The academic journal Science, Religion & Culture has a special issue on Islam, Culture and the Charlie Hebdo affair. The first article I’ve opened is Free Speech is Free for Whom? by Hussein Rashid, an adjunct prof at Hofstra. I…don’t like it. It’s written in a form of academese that I’m very allergic to – the kind that wraps its points in such a cloud of pseudo-technical verbiage that…well that two things:
- people like me can’t stand to read it
- the unwary are fooled into thinking it’s profound
He’s saying less than he appears to be saying, in other words, and in doing so he makes it hard to pin down what he is saying because of the sheer annoyance of reading.
There is an analytic issue in attempting to create a conflict between a religion and a concept. Aside from the obvious lack of parallelism, neither has an agency of its own. A religion is constituted by the actions and interpretations of those who claim adherence to it; free expression must be exercised to be real.
In other words, religions and concepts aren’t people. True.
What makes the narrative so compelling is that it indexes other symbols. If free speech is “good,” then everything associated with it must be good. This includes ideas of democracy, secularism, Enlightenment, Reformation, and modernity. Two of these terms refer to historical moments, the meanings and values of which are not generally agreed upon in specifics. The other three terms are also ill-defined, and mean different things in different cultural contexts, even in the semiosphere represented by the “West.”
In other words, we need to define our terms. Ok.
In a state of competition, if free speech is good, then Islam must be bad. The religion indexes a series of depictions of the “Other,” such as violence, lack of culture/civilization, poor gender roles, superstition/illogic, and primitiveness. This construction, a significant part of Orientalist discourse, goes back centuries. However, the ways in which the “Other” is constructed is not limited to Muslims, but is used to describe minorities of any type, whether they are minorities by religion, race, ethnicity, gender, class, or sexuality.
By questioning the very narrative engendered by the attacks on the workers of CH, we understand the ways in which post-Enlightenment liberal values are, in fact, methods for continued exclusion. That we can offer such a critique does not mean that the aspirations of these values is inherently problematic. Rather, they too have no agency, and it is in the ways in which these values are referenced and applied that is problematic. Specifically at stake is the idea that the Enlightenment is the teleological end for humanity; as a result there is only way to be modern; and the liberal values generated by the Enlightenment are neutral and should be universally accepted.
In other words…oh never mind, you can see where he’s going. That’s enough for me. Massimo Pigliucci also has an article in the issue; that’s bound to be much better.
How did this get past the editor of an “academic journal”?
According to Merriam-Webster, the verb ‘index’ has these definitions:
I have no idea which of those the author intended in this sentence:
Maybe academics have secret dictionaries with other definitions for words, but I’m gonna go with: this author did very poorly in English classes.
#2 moarscienceplz, you have an index finger, it is used to point to things, usually, that is, it indicates. I think the author meant that.
I like Massimo’s article. Perhaps I’m not much of a Gnu atheist anymore. I used to disagree with Massimo reflexively. Not now….
So, the first bit says what you say it says, and also that while religions exist as a discourse independent of any particular person or group of people putting them into practice, but dependent upon at least some people putting them into practice and also constructing meaning around those practices, free expression is made manifest when and only when it is actually practiced (I think he’s wrong on this point – free expression exists as a discursive construct independent of its own practice, and the fact that I can talk about it on this blog, which does have limits on what can be said or how, proves that – I do not need to be expressing myself freely for the concept of free expression to have meaning as a real concept for me).
The second bit doesn’t say what you say it says. The second bit says that people (in The West) find the narrative in question (that of Islam vs free expression) appealing becasue it implicitly establishes a semiotic cluster (or “index” – a related and interlinked set of symbols within a cultural context that gives those symbols a particular set of meanings based on the normative discourse of that culture [what emerges as the shared normative understanding of those symbols based on repeated and sustained usage by the people and texts we determine to be informing the usage of language within the cultural-historical space in question])* that they find appealing beyond just the core concept of free expression. He’s not saying that we need to define our terms, he’s saying that the semiotic cluster is composed of ideograms – symbols that have only connotation and no (or always-contested) denotation, like “freedom” or “patriotism” or “evil” or “terrorism” – so we CANNOT define them (in the sense of denotation).
The third bit, first paragraph, says that by constructing a narrative of competition – Islam versus free speech – the two are positioned in opposition to each other, and so the association of “good” with free speech implies an association of “bad” with Islam. He then identifies elements of the semiotic cluster associated with Islam, and links it to a long history of Orientalism (a patterned set of tropes used in representations of The Orient in European and then European colonial areas; broadly, these associate The East with magic, sexual gluttony and ‘immorality’, fantastical wealth, mysticism/obscuritanism, violence, and a lack of ‘civilization’ as the French or British might define the term), then makes a claim that a similar process is replicated with respect to other minority groups (though I would say marginalized groups, as the groups don’t necessarily need to be local or global minorities, and often weren’t or aren’t in colonized areas).
I’d have to read the whole piece to see how much I really agree or disagree with, though I can already tell I disagree with Rashid on a number of points, and it sounds very much like it’s setting up a defense of the right to not be offended. I find your complaints about the language even more ridiculous/hilarious than usual becasue the quoted parts aren’t even saying anything especially novel, just some basic and long-established semiotic theory, and the language used is well-established: it’s not “ways of knowing” and “quantum” bullshit that has nothing to do with the present consensus physical model of the same name. None of the usages here are nonstandard or invented by Rashid; the language is perfectly cromulent. 😛 While you’re certainly not required to like it , you’re also not the target audience, and complaining about it is a lot like complaining that you find advanced physics or biology papers written for other physicists and biologists hard to follow. Give me a New York Times science copywriter over Niels Bohr any day, amirite? Differential equations are just used to make papers look fancy, when the concepts COULD be explained in plain English if it wasn’t for the ego and/or poor writing skills of the author, obviously.
@wannabe #1: Easily; in that context, “associated” means “associated as part of the semiotic index I have just identified” and refers to the way that we link meaning in sets of related of symbols. That people do this should be as obvious as the ubiquity of guilt by association, the resistance to believing bad things about people they like or admire that people exhibit, etc.
*We usage jargon to avoid having to write all of that out every time we want to talk about a (semiotic) index or a cultural discourse. I promise it’s not for the sole purpose of making it difficult for you to understand or making something sound more meaningful than it is.
@4 – so what you’re saying is that he said free speech is Islamophobic?
Who is the target audience then?
If it’s people conversant with semiotic theory, then why did Massimo write his article the way he did? If it’s an advanced semiotic theory paper, why does the issue have people from so many other fields?
Some thoughts, partly in response to John:
Bad writing is everywhere. You can’t just go “it’s using jargon, therefore it’s not bad writing”. It’s a bit of both, I’m sure.
Also, sometimes people do write in bizarre ways just because that’s the way people do things with no apparent justificatin for it. A simple example is that “formal” writing just doesn’t use contractions like “can’t” or “doesn’t”. Or words like “I” and “me” won’t be used, even if it is one author who is writing the document, and reporting their own evaluations.
Those are simple examples, but there are more complex language rules some people use, too, that I suspect are similarly pointless. And when people write that way, it is difficult for outsiders to understand. And I suspect some of that shows up in academic papers (like the one here) as well.
Without going into a diatribe with obscure vocabulary to obfuscate the issue, I can both defend the essence of Islam and freedom of speech in a single comment.
First, freedom of speech: The purpose of freedom of speech for anyone using it is to defend another right or to lie. Freedom of speech does not protect the liar, or the wrongdoer. Freedom of speech allows truth through the barriers erected against truth. Truth is defended with truth, while a lie is defended with another lie.
The essence of Islam: Islam is a statement by one man, Prophet Muhammad, that there is one God and that, he, Muhammmad is not God or the helper of God. The Qur’an is published under the seal of Muhammad as a testimony that it is true. He presents parables, examples, and anecdotal evidence that the essence of what he says is true.
God: Anselm said that God is that than which no concept is higher (Paraphrased form several statements by Anselm). I find only one concept that equals that description, truth. No fact, statement, belief, or any other construct of fact or theory anywhere in time or space could be true without the concept of truth over all that is true, false, past, present, future, or subjunctive. If anything is false, truth must be over false as verification that it is false. That would be whether one does of does not, could or could not, or ever has any distortion in mind.
In the Quran is the term Al Haqq, The Truth, as one of the 99 ‘names’ for Allah. That does not just mean that the statement or belief is true, but that the concept of God is the concept of Truth. One person accused me of believing that God could be a piece of fecal material from a certain animal. Not so. That would be a fact. A fact is subject to being true by having a true existence, or false, possible non-existence. Truth subject to the concept could not be false, thus is not a matter of fact that could be true or false. A matter of fact could be true or false, but a matter of truth could not be false and still be truth. Thus as is revealed in the Qur’an, Al Haqq, Allah, is a concept that could not be false.
An atheist could not attest that any belief that a supreme being over all that is and is not, is false, without admitting an overriding concept that what he believes is true. If he believes that what he believes is true, he must also agree that a concept truth does exist. An atheist is not an atruthist. Thus, truth as the master of all that is true, would be the master of the atheist, if his belief is true, and if his belief is false. For it would also be true that it is false, if false. Matters of fact can be negated, while truth cannot be negated. It is only true that possible is affirmed as possible and impossible is affirmed as impossible. Every fact is affirmed as true, or affirmed as false. Truth is God.
The Essence of Islam is the affirmation of truth as a concept that could not be false. Truth is not dependent upon any sapient being, fact, or belief. Truth is in all time and space and in all negation of fact, or possibility. If nothing but exists, or ever existed, only the possible is, and the impossible is not. Factual existence in time and space coordinates is the matter of fact and the negation of a fact in time and space is the non-event. Possible and impossible are the conditions of Truth. Truth, as that concept of truth, is possible, thus not impossible. All facts are either true or false, thus all possible, even if negated. Truth cannot be negated. The impossible includes no fact or possibility.
The square circle and the cubic sphere are examples of the impossible. They contradict. A unicorn is an example of a fact, possible, but does not exist. It could exist, but a square circle cannot.
Frank Goodman Sr. @8
You could argue that, but I don’t see how the concept of God=Truth works when so many other concepts are wrapped up in it, like God being a sapient being which cares about humans and can intervene in the material world, etc. God as the concept of truth, alone, would be rejected as a god by most people without those other qualities that people associate with gods. Certainly it doesn’t really reflect the god of Islam. I mean, it seems easier to just say that both sides have a right to speak out about their beliefs.
Oh d*g yes. Adjunct professor Religious Studies, I would have guessed Cultural Studies.
Moarscienceplz – 1b I think
@8, Frank Goodman Sr
Glad to see you’re interested in the truth. Time for you to find out the truth: the prophet of Islam is a false prophet.
Jargon in long sentences is in general a sign of dishonesty.
The point to jargon is supposed to be to express a complex idea within a field concisely.
I write for a living (despite my general conversational tone) and part of that is figuring out the reading level of my chosen audience, and writing a few steps below that.
The reason we do this is because you don’t want people struggling with the language you use, you want them to consider the ideas you are communicating.
If people are struggling to understand specific words, they’re losing the meaning of the sentence.
When jargon does come into play it is to keep things concise. If your sentences aren’t short, it indicates using jargon for its other purpose.
With this sort of article it rings all sorts of alarm bells because jargon can also be used to obscure meaning and fuzzy thinking. I think that is the point here, the guy writing this is clearly not all that good at thinking.
Why do I say that? Because it does not follow that if a thing is good, everything associated with it must be good.
Eating is in general a good idea, but eat too much and it can have negative health consequences. We can accept that something is generally good, while agreeing to limited exceptions to it. Free speech for example, does not cover hate speech or slander in most countries.
That however is not the crux of his point as I read it, he is trying to phrase equality as being exclusive, by pushing the idea that some people don’t like it much.
He is relying on the liberal taboo against exclusion to try and make his point, but that taboo is not absolute. There are some people who should be excluded.
We exclude the KKK, we exclude neo-nazis, we exclude rape apologists, we exclude misogynists by levying criticism against them. Each of these groups is hopefully a minority – yet being minorities does not mean they are immune to being wrong or harmful.
Hussein Rashid wants the freedom of speech to promote his religion, and he wants his religion to have the freedom to promote its values, while also wanting freedom from criticism of his religion and its values.
This to my mind is the difference between a religious supremacist and a person that happens to be religious. Slogans like the American religious right’s “Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion” express this double standard, “we demand the right to bully and lie to your kids, but exclude your right to express your opposition to our bullying and lies.”
(This is why BTW, I don’t see Islam as exceptional in any way – the terrorism we see is precisely what you would get if any form of religious right got major oil funding coupled with political legitimacy.)
Yet excluding those values, by way of criticism, is 100% okay. It is how society moves forward. What Rashid wants is a double standard, and that is not acceptable.
[OT]
brucegorton: “in general”, probably — but I think Hanlon’s razor should also be borne in mind.
For me, his argument falls down almost immediately:
No one claims this. We well know that free speech can be used for damaging purposes – lying, for an incredibly easy example out of many – thus, he appears to be arguing against a strawman.
Yeah, so, I went and took a cursory look at the article and while it is a bit dense, this lazy reading is shamefully dishonest.
The author is not presenting this as a statement meaning that nobody recognizes that free speech can be abused. He is offering it as part of an explanation for why there is such a rush to frame free speech as being opposed to Islam, in the context of Western narratives around both. He argues that free speech is a part of a complex of ideas and values that are held to be unassailable, specifically “democracy, secularism, Enlightenment, Reformation, and modernity.” When contrasted with Islam, which he argues is associated with “violence, lack of culture/civilization, poor gender roles, superstition/illogic, and primitiveness,” it becomes easy to why the framing of Islam as existing in opposition to free speech is an appealing narrative for many Western commenters.
His direction is clear and his reason for representing that particular discourse around free speech in a somewhat simplified manner is not difficult to understand. To say that he is actually making the argument that nobody understands that free speech can sometimes be abused strikes me as dishonest.
“Adjunct” professor. That can mean anything. I was “adjunct professor” at NYU for a couple of terms teaching non-degree adult continuing education courses.
It looks good on LinkedIn.
@12, brucegorton
Well it depends on who the “chosen audience” is. Since this is “the academic journal Science, Religion & Culture” I’m not sure you can really criticise this article in particular (as being dishonest or whatever) for being difficult for outsiders to read. Unless most of the journal is written in more accesible ways, and this article is some kind of outlier.
@15, SallyStrange
Ya another thing about that part:
Like……this person is worried about the vagueness and uselessness of that list of words? That list of words that he himself thought worthy of using as associations? And, if people consider free speech good, then those people will automatically commit the fallacy of “not-guilty by association”? Really? This whole part looks like the author is constructing a straw enemy.
At least “free speech” is a fairly specific thing, unlike the vague words “Enlightenment, Reformation, and modernity”. Since the writer’s complaint is related to vagueness, the writer should be happy that people think a fairly specific thing is good. So it almost seems desperate that the author has to equate 1) considering a more specific concept good with 2) considering those more vague concepts as good.
I would accuse this author of being a complete hack, but it’s really hard for me to tell what the author is trying to say! Sigh.
Somehow I missed Holms in post 14 saying something similar to what I said!
…and it seems that I misunderstood what SallyStrange was saying as well -_____-
brianpansky
Actually it is a pretty good rule of thumb for the reliability of academic writing in general I find.
A lot of the research I write about is published in journals like Plos One – which is strictly academic – and mostly the really good studies are fairly easy to understand.
The studies can titles can sound bloody obscure, but generally once you get into the nitty gritty of it they’re readable so long as you take it slow.
It is when you end up reading pseudo-science that you start getting that avalanche of jargon that, when you really look at it isn’t actually communicating anything.