“Free speech” isn’t everything

Extract from Charles McCreery’s Abolition of Genius.

One might ask how it is that in the past men and women of genius have been able to make original contributions to thought in countries that had no offcial freedom of speech, publication, or assembly, if these so-called ‘human rights’ are as crucial as their modern protagonists imply. The answer is that these people of genius achieved what they did thanks to private incomes, their own or that of someone else. The societies in which they lived may have been indifferent or even hostile to freedom of speech and the like, but they tended to have a tolerant attitude to the concept of private property.

Let us consider some examples. Descartes’ thinking led him to two conclusions among others: that the earth rotated and that the universe was infnite. He included these ideas in a book he was writing called Le Monde, but when he heard that the Inquisition had condemned Galileo for expounding similar views, he decided not to publish it. However, there is no reason to suppose that he stopped thinking about such matters. The Inquisition may have been indirectly responsible for the non-publication of his book, at least during his lifetime, but they did not have any direct control over the private income which enabled him to write it.

It is even questionable whether the sort of censorship imposed by old-style capitalist societies is an effcient method of preventing the emergence of new ideas or works of art. Publication is only the last and most peripheral link in the chain of production of a new artistic or intellectual work. It is clearly more effective to attack the original thought at its psychological source, in the stages of preparation, conception or execution, by depriving the original mind of its fnancial independence or any hope of achieving it. Then the mind in question will be unable to provide itself with the necessary conditions for its work without first gaining the support and approval of the collective. If the results of its work are likely to be of the kind that the collective will want to censor, then this support will not be forthcoming and not only will the work never see the light of day but it will never even be begun.

Goethe and the culture war

The conflict between: the old, the prevailing, the persistent; and: development, improvement, reform — it is always the same.

Order of every kind turns at last to pedantry. In order to be rid of the latter, one destroys the former. Then life goes on for a while, until people perceive that order must be established anew.

Classicism and Romanticism; guild coercion and free trade; preservation or destruction of tradition: it is always the same conflict, which ends by creating a new one.

The best policy of those in power would be so to moderate this conflict as to let it right itself without the destruction of either side. But this power has not been granted to men, and it seems not to be the will of God either.

Goethe, Maxims and Reflections

Contextual advertising

This is slightly amusing. I have been reading a paperback collection* of stories by Karen Blixen (author and heroine of Out of Africa), translated from Danish to German.

The first story is about the fictional de Cats family, set in 19th century Amsterdam. The de Cats are wealthy and influential, and have for generations been noted for their marked virtuousness, good works etc, but in every generation they have one particularly black sheep. When the current black sheep, Jeremy de Cats, returns to Amsterdam to turn over a new leaf and begins to behave blamelessly, the other de Cats inexplicably start to behave badly, and they realise that their virtuousness is somehow fated always to require one black sheep. After some abortive efforts, they decide to offer Jeremy a princely annual sum to return to his wicked ways. The offer is accepted, with the result that things go back to normal, and everyone breathes a sigh of relief.

Just after the point when the offer is made, near the end of the story, you turn the page and, instead of the expected continuation of text, the entire left page is occupied by an advert for Pfandbriefe (bonds issued by commercial banks):

A fortune ... in return for the promise to do nothing useful. Sadly, offers of this kind are nowadays quite rare.

So don’t bother waiting for one; do something that is useful. Consider the possibility of other, equally pleasant ways of increasing your wealth.

I don’t recall coming across an advert in the middle of a book before. The edition is from 1989 (publisher: Rowohlt). Perhaps this is still done occasionally in German paperbacks.

The notion of an advert linked specifically to the text next to which it occurs is intriguing. We see a version of this with TV ads: watch a movie set in France, and you’re likely to get adverts from Danone or L’Oréal. And of course there are those annoying ads in web pages.

* Tania Blixen, Gespensterpferde, Rowohlt, 1989

Excess energy

A nice quote from Amazon’s I Love Dick series, presumably taken from the book by Chris Kraus on which it is based:

Desire isn’t lack ... it’s excess energy.

The series was cancelled after one season, and I can see why: it really is too weird to have wide appeal. It’s quite fun, though, in a Fear and Loathing kind of way.

Not much happens in I Love Dick, and the main reason for watching it is Kathryn Hahn (awesome). But it does include a sideways look at academic cultural theory that seems satirical, whether intentionally or not.

Free speech: roots of the problem

BBC’s Julian Pettifer interviewing Jane Fonda in 1970:

Pettifer:

In none of those societies [that you admire] have they been able to allow free artistic expression. Do you not feel that as an actress you would be extremely limited in that kind of society?

Fonda:

Perhaps if I wanted to do things that ... You see, when you’re carrying on a revolution ... during the process of change and educating people, removing people from the state of being in which they want to exploit and become rich and get ahead over someone else and things like that ... during that changeover very stringent rules have to be laid down until such a time that the level of the economy is such that everyone is comfortable, that everyone has as much as they could possibly want.

The supposedly benevolent ends justify the oppressive means?

Perhaps this is not very different from contemporary students and academics who want to stifle speech they find unacceptable, supposedly in the interests of ‘oppressed’ social groups.

Maloja Snake

On BBC iPlayer at the moment is Clouds of Sils Maria, a 2014 film by Olivier Assayas with Juliette Binoche and Kristen Stewart. It shows there is still theatre worthy of the name, even if takes the form of a movie.
Clouds has everything theatre should have: psychological complexity, ambiguity, tension; and lacks all the things theatre should lack: obvious political points, the grimness level set too high, characters that are two-dimensional.

Despite the story being, on the face of it, closely bound up with its physical setting — the Swiss Alps — it is definitely theatrical: the dialogue is the driving force.
If you don’t like theatre, you may find the plot artificial and stilted. If you do like theatre, you should find it moving.

Yet as a film it has two characteristics which I normally regard as warning signs. First, it is almost entirely about women. In spite of this, the flavour is (oddly) more masculine than feminine.
Second, it contains a high degree of “reflexivity”. This is usually offputting, as for instance in The French Lieutenant’s Woman, where the inserted fling between Jeremy Irons and Meryl Streep, as actors, is an annoying distraction.
Clouds is about a play, and about acting, and the plot revolves largely around the parallels between the play and the action of the film. In this case, the reflexivity arises naturally and without triggering postmodern ‘irony’.

A new piano talent

● Here is a new piano talent I would vote for: Vanessa Benelli Mosell. Precision and romanticism — two of my favourite qualities. Not much yet on YouTube to sample, but this Liszt Waltz is a nice example. Or try this Scriabin Etude.

● An article on Sputnik by Ivan Danilov is worth a look. Its headline thesis is that psychology professor Jordan Peterson is too nice to lead the culture war opposition, but the article is more interesting for the ancillary points it makes. For example:

“progressive inquisitors” from academia [have learnt] that they can bully anyone with no palpable consequences, and even if they do get caught, they won’t receive a punishment more severe than a slap on the wrist

and

in modern political discourse everyone to the right of Pol Pot is labeled as being “right wing” or “conservative” or “alt right”

New article re Ethics and Empire

I have expanded my posts about the Ethics and Empire open letters into an article, on the subject of academic bias and professional etiquette.

the approach adopted by Biggar’s opponents is unethical, and smacks of bullying. The two open letters represent a disturbing precedent. The one from Oxford scholars is particularly alarming, given Oxford’s position in the academic hierarchy, and the suggestion that academics can expect to be ganged up on even by members of their own institutions.

The signatories’ implicit attitude to academic freedom sets a bad example, not just for fellow academics, but for students. [read more]

The Housewife's Tale

Reuters, 11 September 2185.
A sheet of paper, believed to contain a fragment of the lost novel by Margaret Atwood, The Housewife’s Tale, has been discovered by academics from Oneworld University. The fragment is reproduced below.

Notes for Editors
1. Margaret Atwood was a twentieth-century Canadian novelist.
2. A housewife was a married woman without formal employment.
3. Marriage was a contract under which the parties promised not to sleep with other people.
4. Paper was a wood-based material used to record text.

---

I awake. The room seems to be brightly lit. I realise it is morning.

There appears to be sunshine entering the bedroom. I had forgotten there was such a thing as sunshine.

Sunshine has often been considered male, as it is an external agent which makes things swell and grow. My friend Lynda used to say she hated sunshine.

My husband George is stirring next to me. Suddenly I feel something hard prodding me. Do I like it? I am not sure.

« « «             » » »

There is something faintly ridiculous about the male organ. I have become jaded about all those fumblings and thrustings, those wifely duties that we were always told would be so exhilarating — liberating, even. Or have I?

Lynda once said that you can get used to anything. But I am starting to feel I have done enough of that sort of thing.

« « «             » » »

It is later. I am in the kitchen, scrubbing carrots. As I look at the carrots, I realise how bright they are, how orange. Agent Orange. That was the name of a poison, used in the Indochina wars, which gave millions of people cancer. The shape of the carrots makes me feel vaguely nauseous.

George comes into the room. He gazes at me kindly, like a grandfather, or a benevolent uncle. I could almost love him at times like this. He does not look at me like most other men, always on the verge of thinking “bitch”.

« « «             » » »

I have a memory of an incident that happened years ago, after I first met George. Or was it last week? He, Lynda and I were sitting in a cafe drinking tea. George went to the toilet, and Lynda whispered something to me, I think it was about foundation cream. When George came back, I sensed he knew Lynda and I had been talking. But he never referred to the incident. We have never discussed it, and I now regret that. The resulting gap between us has become a festering wound, a source of reproach.

Men. One thinks they want love, but ultimately they just want to dominate you. But I am tired of being dominated. Love — what is it, when you get down to it, but gropings and thrustings? You can keep it.

« « «             » » »

Later, George and I are at a restaurant. Suddenly I catch a young man’s eye. I can tell immediately what he wants, and I suddenly realise I want it too. I am filled with a terrible hunger. I must have him. I am willing to risk everything — marriage, status, home. I am about to do something foolish. I wonder if George has noticed anything, but he is blithely studying the dessert menu.

Then a waitress moves between me and the man. When she has gone, the man is still looking at me, full of eager anticipation. But the moment has gone, and I have lost interest.

« « «             » » »

Time is like a boat powered by a dodgy motor. You cannot resist its motion, though you sometimes have the illusion of being given pause to reconsider, to change direction.

When I was a child, my mother used to warn me never to

[end of fragment]

Orwellian blurring

An ominous trend in speech is the tendency for taboo themes to keep widening their catchment areas. If you criticise any aspect of feminism you must be a misogynist. Finding the movie Idiocracy funny must mean you favour eugenics. And so on.

A recent instance is the attempt to classify criticism of George Soros as being a form of covert antisemitism.

If it is legitimate to criticise Vladimir Putin for allegedly trying to promote Brexit then it is legitimate to criticise George Soros for trying to prevent it. Not everyone thinks of Mr Soros as Jewish. I didn’t — until I read this Guardian column accusing his critics of being antisemitic. Previously, I had associated Soros with being Hungarian, wealthy, making money out of Black Wednesday, supporting post-communist scholarship, and being anti-American.

Trying to bring antisemitism into the Soros/Brexit issue does no one any favours — except those looking for confirmation that we need to have more restrictions on speech.

Too many students

● Brendan O’Neill, in a column in The Sun, draws attention to what he calls the “Stasi” student unions. Mr O’Neill says the joke isn’t funny any more. It never was, for those on the inside. E.g. the editor of Oxford student magazine No Offence, who was threatened with police action and feared he might be arrested.

A 2016 survey suggested that more than half of university students think it is correct to ban from campus anyone who “could be found intimidating”. By means of relentless propaganda over past decades, the il-liberal elite have managed to shift sensitivities, so that now anything deviating from radical egalitarianism may be labelled offensive or intimidating. A whole range of topics in politics, sociology and psychology have effectively become taboo.

Relatively few people are interested in knowledge and truth for their own sake. Learning to apply an ideology, on the other hand, seems to have greater popular appeal (judging by the history of religion). By massively expanding the student population, the priorities of campus have been shifted away from objectivity and neutrality, towards morality and politics. That may conceivably be good in some ways, but for the quality of debate and research it is disastrous.

● Either my standards are dropping, or BBC drama really is getting better. The Beeb have already demonstrated they can adapt classics in a way that gives priority to art and entertainment over sociology lectures. They have now shown the same for original drama. Six-part series Requiem does an excellent job at keeping high-pitched atmosphere and visuals in balance with strong narrative and characterisation. The supernatural provides a fruitful theme in fiction, but many are put off by the level of grimness which usually accompanies it these days. Requiem is gritty but not brutal.

Key talents behind the camera are Australian writer Kris Mrksa and British director Mahalia Belo.

Brexit shmexit

The EU is threatening severe restrictions on consumers’ ability to carry out hedging or investing via spread bets and CFDs.

As is often the case, most corporations and wealthy individuals will experience minimal impact since they will be able to find ways round it. It’ll be the little guy that gets nobbled.

The proposed rules are even more draconian than those suggested by the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority. In theory, the measures are to protect people from themselves, but the case illustrates how EU “harmonisation” has become an excuse for unnecessary cross-border paternalism.

As consumers and voters, we are free to question the motives of the bureaucrats behind such interventions. Do we want their paternalism? Should we accept their rationales at face value? Are state employees distinguished by an above-average desire for interventionist power, for its own sake, which only requires an acceptable cover story to be indulged?

Those who wish to express their views on this latest instance of EU meddling can can use this website, and have until Monday to do so.

Peer scrutiny

The second of the two open letters denouncing the Empire and Ethics project — signed by scholars from (inter alia) Cambridge, Princeton, Cornell and King’s College London — exhibits even more contempt and vitriol than the first.

It seems unlikely that the principal problem the signatories have with the project is that it departs from approved academic methodology. That doesn’t prevent them trying to criticise it on those grounds. They object that it is not possible to “demarcate ‘empire’ as a fixed and stable subject”. They complain that the project’s core group “does not represent the diverse constituencies of scholars” working in this field.

These criticisms seem weak, and hardly provide justification for public denouncement. History is plagued with problems of definition and demarcation, yet proceeds in spite of them. There is no principle in academia that a research project must be staffed with representatives from varying schools of thought.

At the end of their letter, the scholars demand that Oxford University clarify

the research protocols that will be put in place to ensure that [the project’s] outputs are subject to due peer scrutiny [...]

It seems the scholars want to make quite sure that the methodologies of the project will meet with the approval of accredited practitioners. Are they (A) merely being helpfully concerned (on behalf of Professor Biggar, and the University of Oxford) that the research should not fail to benefit from the available techniques and insights of modern academic history?

Or are the scholars (B) adopting an exclusionary tactic? Do they suspect (and hope) that “peer scrutiny” would result in a verdict that echoed their own condemnation?

Possibility (B) raises the following interesting speculation. Is academia’s current obsession with accreditation, technique proficiency, peer scrutiny etc. in fact intended — at least in some subjects — to facilitate the exclusion of certain perspectives, i.e. those at variance with the dominant outlook?

You can’t do history if you’re not one of us

Keith Windschuttle, author of The Killing of History:

“I got tired of leftwing theories and very tired of leftwing people, quite frankly, and, at the same time, the universities filled up with leftwing people. By the 1980s, to teach humanities you had to be on the leftwing or no one would even consider you.”

The historical establishment and the intellectual elite saw Windschuttle as another manifestation of the conservative ascendancy [in Australian politics]. They closed ranks, suggesting among other things that, because he was not a professional academic, he was not a “proper historian”.

From a 2005 interview with the Financial Times.