A friend of mine referred to a mutual friend as “Islamophobic” and I disagreed. I said, “Islamophobia” is a psychiatric diagnosis which you have no justification for making. It implies extreme fear. I support my friend’s intention to challenge stereotypes and to stand up for the humanity in every person. But the term he used promotes another dismissive stereotype. He thanked me for my intervention.
We hear the word “homophobic” often, too. But take four minutes of your life and listen to this gorgeous 1965 performance by Joan Baez of an Appalachian folk song titled “Silver Dagger”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX-QApWIXs4. No one would use the term “heterophobic” to label the women in these lyrics.
The group that controls the terminology wins the debate. There are serious questions pertaining to sexual conduct and religious activity that deserve fair debate, free of the battle of stereotypes. Mature people can discuss these things, and they represent the future beyond this time of heightened social antagonism.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anti_gay_San_Francisco.jpg
Thanks Jeff for a thought provoking post about a subject I often ponder, even if I seldom feel I’ve gotten very far with it.
I wholeheartedly agree that terms “homophobia” and “Islamophobia” are used much too casually and much too often. Of course, all sides of the political spectrum seem to relish stereotyping and do their best to bring into general use terms that radiate more heat than light. “Junk science” and “political correctness” come to mind as other examples, and no doubt we could make a not-exactly-tiny dictionary of such terms.
It’s hard for me to figure out what we can do about this problem in any systematic way, however, beyond what you describe having done with your friend, and of course engaging in conversations like this one. After all, there’s no small amount of “science” out there that is overly influenced by politics, and there are plenty of people whose ideas of what it is proper to say are far too influenced by rigid ideology passing as compassion. Regarding “Islamophobia”, it is used far too often as a club to bludgeon potentially reasonable, if critical, discussion about Islam. On the other hand, it is my experience (at least in the regions of the U.S. in which I’ve spent most of my life) that it’s drearily easy to find people with a hair-trigger, vehement hatred of just about anything associated with Islam (although they sometimes claim to not hate Muslims) who cannot provide even a simple outline of the most uncontroversial facts of Islamic history, culture, and theology. They even take pride in their refusal to acquire the most basic un-politicized understanding of Islam. It’s hard for me to see how “Islamophobia” doesn’t in some way fit the mindset of such brothers an sisters, and any descriptive term that has more neutral connotations tends to ring of euphemism to me.
Nonetheless, I try to avoid this kind of language even when I can’t find a substitute that I like better. On some level it is just too glib, too cheeky, and too partisan in the worst possible sense. I can’t see how it contributes to the elevation of our discourse. Without a doubt, its casual use drags discussion down.
I think, though, that we have to be careful about where we cast our pearls here. It sounds to me like your friend is exactly the right kind of person to intervene with. We can make headway with essentially thoughtful, reasonable people who are simply being somewhat careless in their use of language. Others–many others–will simply turn to rend us for our efforts.
From what I’ve observed, the strident partisans who most relish this kind of language are psychologically no different from ardent nationalists in how they treat those outside their group. And as George Orwell pointed out in his superb essay “On Nationalism”, nationalists (and intense partisans of all types, imo) are by nature indifferent to concepts of universal justice, however much lip service they may pay them. As Orwell described it from a the point of view of nationalism (which, of course, is not his point of view):
“Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side.”
Few will profess this kind of mindset but as far as I can tell many are quite happy to live it. And so I make the perhaps self-evident point that such people are not worth trying to correct, since they will–at best–only think the less of us for the effort.
If we can help people like your friend to be more careful we have made a genuine contribution.
I would have to think how to address one of these persons who hates Islam. So far, people who tune in to this weblog are all a different sort. But I stand by my critique: fear may well play a role in hatred, but to diagnose pathological fear as the sole cause still seems false. I count this blogpost a great success for stimulating such a helpful contribution as you have provided. Let me ask you for help: how would you reword “politically correct”?
I agree completely that to diagnose pathological fear as the *sole* cause of attitudes that are often called “Islamophobic” is wrong. That’s why, like I said, I rarely use the word. I might well be best off never using it.
As for “politically correct”, I think that “reactionary” is a reasonable substitute, although such things are never perfect. Surely “reactionary” is less idiomatic, in that it can be directly and meaningfully translated into other languages in a way that “politically correct” cannot. That in itself is deeply telling, I think.
“Politically correct” generally refers to attitudes and policies that stem from a particularly rigid and aggressive Leftist and/or Postmodernist position. Perhaps usage has shifted and I haven’t caught up, but last time I checked this was the case anyway. That said, psychological and intellectual rigidity and aggressiveness are hardly a monopoly of the Left. I find them among the Right, among Libertarians, Greens, Socialists, whatever. Again, at least last time I checked we normally use “politically correct” for certain pet modes of discussion favored by the ideological Left, and not just the underlying attitude. As I see it, though, ardent political partisans of all sorts, *by nature*, have pet modes of discourse that they try to enforce on others. But we generally only give this a term for the Left, which implies that they are the only ones guilty of it, which I believe is far from being factual, true, or just.
So while “reactionary” is imperfect, its less idiomatic nature displays its less partisan origins and makes it harder to enslave to partisan agendas. I believe it is thereby more fair, even if it’s not completely free of connotative baggage.
Thanks Jeff for a thought provoking post about a subject I often ponder, even if I seldom feel I’ve gotten very far with it.
I wholeheartedly agree that terms “homophobia” and “Islamophobia” are used much too casually and much too often. Of course, all sides of the political spectrum seem to relish stereotyping and do their best to bring into general use terms that radiate more heat than light. “Junk science” and “political correctness” come to mind as other examples, and no doubt we could make a not-exactly-tiny dictionary of such terms.
It’s hard for me to figure out what we can do about this problem in any systematic way, however, beyond what you describe having done with your friend, and of course engaging in conversations like this one. After all, there’s no small amount of “science” out there that is overly influenced by politics, and there are plenty of people whose ideas of what it is proper to say are far too influenced by rigid ideology passing as compassion. Regarding “Islamophobia”, it is used far too often as a club to bludgeon potentially reasonable, if critical, discussion about Islam. On the other hand, it is my experience (at least in the regions of the U.S. in which I’ve spent most of my life) that it’s drearily easy to find people with a hair-trigger, vehement hatred of just about anything associated with Islam (although they sometimes claim to not hate Muslims) who cannot provide even a simple outline of the most uncontroversial facts of Islamic history, culture, and theology. They even take pride in their refusal to acquire the most basic un-politicized understanding of Islam. It’s hard for me to see how “Islamophobia” doesn’t in some way fit the mindset of such brothers an sisters, and any descriptive term that has more neutral connotations tends to ring of euphemism to me.
Nonetheless, I try to avoid this kind of language even when I can’t find a substitute that I like better. On some level it is just too glib, too cheeky, and too partisan in the worst possible sense. I can’t see how it contributes to the elevation of our discourse. Without a doubt, its casual use drags discussion down.
I think, though, that we have to be careful about where we cast our pearls here. It sounds to me like your friend is exactly the right kind of person to intervene with. We can make headway with essentially thoughtful, reasonable people who are simply being somewhat careless in their use of language. Others–many others–will simply turn to rend us for our efforts.
From what I’ve observed, the strident partisans who most relish this kind of language are psychologically no different from ardent nationalists in how they treat those outside their group. And as George Orwell pointed out in his superb essay “On Nationalism”, nationalists (and intense partisans of all types, imo) are by nature indifferent to concepts of universal justice, however much lip service they may pay them. As Orwell described it from a the point of view of nationalism (which, of course, is not his point of view):
“Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side.”
Few will profess this kind of mindset but as far as I can tell many are quite happy to live it. And so I make the perhaps self-evident point that such people are not worth trying to correct, since they will–at best–only think the less of us for the effort.
If we can help people like your friend to be more careful we have made a genuine contribution.
I would have to think how to address one of these persons who hates Islam. So far, people who tune in to this weblog are all a different sort. But I stand by my critique: fear may well play a role in hatred, but to diagnose pathological fear as the sole cause still seems false. I count this blogpost a great success for stimulating such a helpful contribution as you have provided. Let me ask you for help: how would you reword “politically correct”?
I agree completely that to diagnose pathological fear as the *sole* cause of attitudes that are often called “Islamophobic” is wrong. That’s why, like I said, I rarely use the word. I might well be best off never using it.
As for “politically correct”, I think that “reactionary” is a reasonable substitute, although such things are never perfect. Surely “reactionary” is less idiomatic, in that it can be directly and meaningfully translated into other languages in a way that “politically correct” cannot. That in itself is deeply telling, I think.
“Politically correct” generally refers to attitudes and policies that stem from a particularly rigid and aggressive Leftist and/or Postmodernist position. Perhaps usage has shifted and I haven’t caught up, but last time I checked this was the case anyway. That said, psychological and intellectual rigidity and aggressiveness are hardly a monopoly of the Left. I find them among the Right, among Libertarians, Greens, Socialists, whatever. Again, at least last time I checked we normally use “politically correct” for certain pet modes of discussion favored by the ideological Left, and not just the underlying attitude. As I see it, though, ardent political partisans of all sorts, *by nature*, have pet modes of discourse that they try to enforce on others. But we generally only give this a term for the Left, which implies that they are the only ones guilty of it, which I believe is far from being factual, true, or just.
So while “reactionary” is imperfect, its less idiomatic nature displays its less partisan origins and makes it harder to enslave to partisan agendas. I believe it is thereby more fair, even if it’s not completely free of connotative baggage.
First words like ‘homophobe’ are used in a connotative sense carrying embed political implications. Language usage evolves, sometimes the direction it takes is helpful and sometimes not.
Second is this: “There are serious questions pertaining to sexual conduct and religious activity that deserve fair debate, free of the battle of stereotypes.” Exactly how serious and in what way these questions are serious depends in part on whether you believe homosexuals are born or made. It might turn out that there are no legitimate sexual or religious issues, only unjustified or irrational (hence the phobia) beliefs
Matthew, you have a philosopher’s skill of making remarks that include some impeccable sentences–impossible to disagree with–which nevertheless attract the reader’s mind in an unmistakable direction.
On the born or made question I have no either/or answer, let alone a generalization to cover all persons. My default assumption is that in most traits many factors play some role and that I do not need to assess the proportion of genetic, early childhood, and more recent social-environmental factors as well as personal decision.
One of the most important questions regarding sexual conduct applies to heterosexual and same-sex conduct: the question of promiscuity. As an observer of the social scene in the United States during the past several decades, I got an impression (supported by statistics) that this question pertained–statistcally speaking–to gays (in the sense of males) more than to other groups.
My conviction is that sex is meaningful and tends to engage every level of the personality in at least transient devotion of one partner to the another (although it is possible to habituate oneself to a far less meaningful encounter). I believe that promiscuity is inconsistent with the leading of the indwelling spirit of God.
I have long known, respected, and loved gays and lesbians among my acquaintances and friends. I had my own experiments in college before getting clear about such things for myself, and I know the long-term effects of awakening those affections. I served as a teaching assistant in an ethics of sex course, and taught courses on love, sex, and religion, and units on the ethics of sex for a number of years. Being familiar with the complexity of ethical reflection on these topics, I wince to see matters handled in the popular press so bluntly.
As a religious philosopher teaching section after section of a course in applied ethics, I labored to shape issues for student inquiry in a way that highlighted what I found to be the best reasons on various sides of the question in a way that did not entangle me in in the debates, lest the hoped-for religious contribution I was attempting to make (about our all belonging in the universal family of God) would get lost in the shuffle. And I not infrequently speak up for groups that are getting dismissed, whether I find myself in conversation with liberals or conservatives.
I not infrequently speak up for groups that are getting dismissed, whether I find myself in conversation with liberals or conservatives. And regarding those who demonstrate against gays and lesbians, I hold out for consideration and resist psychologizing oversimplification. There are lots of reasons for people to be aggressive and hostile. These are times when we urgently need to learn not to respond in kind.
I do not know why but for some reason never received notification of a reply. Meanwhile as usual Jeffrey you have a way of answering that disarms all sides. Perhaps diplomacy would also have been a good career path for you.
There has been a considerable reduction in homosexual promiscuity over the past few decades. Gay men and women have shown themselves capable of fidelity as much or as little as heterosexuals. So the issues you raise have nothing to do with homosexuality as such. The problem is political. Gays are condemned on Biblical grounds which have little to do with God’s real will.
First words like ‘homophobe’ are used in a connotative sense carrying embed political implications. Language usage evolves, sometimes the direction it takes is helpful and sometimes not.
Second is this: “There are serious questions pertaining to sexual conduct and religious activity that deserve fair debate, free of the battle of stereotypes.” Exactly how serious and in what way these questions are serious depends in part on whether you believe homosexuals are born or made. It might turn out that there are no legitimate sexual or religious issues, only unjustified or irrational (hence the phobia) beliefs
Matthew, you have a philosopher’s skill of making remarks that include some impeccable sentences–impossible to disagree with–which nevertheless attract the reader’s mind in an unmistakable direction.
On the born or made question I have no either/or answer, let alone a generalization to cover all persons. My default assumption is that in most traits many factors play some role and that I do not need to assess the proportion of genetic, early childhood, and more recent social-environmental factors as well as personal decision.
One of the most important questions regarding sexual conduct applies to heterosexual and same-sex conduct: the question of promiscuity. As an observer of the social scene in the United States during the past several decades, I got an impression (supported by statistics) that this question pertained–statistcally speaking–to gays (in the sense of males) more than to other groups.
My conviction is that sex is meaningful and tends to engage every level of the personality in at least transient devotion of one partner to the another (although it is possible to habituate oneself to a far less meaningful encounter). I believe that promiscuity is inconsistent with the leading of the indwelling spirit of God.
I have long known, respected, and loved gays and lesbians among my acquaintances and friends. I had my own experiments in college before getting clear about such things for myself, and I know the long-term effects of awakening those affections. I served as a teaching assistant in an ethics of sex course, and taught courses on love, sex, and religion, and units on the ethics of sex for a number of years. Being familiar with the complexity of ethical reflection on these topics, I wince to see matters handled in the popular press so bluntly.
As a religious philosopher teaching section after section of a course in applied ethics, I labored to shape issues for student inquiry in a way that highlighted what I found to be the best reasons on various sides of the question in a way that did not entangle me in in the debates, lest the hoped-for religious contribution I was attempting to make (about our all belonging in the universal family of God) would get lost in the shuffle. And I not infrequently speak up for groups that are getting dismissed, whether I find myself in conversation with liberals or conservatives.
I not infrequently speak up for groups that are getting dismissed, whether I find myself in conversation with liberals or conservatives. And regarding those who demonstrate against gays and lesbians, I hold out for consideration and resist psychologizing oversimplification. There are lots of reasons for people to be aggressive and hostile. These are times when we urgently need to learn not to respond in kind.
I do not know why but for some reason never received notification of a reply. Meanwhile as usual Jeffrey you have a way of answering that disarms all sides. Perhaps diplomacy would also have been a good career path for you.
There has been a considerable reduction in homosexual promiscuity over the past few decades. Gay men and women have shown themselves capable of fidelity as much or as little as heterosexuals. So the issues you raise have nothing to do with homosexuality as such. The problem is political. Gays are condemned on Biblical grounds which have little to do with God’s real will.
I hope–sincerely–that I’ll be forgiven if I’ve belaboring the point, but my periodic lack of articulateness combined with what I believe is the importance and relevance of this observation make me want to make one more pass at it.
When I look at the photo at the top of the page after following the link near the bottom of the original post, I am reminded of the Buffalo Springfield song “For What It’s Worth”, especially:
…A thousand people in the street,
Singing songs and carrying signs,
Mostly say, “Hooray for our side.”
http://www.reasontorock.com/tracks/for_what_its_worth.html
I admire the spirit behind Jeff’s statement that “Mature people can discuss these things, and they represent the future beyond this time of heightened social antagonism.” In a sense I also agree with it as a statement of fact. On the other hand, long-standing public “debates” are in my observation normally more about primate-level concerns relating to status and group identity than anything else. It’s not so much that those involved are being insincere, it’s just that forces other than reasoned conviction are usually what are running the show. In this context, rationality is mostly (mostly…) window dressing.
For that reason I am skeptical about purely cognitive means being able to solve the more immediate and large-scale aspects of these antagonisms, at least not in a proximate way. Maybe I read too much primatology, and maybe I’m missing the point, but for what it’s worth…
Carl, I’m so grateful for your clarification. In concert with what I just mentioned in my reply to Matthew, I agree that the primate aspect of our nature has some degree of influence in most of what we do, though I usually stand aside from estimating proportions. It does seem that we have a tendency to learn lessons the hard way, which is why I’m working on this philosophy of living project.
Most of all, I’m grateful for the link you provided to the song of Nash and Young. I’ve heard the song countless times, been deeply intrigued by it, but have never pursued the lyrics to begin to clarify its mysterious appeal. I like the commentary provided in the document.
These labels that are applied to people or groups who are different from each other have as their underlining cause fear. This fear is a part of our biologic heritage, and it was quite appropriate in the past when lack of fear of strangers could spell death. This fear is the result of lack of knowledge, understanding, wisdom-the original state of humans- and most of all the failure to realize that there is more that unites us than that which separates us.
We must always remember that the human race is still evolving, especially intellectually, morally and spiritually. It has taken countless centuries to arrive at the point where we recognize (at least most of us) that we are all apart of a whole. The parts of the whole need each other. What the part does affects the whole. It will take countless more centuries before this process is completed where we recognize that we are all a part of a loving God’s family regardless of our approach to him (religion). Children form many erroneous concepts of their parents, but time and maturity reveal the truth.
Yes, we should try to tone down these labels that create more suspicion and more fear, but we should always overshadow our efforts with the sure knowledge that just as we now view the amazing discoveries of a scientific area, we will in time also view the amazing discoveries in the philosophical, moral, ethical, and spiritual arenas. In the meantime we must have laws that protect us from ourselves.
Silver Dagger is a sad song that depicts the loss of trust through betrayal. I hope that we learn to use wisdom in bestowing our trust, and not allow the lack of wisdom to destroy the value of trust in our hearts.
Dr. Perry
Good hearing your comments again, Dr. Perry. You rung the changes on the idea of fear, and you shared a most sensitive interpretation of “Silver Dagger” as sad, as well as your other thoughts that always expand our conversation.
I hope–sincerely–that I’ll be forgiven if I’ve belaboring the point, but my periodic lack of articulateness combined with what I believe is the importance and relevance of this observation make me want to make one more pass at it.
When I look at the photo at the top of the page after following the link near the bottom of the original post, I am reminded of the Buffalo Springfield song “For What It’s Worth”, especially:
…A thousand people in the street,
Singing songs and carrying signs,
Mostly say, “Hooray for our side.”
http://www.reasontorock.com/tracks/for_what_its_worth.html
I admire the spirit behind Jeff’s statement that “Mature people can discuss these things, and they represent the future beyond this time of heightened social antagonism.” In a sense I also agree with it as a statement of fact. On the other hand, long-standing public “debates” are in my observation normally more about primate-level concerns relating to status and group identity than anything else. It’s not so much that those involved are being insincere, it’s just that forces other than reasoned conviction are usually what are running the show. In this context, rationality is mostly (mostly…) window dressing.
For that reason I am skeptical about purely cognitive means being able to solve the more immediate and large-scale aspects of these antagonisms, at least not in a proximate way. Maybe I read too much primatology, and maybe I’m missing the point, but for what it’s worth…
Carl, I’m so grateful for your clarification. In concert with what I just mentioned in my reply to Matthew, I agree that the primate aspect of our nature has some degree of influence in most of what we do, though I usually stand aside from estimating proportions. It does seem that we have a tendency to learn lessons the hard way, which is why I’m working on this philosophy of living project.
Most of all, I’m grateful for the link you provided to the song of Nash and Young. I’ve heard the song countless times, been deeply intrigued by it, but have never pursued the lyrics to begin to clarify its mysterious appeal. I like the commentary provided in the document.
These labels that are applied to people or groups who are different from each other have as their underlining cause fear. This fear is a part of our biologic heritage, and it was quite appropriate in the past when lack of fear of strangers could spell death. This fear is the result of lack of knowledge, understanding, wisdom-the original state of humans- and most of all the failure to realize that there is more that unites us than that which separates us.
We must always remember that the human race is still evolving, especially intellectually, morally and spiritually. It has taken countless centuries to arrive at the point where we recognize (at least most of us) that we are all apart of a whole. The parts of the whole need each other. What the part does affects the whole. It will take countless more centuries before this process is completed where we recognize that we are all a part of a loving God’s family regardless of our approach to him (religion). Children form many erroneous concepts of their parents, but time and maturity reveal the truth.
Yes, we should try to tone down these labels that create more suspicion and more fear, but we should always overshadow our efforts with the sure knowledge that just as we now view the amazing discoveries of a scientific area, we will in time also view the amazing discoveries in the philosophical, moral, ethical, and spiritual arenas. In the meantime we must have laws that protect us from ourselves.
Silver Dagger is a sad song that depicts the loss of trust through betrayal. I hope that we learn to use wisdom in bestowing our trust, and not allow the lack of wisdom to destroy the value of trust in our hearts.
Dr. Perry
Good hearing your comments again, Dr. Perry. You rung the changes on the idea of fear, and you shared a most sensitive interpretation of “Silver Dagger” as sad, as well as your other thoughts that always expand our conversation.