On Those Cartoons

[Annie]

Perhaps the best commentary I've seen on this kerfuffle, the broohaha of which may well have been the catalyst for the attack on the golden mosque:


http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/19907/

I'll give the beginning, that follows the Bennett/Dershowitz essay today:

...[my emphases]

Note again the initial bolded passage, which was first brought to my attention by Allah, who sent along the link:

The Boston Globe, speaking for many other outlets, editorialized: “[N]ewspapers ought to refrain from publishing offensive caricatures of Mohammed in the name of the ultimate Enlightenment value: tolerance."

Quips Allah:

The ultimate Enlightenment value is tolerance? I thought it was, er, knowledge. Free inquiry. With a dash of secularism. Which would seem to point in favor of publication of the cartoons.

Or am I being intolerant again?

Well let’s give the Globe the benefit of the doubt for a moment and suggest that by “tolerance” they meant something along the lines of “a freedom to hold an array of opinions or positions, one of which includes the kind of religious conviction that makes it an heretical sin to forge images of the Prophet Mohammed [itself a dubious assertion, even from an overall Islamic standpoint]” Then could we agree with the Globe and its brethren that refraining from publishing the cartoons a decision the represented, as they seem to want to self-importantly suggest, the epitome of Englightenment consideration?

Of course not. Because nothing in that (rather strained) definition suggests that the freedom for others to hold a particular position dictates that the rest of us must avert our eyes and ears at their command. In fact, the only philosophical explanation for the Globe, et al’s actions is that it has redefined Enlightenment by way of that term’s (now pedestrian) deconstruction, and having done so, it has somehow managed to then shoehorn it into multiculturalist / Orientalist creed preached as gospel by Humanities departments for the last quarter century—namely, that the only persons fit to criticize or “offend” the Other is some “authentic” member of that group.

The layers of irony here are almost too thick to hack through with my dull wit, but I’ll give it go nonetheless. Because what is being advocated for here in the name of Enlightenment is so pernicious to classical western liberalism and its attendant elevation of the individual that it needs repeating again and again: when we surrender (to borrow the Bennett/Dershowitz characterization) those things—freedom of expression, freedom of religion, a truly free press—that set our philosophical system apart from other systems that have shown themselves amenable to manipulation by interested groups who will themselves to power on the shoulders of a muscular sophistry that guards the structural heart of collectivist philosophies (here, defined as those that privilege the rights of the “group” over the rights of the individual), we surrender, albeit not always consciously, our capacity to defend ourselves and our way of life.

And nothing makes that more clear than this frankly stunning admission by the Globe and its major media allies that tolerance is the “ultimate Englightenment value,” especially when “tolerance” has clearly become, to the press’ way of thinking (and this thinking now permeates the academy and has insinuated itself into vast swatches of public policy), an unwillingness to offend those whom they believe they have no right, as cultural outsiders, to offend.

Can this really be? Is Edward Said the new Alexander Hamilton?

Citing a piece by Eric Raymond the other day that notes the use of memetic warfare by the Soviets meant to weaken western liberalism and prepare the ground for collectivist thought, I noted that such memes have simply been adopted by different interest groups (in various guises), and that they have, in fact, managed to weaken classical liberal values through a political culture presuming itself to be “progressivist,” though in many important ways it is regressive, especially from the perspective of individual liberty: today, for instance, our universities celebrate diversity of color (a group trait) over diversity of thought (which is oftentime treated as heretical). Women’s groups fight for Title IX, a bit of social engineering that is based around the idea of proportional (group-based) representation. The Supreme Court upholds bits of race-based affirmative action—a social policy clearly at various with the Constitution, yet one that is protected by the social mores of a few activist judges who believe they are acting for the greater good. And on and on.

The point being that identity politics has provided advocacy groups not only with the ability to define their own interests and then to insist on their collective rights to those interests at the (legal) expense, oftentimes, of the very foundational principles of individualism—but that it has further allowed those groups to create litmus tests for “authenticity,” which lead directly to the absurd notion that one can be a race traitor or an anti-women woman simply for not accepting the official narrative of the group.

This process, it should be clear, is simply a domestic variant of Said’s multiculturalism—evident in the press’ thinking behind its refusal to run the Mohammed cartoons—with the “Otherness” Said made off limits to our critical faculties no longer relegated to the exotic; instead, it is now being extended to those deemed “inauthentic” or “hostile” to a particular self-defined and self-regulating identity group here at home.

Today, citing “tolerance” as the ultimate Enlightenment value, our press is able to justify what amounts to (self) censorship. Fear of offending the Other is paramount, because the western press has no “right” to inflame those to whom they must defer on matters of their own culture...

 

[Gunny]

Nothing like some objectivity and common sense. I'm sure the death threats will follow.