Doing our part

            In her Christmas message, Queen Elizabeth spoke of the importance of service to others, of reaching out beyond our familiar relations and putting the common good before our own personal interests. Her discussion of duty arose in the context of the volunteers for the Olympic Games (oh, sorry, make that “London 2012”), the fire, police and hospital servicepeople, and the military folk, all of whom give up great swaths of their time in the name of something larger than themselves.

            Relating this issue to the story of Christmas, our monarch reminded us that Jesus was sent to earth to serve, not to be served; greater than to receive a gift is to give one. (For those wondering why the Queen of Canada would speak of Jesus, remember that she is the head of the Church of England.) She specifically cited the last few verses of the Christmas carol “In the Bleak Midwinter”: “What can I give him, poor as I am? If I were a shepherd, I would bring him a lamb. If I were a wise man, I would do my part. Yet what I can, I give: my heart.”

            The verse about wise men struck a particular chord with me. Where are our wise people; what are they doing; and how are they benefitting the community? They are supposed to be doing “their part,” but they seem so invisible, so what part is that? Over the past few weeks, I’ve been reading Roch Carrier’s Le Rocket, in which Carrier explains how Maurice Richard sparked a sense of hope in French Canadians, and how Quebec society began to change during his days with the Canadiens de Montréal. A fascinating aspect of that book is the occasional appearances of some important and impressive political figures: when recounting the strikes in mining towns in Quebec, the young Pierre Trudeau, then a journalist, arrives on the scene to document the events. Later, Trudeau founds Cité Libre, a political journal that was very critical of Dupplessis’ politics. That journal was co-founded with René Lévesques. And near the end, Carrier himself writes personally to the editor of Le Devoir: Pierre Laporte. Charles Taylor, Canada’s most famous philosopher, ran for federal office in 1965, and lost to Pierre Trudeau. These were all very well educated people.

            The wise men of the day contributed to public life all those decades ago. But where are they now? In what riding do I get to choose between intellectual titans, each of whom I would be thrilled to have represent me on Parliament Hill? Sadly, they are all too few, and more often than not we elect one candidate simply because the others are even worse. Political discourse is the same humdrum of empty promises. We’re all very concerned about how much F-35s will cost, but our politicians never seem to address the issue of whether a greater military strength is the direction we want to take as a country. Is that really the Canada we want to build for the future?

            The public sphere needs its intellectuals to take a more active role in contributing to our society, because public discourse about values and about direction for our society is pitifully superficial, when it takes place at all. That is not to say that we should turn over such discussions to the high-priced help, tossing the discussions to the intellectuals and butting out: what we need is inclusive public discourse that doesn’t fall back into obscure jargon and technical terms, which most people neither understand nor care about (and rightfully so).

            Our society invests in its intellectuals through the public funding of higher education, though there’s less and less of that funding with each day, as this province knows only too well after the events of this past year. We say a lot about what’s a fair share for students to pay to supplement the public investment in education, but when do we ever talk about what the society gets for the money it puts in? It’s important for intellectuals to offer a return on that investment. It’s a matter of duty.

Foxy news item

It's been far too long since I've updated my blog, and now that I've got a bit of a break from my semester's duties, I'm taking the opportunity to get back to it. Feels strange to be typing away here, like a once-familiar project from long ago that one no longer does completely comfortably. What better way to get back into the swing of things than by taking potshots at some low-hanging fruit: FoxNews? In their self-styled "Fair & Balanced" way, Fox published an article about a week ago about the gender wars, and specifically the war on men in contemporary society. (I'm sure that all of you out there are shocked to learn that Fox would publish anything so culturally conservative, but you'll just have to take my word on this one, and you can read the article if you really need proof that it's true.) The argument in that article is interesting, and I'd like to explore some of the issues that Suzanne Venker glosses over with her broad brush strokes. First what's her argument?

The piece was motivated by some new stats that suggest that the importance of marriage is growing among women while declining among men. Why is this a problem? Because women want to get married, but aren't finding mates that live up to their expectations. There's a "dearth of marriageable men." The culprit: feminism, naturally. For the first time in US history, women outnumber men in the workforce, and in the university classroom (though not in the boardroom, university or otherwise). Gender politics have been shaken up mightily by this shift in the balance of education and employment. And some men don't like it: "Women aren't women anymore," they proclaim.

Women carried out a sexual revolution (and continue to do so, I'll claim), whereas men had no need for such a thing, and have therefore remained mostly the same as they ever were. And men don't like the New Women that this revolution has produced. These women are angry and defensive, says Venger, and men find that unattractive. Men have been demonized as the hated oppressors, and feel that they've had enough of all that, tired of being constantly painted as the bad guy, as the enemy, as the culprit for any and all unpleasantness in gender politics. Men are not threatened by women, they're just pissed off and don't want to deal with it. They'd rather go it alone. Men want to love women, not compete with them. Their nature is to provide for their families, picking up the extra slack at the office while the wife stays home with the babies, and, well, the house. "It's in their DNA." And the modern role of women as educated, employed individuals threatens that conception, so naturally men resist this change that is against their nature.

Women had a reason to carry out their sexual revolution, says Venger. But now that we're in the post-sexual-revolutionary world, who's winning and who's losing from the equilibrium point at which we now find ourselves? Men have much more sexual access to women than e'er they did before, no longer needing to wait until marriage to bed their best gal. This also means that men have a much easier time walking away from a sticky situation if the contraceptive fails to counter the 'ception. Women are therefore at a greater risk of being left with children and no provider, forever striving to find some kind of balance in a life that presents them with a great number and variety of expectations on their time. Men need women for sex, and they're getting that. Women need men for protection and provision, and they're at risk of not getting that, or so the author wants to claim.

It's the sexual revolution, the change in women's temperament and in their outlook on life that has been the major cause of this situation, so if women are woe-ridden by this new reality, they need only fall back into the comfortable arms of their natural calling, and allow men to do happily do the same. So put down the briefcases, ladies, tidy away those diplomas, dust off the teddies and welcome your men home with open legs.

I must admit that coming from Fox, this kind of argumentation is hardly surprising. The picture that it paints is full of assumptions: essentially, Venger is claiming that men and women acted "according to their natures" up until about 40 years ago. Then women changed, but men didn't. And now there's a mismatch. Women stand to lose from this mismatch, whereas men don't. So if women want the situation to improve, they should feel empowered to go back to the way that things were, the natural way. She talks about the reemergence of "marriageable men," whereas one gets the distinct idea that men will actually just go on being exactly as they are (or as she claims them to be) and that women will see more men as marriageable by simply lowering the bar of expectations far enough.

So, the author assumes that men and women acted in a particular way before the sexual revolution, a way that was both static and natural. That seems a very far-fetched claim. Men and women interact in radically different ways across cultures, not to mention the fact that these dynamics between the sexes are in a perpetual state of flux. It is unwarranted to assume that "the way that men and women interacted before feminism" even refers to anything determinate. There was no such single, univocal way! It therefore could not be claimed that this univocal way was "natural." (Even if there had been such a univocal way, calling it natural would be extremely problematic. And DNA won't do the work that the author wants it to do here, because even third-rate biologists will tell you that genes are useless in the absence of environmental factors, and even a third-rate sociologist will tell you that the environmental features for humans are greatly constructed/constituted by social factors. We can't assume that DNA has a particular set of instructions that is insensitive to social factors.)

Gender politics are constantly in flux, and often favour the flexibility and freedom of men in the social realm, to the detriment of women. However, the feminist movement has made huge strides in improving that situation. Has parity been reached? No, but we're a heck of a lot closer, and the sexual revolution is not over: the dynamism of sexual politics persists.

One important reality that the author is pointing out in this article is that many men have been resistant to keep up with the times. Many men dig in their heels, and will only consider progress in sexual politics kicking and screaming, led reluctantly by the wrist, like a child (husband?) through a shopping mall. Venger claims that men have not really lost much, haven't been seriously threatened by the progress of women, and therefore can't be pressured into progress of their own. Threats aren't exactly my idea of a good motivator, though they can be effective. However, the author is wrong in claiming that men are not threatened by the sexual revolution: after all, if a central pillar of manhood is to get a job and contribute to the workforce, then they are being seriously threatened by women. The author herself claims that for the first time ever, women outnumber men in the US workforce. Sounds like a serious enough threat to me, if men are to define themselves by their jobs. Men aren't getting the jobs or the education that they used to. Having women in classrooms and shop floors means that there are fewer spots for men. (Though, of course, there are always an infinite number of jobs, right? I mean, that's why we don't need unions or any government control over market forces: there are always other options, and the market can regulate itself.) The classrooms and the shop floors are becoming more and more dominated by women, numerically speaking. The boardroom is resisting so far, but inroads are already being made there, and it's only a matter of time.

So why don't we give up this regressive rhetoric? Why not just admit that women have changed the world a lot in the last 40 years, and probably even for the better. (Men haven't played no role in that either, and I think it's important to point out that progressive men do exist, perhaps contrary to popular belief.) There's more work to be done moving forward, the dynamics of gender politics haven't been sorted out, probably not even close. But it's time for men to realize that things aren't going to, and shouldn't, go back to the way they were. And that means no longer whining that "women aren't women anymore." It means manning up and heeding the call of social progress.

Post-Philopolis ruminations, pt 2

Before jumping back into these ruminations, I just want to mention that we're looking for feedback on Philopolis Guelph 2012. So, if you attended the event a few weeks ago, please fill out this really short feedback form. We really appreciate it, and it makes a huge difference for us to have some insight into who's coming to the event, how they heard about it, and how we can make it even better.

Alright, back to the matters at hand. Last time, we were addressing the issue of what to do about things like the Danish cartoons of Muhammad and The Innocence of Muslims. What we were specifically interested in is whether we ought to allow these things, by law. In order to address that question, I was examining the role of free speech in a democratic society, its importance for rational and critical dialogue, and more specifically the joint responsibility of all parties in a dialogue to listen to the other parties without breaking off dialogue prematurely, as well as to make their point clearly without offending the other parties and thereby forcing them to break off the dialogue.

Another very good friend of mine talked about the role that power dynamics plays in this dialogue: it is one thing for a newspaper in the Islamic world to run blasphemous cartoons against  Christian laws, but quite another for a newspaper in the West to run analogous cartoons against Islamic laws. A dominant power can use free speech to sanction acts of oppression against a lesser power, whereas the converse is not the case.

Cultural critique is important; we really should be reflecting on our culture and the values that underpin it. It is also very important that we not segregate ourselves along cultural lines, and on that basis prohibit any cultural critique "from the outside." Critical reflection upon culture (including the historical narratives we construct for our cultures and ourselves) is fundamental, lest fundamentalism take hold unchecked. Freedom of speech is an important component of this: cultural critique sometimes needs to speak against the powers that be or the dominant ideology, and restrictions on free speech impede that. However, it seems to me that we can use the insights from my previous post to understand the need to restrict hate speech: as individuals participating in a common dialogue about our culture (which is all to uncommon in North America these days) we have a responsibility not to offend the sensibilities of our interlocutors to the breaking point, forcing them to abandon the dialogue.

This need to restrict hate speech is particularly acute for something like the Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad. As I discussed some months ago, these cartoons are a symbolic act of domination, as to depict God (or the Prophet) is to claim power over him, and thereby to claim the subservience of the entire culture that worships him. So the cultural critique that is being leveled here is boot-strapping: it is not a criticism of any particular facet of the culture, but instead a wholesale criticism. Furthermore, it is a criticism arising from without rather than from within. These cartoons symbolize the West's complete rejection of Islam.

Or at least they can symbolize this. Many in the West of course did not agree with the spirit expressed by these cartoons. But we must strive to make that clear. If the editor and cartoonists responsible for these cartoons are making a statement that we don't agree with, a deep-cutting and wholesale rejection of an entire religion that we feel is inappropriate, we cannot simply let their statement become a representative for the views of the West as a whole. One way to do that is to restrict free speech through legal means. If indeed we are committed to refraining from such legal limitations, that is acceptable. However, it puts the onus on us as individuals to dissociate our views from those that are being expressed.

There are important cultural criticisms to be made, both about other cultures and about our own. However, it strikes me as untrue that any culture is so distorted and warped that it is beyond repair, and these wholesale rejections suggest just such a thing to me: "Your culture is fatally damaged, and the situation can only be repaired by abandoning the culture, wiping the slate clean and starting again." It also strikes me as unfruitful to approach anyone with this sort of cultural critique. Who would listen to that sort of thing anyway?

Wholesale cultural rejection is unnecessary, it's unhelpful, and in the case of the criticism originating from a dominant power and being leveled against a lesser power, it is oppressive. Should we allow such criticisms under our laws of free speech? If we had a reasonable prospect of such critiques being widely disowned by members of the dominant culture, of these critiques not being allowed to speak for our culture as a whole, I'd say that we should allow them under the law. However, that would require a much more prevalent practice of cultural dialogue than is currently the case in North America, and so I feel that leaving these statements legally unchecked is dangerous. If freedom of speech is indeed so important to us, then we must make more of an effort to speak. To leave speech unchecked, either by legal means or by means of dissociation in the public sphere, leaves open the possibility that some would act as representatives of our culture as a whole, and do so irresponsibly.

Post-Philopolis ruminations, pt 1

Hi all, this post is long overdue. Things in my neck of the woods have been hectic (to say the least) for the last few weeks, and I've missed sitting down to get my thoughts out there on the wire. It feels good to get back to it, and I hope that this time between posts has renewed your enthusiasm as readers as much as it's renewed mine as a writer. Let's get to it.

Almost two weeks ago now, some of my Guelph cohort and I ran the second Philopolis Guelph philosophy festival, at which over 20 activities were offered. One of the presentations that I attended, about politics, had a strange atmosphere about it, and it soon became clear that the presenter had quite a strange political view indeed. In order to avoid out-Heroding Herod, I shan't get into the details of what was said, but the outcome was that someone was so offended that she walked out of the presentation. The presenter was disappointed, but also extremely surprised. He shouldn't have been. His hypothesis was indeed very offensive, even to me. However, I felt it a better move to stay and talk to him than to abandon the situation.

After arguing quite conclusively that his hypothesis was drastically thin on substance (I really rolled up my sleeves on that one and didn't let him off the hook), I started to talk to him about understanding one another as a joint responsibility. He was shocked and disappointed that the lady had walked out of his presentation before he had had a chance to make his point more fully, or defend it appropriately (which ultimately he was unable to do anyway). I stressed that while she definitely does have a responsibility to stay and listen, to allow him to make his point, he also has a responsibility not to be so abrasive and offensive that she feels that walking away is the only course of action left open to her. The listener has a responsibility to try to understand the speaker's point, and to understand it in the most charitable manner possible before taking issue with specific issues; but the speaker has a responsibility to respect the listener and not make the process of understanding unduly difficult, specifically in this instance a responsibility to present ideas in a non-offensive way (though in this case that likely wasn't possible).

It was an interesting discussion, and arguing that understanding through dialogue is a joint responsibility allowed me to keep him from relinquishing any responsibility for his actions. I hope that he took seriously what we talked about. (And as a good philosopher, I suggested some things that he might find helpful to read in this context: it was Charles Taylor, for those keeping score at home.)

This whole discussion came back several hours later when I gave my own talk. My talk was about Cassirer's phenomenology of myth and how we can use it to understand the Islamic injunction against iconographic depictions of the sacred. (As regular readers of this blog know, I've already written a piece about that, and I'd like to once again express my gratitude to those whose insightful comments helped to considerably enrich my Philopolis talk.) One of the important lines of discussion that followed after my talk was about freedom of speech: should blasphemy be allowed, and more specifically, should we accept blasphemy when it comes from outside the culture, when the one contradicting sacred rules is not a believer in those rules? A good friend of mine suggested that freedom of speech is an important mark and pillar of a healthy democracy, which sounded right to me. However, I pointed out, Canada seems a healthy enough democracy to me (at least, pre-Harperland), and we have laws that restrict free speech, specifically outlawing hate speech.

Rational and critical dialogue among citizens is indeed an important part of democracy, and freedom of speech guarantees that we all have access to that dialogue (though, of course, some have far greater access than others, but let's put that massively important issue aside for now). However, as I mentioned in the first part of this post, we have a responsibility as parties to a dialogue to protect the integrity of that dialogue, to neither abandon it prematurely nor offend our interlocutor(s) so much as to force them to abandon it. In this sense, I see anti-hate speech laws not as impediments to free speech, but rather as complements to it, because they serve to legally underpin the need to refrain from premature offense. If free speech is instrumental to the intrinsic good of rational and critical dialogue, then anti-hate speech laws are instrumental to that same good.

So what do we say about the Danish cartoons, and movies like The Innocence of Muslims, that clearly controvert the religious laws of Islam? Should we allow this kind of criticism of Islamic culture? That will have to wait for next time.