The way of saying something is part of what is said
Kenan Malik makes a crucial point about this vexed issue of style and tone and manner.
Anticipating the arguments of Rushdie’s critics that there is a difference between legitimate criticism and unacceptable abuse, the Law Commission pointed out that ‘one person’s incisive comment (and indeed seemingly innocuous comment) may be another’s “blasphemy” and to forbid the use of the strongest language in relation, for example, to practices which some may rightly regard as not in the best interests of society as a whole would, it seems to us, be altogether unacceptable’. In other words, the way of saying something is part of what is said. To say that you must write differently is in practice to say that you must write about different things.
Exactly. The way of saying something is part of what is said, so all this heavy pressure on atheists to be bashful and circumspect and euphemistic and evasive about their atheism is simply a way of telling them to say something different. So vocal atheists say ‘What ho, atheists have been shoved into the closet over the past few decades and theists have been taking over the stage, let’s barge out of the closet now and grab our share of the limelight’; so theists and their protectors give a great cry and say ‘Nononono, you vocal atheists are too vocal, we will not take your atheism away from you, but you must get out of the limelight and off the stage and oh look, there’s a nice big closet right here, with plenty of room to sit down and even turn around, in you go.’ You do see that that rather defeats the whole purpose. Telling us to write differently is in practice to say that we must write about different things, but we want to write about these things, not different ones, so kindly let us get on with it.
Anything less than full acceptance of the other’s right to say what she/he wants in the manner of his/her choice is a sneaky way of saying “shut up.” If I want to express myself loudly and strongly against religion, then expressing myself weakly or inaudibly against it because pressure has been brought to bear means I have allowed something that was my right to be eroded. Those applying the pressure are being dishonest if they claim we are losing nothing by moderating our tone. The tone itself is one of the battlegrounds, not just the content.
Precisely. That’s one of the reasons why, despite his sometimes being ‘over the top,’ I enjoy Hitchens’ god is not Great. The tone sometimes says it better than the words.
Presumably, criticisms of tone and approach from one’s allies are different from those of one’s enemies.
Allies tell you to say it differently because they really want your message to succeed, and if they can persuade you to say it differently – say, in a more circumspect and conciliatory manner – then your message will be more effective.
Enemies tell you to say it differently because they really don’t want you to say it at all, and if they can bully you into saying it differently – say, in a more circumspect and conciliatory manner – then your message won’t be as effective.
Excuse me if I have a difficult time telling the difference.
Of course, allied atheists could make it easier to tell the difference if they would simply give a clear, convincing explanation of why the outspoken, forthright communications approach is bad for accomplishing our aims; and if they would further explain what exactly they would have us do differently, and why they expect it to work better. But they rarely even make the attempt; Julian certainly didn’t. And when they do… well, I’ll be *very* charitable and polite and just say that I’ve found contributions from Matt Nisbet et al along these lines rather less than clear and convincing.
Yeah.
Nisbet doesn’t really pretend to be anything other than an enemy these days, does he? Or maybe he does, but also makes it blindingly obvious that he is an enemy, and that’s why he’s so widely and thoroughly (cough) frowned upon.
Oh my sweet Flying Spaghetti Monster! I just learned minutes ago that Nisbet is turning his favorite flogged-to-death “framing” hobby horse into a book. That perfectly good trees should give up their fibrous heartwood for such a waste of paper… *shakes head, weeps softly*
Think of the trees, man!
I thought that “framing” was where the authorities planted false evidence to incriminate someone?
Heh. In Nisbet’s gentle guiding hands, it is indeed difficult to tell the difference. He plants evidence of horribly antisocial behavior on every atheist he can find, using the usual methods – mischaracterization, sly innuendo and the occasional bit of quote mining.
Urrgh. Yet another entry for the “atheists suck” shelf, just what the world needs.
Urrgh again – Nisbet’s Excellent New Ploy is to say that ‘Dawkins and other New Atheists’ are unethical when they ‘use the trust granted them as scientists to argue that religion is a scientific question.’ Of course he doesn’t say that he is unethical when he uses the trust granted him as a ‘professor’ of Communication to argue that people he doesn’t like are unethical. Ho hum.
This is interesting – Nisbet says on his blog that he is a professor of Communication – but he’s actually an assistant professor. I checked PZ’s blog to see if that’s just a convention at Science blogs – to simplify all job titles to professor. No: PZ says he’s an associate professor. So Nisbet is ‘framing’ himself as…something he isn’t. That’s slightly unethical, isn’t it?
And, of course, the pope and the Archbish of Cantab and other religious leaders are not framing their claim that religion and science are compatible with the authoritative face of religion. Really, which planet does this Nisbet come from?!
Besides, since so many of the religious make scientifically falsifiable claims about the age of the earth, etc., what shall scientists do? Just sit down and shut up – as PZ says. How naff can you get!
Nisbet seems to hail from the distant planet Asymmetry, where heads I win and tails you lose.