As if increase of appetite had grown by what it fed on
Kenan Malik on the fatwa twenty years on.
It has now become widely accepted that we live in a multicultural world, and that in such a world it is important not to cause offence to other peoples and cultures. As the sociologist Tariq Modood has put it: ‘If people are to occupy the same political space without conflict, they mutually have to limit the extent to which they subject each others’ fundamental beliefs to criticism.’…Today, we have come to accept that books do indeed cause riots and that therefore we must be careful what books we write – or what cartoons we draw, or jokes we tell, or art we create.
Which creates an interesting and alarming closed circle of repression. We ‘must’ be careful what books we write and what things we say – therefore we become critical of the people and institutions who demand that we be careful what books we write and what things we say – but we must be careful what books we write and what things we say – so we can’t write books or say things about our criticisms of the people and institutions who demand that we be careful what books we write and what things we say – and so on. We’re caught in a sinister spiral in which liberals want to resist repression and repressors want to shut the liberals up, which makes the liberals want to resist even more, which makes the repressors want to shut them up even more…
I don’t see this working out well.
Today, all it takes for a publisher to run for cover is a letter from an outraged academic. In the 20 years between the publication of The Satanic Verses and the withdrawal of The Jewel of Medina, the fatwa has in effect become internalised.
See Sherry Spellberg went in the wrong direction here – she hooked up her outrage to the repressors instead of to the resistors. Bad move.
Today, many argue that whatever may appear to be right in principle, in practice one must appease religious and cultural sensibilities because such sensibilities are so deeply felt. The avoidance of ‘cultural pain’ is seen as more important than what is regarded as an abstract right to freedom of expression…The lesson of the Rushdie Affair that has never been learnt is that liberals have made their own monsters. It is the liberal fear of giving offence that has helped create a culture in which people take offence so easily.
Yeah. Let’s turn that around.
You are quite right. If I were to decide I was grossly offended by the Koran, and demanded it banned, what notice would be taken?
If I were to kill a few thousand people, and then demand it banned, I would, of course, be accorded the utmost respect.
The question is, how many people would I have to kill to get the Koran banned?
Answers on a postcard…
I don’t think that is the question.
No, it’s not the question. The question, as Ophelia points out is to turn round the last, rather nice point, that Kenen Malik made. It is, as he says, ‘the liberal fear of giving offence that has helped create a culture in which people take offence so easily.’ Liberals, clearly, and surely this goes without saying, have got to learn to give offence, the kind of offence that Voltaire offered the church (and why he had to live so close to the Swiss border). If we don’t use it, we’ll lose it. Malik’s point is a good one. We’re now on the way to losing it, and if we do, it won’t be easy to get back.
Liberals make their own monsters? I dunno: Which liberals, exactly? I admit that some woolly-headed twits infected with too much postmodernist jargon have so lost the thread of the liberal agenda that they appear to care more about not offending the cultural sensitivities of vicious authoritarian oppressors than the human rights of those they oppress – especially, I should note, when those oppressed are women. But I think it’s a bit unjust to call those people simply “liberals,” as if all liberals espoused such views. How about “some liberals”? Or maybe just “some blithering idiots who suppose themselves to be politically left-ish”?
Then again, I’ve long since lost any sense that the word “liberal” has any proper meaning anyway. “Progressive” isn’t any better, in terms of the utter incoherent mis-mash of ideas and movements that get the label. So I will forego labels and stick with something that has some actual content: I am and adherent to and promoter of the ideals of the Enlightenment – and the Enlightenment project has always prioritized the right to ask tough questions ahead of the arrogant, self-important huffing and puffing of those who insist that they ought not be questioned. I am and will continue to be highly critical of those who petulantly whine that any and all criticism is “imperialism” or “censorship” or some other wildly unjustified defensive twaddle. Essentially this amounts to the claim that the merest voicing of any criticism is oppression, which is always a risible claim when made by the forces of tradition and authority.
If oppressors whine and cry “oppression” at the first hint of criticism, that is simply one more legitimate cause for criticizing them. And if they continue to confuse criticism with insult, I say that all people of good sense should tell them to they can just go fuck themselves: Maybe they’ll finally learn the difference between insult and criticism if they are thoroughly and rudely insulted every time they falsely whine about being insulted when they are confronted with measured and rational criticism. I doubt they’re actually teachable, but at least those of us who’ve had enough of their bullshit will enjoy the transient pleasure of taking out our frustrations on their proper targets.
” . . .they mutually have to limit the extent to which they subject each others’ fundamental beliefs to criticism.”
What if it is my fundamental belief to subject all ideas and beliefs, including the ideas and beliefs of cultures which I was not born into, to critical discourse? Where does that leave us? In asking one segment of society to curb acting on their fundamental beliefs in order to prevent “conflict”, Modood is making a hypocrite of himself.
I would also go so far as to say it is not the BOOKS that cause the riots, but the rioters who cause the riots. It’s one thing to write a book, it’s quite another to go on a riot. I think verbal and written disagreements are necessary to democracy, but that rioting and death threats from any faction should not be tolerated, much less pandered to.
You’re probably right G,about ‘liberal’. Take your “wooly-headed twits” and add to them the nice middle class ‘why can’t we all get on and yes I go to church on Sunday and then some yoga in the afternoon but nothing too weird or extreme you understand” sort of people. Then include the political opportunists and a smattering of people who really should know better and you have a consensus. And that’s what we have. It’s no longer political – it’s the moral climate we live in and you’re not going to lever it out of the way with shopworn political labels.
Or at least (perhaps) we need a modifier, or a set of modifiers, for ‘liberal’ in order to pin down which kind we mean. In a way ‘liberal’ by definition means putting free inquiry and speech and expression ahead of worries about ‘offending’ – but in another way it means the opposite. I wouldn’t want to retire the word though – I just wouldn’t want to use it in the silly way that the political right does in the US.
Its a shame what has happened to the word liberal in the U.S but I the left did hand the amunition to the right. I wish I could remmember what it was but G gave me a realy good defenition of what a liberal should stand for a while back?
I think we should call them what they are: conservatives.
They want to preserve traditional culture, and are hostile to anyone who claims that individual liberty is more important. How is that not conservatism?
They take the assumptions of more orthodox conservatives and generalise them so that they apply to all traditions and not just the one they grew up in.
In addition to my previous point, I’ve also noticed that the must-not-offend types tend to be isolationist in foreign policy – the traditional Tory position. This is in contrast to the usual leftist ideas of solidarity and internationalism.
I think that provides further evidence that they’re really just a new species of conservative.
OB – I’d distinguish the two modes of liberalism as progressive and reactionary liberalism.
I find “Guardianista” works well to describe UK reactionary liberals, whether they read the paper or not. ;-)
Part of the left handed some ammunition to part of the right – but that’s exactly why we need modifiers, why we need to distinguish among the types of leftism or ‘liberalism.’ It’s not the case that the whole of the left handed ammunition to the whole of the right, much less that all liberals are of the conservative culture-hugging type.
I agree liberalism has a proud history yet the word is being used as an insult. I couldnt think of any decent modifiers the best I thought of was convetional liberal or traditional liberal?
Quite a few conservatives are a fan of not giving “offense” to religious groups, too! See for instance Jonah Goldberg’s recent rants against gay people who criticize Mormons for their role in the Prop 8 fiasco in CA .
Indeed, I’d say this particular attitude to “offense” and “tolerance” is a hallmark of conservatism. Haven’t we all encountered conservatives who say, “Liberals are so INTOLERANT because they won’t tolerate slimy, male supremacist, homophobic Dominionist Christians”?
And by “won’t tolerate” they mean “criticize,” of course.
Yeah – it’s a conservative trope that some ‘liberals’ have, stupidly, lifted.