Tweet
PUBLIC DEBATE AND ENLIGHTENMENT
By Ralf Dahrendorf
Project Syndicate
Oct 17 2006
Against The Current
NOT long ago, one might have concluded that, at least in Europe, there
were no taboos left. A process that had begun with the enlightenment
had now reached the point at which "anything goes."
Particularly in the arts, there were no apparent limits to showing what
even a generation ago would have been regarded as highly offensive.
Two generations ago, most countries had censors who not only tried
to prevent younger people from seeing certain films but who actually
banned books. Since the 1960's, such pros­criptions have weakened
until, in the end, explicit sexuality, violence, blasphemy-while
upsetting to some people-were tolerated as a part of the enlightened
world.
Or were they? Are there really no limits? Outside Europe, the "anything
goes" attitude was never fully accepted. And there were limits in
Europe, too. The historian David Irving is still in detention in
Austria for the crime of Holocaust denial. This is, to be sure, a
special case. The denial of a well-documented truth may lead to new
crimes. But is the answer to the old question, "What is truth?" always
so clear?
What exactly are we doing if we insist on Turkey's acknowledgement that
the Armenian genocide did take place as a condition of its membership
in the European Union? Are we so sure of Darwin's theories of evolution
that we should ban alternative notions of genesis from schools?
Those concerned with freedom of speech have always wondered about
its limits. One such limit is the incitement to violence. The man
who gets up in a crowded theater and shouts, "Fire!" when there is
none is guilty of what happens in the resulting stampede. But what
if there actually is a fire?
This is the context in which we may see the invasion of Islamic taboos
into the enlightened, mostly non-Islamic world. From the fatwa on
Salman Rushdie for The Satanic Verses to the killing of a nun in
Somalia in response to Pope Benedict's Regensburg lecture and the
Berlin Opera's cancellation of a performance of Mozart's Idomeneo,
with its severed heads of religious founders, including Muhammad,
we have seen violence and intimidation used to defend a particular
religion's taboos.
There are questions here that are not easily answered by civilized
defenders of the enlightenment. Toleration and respect for people who
have their own beliefs are right and perhaps necessary to preserve an
enlightened world. But there is the other side to consider. Violent
responses to unwelcome views are never justified and cannot be
accepted. Those who argue that suicide bombers express understandable
grudges have themselves sold out their freedom. Self-censorship is
worse than censorship itself because it sacrifices freedom voluntarily.
This means that we have to defend Salman Rushdie and the Danish
cartoonists and the friends of Idomeneo, whether we like them or not.
If anyone does not like them, there are all the instruments of public
debate and of critical discourse that an enlightened community has at
its disposal. It is also true that we do not have to buy any particular
book or listen to an opera. What a poor world it would be if anything
that might offend any group could no longer be said! A multicultural
society that accepts every taboo of its diverse groups would have
little to talk about.
The kind of reaction we have seen recently to expressions of views that
are offensive to some does not bode well for the future of liberty. It
is as if a new wave of counterenlightenment is sweeping the world,
with the most restrictive views dominating the scene.
Against such reactions, enlightened views must be reasserted
strongly. Defending the right of all people to say things even if
one detests their views is one of the first principles of liberty.
Thus, Idomeneo must be performed, and Salman Rushdie must be
published. Whether an editor publishes cartoons offensive to believers
in Muhammad (or Christ, for that matter) is a matter of judgment,
almost of taste. I might not do it, but I would nevertheless defend the
right of someone who decides otherwise. It is debatable whe­ther recent
incidents of this kind require a "dialogue between religions." Public
debate making clear cases one way or the other seems more appropriate
than conciliation. The gains of enlightened discourse are too precious
to be turned into negotiable values. Defending those gains is the
task that we now face.
--Project Syndicate
--Boundary_(ID_iMJMz2baA6F+EZvlF6raJA)- -
By Ralf Dahrendorf
Project Syndicate
Oct 17 2006
Against The Current
NOT long ago, one might have concluded that, at least in Europe, there
were no taboos left. A process that had begun with the enlightenment
had now reached the point at which "anything goes."
Particularly in the arts, there were no apparent limits to showing what
even a generation ago would have been regarded as highly offensive.
Two generations ago, most countries had censors who not only tried
to prevent younger people from seeing certain films but who actually
banned books. Since the 1960's, such pros­criptions have weakened
until, in the end, explicit sexuality, violence, blasphemy-while
upsetting to some people-were tolerated as a part of the enlightened
world.
Or were they? Are there really no limits? Outside Europe, the "anything
goes" attitude was never fully accepted. And there were limits in
Europe, too. The historian David Irving is still in detention in
Austria for the crime of Holocaust denial. This is, to be sure, a
special case. The denial of a well-documented truth may lead to new
crimes. But is the answer to the old question, "What is truth?" always
so clear?
What exactly are we doing if we insist on Turkey's acknowledgement that
the Armenian genocide did take place as a condition of its membership
in the European Union? Are we so sure of Darwin's theories of evolution
that we should ban alternative notions of genesis from schools?
Those concerned with freedom of speech have always wondered about
its limits. One such limit is the incitement to violence. The man
who gets up in a crowded theater and shouts, "Fire!" when there is
none is guilty of what happens in the resulting stampede. But what
if there actually is a fire?
This is the context in which we may see the invasion of Islamic taboos
into the enlightened, mostly non-Islamic world. From the fatwa on
Salman Rushdie for The Satanic Verses to the killing of a nun in
Somalia in response to Pope Benedict's Regensburg lecture and the
Berlin Opera's cancellation of a performance of Mozart's Idomeneo,
with its severed heads of religious founders, including Muhammad,
we have seen violence and intimidation used to defend a particular
religion's taboos.
There are questions here that are not easily answered by civilized
defenders of the enlightenment. Toleration and respect for people who
have their own beliefs are right and perhaps necessary to preserve an
enlightened world. But there is the other side to consider. Violent
responses to unwelcome views are never justified and cannot be
accepted. Those who argue that suicide bombers express understandable
grudges have themselves sold out their freedom. Self-censorship is
worse than censorship itself because it sacrifices freedom voluntarily.
This means that we have to defend Salman Rushdie and the Danish
cartoonists and the friends of Idomeneo, whether we like them or not.
If anyone does not like them, there are all the instruments of public
debate and of critical discourse that an enlightened community has at
its disposal. It is also true that we do not have to buy any particular
book or listen to an opera. What a poor world it would be if anything
that might offend any group could no longer be said! A multicultural
society that accepts every taboo of its diverse groups would have
little to talk about.
The kind of reaction we have seen recently to expressions of views that
are offensive to some does not bode well for the future of liberty. It
is as if a new wave of counterenlightenment is sweeping the world,
with the most restrictive views dominating the scene.
Against such reactions, enlightened views must be reasserted
strongly. Defending the right of all people to say things even if
one detests their views is one of the first principles of liberty.
Thus, Idomeneo must be performed, and Salman Rushdie must be
published. Whether an editor publishes cartoons offensive to believers
in Muhammad (or Christ, for that matter) is a matter of judgment,
almost of taste. I might not do it, but I would nevertheless defend the
right of someone who decides otherwise. It is debatable whe­ther recent
incidents of this kind require a "dialogue between religions." Public
debate making clear cases one way or the other seems more appropriate
than conciliation. The gains of enlightened discourse are too precious
to be turned into negotiable values. Defending those gains is the
task that we now face.
--Project Syndicate
--Boundary_(ID_iMJMz2baA6F+EZvlF6raJA)- -