An Imaginary Compromise

Over at B&W, Ophelia makes the following point re Shirley Williams’ dismal performance on Question Time and what appear to have been her underlying assumptions:

“What people apparently do with these ‘offended’ claims is reverse engineer: they reason backwards: they look at the magnitude of the ‘offence’ and then assign guilt accordingly - but that's wrong. If that rule held no one would ever criticize or dispute or tease anything because of the risk of ‘offence’ out of all proportion to the intent and to the harm done. Instead what people should be doing is coldly examining the merit of the putative grievance, independent of the quantity of fuss made.”

Indeed. What was curiously missing from Williams’ calculation was whether one party is remotely entitled to such rage, or to anything at all, and whether riots, death threats and howls of indignation are a legitimate response to a novel that hasn’t been read or the knighting of its author. To question the proportion of the affront being claimed, the honesty of the claim, and the assumptions on which that claim is based would risk undermining the premise of this particular manoeuvre.

Williams was, it seems, trying to appear “even-handed” while actually being craven and rather stupid. By which I mean she seems to have imagined that between these two positions there must be some admirable middle point that it must be “fair” to champion. So if you have screaming, tantrums and demented theocrats on the one hand and a rational British novelist on the other, both must be “extremes”, and thus the “even-handed” thing to do is to “compromise” and support some position roughly halfway in between, irrespective of what that position actually entails. Hence Williams’ ramblings about “Muslims” being offended “in a very powerful way” and Rushdie’s knighthood being a “mistake”, “badly timed”, etc. The actual moral issue – of whether umbrage, violence and the threats thereof are justified or opportunist, or even sane – was not a discernible part of Williams’ calculation.

As the audience applause for Williams demonstrated, this is a remarkably common assumption – that the most “fair” and “even-handed” position is halfway between calm argument and homicidal thuggery, or halfway between intellectual freedom and a visceral fear of speaking. Well, that would leave us somewhere near the absurd dissembler, Lord Ahmed, who equated Rushdie’s knighthood with rewarding terrorism. This is the moral calculus favoured at various times by Karen Armstrong and Tariq Ramadan, both of whom “balanced” real intimidation, aggression and murder on the one hand with “tyrannical” free speech and “aggressive” cartoons, published “aggressively”, on the other. By this contorted reckoning, the “compromise” solution is to avoid publishing “aggressive” cartoons, or novels, or films, or plays, etc. And, by implication, to avoid stating inconvenient facts or honouring those who happen to point them out.

And thus the engine of human progress, the testing of ideas – and of bad ideas in particular – grinds to a halt. All in the name of “fairness” and being “even-handed.”

Comments

[AntiCitizenOne]

The problem is worse in that always favouring a middle compromise encourages more extreme behaviours.

I think this is linked to the rise of women voting. The tendency to fear disagreement and crave group consensus above the best decision might be the death of western society.

[Cambias]

So she favors letting them cut Rushdie's head halfway off?

[Ophelia Benson]

[picking self up from floor]

That's one of the best lines of the week.

[TDK]

I think this is linked to the rise of women voting.

Interesting idea.

We have certainly moved to an era when emotionalism is valued as much as if not more than rationalism. How you feel is valued highly - how you behave less so.

I wouldn't blame woman for this though so much as feminist-separatism+moral-relativism. A bit harsh to claim that woman have a monopoly on stupid ideas.

[AntiCitizenOne]

TDK,

I didn't claim that.

[georges]

The question was "is the knighthood for Salman Rushdie an insult to Muslims worldwide?". Only Christopher Hitchens addressed that question directly, pointing out that Tariq Ramadan had said it was purely a matter for the British who they give awards to, and that the Pakistan protests are primarily about domestic quarrels in that country. Hitchens also gave a list of Arab and Middle Eastern writers who have supported Rushdie. So the only possible correct answer to the question asked was "no".

It's interesting that Al Queda blowing up 1000-year-old Shia mosques in Iraq is apparently NOT "an insult to Muslims worldwide".

If Buddhists can respond peacefully and calmly to the Taliban blowing up the Bamiyan Buddhas - an insult to Buddhism, and intended to be understood as such - can't Muslims learn to take a calmer attitude to people who write novels they haven't bothered to read?

[David]

AntiCitizenOne,

“The problem is worse in that always favouring a middle compromise encourages more extreme behaviours.”

Well, yes. I suppose this whole mindset, of which Williams is just one recent example, has an obvious analogy. If the school bully comes and demands your lunch money it’s not a good idea to hand it over in the hope he won’t come calling again. It’s not “sensitive” or principled or high-minded; it just invites further demands from ideologues and thugs who recognise weakness when it smiles at them, sheepishly.

[Brendan_2]

Via B&W as well. Very funny!

http://newphysicstest.notlong.com/

[AntiCitizenOne]

Brendan_2

Can something be very funny , yet very depressing at the same time?