Delicate Regard
This is a brief but interesting interview with Richard Dawkins. (My colleague did a longer and of course much more thrilling one which is included in What Philosophers Think.) For one thing, he talks about a subject we too are interested in, as you may possibly have noticed. He answers the very odd question ‘Another of your pet peeves is Post-Modernist scholarship, and you satirize a few writers from this school in your book, A Devil’s Chaplain. Isn’t your problem with these academics simply that they are poor writers?’
I don’t think they are poor [writers] at all. They are dominant alpha males in the academic jungle and, in some cases, are ruining the careers of honest scholars who would make an honest contribution.
To be fair, or do I mean strictly accurate, a lot of ‘Post-modernist’ writers are very bad writers indeed – but they are not necessarily the ones Dawkins has in mind, and others are indeed good writers but crappy thinkers. All rhetoric and no thought. You can find traces of such ‘scholarship’ in various corners of B&W.
But even more, I like his reply to a question about his ‘polemic voice’ –
I do it because I feel strongly about things … especially about double standards, hypocrisy, failure to think clearly…I am very hostile to religion because it is enormously dominant, especially in American life. And I don’t buy the argument that, well, it’s harmless. I think it is harmful, partly because I care passionately about what’s true.
Well, same here. No doubt that’s one reason Dawkins is one of my favourite writers. The double standards problem is one we’ve been noticing a lot lately. I was a bit shocked to find a glaring example of double standards – of explicit, declared double standards, which is to say a declaration of ‘special’ status, of need for special protection, on the part of religion – in Martha Nussbaum’s new book (Hiding from Humanity). I shouldn’t have been shocked, because I’ve read such an argument from her before, in her reply to Susan Moller Okin’s ‘Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?’ – and I think I did a N&C on my shock at the time. But I was shocked anyway, even though I shouldn’t have been. Nussbaum admires John Stuart Mill, and bases much of her argument in this book on On Liberty – but she also takes him to task for not being ‘respectful’ enough of citizens’ comprehensive doctrines:
But to claim that freedom of speech promotes truth in metaphysics and morals would be to show disrespect for the idea of reasonable pluralism, and to venture onto a terrain where one is at high risk of showing disrespect to one’s fellow citizens. Mill is totally oblivious to all such considerations. He has none of the delicate regard for other people’s religious doctrines that characterizes the political liberal…In On Liberty he does not hesitate to speak contemptuously of Calvinism as an ‘insidious’ doctrine…One may sympathize…without feeling that he understands the type of mutual respect that is required in a pluralistic society. I agree with Rawls: such respect requires (in the public sphere at least) not showing up the claims of religion as damaging, and not adopting a public conception of truth and objectivity according to which such claims are false.
I hate to say it, because I admire much in Nussbaum, but I find that idea truly staggering. I did read and re-read, and go back and forth between the various places where she discusses all this, to try to clarify whether she is talking about laws and the state, or about writing and public discourse. Some of the time she is talking about the former, but not all of it. She really is – as far as I can tell – saying that Mill should not have written what he did about Calvinism, and that no one should say such things ‘in the public sphere at least.’ That ‘such respect requires (in the public sphere at least) not showing up the claims of religion as damaging, and not adopting a public conception of truth and objectivity according to which such claims are false.’ So people ought (in order to be decently respectful) to ‘adopt’ a public conception of truth that will not contradict religious claims. People ought to choose their ‘conceptions’ of truth on the basis of whether they are respectful enough of the sensitivities of other people as opposed to – well, you know, whether they in fact think they get at the truth or not. That’s a pretty good description of just exactly what B&W was set up to oppose: deciding what is true on the basis of extraneous factors like ideology or whose feelings might be hurt, rather than on the basis of one’s best understanding of the evidence and logic of the matter.
So in short that is a very forthright statement of exactly the idea I’ve been puzzling over for a few months now: the idea that religion ought to have some sort of special, protected status that no other kind of human thinking gets to have. But what it doesn’t do is say why. Why religion should be immune from challenge when socialism and capitalism, for example, are not. Why religion should not simply accept public discussion and disagreement and argument on the same terms as any other set of human ideas. For the sake of ‘respect,’ yes, she does say that, but she doesn’t explain why that should apply to some kinds of ideas and not others. Because religion is consoling? But so are other ideas and beliefs that are not protected, so that’s not it.
But for my part, I have to agree with Dawkins. I don’t think double standards and ‘special’ protection and delicate regard and ‘not showing up the claims of religion as damaging’ (especially not that!) are a good idea at all.
I think that for many who think as you do, but feel as Nussbaum does, a good analogy is that religion is like a rattlesnake coiled a few feet off the trail: if you treat it with respect and give it a wide berth, it won’t strike at you; if you get it riled up, you could be in a world of hurt and may wind up dead.
I admit that I myself am of two minds on this and usually end up following the proverb “discretion is the better part of valor”. When pressed on the issue, I do not dissemble, but generally I don’t go out of my way to stir up controversy. You can call me a coward, but I prefer to think of myself as an introvert.
Oh well in conversation I don’t tackle religion or believers either (unless they tackle me first, and not always even then). No I’m not talking about face to face, or interactions with friends and relations. I’m talking about what Nussbaum calls the public sphere – books and other writing. I think the rules – of tact, politeness, protectiveness of people’s sensitivities, etc – are quite, quite different in the two settings. But Nussbaum is talking about the ‘public sphere’.
And her reason for the putative need for respect is not a rattlesnake one, it’s an altruistic one. But I don’t think even altruism is a good reason to rule out truth-telling on the grounds that it might be painful to some people. I think it’s odd even to call that respect, really, it seems to me more like infantalism.
OB:
I see in rereading that I did not make clear that my first paragraph was about the public sphere. The point I’m after is that people like Nussbaum seem to be of the opinion that religion in the public sphere is a “third rail” type issue–touch it and you’re dead. Presumably they are hoping for some “public conception of truth and objectivity” that can dismiss religious claims on a given public question as irrelevant without implying they are false.
” Presumably they are hoping for some “public conception of truth and objectivity” that can dismiss religious claims on a given public question as irrelevant without implying they are false.”
It is often impossible to dismiss religious claims on a given public question as irrelevant without implying they are false. For example, some religious beleivers want creationism taught in schools. It seems a bit much to teach evolution and not creationism without giving a reason. Generally in schools we teach the best knowledge we have (or at least aim to). By teaching evolution instead of creatism, we are implying the creationist beleifs are false. For some people, such beleifs are part of their religious outlook, and so are their religious beleifs are being called false.
OB: I should have clarified that by ‘dead’ I meant ‘politically dead’. Those who offend religious sensiblities in the public sphere run the risk of undermining their influence on the discussion of public issues. And yes, this prudential political calculation does allow religious sensiblities to maintain their unwarranted power.
ChrisM: I’m aware of difficulties too. That’s why I used the words ‘presumably’ and ‘hoping’–because at this point that’s all it is–a hope.
I don’t have time to think this through this a.m., but there is an interesting article on the subject here:
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-03/religion.html
I’ll probably be commenting on this later, but I’d like to see what you make of it as well, if you have the time and interest.
regards, Marijo
“: I’m aware of difficulties too. That’s why I used the words ‘presumably’ and ‘hoping’–because at this point that’s all it is–a hope.”
I had spotted the “presumably” and “hoping”, and it had occurred to me that you were just playing devils advocate, and putting the most charitable interpretation on such peoples position. However, even this most charitable interpreatation is asking too much. As John Stuart Mill (see Bad Moves – Playing the rights card) argues, the fact that acting in a certain way may offend some people is no reason not to carry out that act. Given the number of people there are in the world, and the variety of different responses they all have, some people are going to be offended by anything. I find every utterance by George Galloway offensive, but it doesn’t mean I want to live in a world where only statements I agree with are allowed to be uttered.
ChrisM:
I agree that “the fact that acting in a certain way may offend some people is no reason not to carry out that act”.On the other hand, I think that it is can be reason to give careful thought to how and when and why I “carry out that act”. I wasn’t conscious of playing devil’s advocate, but I CAN empathize with those who, as a practical matter, are reluctant to bruise the tender feelings of political majorities.
In the context of philosophy or science, different rules apply. The difficulty of evolution vs creation in schools grows out of the collision of the two different contexts–politics and science. I once thought that it would be a good idea for biology teachers to “teach the controversy” until a friend pointed out that many of the teachers had their own doubts about evoution and that the result was likely to be a victory for creationism.
We can’t escape the practical fact that most people have a hard time changing their mind once they’ve made it up–or had it made up for them.
And trying too hard to make them change can backfire, leaving us worse off than we started.
wmr,
“The point I’m after is that people like Nussbaum seem to be of the opinion that religion in the public sphere is a “third rail” type issue–touch it and you’re dead.”
I know, I got that; I think I’m the one who wasn’t clear enough in my reply. Nussbaum is not making an instrumental or practical politics kind of argument, she’s making a principled one. She thinks we ought not to disagree with religious ideas purely because it is not respectful to do so, it fails to show ‘tender regard’ for the dignity and equal worth of other people.
OB:
Oh, I missed that element. Then I too must disagree with her position.
“As I’ve tried to make plain before, the reason that people react violently or viterpuratively to criticism of their religious beliefs is because they experience such criticism as an attack upon their identity.”
Yes – I’m sure that is part of the reason. (I don’t think it is the only reason. I think for example it also has a lot to do with feelings of love and loyalty for the deity, thus feelings of pain when that deity is being [according to this view] insulted or treated with contempt.) And, as the rest of your reply partly indicates, that is arguably part of the problem. People don’t really have a right to declare certain kinds of truth claims (that they have no shyness about asserting all over the place) off limits because they have chosen to make them part of their identity. It’s a bad, inept, non-functional kind of thinking. It functions or tries to function as a way of making open honest uninhibited discussion of truth-questions impossible, and I really don’t think that’s a good or helpful idea.
And I agree about identity politics. When I did Norm Geras’ profile, that was my answer to the question about what is your biggest change of mind – I’ve completely changed my mind about identity politics. Used to think (without thinking about it enough) it was okay, now I think it’s disastrous.
w,
Yes…it seems such an odd position, especially for someone as, you know, non-fatuous as Nussbaum. I’m quite puzzled about it, and curious about what other philosophers etc. think about it.
And JH, I forgot to say, I know about the convert to Reform Judaism thing – she talks about that in the reply to Okin and somewhat in Hiding from Humanity. Okin’s reply to Nussbaum’s reply points out that Nussbaum has a, shall we say, rather over-indulgent view of Judaism. The whole discussion is very interesting.
Thanks for the link, Marijo. Someone else – Richard Chappell, I think, a philosophy blogger – gave us the same link a few days ago, and we did discuss the article. It is interesting.
Congratulations, Ophelia – you have made such an excellent case that it is hard to find much to add to it. As a sceptical, secular, religion-friendly ultraconservative I take my hat off. You have certainly demolished Nussbaum and all that ‘respect’ gobbledegook. The only possible defence for ‘respecting’ religious beliefs would be, I suppose, to discourage or ban the use of ‘fighting words’ (such as strolling through a Muslim shantytown wearing a T-shirt with the slogan ‘The Koran sucks’, or standing outside a fundamentalist Baptist church distributing fliers with ‘Life of Brian’ style cartoons). But I suppose one could equally justify prohibiting devout Christians or Orthodox Jews from brandishing posters condemning sodomy with citations from the Old Testament in the heart of Greenwich Village. There is no more reason for ‘respecting’ religion than there is for ‘respecting’ any myths, be they transcendental (whatever that means) or secular (such as the PC myth that ‘there’s no such thing as race’, or the dum-dum conservative yarn that ‘there’s no such thing as class – we’re all workers now’). In a tolerant society, people may have a right to believe whatever bullshit they like – but they have no right to require me to ‘respect’ them for doing so.
Perhaps what Nussbaum ‘really meant to say’ was this: I’m a very smart person, so naturally I think religion is a load of codswallop. But I also have a Straussian dimension, and when I consider these religious types I remember how they at least kept the human species from self-extinction over the centuries, and the reason I exist today is that my parents, or grand-parents, or ancestors, believed all this junk about recreational sex being sinful and so they procreated me and if there were too many people like myself around there would be no Nussbaums at all after a couple of generations. In other words: a hedonist like Nussbaum respects religion as a kind of ‘noble lie’ necessary for the procreation of smart people like herself (and her readers). Basically she ‘respects’ religion as an evolutionary successful strategy. I admit I am speculating.
My only cavil concerns Dawkins. I’m a Dawkins fan too. And yet I think he does go a bit over the top, particularly since he sometimes seems to lump Islamic extremism and run of the mill Christianity in the same category – though perhaps I’m misrepresenting him. At any rate, compliance with God’s instructions to impose Sharia law on humanity is not quite the same as lighting a penny candle to cajole the Blessed Virgin into helping one’s son pass his university entry exams. There are believers and believers – some have a predilection for mass murder, others make do with the efficacy of prayer. But above all, many religious people are quite commonsensical and pragmatic when it comes to mundane matters — such as opposition to sexual ‘liberation’, affirmative action, identity politics, and a variety of modern pathologies. Sometimes one has to conclude a pact with the religious Beelzebubs to drive out the demons of secular totalitarianism. Speaking for myself, I can swallow quite a lot of bible-thumping if the reward is that such secular abominations as gay ‘marriage’ end up where they belong – in the rubbish bin of history.
“In a tolerant society, people may have a right to believe whatever bullshit they like – but they have no right to require me to ‘respect’ them for doing so.”
Well, exactly. At least that’s certainly what I think. Especially since it’s definitely only certain categories of belief that Nussbaum wants us to give all this respect to.
Your idea of Nussbaum is not quite right, though, as you surmised. She actually takes the religion she converted to quite seriously, though she thinks its core is a set of moral precepts (as opposed to theism, I guess, which seems dubious).
The thing about Dawkins is that he insists that even ‘moderate’ religion involves believing in things that there’s no very good reason to believe, and that there are drawbacks to that. That’s why I like him (and why so many people agree with you that he’s over the top). I think there’s a sort of polite fiction around that ‘faith’ is a good thing or at worst harmless; I think Dawkins draws our attention the the possibility that that’s not necessarily true. (But he’s certainly not fond of Islamic extremism. His reaction to the WTC bombing is evidence of that.)
“I once thought that it would be a good idea for biology teachers to “teach the controversy” until a friend pointed out that many of the teachers had their own doubts about evoution and that the result was likely to be a victory for creationism.”
There is no controversy about evolution. It is one of the best supported theries of al time.
ChrisM:
“Teaching the controversy” means using the conflict between creationism and evolution as a pedagogical tool to introduce such questions as what is science, what is good science, what is a theory, how do we test theories, and so on. I think it goes back to a Professor of English in the 80’s named Graff; it was his contribution to the canon wars.
“I don’t think they are poor [writers] at all. They are dominant alpha males in the academic jungle and, in some cases, are ruining the careers of honest scholars who would make an honest contribution.”
Doesn’t it seem as if Dawkins may have misunderstood the sense of the word “poor” used in the original question? It seems as if he thought he was being asked if these postmodern writers were “poor” in the sense of being economically disadvantaged, instead of the sense of being subpar or inferior in ability. That would seem to explain his reponse, since I get the idea that he does in fact think that many postmodern writers are very bad writers in terms of both the content and expression of their ideas.
That said, I agree that Dawkins is one of the best essayists working today. Once upon a time, I used to find his polemical tone against religion a bit harsh, but I now consider him to make much more sense in this area than more “polite” writers like Gould, Ruse, or Paul Davies. There’s something to be said for trying to get things right, without deferring to the sensibilities of an arbitrarily protected group holding arbitrary beliefs.
Phil
Hmm – possible about misunderstanding of ‘poor’ – but I kind of doubt it, since it is such a common usage. It’s one I absolutely detest, as a matter of fact, partly because of that very ambiguity. There are times when people are actually talking about literally (financially) poor people and also talking about ‘poor’ abstract things and get tragically tangled up in their own verbiage. But I detest it even more because of the absurd euphemistic aspect – as if it were somehow wrong or unkind to say something is bad. Bad is a good word! Bad is a very good word! ‘Poor’ is so mealy-mouthed as a substitute.
(You can see why I’ve just co-written a dictionary. I obsess over individual words.)
‘Bad Moves’ is Bad Moves, not Poor Moves. The book Bad Thoughts which a reader has just written up for In the Library is not Poor Thoughts. Down with poor, up with bad.
Exactly, about the harshness v. politeness. “There’s something to be said for trying to get things right, without deferring to the sensibilities of an arbitrarily protected group holding arbitrary beliefs.” Just so, and especially when the fashion and the social pressure are all the other way.