responding
I sometimes wish I could respond with an equal amount of empathy to every injustice. Truth be told, sometimes I just think "how horrible" then forget about it.
Other times, I recognize that the victim and I have something in common -- which makes the reported injustice "hurt" in a very personal way that other reports don't. Were I perfect, I suppose that every injustice would "hurt" in this deeply personal way. To go about our daily lives, though, it seems we have to be selective about what affects us. Sometimes, however, I fear that this selectivity "cheapens" our daily lives considerably -- if not in always immediately tangible ways.
What got me thinking along these lines was this article and its accompanying photograph of a 22-year old man who'd just received 100 lashes for being gay. I know a little bit -- a very tiny bit, relatively speaking -- about what it feels like to be reviled for one's sexuality. It's enough, at least, to have overcome the sense of the "otherness" of the victim in this case -- so that when I saw that photo a part of me felt like it had happened to a relative or to a friend of mine.
To be honest, it really puts my anti-imperialist stance to the test. I'm not sure I'm for the right of national self-determination if it means executing (according to one estimate cited in the article) 4,000 gay men (and women? the article doesn't say, though I'm sure many, many more women have been executed for a host of other reasons) over the past 30 years. At the same time, though, I also figure that the fundie wingnuts who are currently bringing chaos and misery to the middle east would -- in secret, of course -- applaud Iran's treatment of gays (and women) and, in the darkest recesses of their lightless hearts, deliriously envision a future in which similar measures are implemented here.
6 Comments:
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
We've had this sort of discussion before here, and I think it remains an interesting one. Thanks for putting your responses out here to be discussed, Jay.
One thing that would be worth looking into is what other sorts of crimes are punished by 100 lashes in Iran. While it may be hard to think about, consider the fact that we ought really not to more or less outraged if the 19-year old that is also mentioned in the article was executed for raping a 13 year old boy or having consentual relations with adult males. The real issue here is the brutality of the punishment, not the characterisation of the crime. (Should we accept 100 lashes for ANY crime?)
That said, I think it is very important that we not allow anecdotes which are obviously distributed as a part of an imperial system of information to affect our opinions about imperial strategy. There is a story like this for every anti-imperialist stance, and you will hear them in direct proportion to Iran's (or whatever other country's) imminent targetting.
Like the Burka issue in Afghanistan, I see this as an obvious piece of advance niche marketing for (what may or may not be) the next imperial event. It's the sort of thing that makes the obligatory incubator story on the eve of the invasion plausible.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Your sober thoughts are much appreciated -- especially with regard to setting the stage for a possible next invasion. You're quite right -- why did this story get this attention at this particular moment? Surely it's not unique or something which hasn't happened before.
I agree that it's not the "crime" but the brutal punishment which at issue -- but it's the "crime" which made me feel a certain kind of connection to the brutality's victim that I otherwise wouldn't have felt.
I think the past conversation you're referring to is the one about whether or not the western enlightenment is one ideology among others.
Hmmm. My position hasn't changed and I fear that my having admitted that this story tested my anti-imperialist stance suggests that my position has somehow grown more rigid. I don't believe that it has . . .
Can enlightenment (and I suppose we needn't talk about western enlightenment exclusively -- I suppose, e.g., we could also talk about the enlightenment of the Muslim world during our dark ages) spread or catch-on in a non-imperialistic way? We speak of reason "conquering" and "winning over" -- is this just a metaphor or is there something literal about this choice of words?
I suppose I believe that it can (catch on in a non-imperialistic way) -- but only through dialogue. Means and ends must agree when it comes to enlightenment, it seems. One sees the light and assents to it precisely because one has seen it -- such a seeing could never be forced.
I think my main worry is about allowing anecdotes like this to affect our stance on imperialism, whatever that stance may be. We seem to agree both about the wrongness of criminalizing homosexuality and about the wrongness of punishing pretty much anything with a 100 lashes.
We also agree, at least as a first approximation, about imperialism.
Where our positions seem to conflict lies in whether or not stories like this (and the systems of government about which they are true) are legitimate moves in argument against an anti-imperialist stance.
That is, is it a "good reason" to invade a country (among many reasons not to). Here I think you would say yes. The violent, official persecution of homosexuals is, on your view (as I understand it), one plausible reason to force regime change from the outside. That's why it "tests" your anti-imperialism.
Finally, I think we agree about enlightment. But the argument you offer there is precisely why an "enlightened" position must *never* license war.
Nor, as I was arguing last time, must it be offered to judge whole cultures (or nations that express them). We think it is wrong to give gays the lash. But I do not think that governments who give gays the lash should (rationally) be more accepting of foreign invasion.
I'm not sure I'm making that very clear.
Re-reading the (poorly typed) first comment I made, I notice the phrase "advance niche marketing for the next imperial event". We should take this idea up again sometime.
When you say, "it's the 'crime' which made me feel a certain kind of connection to the brutality's victim that I otherwise wouldn't have felt," you are into the "niche" part of this function.
Propangandists no doubt think very explictly in these terms. "Who can we sell the invasion of Afghanistan to?" Feminists. "Iran?" Gays.
In this sense every invasion has a kind of "constituency" out there waiting to endorse it (for what may be very different reasons). But (and this is my point) this is true only to the extent that people see the question of whether to invade another country as a question to be answered on a case by case basis.
Post a Comment
<< Home