Thursday, May 20, 2010

Reasons, Freedoms, and Offense: the point of drawing Mohammed

Daniel discusses "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" below, and solicits responses.  Here's mine.

My concern about this is the extent to which emotionalism and vague sentiment are being packaged up as reasons and free thought.  I could conceive of a situation where drawing a likeness of Mohammed would serve some useful purpose, despite the fact that it may offend some people.  In these cases, I'd of course advise prudence with regard to the display of such images, but I don't see any reason for one person's conscience to be dictated by another's.  The question, then, is whether such useful purposes are present in the recently declared holiday.

In the poster for the event, and in many statements by organizers, it's claimed that this is about the First Amendment and free expression.  This seems obviously false.  A media corporation censored the South Park episode, not the government.  And, while I'm no expert in the contracts involved with such endeavors, it hardly seems as if the free expression of Parker and Stone has been squelched, even if we set aside the fact that we're not dealing with citizens' rights vis-à-vis their government. There's nothing stopping me from drawing a picture of Mohammed right now, scanning it, and posting it on this blog for all the world to see (or at least all of the places where Google has a grip).  Parker and Stone can surely do the same.  What has been restricted is not their free expression, but rather the extent of corporate backing that would allow them to broadcast their work to millions of viewers in a branded, highly advertised, and moneyed project under the Comedy Central name.  Forgive me if I don't shed any tears for their hardships.  It is a damn shame that they have to express themselves like the rest of us in this case, rather than take for granted the provision of soapboxes and loudspeakers by one of the largest media conglomerates in existence.

So basically, it's absurd to make this into a free expression issue.  This is show business, not a Vietnam War protest, and Parker and Stone knew as much quite well when they signed on for their big fat paychecks, signed over the rights to their creation, etc.  The fact that they decided to be corporate tools and we decided to pay for their cable channel in order to get a good laugh doesn't mean that their artistic or philosophical sensibilities are our burden.  Nor are their sensibilities the burden of Comedy Central or Viacom.  Not to shatter everyone's blissful misconceptions of the matter, but no one who produces or consumes the product that is South Park cares very much about the personal expression of its producers, or what they think about anything. 

But this also doesn't mean that "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" is only about South Park.  In addition to a claim to being about the First Amendment, the poster advertising today's festivities says that they seek to "water down the pool of targets".  Awfully noble.  After all, the big concern is that threats have been made against the creators of South Park, as they have been made (and sometimes even carried out) against cartoonists over the past few years.  This is a serious issue, and while certain offenses may justify violent response (human rights abuses, terrorists attacks or other crimes, imperialism, etc.), the offense of certain images against religious sensibilities (which we shouldn't deny are real) doesn't seem deserving of death, at least for those committed to liberal values.

Daniel wants to embed this liberal sense more objectively, to draw a distinction between whether simply anger or violence is provoked by these actions.  I don't know how helpful this is.  The images only subjectively provoke one thing rather than the other given certain assumptions.  And I share those assumptions, to be sure, but the whole reason why we have a problem here is that some people don't share those assumptions.  Violence is only unprovoked in a situation where the drawing of a likeness of the Prophet doesn't deserve violent punishment.  If it's our contention against those who disagree that no such punishment is deserved- ever- it hardly seems sensible to just assume that everyone take this to be the case on our say-so.  Better to say, perhaps, that (objectively) the comics have provoked anger and violence, that (subjectively) they don't obviously provoke anything, either anger or violence, and that we don't think it's reasonable for people to respond in violent fashion to the offense they entertain at certain images, although we do think it's reasonable (though not necessary) to respond simply with anger and objection.  This, I think, prevents us from hiding our own imperative statements behind the cover of "that's how things are".  We can then take full responsibility for our own values, and push them on people openly.  This strikes me as the only honest way to have an ethical dialogue unless we are prepared to argue from natural law, divine command, or whatever other solid foundation the objective and enduring basis of the free expression of religious blasphemies. Daniel may be prepared to do this, but I'm not.

So much for the reasons for this day.  I've tried to separate the substantive from the non-substantive and clarify how I think a substantive response would best proceed.  Granting that we've made such an argument, though, what of the drawings themselves?  Is this how we should express our concerns?  If, as Daniel says, the founders of this holiday "aren't trying to marginalize or intimidate Muslims in general [...] they're quite clearly singling out a particularly totalitarian and illiberal segment of Islam", it seems questionable to me whether images of the Prophet will serve the intended purpose of the day.  What will it accomplish (for? against?) the totalitarian and illiberal segment?  More anger?  Perhaps a feeling of being cornered?  Marginalization?  Disgust?  Boredom?  Confusion?

If we want to convince people to abandon violent tendencies, or at least stop them from such tendencies, it seems worthwhile to ask how practical it really is to piss them off further.  I don't personally see why someone with goals of alleviating violence would do something to fan the flames (even if they think such flames are unjustified in the first place).

...which is why I suspect that this is one big pissing contest between partisans of a rather unenlightened liberalism and partisans of a rather unenlightened religious despotism.  Which is why I'm not especially interested.

23 comments:

  1. "And I share those assumptions, to be sure, but the whole reason why we have a problem here is that some people don't share those assumptions."

    Well, screw them.

    "If we want to convince people to abandon violent tendencies, or at least stop them from such tendencies, it seems worthwhile to ask how practical it really is to piss them off further."

    People who get ticked off by a bunch of cartoons are more than likely going to find a reason to be pissed off whether you actively provoke them or not (look at the "culture war" in the U.S. and how each side in that goes loopy over what are fairly objectively innocuous pieces of art, etc.). As that is the case we might as well as just have an upfront discussion of the matter.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My concern is that too many people think "Well, screw them" constitutes a "discussion of the matter". I'm saying it's not, and those who take such a course shouldn't expect anything constructive to come of it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anyway, as for the free expression matter; there is more to freedom than what the state can or cannot do to us. There are the customary freedoms we also expect - if it becomes customary for groups threaten violence - and this why the episode was modified after all - and for Americans to modify their perfectly acceptable as a result of such, then that is a loss of freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Evan spends a lot of his post working through a point that I don't think there's any argument over - that Comedy Central was perfectly within its rights to censor itself and that South Park has no legal case against Comedy Central. Since he walks us through the blatantly obvious so admirably, I'll just let his review stand as the official F&OST position on that matter and move on to issues that are somewhat closer to addressing the real point.

    I did think his point about provocation was somewhat interesting. I suppose I was thinking more about our own society's understanding of what can be considered "provoked" or "unprovoked". After all, no one can read these peoples' minds. The standard Evan sets up seems to require that we banish words like "unprovoked" from usage. How can we ever know what the actors in question were feeling. Practically speaking, though, I don't see how it makes sense to say that someone was provoked to violence by a picture. They were provoked to anger. Perhaps they dealt with that anger in a reasonable way, perhaps they didn't. But this isn't a survival instinct that kicks in where we can actually say that there was "provocation". This isn't a situation where Parker and Stone shoved a Muslim, "provoking" a comparable response. There is no "provocation" of violence here, and although I hate the cliche it amounts to "blaming the victim" to even suggest that there was a provocation of violence.

    Now - knowing that there are these people out there who are self-righteous thugs, should Stone and Parker have expected them to act like self-righteous thugs after something like this? Sure. Absolutely. It was a forseeable consequence. But being able to forsee something is not the same as provoking something. Being "able to forsee" an act is simply to say that we understand how these thugs behave (provoked or unprovoked) under certain conditions.

    If a Muslim women goes around without a veil, they may kill her.

    Did she "provoke" them, Evan? She certainly did something she knew they wouldn't like.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It does constitute a discussion of the matter. It isn't as if we don't have hundreds of years of discussions on these matters to consult going back to at least Locke's "Letter On Toleration." The very fundamental notion of Western modern liberty is the anti-corporate attitude; be that corporate body the church, the state or any other entity. I'm not going to debate the merits of such; here I stand. I can do no other.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Right. You're "not going to debate the merits of such". Isn't that what I just said when I drew a distinction between saying "screw them" and having a discussion?

    ReplyDelete
  7. OK Luther :)

    I'm not so sure about this sentence though: "The very fundamental notion of Western modern liberty is the anti-corporate attitude; be that corporate body the church, the state or any other entity."

    ReplyDelete
  8. That is a bit like saying you can have a "discussion" about physics with someone who believes in the ability to bend spoons with their mind.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Daniel, I think you're investing too much into the term "provoke". I don't think provocation entails instinctual response or some sort of shift of moral responsibility from the responder to the provocateur. So I would have no problem saying that an unveiled woman in certain contexts and a cartoonist in certain contexts are both provoking a certain response, even if that response is morally wrong. The question, then, becomes whether there are good reasons for provoking in this way. An unveiled woman may be perfectly justified by feminist goals that are moved forward by the statement; Rosa Parks provoked people in order to make a worthwhile statement about racial equality... both of these instances can be provocations without thereby being unjustified. The question, then, is how strong of a justification can we establish for "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day". I'm not seeing too much.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "The question, then, is how strong of a justification can we establish for "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day". I'm not seeing too much."

    Apparently pissing on threats of violence is not a strong justification.

    Do you take a similar position on the movie Vilks tried to show? Much of the point of that film was to draw attention to the plight of homosexuals in Iran.

    ReplyDelete
  11. That is a bit like saying you can have a "discussion" about physics with someone who believes in the ability to bend spoons with their mind.

    That may be the case... so why are you trying to say that you're having a discussion with them? Didn't I say in my first response to you that you weren't engaging in discussion? Why did you disagree with me, only to agree with me a few minutes later?

    ReplyDelete
  12. The point of drawing "attention to the plight of homosexuals in Iran" strikes me as quite different than "pissing on threats". While both are responding to oppressive situations, the second sounds like it does so in a much more constructive fashion. I don't know why you'd think I'd view this as an apples to apples comparison. That said, I haven't read anything about the Vilks movie, so I'm not sure what I think about it in particular.

    ReplyDelete
  13. That's fine, Evan (re: provocation), but this is like the word "discriminate". One usage is neutral and one has negative connotations. You seemed to be taking a critical stance on Stone and Parker, which seemed to imply the negative connotation. It would be more clear, in this case, to just use another word. But I do see what you're saying now.

    RE: "Apparently pissing on threats of violence is not a strong justification."

    I have to lean towards Anonymous on this. Like I said, it's not like I'm drawing anything today. I'm not that invested in it. But this is the purpose of satire - ridiculing people that ought to be held up for ridicule: not coddled, not cowered before.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Screw them" is the start, middle and end of the discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The movie was not produced by Vilks; it was produced by an Iranian woman (Sooreh Hera). Basically it depicts Mohammad as a gay man (I haven't seen the film myself). For his trouble Vilks was physically assaulted when he tried to show the film, and since then his house has been firebombed.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Both incidents linked in my post, if you're curious.

    My biggest concern with your position, Evan, is not the plea to be cognizant or the intimation that we shouldn't add fuel to the fire. Those are all OK positions to hold, as far as it goes. My concern is that you seem to think that this sort of deliberate satire (although isn't all satire deliberate?) is ONLY illegitimate because of the response of those who are getting critiqued. I've never seen you particularly concerned about Tom Cruie or Mel Gibson, who are regularly satirized (in CONSIDERABLY more grotesque ways) on South Park. I get the impression that you are arguing that our response to this satire should be predicated on the responses of the thugs who make the threats. It seems to be by far the most important determinant - for you - of what our response should be. And that's what I find a little troubling.

    Or, perhaps you just think the medium of satire is too crass. But I don't think that's your position.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I have to lean towards Anonymous on this. Like I said, it's not like I'm drawing anything today. I'm not that invested in it. But this is the purpose of satire - ridiculing people that ought to be held up for ridicule: not coddled, not cowered before.

    I won't begrudge anyone their satire if they feel inherently purposeful in doing it. My only point is that they can't reasonably demand a particular response to their acts. Insofar as they can predict a damaging or otherwise non-constructive response, they should consider how justified it is to take action in the first place. In some cases, such as Rosa Parks or an Iranian feminist, there may be reason to believe that a bad reception will work towards a greater future good. If that's what the cartoonists think is going on here, then I can understand why they would do what they do. My point is simply that it's not obvious that this is the case, and further that there are good arguments for it not being the case.

    I agree that coddling or cowering are unhelpful responses as well.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I've never seen you particularly concerned about Tom Cruie or Mel Gibson, who are regularly satirized (in CONSIDERABLY more grotesque ways) on South Park.

    I haven't expressed any concern over the Mohammed cartoons either, except in response to instances where you've brought up the matter first! Perhaps if you were to bring up satire against movie stars I'd voice an opinion about that too.

    In the meantime, let's not psychoanalyze my every non-utterance.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Also note that Wikipedia portrays many of the depictions of Mohammed on its site (including the original SP depiction).

    So, what was the problem exactly with the YouTube video I posted?

    ReplyDelete
  20. It seemed not to work (none of the videos came up), and it had something to do with Bush, Blair, and gay bars, so not especially relevant. I took the liberty of deleting it. If you can provide a working video and some preface as to what it has to do with the conversation, that's cool.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Oh, that is one of the songs featured in "Allah ho gaybar." Really isn't relevant; just tangentially related.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "In the meantime, let's not psychoanalyze my every non-utterance."

    You might want to elaborate on this one. We can't all get inside your head.

    I was simply remarking that these satirizations seem to draw a disproportionate amount of attention (it got you to post on the blog, didn't it?). It may be that you are equally concerned about Cruise and Gibson, and that you find all these satirizations disconcerting. I admitted it may be that. And then I just guessed, being relatively familiar with you, that you don't have a probelm with satirization in general, which logically seems to suggest there's something different about this satirization. And the only thing different I can figure on this one is that these guys went a step further than anger and threatened violence.

    No psychoanalysis necessary. You may very well feel the same way about Cruise and Gibson. Knowing what I know about you, I guessed you didn't. But if you do, there's our answer.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I don't know quite how to answer this... I mean, sure, the violent reaction is the only reason why this case is different and why I have concerns about it. But you say yourself that wanting to be cognizant or avoid adding fuel to the fire is a fine position to hold. I'm not sure why that can't be reason enough for me to have a problem with this, or why you're separating the attention to the violent responses from these reasons as something that is uniquely unjustified as a reason for my opinion.

    ReplyDelete

All anonymous comments will be deleted. Consistent pseudonyms are fine.