Having had my arguments dismissed by Mr. Elberg (Wespeak 4/18/06) as “absurd,” “racist,” “misguided,” and having “no moral authority,” it seems unlikely that we will be engaging in the Socratic dialogue that is supposed to lie at the heart of the liberal arts enterprise. Nevertheless, for the purposes of clarification, I offer here my closing contribution.
In my previous Wespeak (4/14/06), I described the riots as “reprehensible,” “indefensible,” and “a shrewdly manipulated riposte.” I am deeply disgusted by the riots, but I do still believe we would be well-served if we were to try “to understand, but not excuse”— “to empathize with the offended, even while condemning the offensiveness of the rioters’ actions.” My proposal does not justify any “campaign of using violence to quash criticism of Islam” or condone the inadequacies in internal criticism within Islam.
Just as there are those who share the anger but deplore the violent actions of groups such as ETA, IRA and LTTE, the same is true in these particular circumstances. One does not “lend legitimacy” to the illegitimate actions of rioters by seeking to identify the rioters’ underlying sentiments. In fact, those sentiments are already considered to reflect legitimate grievances by many who did not—and would not—riot. Failing to appreciate such sentiments does not invalidate their perceived legitimacy.
I did not earlier, and do not now, offer any excuse for, nor endorsement of, the narrow-minded inhumanity of religious fundamentalism (Islamic or otherwise), the failings of the “Muslim media” (sic), the stunted space for dissent in many Muslim communities, the repressive tactics of the tyrannical regimes that rule several Muslim countries, or the sadistic bloodshed visited upon civilian populations by terrorists who claim to represent Islam. Lest my previous silence on these matters be taken as consent and approval, please accept at present my straightforward and intense condemnation and grief with regard to all of the aforementioned tragedies.
My contention is two-fold, and it is not complicated. Firstly, whatever it means in theory, in practice “free speech”—or, at least, free speech geared toward the creation and maintenance of a productive and participatory democratic space, local or global—cannot mean speech free of some modicum of responsibility and respect. Secondly, in order to achieve the requisite understanding to speak responsibly and respectfully, one must seek to understand the sentiments of others. As for “Western values of tolerance and free expression,” these values are neither particularly Western nor wholly compatible. On the latter point, it is the very fact that these values are in constant tension that requires us, at times, to show sensitivity to others’ sensibilities by electing to temper and circumscribe our free speech rights. Mr. Elberg takes tolerance to mean that everyone must tolerate anything in any circumstances, whereas to me tolerance suggests cross-cultural acumen and respect.
In any communal context, free speech must have de facto restraints and bounds. Free speech may be an intellectual and legal absolute, but it neither can nor should ever be absolute when enacted in social life. We rightly feel apprehensive about, and have proscriptions against, certain uses of the n-word and cross-burning. It is self-evident to anyone with a hint of compassion that it is inappropriate and unacceptable for Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church to show up, with signs reading “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” at the funerals of fallen soldiers.
While writing high-mindedly about tolerance, Mr. Elberg is loath to tolerate the simple Muslim prohibition against depictions of their Prophet. Personally, I was raised in a Hindu household, so the interdiction against idolatry in Islam has little resonance for me, but why would I willfully defame others?
What purpose did it serve for European newspapers to mock and bully and goad members of a socio-economically marginalized group? If it was to prove a point, then I must confess that the point eludes me. The fact that rioters subsequently engaged in vile acts of intimidation does not detract from the fact that the choice to publish the cartoons was itself an obstinate act of intimidation. That decision was unnecessary and unproductive, and it constitutes both irresponsible speech and unprofessional journalism.
I believe we must be willing to empathize and compromise if we are to achieve social progress. This may be anathema to Mr. Elberg, whose aggressive discursive style seems modeled upon the vitriolic animus of Bill O’Reilly, but it is essential for peaceful coexistence.
Note to Mr. Elberg: A little empathy will not diminish your manhood; it has not diminished mine.
Leave a Reply