkins’s book and Hitchens’s book didn’t exist, there would be fewer religious extremists in the world? If so, why? Do you think Dawkins and Hitchens were even necessarily attempting to persuade religious extremists of anything? Do you think everybody in the world has to write the same kind of book, the kind you think would persuade religious believers better than more “strident” ones? If so, why?
I think we will just have to disagree about what the SG said, what Katha Pollitt said, and a few other things. Fortunately, we really don’t disagree on any major matter of substance–like what books we actually find appealing, which gods we should worship, etc. That’s saying quite a lot.
[OB]”I didn’t say it’s not important.”
I’m getting a bit baffled by your position here, too, OB. On the one hand you’ve just agreed with Jean that it is important, but you also seem to be saying we should give it no regard when engaging in public discourse. Do you concede to Jean’s point that we should take *some* care in the way we speak/write when discussing these issues?
“But what’s the thinking here? It’s important what religious extremists believe, therefore – what?”
Therefore it’s desirable to address these issues “respectfully” (I use quotes because there’s been some contention over exactly what “respect” implies) and not resort too often to mockery, so as to avoid continuously preaching to the choir. At least I think that’s what Jean is saying. Is that fair, Jean?
“Therefore any particular book ought not to be frankly and bluntly atheist?”
Where did Jean say a book/cartoon etc couldn’t be frankly atheist? I don’t see anything in Jean’s argument that says one can’t say “Hey, I’m atheist! And here’s why!…”
Oops! Didn’t see Jean’s latest post. If it’s “agree to disagree” time, just ignore me.
Okay Jean; let’s agree to disagree.
That’s all right Steve. You’re probably right. Much of the time I was asking questions in order to try to pin all that (the questions you asked) more precisely.
The fact is, I don’t like too much mockery either; for one thing I don’t think it convinces even the choir; I think it palls very quickly. (That’s despite the fact that I go in for a lot of it myself. So how does that work? Um…I’ll get back to you on that.) (Well no, for right now, there’s the fact that I wouldn’t write the way I do here, in a book. I think in a book that kind of thing palls very quickly. Almost instantly.)
But basically I also think different books do different things, and that it’s a mistake to try to write books that are acceptable (or persuasive) to everyone. That might be the core of the disagreement – and it’s a very manageable disagreement, being quite insignificant in the great scheme of things.
I know it’s way past anyone paying attention to this thread, but how many of you would climb Uluru? If yes, why? If not, why not? (And physical inability doesn’t count)