First, staff at Penguin Books have complained about the publishing of a Canadian academic and controversialist whose work questions progressive ideas, especially relating to sexual identity; and, it is true, Dr Jordan B. Peterson's writing can be considered offensive to those who disagree with his conservative, even traditional, ideas, partly formed by his study of Jung. Some staff want the book to be cancelled. It is to be noted that Penguin has, for years, published Mein Kampf, often considered the most notorious and dangerous book in human history, arguably at least partially responsible for 6 million deaths.
None of the complainers at Penguin seem to have bothered to defend the rights of Jews, gays or gypsies (Roma) over this terrible evil book being available. Yet, questioning sexual identity, however offensive, is a lesser crime than arguing for genocide.
Indeed, Penguin publishes many books by thinkers, poets, and writers, who are atheists, criminals, even killers and sex maniacs, as well as by Jew-haters, Catholics, racists, and Tories; but also books by radical communists, feminists, and gender rights campaigners. By publishing Orwell, they signal their wish is to NOT engage in groupthink, or to falsely edit out the history of human thought. As Hegel showed, the evolution of human thought and being grows though a dialectical process. There can be no truth found - in a debate or a court of law or a class room - without both sides.
Meanwhile, Cambridge dons are being asked to sign a new code of conduct that would demand they 'respect' the beliefs and identities of all students, and scholars. As the refuseniks have observed, sometimes the progress in science, and the humanities, arises from disputing, even mocking or satirising, opinions with which one does not want to agree. Tolerance is one thing, respect another. Did David Hume respect religions? No, he mocked them. Now, Hume's statue is removed, because his views on slavery are not respected... so it goes.
And, at Eton, a teacher was apparently fired for seeking in a class about various ideas, and freedom of thought, to address feminist ideas with some espousing pro-male concepts. In a week that sees the English book I HATE MEN published, this must cause pause.
There has been a terrible elision of the need to be able to say and write and publish offensive, even potentially disprovable ideas, with the fear of causing or receiving painful personal emotive reactions. To take offense is now to disprove. And the new normal is to seek places where no one feels emotional pain, or is confronted by 'uncomfortable' truths, or even falsehoods.
High intellectual or artistic pursuit is not synonymous with the avoidance of brain pain. Or heart ache. Just as no one enters an Olympic marathon race without expecting an excruciating endurance test, picking up a philosophical book, or a work of theology, or studying at a major university, is not without its burdens and risks.
Why has danger become a bad thing? Indeed, resilience, and some managed pain, toughens all people up, to face the worst of what life does and will throw at us.
Reading and top schooling were once ways to become smarter, tougher and better-informed, about the world, and its many different and sometimes startling, opinions, ideas, and systems of behaviour and government.
Certainly, as a publisher, I believe that no book is better burned, than made available, if even in a library. Despite what a current group of people wish to claim, any society that limits, controls, bans or cancels the availability of books and thought has never come to a good end. These societies were once recoiled from in horror. It is a strange testament to the bizarre digital brainwashing of the past 20 years or so that so many human beings now feel able and willing to call for severe restrictions to be put on what they can see, feel, hear, do, and think. This partly the fault of an older generation or two, whose behaviour, in terms of rogue capitalism, ecological wastage, and racism, has been less than stellar. The wish to 'do better' - while idealistic, is admirable.
Idealism, and revolutionary fervour, are the hallmarks of every generation that is young, when the world burns. Ask Shelley. But revolutions often become tyrannies, and can be corrupted by power and intolerance. No democracy is ideal, but all democracies are better than tyrannies. The current progressive agendas are difficult to balance with majority interests because they are fighting for the rights of minorities, who deserve better recognition and protection under the law. Our democracies are failing too many people. This is pushing people to embrace alternative political aims that seem better suited to achieving justice... but may end up, tragically, doing more harm than good.
But, the main point is, whatever nonsense this brief post-essay has spouted, it is is legal and permissible that it be written and published. No laws have been broken, no persons maligned, no insults delivered, no cruelty meted out. It has sought to balance exposition and thought with fairness and kindness. I'll apologise for getting things wrong - but unpublishing it seems a bridge too far - if we are trying to cross into a land of tolerance, for all persons.
Comments