I am no fan of Johnson. I have my doubts about his merits as a politician. I have no loyalty to him and I have no doubt that many of his motives in the matter discussed here may well be Machiavellian in nature. On a related note, I share the concern of many about the reactionary growth of the far right across Europe and in this country. I regard it as an unsophisticated and emotional reaction to the pervasiveness of far left intersectional ideology. However, I rather think that common errors in comprehension regarding Johnson's article are being made across the board, and I am startled by the level of 'virtuous' outrage which seems to have blinded many to an objective appraisal of what was and was not said. In what follows I am not necessarily defending the criticism made by Boris Johnson in the article to which I presently refer. Instead, by way of addressing asertions and excalmations I have commonly read in the media and social media, I intend to make the case that it was a criticism of an idea put forward into the public discourse, and no more.
Boris Johnson's original article:
"What he said was racist!"
No race was discussed in the article. End of analysis.
"What he said was IsIamaphobìc!"
IsIamaphobìa is a word with dubious propagandist roots that conflates anti-Muslìm bigotry with criticism in order to label the arguer as part of an heretical out-group to be opposed.
"What he said was dehumanising / prejudice!"
All ideas are open to criticism in a liberal society, and criticism can be met with a counter argument. Matthew d'Ancona in this article https://goo.gl/Xujz9N for The Guardian leads with a hyperbolic false equivalence fallacy (Johnson was not discussing immigration or race, and there is no prejudice in Johnson's text as I will discuss). In the text d'Ancona makes a claim I've commonly heard elsewhere, that by making the criticism (albeit using mockery) that a practice is dehumanising, somehow the dehumanising property of that which the arguer criticises becomes a property of the arguer themself. Its like responding to a criticism like:
'The Beatles song "Yellow Submarine" is a silly song that demeans Beatles fans by treating them like children.'
with
'How dare you demean Beatles fans, you are a horrible person!'
Its a bizarre ad hominem fallacy that pivots the narrative onto an attempt to assassinate the character of the arguer:
'The Beatles song "Yellow Submarine" is a silly song that demeans Beatles fans by treating them like children.'
with
'How dare you demean Beatles fans, you are a horrible person!'
Its a bizarre ad hominem fallacy that pivots the narrative onto an attempt to assassinate the character of the arguer:
d'Ancona:
'In this case, Johnson’s “authenticity” resides in his signal that is acceptable to use demeaning, dehumanising language about Muslim women in religious clothing.'
The judgement was not of Muslim women in religious clothing.
The judgement was of the religious clothing that some Muslim women wear.
Allow me to clarify by venturing into the field of English comprehension.
The sentence in Johnson's article that arguably has caused the most outrage is:
"it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes"
What is being judged in this sentence? A group identity? Or a choice of wear (which is an idea)?
To make it easier to see, I'll reduce the construction of this sentence while retaining the meaning of the sentence
( 'to do X' equates to 'to go around looking like letter boxes').. so:
It is ridiculous that people should choose to do X.
It is ridiculous... [ A negative judgement... ]
...that people should choose to do X [ ...of a choice that individuals make. ]
As crass as Johnson's own choice of words for 'to do X' may have been, a negative judgement of a choice that individuals make is categorically a criticism (of undetermined validity) of an idea. In order to express prejudice would require a differently constructed sentence or an entirely different sentence that would be a judgement of all the individuals of a group before judging the individuals. Arguably crude or couched in a questionable tone, Johnson's sentence is a criticism of an idea.
Criticism of ideas is absolutely distinct from judgement based on identity group. It is a core liberal principle that the freedom to criticise ideas by whatever means (including mockery) is necessary for a civilisation to be as free as possible from tyrannical tendencies. Prejudice on the other hand is definitively illiberal and tyrannical. No doubt aided by the provocative choice of mocking words, the ease of comprehending Johnson's sentence improperly allows the reader to bring their own biases to their interpretation. Some may argue that this was deliberate on Johnson's part. That can't be ruled out. However, we cannot know Johnson's mind, so such speculations are unfalsifiable, unproven and have no utility for the matter at hand. In the final analysis the sentence is objectively a criticism of an idea.
All the other sentences in his piece that use mockery and ridicule also fall under the category of criticism of the choice of wear (which is an idea) made by some individuals.
"What he said was offensive!"
As crude as his comments may have been, nowhere did Johnson collectively judge a group of individuals based on a group characteristic; he is criticising an ideologically driven choice of wear. You may disagree with his criticism. Fine. For whatever reason or motives, his criticism was delivered in the form of mockery and may be offensive to some. It is your right to be offended. 'I'm offended!', OK noted. That's where that conversation ends. No damage is done if you are offended. Offence doesn't entitle you to anything, let alone an insistence that you are correct.
As crude as his comments may have been, nowhere did Johnson collectively judge a group of individuals based on a group characteristic; he is criticising an ideologically driven choice of wear. You may disagree with his criticism. Fine. For whatever reason or motives, his criticism was delivered in the form of mockery and may be offensive to some. It is your right to be offended. 'I'm offended!', OK noted. That's where that conversation ends. No damage is done if you are offended. Offence doesn't entitle you to anything, let alone an insistence that you are correct.
"What he said was just another man telling women what to wear!"
This is a combination of:
(i) a Bulverism fallacy, specifically an appeal to identity typical of identity politics, and
(ii) a straw man fallacy;
(ii) If the appeal to identity is removed from the sentence, the criticism becomes "What he said was just someone telling women what to wear!" which is a straw man fallacy; it argues against an argument that was not made. Johnson is not arguing to ban the Burka, thus there is no argument to compel women's behaviour to argue against. Contrarily, the theme of Johnson's article was an argument against the banning of the Burka; The headline of his article is 'Denmark has got it wrong. Yes, the burka is oppressive and ridiculous – but that's still no reason to ban it' and the article that follows is his case for this position.
"What he said is not the sort of thing a politician should say!"
Other criticisms of Johnson's piece come from a position of moral puritanism. Again, Matthew d'Ancona's article in The Guardian is imbued with this grandstanding:
'A political party is not a free-for-all or a convenient platform for uncurtailed rhetoric, but an organisation for the disciplined achievement of power and implementation of principled policy.'
Matthew d'Ancona, The Guardian https://goo.gl/Xujz9N
This frightening finger wagging fails to grasp the mechanics of liberal democratic discourse. He states earlier in the article "Let’s first establish what this row is not about. For a start, it is emphatically not about freedom of speech", which is contradicted later with his argument that a political party is "not a convenient platform for uncurtailed rhetoric". Discourse, dialect and debate in politics necessarily ought to be a uncurtailed, that's what free speech means. A political party leadership will desire to keep everyone 'on message', granted, but there is no obligation on its members to do so. In a free market of ideas, all ideas are on the table for criticism. Mockery is a form of criticism. Ideas stand or fall on there own merit via dialectic and debate. What d'Ancona's describes as a political party is a rigid, ordered unit that speaks as one, something like the Borg from Star Trek; what he says reduces to: 'in a political party you can only say the things that don't offend the authority (whoever that is), so don't say things the authority doesn't like' , which is definitively illiberal. Terrifyingly authoritarian in fact.
"What he said will cause people to get hurt, he shouldn't say things like that!"
This is a very dangerous argument because it is a form of moral blackmail. Johnson (or any other individual) is not responsible for the actions of individuals they have never met and have nothing to do with. Individuals are responsible for their own actions. Should individuals commit criminal acts, we already have laws, law enforcement and a judiciary for that. Johnson and all of us can say what we want (within the law) and should not be bullied with such emotional coercion to curtail our expression.
The level of pious outrage and virtue signalling not just in d'Ancona's article but across the media mainstream and within all the political parties including the Conservative party itself is dizzying.
OK, you're offended.
Fine, noted, but that's not an argument (Mrs May).
No comments:
Post a Comment