Author: Ophelia Benson

  • One Star

    Oh, what fun. We have an unfavourable review of the dictionary at Amazon – a very unfavourable review. Really doesn’t like it at all, this reader doesn’t. Thinks it’s bad and awful. Well what’s so fun about that! you ask. Well if you look at the review you’ll see. Or don’t bother, I’ll just quote heavily, because I don’t suppose Amazon reviews are exactly copyrighted, are they, and anyway the reviewer is semi-anonymous.

    Another trite and innocently framed attack on those intellectuals who are trying to decenter the–and here is a phrase they make fun of–dominant hegemonic discourse, that is so corrosive and debiliating to our civilization. The authors of this book hark back to a mythical Baconian age of deductive logic. They insist on the heroic processes of logic and reason. All of this other stuff is just poo poo, lets make fun of it because we know that a.)not only can we make money off it–logically and reasonably in a consumerist world that they admire–but, b.) we can at the same time admonish complex and careful thinking–that either they are jealous of the individuals who were able to construct such complex arguments, or they actually don’t really understand them–to the realm of the ridiculous and unreasonable, the illogical. Its a powerful little book, that is far more subversive then it pretends to be, by making ‘cute’ ‘funny’ attacks on the ideas they oppose in favor of a western hegemonic ideology.

    There, I quoted so heavily that that’s the whole thing. So you see why it’s fun.

    Those (read: brave, heroic, embattled, misunderstood, etc) intellectuals who are trying to decenter the dominant hegemonic discourse, that is so corrosive and debilitating to our civilization. Oh them. Now, I would say, if asked, that I spend a fair amount of time here trying to do something – not decenter, particularly, but something – to the, let’s call it, dominant rhetoric of politics and various media. Call it hegemonic discourse if you insist. I would also say, even if not asked, that I do a better job of it than people who talk or write the way Ryan (the reviewer) do. In other words, I would claim that I am at least as interested in pointing out the hidden agendas, deceptions, mistranslations, euphemisms, evasions, manipulations and the like of public rhetoric as the hegemonic-discourse-decenterers are. So the implication (and it is an implication – quite manipulative and rhetorical in fact) that the dictionary attacks decenterers because they try to decenter hegemonic discourse, is nonsense. On the contrary – it’s because they do such a damn bad job of it.

    Then the bit about harking back to a mythical Baconian age – where does he get that, one wonders. And the insistence on the heroic processes of logic and reason – again: really? Where? In other words, more rhetoric. The time-honoured tactic: when at a loss for an argument, just make stuff up. And then the flattery about ‘complex and careful thinking’ and ‘such complex arguments’ – familiar stuff, for instance from the old ‘difficulty’ defense that always crops up in discussions of Bad Writing. This stuff isn’t a lot of jargony polysyllabic neologistic babble disguising an empty box, no, it’s complex careful thinking and complex arguments. Yup uh huh.

    And as for more subversive than it pretends to be – I beg your pardon?!? We make no pretense whatever not to be subversive! Subversion is exactly what we have in mind. Tsk. I guess we should have had ‘A Subversive Project’ for our subtitle. You have to spell things out for some people.

    Okay, that was just my little fun, but there’s a slightly serious point too. That review is quite symptomatic – as I’m sure all of you who are familiar with this kind of thing will recognize instantly. It’s pure boilerplate, pure formula, and utterly empty. And that’s why things like the FD are necessary at the moment. Until would-be intellectuals get back in the habit of actually saying something instead of just stringing vacuous cliches together, well, the rest of us will just have to keep mocking.

  • Was Derrida Like the Wizard or Like Toto?

    To himself, he was far more like the dog.

  • Vardy Academies and Creationism

    ‘As to the whole evolution proposition that we have evolved from slime, I just find it impossible to accept.’

  • Religous Conservativism Not Just a US Thing

    Aim is to protect ‘faith-based’ value system against encroaching secularism of west.

  • Jane Kramer on French Hijab Law and Islamism

    ‘But in France, with all its freedoms, so many young women seem to be capitulating to Islamist pressure.’

  • Good Enough and Smart Enough?

    This New York Times article by Ron Suskind about Bush’s ‘faith-based’ certainty got a lot of attention and comment, I gather, but I was away from my desk at the time – away from my desk, from radio and newspapers, from telephones and people, tables and chairs, bread and butter – no, I exaggerate. I was still in civilization. But I was mostly too busy running around and looking at things to pay attention to things like the New York Times magazine or comments on same, so I missed the reaction. But it is a very interesting article. I would like to think it’s a little exaggerated, a little animus-driven – but I’m not sure I can manage it. It’s all much too plausible.

    There are a lot of points worth commenting on, but I’ll just mention a couple for now.

    Some officials, elected or otherwise, with whom I have spoken with left meetings in the Oval Office concerned that the president was struggling with the demands of the job. Others focused on Bush’s substantial interpersonal gifts as a compensation for his perceived lack of broader capabilities. Still others, like Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, a Democrat, are worried about something other than his native intelligence. ”He’s plenty smart enough to do the job,” Levin said. ”It’s his lack of curiosity about complex issues which troubles me.”

    That’s not the first time I’ve heard those two observations made together. It’s not that Bush is not smart, goes the line, it’s that he’s not curious. But I think that’s an almost meaningless thing to say in this context. It’s like saying it’s not that Bush flies, it’s just that he moves through the air by flapping his wings. It’s not that Bush eats, it’s that he puts food in his mouth and chews it and swallows it. Look – if Bush is in that job and thinks he doesn’t need to be ‘curious’ about complex issues – then that’s not smart. To put it mildly. That’s all there is to it. It just is not smart to think that ignorance is okay for someone who chose to go for the job of being the most powerful single human on the planet. That observation is essentially the point of the whole article – that Bush doesn’t give a shit what the facts are or what the evidence is, because he has ‘faith’ in a supernatural being instead. He apparently shocks and scares a lot of people with the extent to which he simply does not care if the facts indicate he’s doing the wrong thing. He has instinct, he has intuition, he has faith, he prays, so who cares about facts. So – he’s not plenty smart enough to do the job, is he. Surely not. Surely that’s a pretty good description of someone who is in no sense smart enough to do the job. (Which of course is unfortunate, since he’s doing it.)

    And then there’s the famous bit about ‘reality-based’ people and then the other kind.

    I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House’s displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn’t fully comprehend — but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency. The aide said that guys like me were ”in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who ”believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ”That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. ”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

    Well…who knows, maybe there’s no need to take that too seriously. Maybe the aide was just yanking Suskind’s chain, or flattering himself, or both those plus having a laugh. But then again…

    And of course again it’s so stupid. If he does mean it, it’s so stupid. What can he think he means, ‘we create our own reality’? Of course they create some reality, that’s obvious enough. They change the tax code, they invade Iraq, they appoint Supreme Court justices and other judges. They make things happen. But since when does that equate to creating ‘reality’? Hey, guess what, aide, reality’s a big thing, there’s a lot of it out there, and a fair bit of it is actually created by people other than you and your team. However powerful you all are, and you are plenty powerful, nobody denies it, you aren’t in a position to create reality full stop. You are of course in a position to influence the way other people create some more pieces of reality – which is one big reason it would be advisable for you to do it with plenty of respect for things like facts and evidence and careful thought, as opposed to stupid shortcuts like prayer and ‘faith’ and ‘instinct’ and brainless certainty. Shortcuts to nowhere, those are – if not worse. As a Bush fan hinted to Suskind:

    A regent I spoke to later and who asked not to be identified told me: ”I’m happy he’s certain of victory and that he’s ready to burst forth into his second term, but it all makes me a little nervous. There are a lot of big things that he’s planning to do domestically, and who knows what countries we might invade or what might happen in Iraq. But when it gets complex, he seems to turn to prayer or God rather than digging in and thinking things through. What’s that line? — the devil’s in the details. If you don’t go after that devil, he’ll come after you.”

    Yeah, and the rest of us, too.

  • Guardian Readers on Livingstone and Qaradawi

    Why does mayor meet Qaradawi but not liberal Muslims and victims of Islamist repression and dictatorship?

  • Philosophy as Therapy via Thought-Clarification

    Tim LeBon cites the Symposium and Stoicism.

  • Many Xmas Humour Books Are Crap

    But some aren’t. Independent fails to mention obvious exception.

  • Best Literary Lives

    Aubrey, Johnson, Gaskell, Malcolm. Add Boswell, Lewes, Holmes.

  • Hitchens on the Pornography of Power

    Kissinger told Guzzetti not to slow down the rate of kidnappings and murders but to speed it up.

  • Items

    Lotta proofreading done today. So I’ll give myself a little dessert, and link to a few miscellaneous items I’ve been meaning to link to for a week or so.

    There is Julian in the Guardian on ‘dating’ for instance. It’s funny, I’m an American, but I’ve always hated that word. It just sounds like such a silly, stilted, unreal, arbitrary activity – ‘dating’.

    Although I find US-bashing a tiresome game, I do object to one lamentable feature of the American way of life that has insidiously infected our indigenous culture: dating. When I grew up, no one talked about dating, let alone did it. You “went out” with someone or, if you wanted to be cool, were “seeing” someone. But it is not the word I object to. It’s the ethos.

    Yeah. I object to the word too though. I think the word is probably part of the ethos. It seems to turn interactions between potential lovers into something bizarre, formalized, unlike more ordinary (or as one might say, ‘quotidian’) interactions between friends, colleagues, acquaintances, people on the bus and in the shops.

    Then there are a few more of Julian’s columns – one on the use of making mistakes and one on the difference between Aristotle and self-help. And one on speech as act and the implications of speech-acts for freedom of speech. It’s relevant to what we’ve been discussing lately about Theo van Gogh and Rohan Jayasekera.

    And speaking of that discussion, there is a post about Jayasekera and his article at Index on Censorship (not to mention his position at same) on Harry’s Place by Juan Golblado, a reader of ours who commented on the subject here too. There is a lot worth reading at Harry’s Place right now. Well there always is – and especially at the moment I want to point to a number of particular items. Maybe I will just mention one or two. There’s a brief but sharp comment on Livingstone and Qaradawi. There’s an amusing dissent from Johann Hari’s defense of Chavs. There’s a post by Harry on Jayasekera’s reply to his critics. And there’s a post on a book I read and recommended here a year or so ago, Jonathan Rose’s The Intellectual Life of the British Working Classes.

    Hmm. That’s only some of the things I wanted to link to. Well – more later. There are still about forty pages left…

  • Wormy

    It was a worm, that’s what. A damn worm. That’s why B&W has been a little quiet for the past few days, and why I wrote a despairing valedictory N&C on Saturday which I later replaced with an incomprehensible one – it’s because I spent three days wrestling with the worm Orobouros. Only I didn’t know that was what I was wrestling with. But my invaluable colleague was able to figure it out and find out how to fix it, so now B&W will be normally noisy again. After today. I have a lot of proofreading to do today (but I may make noise anyway by way of recreation), and then after that – well I have a lot of other work, to be sure, but I’ll make noise anyway, because I always do.

  • Political Islam vs. Secularism

    ‘Islam against Islam’ is an interesting topic. The irony of a believer criticising the beliefs is provocative. I am not a Moslem; I am an atheist. However, I have lived Islam; I have firsthand experience of Islam. I was born within a religious conflict: a religious mother and an atheist father. From childhood, I began to see the flaws, the restrictions, the misogyny, the backwardness, the dogma, the superstition, and uncritical nature of Islam vis-à-vis the enlightenment, the freethinking spirit of atheist thinking.

    I became an atheist at the age of 12.

    The establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran after a failed revolution laid bare many other appalling and cruel dimensions of Islam, which we later came to label political Islam. It was not only dogma or superstition anymore. It was torture, summary executions, stonings, amputations, and the rape of 9-year-olds in the name of marriage. Another face of Islam? Perhaps. But a real one. Millions in Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Nigeria, and Iraq are experiencing this true face of Islam daily.

    With the coming to power of the Islamic Republic in Iran, we began to witness a revival of the Islamic movement as a political movement, i.e. the emergence of political Islam. I prefer not to talk about this movement as fundamentalism, but rather political Islam. We are talking here about a contemporary political movement which refers to Islam as its ideological framework and vision. It is not necessarily a doctrinaire and scholastic movement, but it embodies different and varied trends of Islamic tendencies. It is a political movement seeking hegemony and a share of power in the Middle East, North Africa and in Islamist communities. This movement embodies Islamists who hypocritically defend freedom of clothing, so as to oppose the banning of veils in schools and for under-aged girls in their fight against the secularisation of society in the West, and those in Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq and Algeria who throw acid at unveiled women, slash them with knives and razors, and who flog them for not observing veiling. They are part and parcel of one movement. This movement is a threat to humankind. It is a movement, against which all freedom loving, equality seeking human beings must take a firm and uncompromising position.

    ‘Islam against Islam’ may imply finding ways and means to reform Islam, to resort to so-called more moderate interpretations of Islam. As a personal, private belief this may be possible, but as a political movement it is not. The movement which has terrorised the world, we are experiencing today, and which we have become firsthand victims of, is incapable of reform. We are dealing with a political movement which resorts to terror as the main means of achieving power. My experience in Iran explicitly shows that the only way to deal with this movement is to relegate it into the private spheres, eradicate it from the state, education and societal sphere. To do this, we need to build a strong movement both in the region and worldwide.

    In my opinion, there are a number of points which can be the basis for an international united front against political Islam in order to make the world a better, more humane and safer place.

    Defence of secularisation and de-religionisation of society is one of them. This banner has historically proven successful in the fight against the church and now against the gains of political Islam. The voice for secularism has become loud and clear in Iran. There is a strong movement for the secularisation of society in a country under the siege of political Islam for 25 years. We should unequivocally raise this banner in the West and in the East. We should recreate the spirit of the 18th century, the enlightenment, and the French Revolution, in a contemporary manner.

    The fight for universality of human rights and women’s rights is another important cause. In the past two decades the Islamists were largely aided by the proponents of cultural relativism. By defending this racist concept, the Western academia, media and governments turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed by this misogynist and reactionary movement, not only in the so-called “Moslem world”, but in Islamic communities in the West. Apparently, according to this concept, there are some rights that are suitable for Western women and not appropriate for women like me, who are born in the other part of the world.

    The veil, sexual apartheid, and second class citizenship were justified by reverting to this arbitrary concept of “their culture”. A violation that felt appalling if committed against a Western woman, was a justifiable action committed against a woman born under Islam. This double standard, this sheer violation of humane principles must be stopped. I must admit that it has been pushed back a great deal. We have fought hard against it for more than one decade.

    Defence of children’s rights is another fight which must be extended to areas where so-called religious beliefs are concerned. The veiling of under-aged girls must be banned, not only in schools, but altogether. The veiling of children is a clear violation of their universal rights. Just as we fight for obligatory education for children, abolition of child labour, banning of corporal punishment, we should fight for the banning of veiling of under-aged girls. This has the same significance as other basic children’s rights. The veil deprives a child from a happy normal life, and healthy physical and mental development; it brands their life as different by segregating them. It defines two sets of gender roles and imposes it upon children who have no way of protecting themselves and demanding equality and freedom. Children have no religion; they are only by accident born into a religious family. Society has a duty to protect them and uphold their rights as equal human beings.

    Abolition of religious schools is another important arena. This is also an important principle of a secular state, and for the protection of children’s rights. Children must be free from official religious teachings and dogmas. Religion’s hands must be eradicated from children’s lives. The new legislation in France regarding banning of conspicuous religious symbols in public schools and institutions, is an important step but insufficient. In order to safeguard children’s rights, religious schools must be abolished. Otherwise, we create religious ghettos, segregate children living in religious families from the society, and condemn them to a life in isolation. The new legislation is the easiest way out for the state. But we cannot remain indifferent to these children’s lives. The society and the state have the duty to protect their rights. They should be allowed to integrate in the society, to go to school like any other child, and to be free from the meddling of religion in their lives, at least until they are still children.

    The recognition of the right to unconditional freedom of expression and criticism is one of the important pillars of a free society and free thinking. The right to criticise Islam is another important means of fighting religious dominance in society. We need to and must criticise Islam relentlessly, without the fear of being beheaded in countries under the siege of Islam, or of being called racist in the West. Islamophobia is a new term created by Islamists or their apologists in order to stop a growing critical movement against Islam and Islamic movements. This is as hypocritical as it is regressive.

    I call upon all of you here to recognise the importance and the urgency of demanding secularisation and the de-religionisation of the state and society, unconditional freedom of expression and criticism, recognition of women’s equality and the universality of their rights, the banning of child veiling, and the abolition of religious schools. In order to build a better, safer, freer and a more egalitarian world, we must unequivocally raise this banner.

    The above is a speech made by Azar Majedi in a Paris conference entitled ‘Islam against Islam’ on 30 October 2004. Azar Majedi is the head of the Organisation for Women’s Liberation.

  • Race, Class, Culture, and Education

    How factors combine and then reinforce each other.

  • Iris Chang

    Her book outraged Japanese conservatives. Because?

  • Making No Sense in Defense of Nonsense

    Lacking empirical fact and logic, creationism uses political approaches to winning arguments.

  • James Trefil Reviews Richard Dawkins

    Great stuff – intriguingly written, honest about controversies, clear about the science.

  • Colin Powell Resigns

    Lone moderate in US administration some see as hawkish and unilateralist.

  • Iris Chang Commits Suicide

    Author of The Rape of Nanking created awareness and controversy.