Out of the dark cupboard
Here’s the thing…It’s illiberal on the face of it to tell people to be quiet, or even to turn down the volume, in a liberal rights-based culture that places a high value on free open frank uninhibited discussion – and one that does so not arbitrarily or as a mere matter of preference but for good reasons, which can be freely openly frankly uninhibitedly discussed. The idea and the value of free open discussion is central to liberal culture, and we all depend on it very heavily indeed, perhaps more heavily than we can realize while we continue to have it. In such a culture there is a presumption against urging people to turn down the volume. That is doubly or triply the case when the subject matter is taken by many to be 1) innocent (not criminal or harmful) and 2) enlightening. So the people who want to say ‘pipe down’ have a heavy burden of justification. The presumption isn’t on their side.
A very strong background assumption in liberal culture is that open free discussion is healthy – is generally a good thing. There are exceptions – certain kinds of discussion of race for instance may be hedged with caution (Ahmadinejad’s speech at Durban II springs to mind) – but even there, caution and hedging are not always seen as the best way to go. Obama said in his great speech on race that we could shut up about the whole subject, but we ought not to. He is the product of a liberal culture; the product of it, an educator about it, a defender of it, an ambassador for it. I think it is one of the better ideas of liberal culture, this idea that we should be able to discuss most things openly, freely, without fear or shyness.
If I’m right about that, then telling people they are discussing something too openly and freely and noisily is inherently likely to antagonize liberals (as opposed to authoritarians). If you’ve followed any of the discussions between Matthew Nisbet and Everyone Else over the past few years, you’ll know what I mean. We’re primed to think that yanking taboo subjects out of that cupboard under the stairs is a good thing, so people who tell us to put it back into the cupboard have a steep hill to climb.
Very steep. Right on!
There’s a lesson about open debate to be found in the response around here to Julian Baggini’s recent essays suggesting (in fairly insulting terms) that public atheists need to change their tone, to be more polite or conciliatory or something: The primary reaction has been, more or less, “Your argument sucks!”
That is, I (and others) have said that his argument is unconvincing in the extreme. We’ve not simply said “You’re wrong!” and certainly we haven’t told him to shut up or change his tone! Instead, we’ve presented reasons why we think he’s wrong, and called on him to present better reasons (or any reasons!) in defense of his position. That’s how honest disagreement and open debate ought to work, and that’s why I have suggested Dr. Baggini is not being entirely intellectually honest – both because he gave no real arguments for his position (the only arguments he’s presented so far have been naught but empty rhetoric, apparently borrowed from the people trying hardest to silence atheists), but also because the content of his position is insistence that other participants in the debate needed to shut up (or at least change their tone).
J.S. Mill was wonderfully clear about how and why insistence on “politeness” in a public debate is just another tool used to silence minority opinions. See the last paragraph of Chapter 2 of On Liberty. Here’s one wonderful sentence: “With regard to what is commonly meant by intemperate discussion, namely, invective, sarcasm, personality, and the like, the denunciation of these weapons would deserve more sympathy if it were ever proposed to interdict them equally to both sides; but it is only desired to restrain the employment of them against the prevailing opinion: against the unprevailing they may not only be used without general disapproval, but will be likely to obtain for him who uses them the praise of honest zeal and righteous indignation.” (Gosh! It’s been MONTHS since I quoted Mill in the comments here; what’s wrong with me?)
If Julian Baggini – or anyone else – thinks that there are better ways to engage in public debate about the undeserved legal and cultural privileges enjoyed by religion, or about the non-existence of God and what that means for religion and culture, then he is perfectly free to engage in that public debate in whatever ways he considers better! But why can’t he be content to let other people go about that public debate their way, and he can go about it his way? I think that there’s a place for impassioned, unflinching, even harsh criticism of religion in general and of specific religious offenses – but I also think there’s also a place for finding common ground with less rigid and authoritarian religious people and institutions. Baggini’s personal preference for the latter does not itself constitute any argument whatsoever that the former is bad or not useful – although perhaps they have different uses.
The free speech/liberal presumption in favor of open public debate surely includes diversity in style and approach to expressing opinions as well as diversity in the opinions expressed. Baggini’s nanny-ish tut-tutting over the tone and manner adopted by other participants in the debate – based not on actually reading the contributions of those other participants, but on the disapproval of unspecified others (or worse, specified others like Bunting whose contributions to public debate are stunningly stupid) – is illiberal not simply because he’s telling others to pipe down, but because he is using his own very public platform specifically to undermine others’ participation in free and open debate instead of just participating in it himself! Calling for self-censorship is better than calling for censorship, of course – although he’ll need much better arguments for that call to be even slightly persuasive to any atheist who doesn’t already agree with him. But it would be better still for Dr. Baggini just to make his own contribution to the debate that embodies whatever virtues of style and approach he prefers: If his approach to these issues is actually better, maybe others will adopt it!
When arguing for how communication/debate should be conducted, it is not just natural but absolutely crucial that your arguments embody the approach you advocate. Julian Baggini seems to be calling on atheists to be more measured and thoughtful when criticizing religion, but the way he has done so has not itself been particularly measured or thoughtful. In contrast, it’s been rather rude and condescending – not to mention unsupported by any plausible argument whatsoever.
A similar problem – although far worse in scope and frequency – is why Matthew Nisbet’s arguments have consistently been such a spectacular failure: He insists that he knows better than – well, than anyone, really – how to reach people who profoundly disagree with one’s position; but all he ever does is royally piss off the people who disagree with him. One wishes Nisbet would learn the definition of the phrase “performative contradiction” and repeat it to himself in a mirror until it sinks in…
I’m rather radically fond of free speech. I prefer giving the likes of Ahmadinejab, James Dobson, Osama bin Laden and sundry U.S. beauty queens license to speak their minds openly and as venemously as they please. Keeps me from having to parse through b.s., double-speak and evasion so as to know when to walk-out, shun, attack or defend.
Left freely to their own devices, most folks will quickly show their true colours and that, in my opinion, is generally in the best interest of all concerned.
Ophelia thank you for explaining the feeling deep in my gut that I was going to start crying when I read Loud but not Clear. I felt like I did when Aunt Betty (NOT my mom and so not authorized to yell at me) yelled at me. About something I was totally allowed to do. And she didn’t even know it. So she yelled at me. And my lower lip started to quiver but I didn’t let her see me cry. And later I thought, stupid stupid Aunt Betty, she is NOT ALLOWED to yell at me. Especially about that (whatever it was).
That’s how I felt. Even though he wasn’t yelling at me, nor yelling really at all. It just felt like he 1) picked something that I already have permission to do 2) and then disapproved of it and told me to stop it. Like he’s the boss of me (the reader, not me in person of course. I don’t take things that personally).
Now I get why it was so upsetting.
Yeah. We’re just totally allowed to do atheism in public. We can if we want to. There’s a rule about it – we have permission. So we’re going to.
Well put, G.
If a less ‘strident’ approach is the more effective then by all means demonstrate that.
Until then, Joey Ratz et al are fair game.