Hitchens on mockery and Helping
Hitchens explained various things to Jeremy Paxman for Newsnight. The best part was where he talked about the virtues of division. He’s been saying this for years, and I’ve been squawking my approval and agreement for years. If you say you’re a uniter not a divider, he noted dryly, you expect and get approval. “I’m a divider.”
Division is inseparable from politics, he went on. If everyone agrees, there is no politics, there’s nothing to say. “Without division there is no progress.”
The alternative is dictatorship, and this is relevant to religion and the rebellion against it. “The first rebellion against mental slavery comes from saying this is man-made, it’s not divine.”
“To be clear,” Paxman said in prissy shock, “you’re talking about the Koran and the Bible.” And the Torah, yes, Hitchens said.
“They’re fiction.”
“Yes. All of these are depraved works of man-made fiction.”
“Saying you find the Koran laughable – in what way does that help the spread of reason?”
“Oh well I think mockery of religion is one of the most essential things. One of the beginnings of human emancipation is the ability to laugh at things.”
Hitchens is a complex man to understand, but his love of literature, his Marxism, his Iconoclasm, his admiration for Socrates, his transfer to America, his polemic style, is support for an unpopular war, his criticism of Mother Teresa, his Bohemianism, his suspicion of authority, all lead to the conclusion that he is by nature a rebel.
And this is what stimulates and motivates me most, as I too am a rebel. And rebels like to disagree sometimes, for the sake of it. And so we rebels must always temper our rebellious nature with reason, else we become troublemakers or worse ‘scapegoats’.
And so this is why naturally, I don’t like religion, because it is ultimately mental slavery and consequently physical slavery. I don’t like accommodationists, because there is an element of loss of freedom, and of intolerable compromise against truth under the duress of irrational coercion. Accommodationism stinks to me.
And so yes, religion is mental tyranny and the enemy, as is any tyranny of the mind or the body. It may be a simplistic moral outlook, but it is a realistic one. Can freedom and tyranny co-exist together? Of course not, one has to go, and human nature tends towards bringing down tyranny, sooner or later.
“all lead to the conclusion that he is by nature a rebel”
But, Egbert you must not tie yourself in knots about the language of a “rebel”. You do not disagree or argue because you are a rebel, but your disagreement and a refusal to accept unproven assertions and claims makes you a rebel…Obviously. :)
Just to clarify.
Surely there are a lot of reasonable things against which you don’t rebel. I don’t think not agreeing with religion makes you a rebel; it only looks that way to many because religion’s unreasonableness is cloaked by its wide acceptance.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tony Sidaway, Skeptic South Africa. Skeptic South Africa said: Hitchens on mockery and Helping – Hitchens explained various things to Jeremy Paxman for Newsnight. The best part wa… http://ow.ly/1aeMyu […]
I agree with hitchens about the divider thing. I’m a huge fan of polarization, and think moderation and compromise for their own sake are sad, useless things. Polarization boils things down to their purest elements, and makes choice easier.
I wasn’t a fan of any of the recent rallies on washington, and got thoroughly hammered at the Daily Kos for advocating for more division:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/10/5/907821/-One-Nation-No-Thanks.
Yes, beware of calling yourself a rebel, Egbert. :- )
Beware of calling yourself a contrarian, a rebel, independent-minded, someone who marches to a different drum – all that kind of thing.
I always thought it was a mistake for Hitch to agree to do that Letter to a Young Contrarian book, because it was a mistake to agree to call himself a contrarian. It can’t help being self-congratulatory.
It’s a bit hard to imagine Hitchens without that aspect of his character and he can get away with it because he possesses the gift of being able to make his case very well indeed. But it’s more than risky, as a tactic. There’s a sense in which calling yourself a rebel (or letting yourself be called one) is to hand your opponent the status quo on a platter.
Slavery always comes to mind when I think of moderation vs. “extremism”. The extreme viewpoint that all slavery and related laws should be abolished, that was in fact the correct one; I’d argue that settling the issue in the civil war (and fallout thereof) may, in fact, have been vastly preferable to decades of compromise and slowly edging slavery out of existence (the ensuing apparent compromise of “separate but equal” segregation certainly was not an effective alternative to more “extreme” visions of equality).
That said, one could desire a little more nuance in these things; certain budgeting issues, for example, could probably benefit from being insulated from the culture wars. I usually don’t want decisions about local (or national) infrastructure to be made based on bitterly polemical debates, but rather on actual pragmatic evaluation of how to keep things running smoothly.
But sometimes compromise drives me nuts. Civil unions for gay couples are great (compared with no recognition at all), but it’s infuriating to see them used as a shield by Democrats who want to win the gay vote without promoting full equality (particularly when certain politicians who supported same-sex marriage suddenly change their minds right before running for some national office). If you’re promoting civil unions rather than marriage because you need more votes to pass it, that’s OK, but when you say you don’t support same-sex marriage because you want to win re-election, that seems a lot like just using gay rights as a pawn in your political chess match.
When people compromise not merely on policies, but on important principles (and I don’t mean just changing their minds, but actually professing certain beliefs merely for political convenience), I can’t see anything admirable in that at all. It shows a lack of respect both for the issue and for the people one is attempting to fool. Even for someone who disagrees with me, I’d rather have them go around owning up to that, instead of studiously avoiding ever giving a straight answer.
In that sense, being a “divider” is merely uncovering and owning up to viewpoints that are being covered up by a sort of hush-wink attempt at preserving the convenient fog surrounding people’s “personal beliefs”.
At the very least, every true rebel should desist from accepting thoughtless labels (contrarian, Marxist, even rebel) or perhaps even resist succumbing to the all-too irresistible pull of fashionable dogma.
But that would mean I would have to stop being a gnu atheist!
No it doesn’t. That is the most thoughtful label conceivable!
Spencer Troxell said:
See, I’m very much the opposite. I don’t think polarizing issues makes anything easier at all, and it often means that qualifying factors get diminished or ignored. Reduction is, basically, changing the issue to serve a bias. We have enough troubles with that from religious people who want to make atheism immoral and nihilistic – we don’t need to be playing the same game we deplore from others.
That said, I’m fine with being firm, direct, and uncompromising (which I suspect might be want you actually mean.) I think accommodation has its place in some issues, but it’s not a very big place. In many, it has no place at all – I think Mooney is a twit, for instance, because he has never demonstrated what exactly accommodationism is supposed to accomplish. The best I’ll say is that religion is just fine – as a personal choice, like a favorite color. When it is wielded as something to direct others on what to do, it needs to be countered completely. And when it is claimed to have some use, this needs to be supported by evidence, just like every other damn thing in the world.
But relegating everything to black and white because shades of grey are too hard? That’s nonsense. We can count higher than two.
Knowledge increases by testing competing hypotheses; without division no competing hypotheses. And if you laugh at something, you find it laughable. Why lie about it?
Two points (after having seen/heard the interview):
First, I believe that formal votes in the House of Commons (and I am not a Brit) are called “divisions.” If we had that terminology in the USA today and historically, we might think of our governance and our system of governance somewhat differently. Imagine routine news reports, for example, that stated “the Senate divided 43 to 56 today on the question…” Or “the Supreme Court divided 3 to 6 this afternoon on whether… Perhaps, given that language, we would never have invented the term “bipartisanship”!
Second, I think we must, when Hitchens is no longer among us, remember that he did not obviously support the “war.” What he supported, as he says in the interview, was the removal of tyranny from the Iraqi people. I have yet to make up my mind on how much of what came to be ‘the war’ —the lying, the bumbling, the pursuit of libertarianism, and our own imposition of tyranny — he was willing to support.
Finally, I like the distinction between fears upon “dying” and fear of “being dead” that Paxman and Hitchens stumble into apparently all unaware. Hitchens acknowledges (implicitly) the rationality of a vast number of well-grounded “fears” one might feel during the process of becoming dead. He utterly rejects the typical xian formulation that implies that “fear” must happen *after* one becomes dead.
To be fair to Paxman, who I thought did quite a good job, ‘reacting in prissy shock’ is pretty much part of his standard interview technique. I don’t think he actually was in shock at anything Hitchens said – he wasn’t saying anything he hasn’t said before, many times.
I certainly agree the Paxman was not shocked. The BBC I think just asks him to act that way so the viewers – who are all shocked – can feel a little less alienated.
Yes, I also thought that Paxo was not ‘reacting in prissy shock’, just being the foil. He did, after all, spell out the meaning of the Churchillian reference of KBO when Hitch used it.
Sorry, naive question: In the interview, Hitchens says he likes getting letters. Anyone here willing to post advice on the best way of sending him a letter? Slate’s website says, understandably, that they don’t forward stuff to writers who don’t put their email address at the end of articles. Obviously, I’m not asking for Hitchens’ home address from anyone who happens to know it.
Nicholas, you could try sending it to his literary agent or to Vanity Fair magazine, perhaps.
I think Paxman and the Beeb are to be congratulated on this segment, which was very interesting. I don’t agree with the “prissy shock” assessment of how JP handled that bit.
Nor should division be a goal in itself. Major questions of policy ought to be founded on broad consensus. What we do need is that diversity of opinion be fairly reflected, in order that the best consensus be arrived at.
Just Al:
I think it’s important to evangelize for the things that you believe in. I don’t think it’s necessary to be a dick about it (being charming and persuasive is the best way to go), but it’s really important to be clear. Being firm, direct, and uncompromising will create polarization, because it draws a line in the sand. I think we can have polarization that isn’t simple-minded; It doesn’t have to be as plain as ‘liberal good/conservative bad’; but on each issue there’s a right and wrong answer (often more than one). I’m pretty sure if you look close enough at the gray you’ll see that it’s made up of many smaller blacks and whites.
Err. Um. Err. ;-)
Now, I don’t often disagree with you Ophelia, but here I think you are wrong. I think that Hitch agreed to the Young Contrarian book precisely because he is a contrarian, and this is not so much self-congratulatory as descriptive. I suppose, of course, that if he had been very ineffective as a contrarian, styling himself a contrarian would have been a bit self-congratulatory, but, since he has been incredibly successful as a polemicist, the label simply fits. The fact that he speaks so confidently and with apparent ease about such an enormous range of things encompassing so many different facets of life, politics and letters makes the label appropriately descriptive, rather than self-serving. And the Paxman interview is such a wonderful evocation of this side of his character, because throughout he is being contrarian, but with such quiet assurance that the name rests on him like a philosopher’s cloak. Think of how insouciantly he speaks of the monotheisms’ holy books as ‘depraved works of fiction’! Something rather wonderfully contrarian about that. I only regret that I came to know his work so late — not until he published his god book — and did not become asquainted his rather expansive humanity until then.
Spencer Troxell: Many people will think you’re a dick for disagreeing with them no matter how charming or persuasive you are. I don’t think the pope would be changing his mind if Hitchens suddenly became all smarm and charm. As for drawing lines in the sand, the problem there arises not from manners but from refusal to think — people just choose the side of the line dictated by their ideology rather than by thinking about the consequences of their decision. It seems to me that the concepts of liberalism and conservatism have mutated so much they currently have little functional value, but people continue to be proud to be liberals or conservatives.
I suppose the danger is that if you think about your decisions you might — horrors! — be wrong. If you toe the line there’ll always be plenty of other unthinking bozos to tell you how right you are. Being mannerly is another way to make yourself feel good. I’m an old guy — I remember how back in the 50s and 60s people used to get great satisfaction about actually thinking about things.
I think we agree across the board, Mr. Fitzgerald. I’m sure a person can be clear, charming, persuasive, and evangelical about the ideas they think are right, and still be capable of changing their minds and examining new evidence. I certainly hope I’m such a person.
And since dogmatists will think you’re a dick for disagreeing with them no matter how politely you do it, you might as well just come out straight with it. That’s what I mean by advocating for polarization. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. It’s why I’d rather talk to a fundamentalist religious person than a sophisticated type about religion. At least with the fundamentalist you’re typically disagreeing about facts. Sophisticated types typically hate facts, and employ every ounce of cleverness and intelligence they have avoiding them, to the point where they’re often talking about nothing. That’s just boring.
Thanks for clarifying that, Spencer.
You’re coming out with mixed message, here. I think most people see polarization as relegating things into one of two choices, which can be categorized as you did above with “black & white” or alternately as “us vs. them.” This very frequently surfaces as treating people as “evil” because they fail to agree with you on the subject of socialized healthcare, for example, rather than just addressing the pros and cons of socialized healthcare itself.
But remaining steadfast about your stance on socialized healthcare? Sure, fine, and in fact, more power to you! Most especially if you arrived at your position through careful and rational consideration, and not through an emotional response to anyone else who has a position on the subject. That’s not really polarization. It might be considered any number of other things, mostly by those that disagree, but that’s besides the point. What I’m saying is address the issues, but precisely the issues, and ignore the “black/white” categorizing of those debating them.
I won’t agree with you about the concept that grey is just little examples of black & white, and everything can be “good” or “bad.” There are definitely cases where one must consider multiple factors in a situation that will not have an ideal choice – abortion is one example, as well as a bad marriage with young kids, something that crops up more often, I suspect, than bad marriages that will break cleanly without pain and stress. The wife may know she’ll be better without the husband, but two of the three kids won’t handle a breakup well, and the third should be relieved of the stress because he might be getting neurotic. Needs of the many, or does neurosis count more than divorce anxiety?
Again, I suspect you might be seeing it from a slightly different standpoint, such as getting past all of the inconsequential emotional baggage and sidetracking issues to deal with the key factor on a particular matter, and I agree with that. Sometimes the choice can be much clearer when you do away with the unrelated stuff. I consider that simply a part of addressing the issues themselves, but that’s my perspective. I wouldn’t call it polarization as such, more like dealing with the heart of the matter. Some cross-purpose debating might take place if you recognize such key factors, but your opponent is still mired in the unnecessary crap surrounding it, and neither one of you knows it.
For my example, I don’t consider either Hitchens or Richard Dawkins as “good” or “bad.” I agree with both on several issues, and disagree on others, so there’s no clear category for either. Instead, I stick with particular subjects, and “agree mostly” with Dawkins’ opinion of religious indoctrination as child abuse, but don’t like equating it even peripherally with child beating. Hopefully that helps explain my overall perspective on polarization.
‘I suspect you might be seeing it from a slightly different standpoint, such as getting past all of the inconsequential emotional baggage and sidetracking issues to deal with the key factor on a particular matter, and I agree with that’
I think I would be splitting hairs if I argued with you about that, although I am pretty confident in sticking with my ‘gray is composed of smaller blacks and whites’ thing.
I don’t know Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins, but if my perception of them is an indicator of the qualities they actually possess, I’m comfortable saying that I think they’re good people: ‘You shall know them by their fruits’. It’s by this maxim that I also determine that the pope is a bad person.
I think that once you accept that good=well being and bad=suffering, you can probably assign the values of good and bad to people and actions. In some cases, it may be reasonable to say an abortion or a divorce is a good thing, and in some cases it may be reasonable to say an abortion or a divorce is a bad thing; sometimes it’s necessary to endure an unpleasant event in order to secure future or more long term well being.
Nicholas Lawrence, #18 – Hitchens has often remarked that anyone can find him by looking up his address in the phone book. His home address is publicly listed, and you can find it easily (I just looked it up).
Okaaaaaay, I take it back about Paxman. I knew it was a bit too strong when I wrote it, to tell the truth. I thought his reaction was something, but the something was faint. The suggestion that he was offering the shock of viewers for Hitchens to reject sounds right. I take it back. MMC. (I wonder if anyone will be able to guess what I mean by that.)
Mea maxima culpa?
Yup!
This is just an aside on the term rebel as used in the first comment to this post:
The word rebel I find depressing, because I have read too much literature (and academic literature, eg, stuff churned out by Haleh Afshar), which is premised on “rebelling” against dominant Western norms by embracing Islam- the most concrete examples of which are of course the too-familiar conversion of women to veiling even where there is no legal requirement to do so. “Rebel” has a strong romantic appeal, there is literary criticism blah blah about rebels in literature, and heavy religious imagery associated with this term. (The Iranian Revolution is marketed to school age students as a rebellion against monarchy, capitalism, Western colonialism etc. Which in a sense it was. But oh did those rebels bite off more than they could chew!)
So I would be cautious about using the term rebel- as has having consistently positive connotations.
Exactly. Think of Sarah Palin, the “maverick.” [shudder]
Josh Slocum, #18: many thanks. How very stupid of me not to have thought of that.
Egbert:
I see your point, and yet there must be more than just his rebelliousness, because I’m not a rebel but I admire him very much, too. He’s one of those people who is so refreshing in his thinking that I enjoy reading or listening to him even when I disagree with him.