Offensive-ness

Just a few notes/thoughts/questions on "Giving and Taking Offense."

First, Warburton quotes Oliver Kamm:

“The notion that free speech, while important, needs to be held in balance with the avoidance of offence is question-begging, because it assumes that offence is something to be avoided. Free speech does indeed cause hurt—but there is nothing wrong in this. Knowledge advances through the destruction of bad ideas. Mockery and derision are among the most powerful tools in the process.”

???

Warburton later writes:

“In the United States, the First Amendment free speech protection has in some renowned cases led to judgments that, disgusting as such hate speech may be, it should still in many cases be permitted. It is protected from prosecution because it is potentially part of a political debate” (56).

Again, ???

In 2015, at the National Prayer Breakfast, then President Barack Obama said:

“lest we get on our high horse and think this [terrorism in the name of religion] is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

He was soundly criticized by some people, including former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore:

“The president’s comments this morning at the prayer breakfast are the most offensive I’ve ever heard a president make in my lifetime. He has offended every believing Christian in the United States. This goes further to the point that Mr. Obama does not believe in America or the values we all share.”

Um, what?

Giving and Taking Offense

Tuesday's reading details arguments for and against "blasphemy laws" and the protection of hate speech. The conversation about blasphemy laws was relatively in depth, and many examples were given. A lot of questions were raised, such as, does intent matter when a work or action offends a religious group? If blasphemy laws are acceptable, who should be protected by them? The conversation centered on hate speech is less in-depth, and in my opinion, many questions still remain. I did appreciate the inclusion of the court case ("Skokie and toleration"), because I think understanding the legal context around an issue can be helpful when trying to improve it. 

I think my practical (and by this I mean something I can apply to my thought processes in day to day life) takeaway was that sometimes you will be offended, and that is not an inherently bad thing. Further, bad things happen, and laws cannot change this. I think it is good for laws and cultural norms to make an effort to limit bad things—especially in issues which are systematic and affect certain populations more than others—but we cannot altogether stop many of the bad things we encounter in everyday life. People will have disputes and disagreements; that is okay. In fact, conflict can be good; people can grow because of disagreements.

For example, when I was very young, I was deeply religious. However, I'd argue that I was brain washed into religion; I had not chosen it out of conviction, but because it was all I had ever known. Seeing people treat the religion in a humorous way, and especially seeing people question the validity of the religion, allowed me to come to a place where I could recognize my displeasure with my reality. I was able to walk away from it with no regrets, and I am a much happier person and more skilled in critical thinking because of my decision. Thus, I really believe that opposition to, and to an extent the blasphemous treatment of, that religion legitimately improved my life and well-being. I am glad I was exposed to thoughts which were fundamentally opposed to my own.

That is not to say everyone needs to have their convictions shaken such that they break; rather, it is healthy for one to come to a place of questioning whether or not they really believe what they have been taught. This dissonance is important in and outside of religion as a step towards the development of the self. 

Something else I want to note is that I don’t think any of the conflict I came across was hate speech; had I been exposed to speech which actively sought to bring me down as a member of that religion—rather than speech which criticized the religion itself—I think I would have simply doubled-down on my beliefs. So yes, conflict can cause growth, but hate speech and targeted harassment does not really help people reflect inwardly, at least from my experience.

That being said, this is a complicated issue, and I know I don’t have all the answers. So, what do you think? Do you have any examples of times someone’s opposing opinion made you rethink, and perhaps improve, your own stance?

Also, what did you make of the reading? I only touched on a small part of it, so what other parts of the text were significant to you?

The Future Is Subversive

The movie Max is a fictional story.  Certain elements of the story are historically accurate: Hitler did serve in the army in World War I, was wounded several times, and received the Iron Cross.  He was also, at one time, an aspiring artist.  (See Adolf Hitler for more details.)  Max Rothman, however, and his relationship with Hitler, are fictional.  

The movie interests me in a variety of ways. I think the "what if" question (What if Hitler had succeeded as an artist?) is the wrong question to ask. The real question the movie poses is What is the relationship between Art and Politics.  As I've mentioned previously, the "tagline" for the movie in trailers was "Art + Politics = Power."  

A French philosopher named Jacques Ranciere has written about something he calls "the Distribution of the Sensible."  Art, he claims, is not necessarily revolutionary, but neither is it (ever) apolitical. Some art is explicitly and intentionally political; much is not.  Some artists claim that real art is not political-- that it is always somehow above or beyond politics; it is "pure."  Ranciere believes that art is always already political-- not necessarily in the explicit sense, but in the sense that it makes possible what we can see/not see, say/not say, understand/not understand.  That is, it distributes what is "sensible":  both what we can sense (see/hear/feel), and what makes sense (what is comprehensible). Abstract art, for example, stretches our imagination so that we can see what we have not been able to see before; likewise, "great" literature expands our experience, helps us to experience as other people, and therefore enables us to "see" the world differently.

Thus the "Distribution of the Sensible" depends to a large degree on who can speak, who can say what is seen (or not seen, or not spoken).  

It's worth noting that the movie (Max) was criticized for "humanizing" Hitler.  But as one reviewer wrote, 

"The movie has stirred some concerns that humanizing Hitler may desensitize us to his historic evil. But it's important to understand that evil springs from recognizable human sources, that it's closer than we realize: common, even (as Hannah Arendt says) banal." (Michael Wilmington)

And Roger Ebert wrote:

"The film . . . has been attacked because it attempts to 'humanize' a monster. But of course Hitler was human, and we must understand that before we can understand anything else about him."

Hitler did not emerge full-blown (as it were) out of nowhere. He became.  

He also rose to power over a period of time, enabled and supported by a variety of other people.  His ideas were monstrous.  But without power, those ideas would have remained just ideas.  This is why I find the argument for the expression of ideas (any ideas), problematic.  One must ask, at what point does the speaker or writer of those ideas gained sufficient power to become a danger to others? In the movie, the expression of "ideas" was certainly harmful to Max Rothman. (As it is so often harmful to marginalized peoples of all kinds, both in the U.S. and around the world.)  And because increasing numbers of people were persuaded to agree with those ideas, Hitler was able to gain increasing power.  And we know how harmful that was, to how many people.  (Actually, in some sense, the death toll continues to rise, with increasing Nazi activity in the U.S. and abroad.)

Possibly it is also worth noting that such ideas don't always come with a Nazi label.  There's an awful lot of racism and xenophobia in the U.S. today.  In fact, much of the U.S. activity around the Mexican border is a clear violation of the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide  (e.g., forcibly separating children from their parents).

The point is, People can and are harmed by "ideas."  

Max and Architecture's Political Impact 

Art is powerful in all its forms; music, performance art, visuals, and architecture all carry with them the power to influence our emotions and perceptions of reality. Art can suspend our perception of realistic expectations for the world around us, which helps us expand our thinking so that when we exit the moment, we may have new ideas of reality. Thus, when executed well, an art piece can convince the viewer of a thesis, make the viewer look at an issue from a new angle, or inspire the viewer to believe in something new. This means being an artist carries with it a great deal of power, and it is no surprise that those already in places of other forms of power (or those who seek to gain power), may aim to use art to expand their own reign. 

The fictionalized version of the character of Hitler in the movie Max argues that true power is gained through more than the speeches and the policies of politics. At one point in the movie he says "politics is the new art," suggesting that true power seems to be in the combination of politics and art. This is reinforced by his interest in architecture and his explanation of his designs; he tells the character called Rothman that as he crafts his ideas of fashion and architecture, his goal is to inspire belief in what he wants the world to become--which is of course the world the real Hitler pursued as the leader of the Nazi party. 

According to the article "Trump’s Bizarre Plan to Make Architecture Classical Again" written by Amanda Kolson Hurley, "good architecture is important because it can lift our mood, inspire us to creativity or spiritual reflection, and ease our anxieties." In other words, architecture can influence our realties. This is echoed in Max, as Hitler's character argues that architecture can also act as political messaging by pushing a culture into a new reality. What is startling about these arguments are their implications when considering the plans of the Trump administration. 

According to the aforementioned article, the Trump administration may sign an order to make "Classical and traditional styles" the only forms of architecture appropriate for government buildings costing more than 50 million dollars. The author argues that this is a dangerous precedent to set, writing, "[this] would... suggest that what’s most valuable in our built environment is what was codified by a white male elite before women could vote and black Americans had full legal rights." The author argues, then, that a reality without the influences outside of classical styles in public art suggests a reality that devalues and alienates those who do not identify with it--usually those who are not white, rich, and male. This suggests that the mandate of "Classical" styles exists only to encourage and support those who have never been at a disadvantage within society. 

This issue closely aligns with the rest of Trump's platform of "making America great again." By making America great again, America would be returning to something. What is that something? The history of America is filled with racism, imperialism, misogyny, homophobia, war, and every other form of marginalization and oppression known to civilization. Thus, making America "great" again means, at least in some capacity, making America increasingly unsafe and inequitable for most of the people who live within its borders. The author of the article goes on to write that, "a classicism mandate would signal to architects that innovation and progress are subversive, and to the public that a retread of the past is safer than the wide-open future." Thus, by regressing what is appropriate in architecture, the Trump administration is cementing the cultural push for conservatism and fully realizing it into society. In other words, by making the US look more like their version of "great" America, America is more likely to culturally return to its conservative roots. Effectively, these architectural guidelines put a pause on cultural growth, as people feel less challenged by their surroundings, and more likely to simply feel comfortable with what they've always known. 

What are your thoughts? What other arguments does Max make about art and power? How can we apply these arguments to today's world?

FEED. A terrifying glimpse at the present and future of free speech.

One, if not the most terrifying read of the 21st century, Feed explores what happens when technology becomes not a part of our lives, but a part of our bodies. In this book, a device that is called a Feed is implanted into people's brains at birth and gives them complete and total access to the internet. It allows them to download applications and surf the web, and chat with others without carrying a device around. It's all in the head, and anyone anywhere can talk.

There's a scene in this book that is the most cryptic and terrifying warnings about the corporate takeover of our lives, not just monetarily, but with rights. There's a scene where everyone gets advertisements for coca-cola. The ads say that if someone says Coca-Cola 1000 times without saying any of the competitors names, they get a free 6 pack of coke. If someone says a name of their competitors, the counter resets to zero. So all of the characters start saying Coke over and over again. One person says that Coke almost tastes as good as Pepsi and the entire group reacts extremely hostile to that person because the counter reset to zero.

Another example of this is in the book that the Feed listens in on everyone's conversations. So if someone were to say something, they start getting notifications and emails for products and services based off of their conversations. Seem familiar? Keep in mind, this book came out pre-google and pre-amazon. Basically, corporations can put influence and some sort of control of the words that people say in this book.

I guess the main point of the book is that we have been warned over and over again by our history of what happens when governments limit our free speech in the name of a political ideology, but what happens when the same feat is done with corporations? Are corporations limiting free speech like Facebook and Twitter and YouTube etc. when they deplatform people? What about the ethical argument of corporations listening in our conversations and trying to compel people to say certain things in the name of money?

I read this book and wanted to throw up the first time I read it.

Banned Book Week

Every year, towards the end of September and beginning of October there is a certain event that schools across the country take part in. It's called Banned Book Week! This event spotlights current and historical attempts to censor books in libraries and schools. Bringing together librarians, publishers, journalists, teachers, and readers of all types who are involved in the "book community."

So, why is this week so special?


Well Banned Books Week features books from every author and background that have been removed or restricted in any libraries or schools. The purpose of this week is really to draw national attention to the problem of censorship that causes the removal and restriction to books. 


Background

Back in the 1980s there was a lot of book challenges, organized protests, and Supreme Court cases that covered the American news. The most memorable case was Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982) Supreme Court case, which ruled that school officials can not ban books from libraries (in schools or not) because of their content. 

Judith Krug

The first ever "Banned Book Week" was held in 1982 American Booksellers Association (ABA) trade show in Anaheim, California. The convention center had metal cages filled with nearly 500 challenged books stacked inside with padlocks and a sign reading that the books were dangerous for the public. This event proved to have major success in getting the general populations attention.

After proving how successful this exhibit was, the ABA invited Judith Krug and the National Association of College Stores to join what they had favorably named "Banned Books Week." They quickly put together showcases by September with the serious intention of continuing the conversation about banned books.


This tradition is still continued today, and the topic of banned books will forever be held so long as the event is held on its annual days. Banned Books Week now covers mainstream media and reaches at least 2.8 billion readers, and has 90,000 supporters online. 

Considering Mein Kampf (the Play) and its Implications

As we have just watched Max, I decided that it would be useful to structure my post around similar subject material. As such, I'll be writing about a play which debuted in 1987 and the potential implications of its existence.

In 2018 a production of the satirical play "Mein Kampf" was performed in Constance, Germany. Before the play could debut, however, it became involved in controversy, as its host theatre offered anyone willing to wear a swastika free admission to the play (which I originally learned about here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43821564). Most of the controversy around this showing of the play seems more concerned with this method of gaining free entry into the play than the play's actual contents. While the play's director claims that way of gaining free entry is meant to make a statement about human corruptibility, some found the gimmick insensitive or even dangerous. Although I know little about German law, the BBC article I referenced earlier explained the legality of the "Mein Kampf" play when it stated that" German law bans the use of symbols of unconstitutional organisations. But that does not apply where art is concerned and because the spectators are considered part of an artistic production they are not breaking German law either." Please keep that definition in mind.

From what I could tell, Nazi imagery can be used in art as long as its use isn't anti-constitutional (which we might interpret as pro-Nazi or Holocaust denying). However, anti-constitutional expression is illegal in Germany when separate from art. Even if one considers the banning of all non-artistic Nazi imagery to be a reasonable and effective measure, I've noticed an issue with enacting such a policy: that people have different standards for art. I'm curious to see what others think about Germany's laws around art, as I find it difficult to imagine that officials can consistently distinguish art from anti-constitutional behavior.