About the situation brewing
The Feminism in London conference is in a few weeks, October 24-25.
Caroline Criado-Perez has just withdrawn from the conference. She explains why.
She starts with the ridiculous no-platforming of Kate Smurthwaite by Goldsmith’s in February.
The reality was, as we all knew, that Kate had become the latest victim of the no-platforming rash sweeping contemporary leftist and feminist circles. The kicker? Her stand-up show had not been about prostitution (her views on which had resulted in the objection to her appearance), but about, wait for it, free speech. Yeah. Ironic, huh?
Many of us felt that this was the final straw. The censorship and no platforming debate had been rumbling on for a while, but this was such a ridiculous example, that some of us felt the time had come to speak up against it. I was one of the signatories of a letter printed in The Observer, calling on student unions to stand up to factions of malcontents who would rather silence speech they disagreed with than to debate with it (and presumably defeat it if it is so self-evidently wrong that we don’t even need to hear it).
Well you see it’s a kind of alchemy. If you keep straining and then straining again, reducing all the impurities until finally there is no impurity left at all – Total Social Justice will have arrived at last. There won’t be any humans to enjoy it, but they’re too imperfect to survive all the strainings.
Now Jane Fae has withdrawn from the Feminism in London conference. As with Kate, it’s her views on prostitution that are the problem, but for opposite reasons – libertarians versus a radical in Kate’s case, radicals versus a libertarian in Jane Fae’s.
Having spoken to both Jane and the organisers of Feminism in London, my understanding of what took place is that a few people complained about Jane’s inclusion, the organisers informed Jane about the situation brewing, and Jane decided to pull out. I think Jane’s decision is an honourable one — she didn’t want the discussion to be derailed and to become about her. And it was her decision — but it would be dishonest not to acknowledge that her hand was forced to a certain extent, even though I believe that this was not the organisers’ intention. But, as we are so often informed, “intention isn’t magic”. The effect has been that Jane has been put in a position where she felt unable to speak.
That’s an uncomfortable position, and you know what? People don’t have to put up with that. People will walk, and the bullies will be left in possession of the battlefield, but they’ll be alone there. You can’t get to Social Justice from there.
I am dismayed by the path feminism has taken over the past year or so. None of us has all the answers. None of us has the key to ending patriarchy. Some of us are right about some things; others are right about others. We all have different life experiences and this leads to different perspectives. The only way forward is to create respectful spaces where all opinions can be heard and debated.
There will be fewer rewards handed out for Achievements in Purity, but more for collaboration and thoughtful engagement.
So, one person is no-platformed for being “transphobic and whorephobic”, another one for exactly the opposite reasons? Wow.
Still, at the moment I just can’t make up my mind about this no-platforming thing.
I read that it’s not a new invention, but that in the past it was directed mainly against extreme right-wingers (or what was considered to belong to this category). The novelty lies in using it on such a scale in internal fights of the left, is that correct? Or is even this not really new?
I find it hard to form a definite opinion because it’s not easy (at least for me) to pinpoint exactly what’s wrong with this. Two most common objections are rather weak:
1. “this is censorship, this is against free speach”. In itself, it’s a weak objection, as it encounters an obvious rejoinder of “yes, in general you have a right to speak, but we are not under an obligation to give you our platform”.
2. “this is silencing”. Weak again, at least in a pluralistic society, where we have many places to go. (Sometimes it’s rather funny to observe such a ‘silenced’ person espousing his/her views elsewhere, very eloquently, to thousands of followers.)
I think that 1 still retains some force in special cases (e.g. I would consider universities rather special); but apart from that? Conferences, art events? That’s a bit different and it looks like a hopeless mess.
So, what’s wrong with it? And what’s “it”, exactly? No-platforming in general? No-platforming used against the left (because as used against the right, it’s of course fine and dandy)? What is “it”?
Perhaps (just perhaps) the main worry should be about the marginalization…of the no-platformers, not so much of the excluded speakers?
Imagine the progressives divided into thousands of factions, hating and fighting each other, with each faction no-platforming most of the rest. Does it sound like an effective method of marginalizing progressivism? Does it sound like a way to make the progressives look ridiculous to the rest of the world? Well…yes, it certainly does to me. I wouldn’t like to see such a future. Is it approaching? How close is it?
[All of the above was just thinking aloud – as I said, I find it difficult to form a definite opinion on this.]
I think part of this can be laid at the feet of deliberately deceitful right-wingers who will claim to be in line with a particular social justice movement even as they argue against every tenet of it. (Christina Hoff-Summers, as an example–she’ll happily claim to be a feminist, and Dawkins refers to her as such regularly.) It’s no longer viable to just say, “Anyone who calls themselves a feminist can speak,” because you do need to cull out the bullshitters. However, once it turns to issues that are under legitimate debate in the appropriate community, you end up with… well, this.
It might be better for organizers of conferences to try to ask folks who are known for controversial views to speak directly on those, and to get speakers from both sides. This can at least be used as a strike against those calling for no-platforming.