In yesterday’s New York Times the distinguished law professor Stanley Fish offered some provocative commentary on the recent furor over the Danish cartoons:
“The first tenet of the liberal religion is that everything (at least in the realm of expression and ideas) is to be permitted, but nothing is to be taken seriously…This is why calls for "dialogue," issued so frequently of late by the pundits {…} are unlikely to fall on receptive ears. The belief in the therapeutic and redemptive force of dialogue depends on the assumption (central to liberalism's theology) that, after all, no idea is worth fighting over to the death and that we can always reach a position of accommodation if only we will sit down and talk it out.
But a firm adherent of a comprehensive religion doesn't want dialogue about his beliefs; he wants those beliefs to prevail. Dialogue is not a tenet in his creed, and invoking it is unlikely to do anything but further persuade him that you have missed the point — as, indeed, you are pledged to do, so long as liberalism is the name of your faith.”
Also: “What religious beliefs are owed — and this is a word that appears again and again in the recent debate — is "respect"; nothing less, nothing more. The thing about respect is that it doesn't cost you anything; its generosity is barely skin-deep and is in fact a form of condescension: I respect you; now don't bother me.”
Prof. Fish’s disdain for “the religion of liberalism” is extremely clear from the column, and there are certain turns of phrase in the column that appear to caricature the concepts he associates with it. However, I think the column hits on some subtler points that are quite worthy of discussion.I do agree that it is incumbent upon all of us to try to avoid expressions that we know will be hurtful or injurious to others. We do retain the right to express ourselves as we see fit, but that doesn’t mean we have a duty to continually express sentiments that we know will be insulting and offensive to others. The cartoons published by the Danes were, as Fish notes, highly insensitive, and the stated aim of the editor to avoid “self-censorship” was a foolish justification for the act of publication. One can see in the Iranian Holocaust cartoon competition the reaction to this particular line of argument. I also agree that the argument of reciprocity – you do it to us, so we can do it to you – is also paper thin. Such justifications merely stoke the fires of anger and hatred and get us no closer to coexistence.
However, that is where my disagreements with the column begin. If, as Professor Fish points out, “firm adherents” to religion don’t want dialogue because they want their belief to prevail, how is it that two people of different and opposing religions can coexist? Must it be inevitable that one must “prevail” over the other? Do firm believers in opposing ideas have to be in perpetual conflict? It seems to me that this is the core assertion of Prof. Fish’s column – dialogue is an insult to the believer. But one is left thinking, so now what? If appeals to dialogue “further persuade {the believer} that you have missed the point” then where is one left? It seems Prof. Fish’s argument forces us to choose between converting or fighting.
I find the dismissive attitude toward “respect” particularly troubling. I strongly disagree that respect “doesn’t cost anything” and that “its generosity is skin deep” and that it “is in fact a form of condescension.” In fact, these days even expressing respect can be extremely costly. In the face of a true believer, who wants you to believe what they believe, I can see how respect is not satisfying. But is it condescending to not agree with the true believer? Isn’t it more condescending not to accord the belief respect, but to fight against it? Is Prof. Fish’s assertion that fighting the firm adherent is somehow “more respectful” than trying to find a way to co-exist? Prof. Fish seems to be arguing that respect is valueless, but again I must ask, what is the alternative? Convert or fight is not an appropriate range of choices.
It seems all too common these days for people to characterize “the mind of the fanatic” and then to ascribe all sorts of behaviors to it. This kind of stereotyping is always dangerous, and it usually leads to very questionable conclusions. There are extremists in every society, and ideally they are held in check by more moderate voices who maintain a more holistic perspective. This is definitely true in the Muslim world, as it is undoubtedly true in the Christian and Jewish ones.
My sense is that this column seems to assert that dialogue is impossible with “those people,” and that “their intransigence” is used as a means to de-legitimize any calls for dialogue on “our side.” This line of argument serves to create a false choice between acquiescence and domination, where the clearly desirable choice is domination. But domination is the truly utopian vision, no matter how vilified the “pre-9/11 left” may be as being disconnected from reality. Muslims make up a fifth of the world’s population. We’re not going to be able to convert all of them, and they’re not going to be able to convert all of us. Our only option is to find a way to live together.
Calling liberalism a “religion” further muddies the water here, as the article is referring to actual religious adherents at the same time it uses the metaphor of religion in characterizing the core beliefs of liberalism. Who is Professor Fish talking about exactly when we describes this “religion of liberalism”? Is he talking about the Danish editor, or Democrats, or secular humanists, or hippies, or who? Is it anyone who believes in dialogue and respect? What “liberalism church” is one obliged to attend where this belief system is enumerated? Prof. Fish extends the metaphor by saying that if you insist upon dialogue with the true believer “you have missed the point — as, indeed, you are pledged to do, so long as liberalism is the name of your faith.” I take this to mean that “the point” is the truth as articulated by the firm adherent, and “missing the point” means not ascribing to it. However, “missing the point” implies a lack of understanding or sophistication, and I don’t agree that rejecting conversion is synonymous with ignorance or misunderstanding. This metaphor depicts anyone who argues for dialogue and respect as just another “firm adherent” fighting for their particular perspective.
I go back to Appiah’s vision of Cosmopolitanism for a compellingly articulated counter vision for coexistence:
“A tenable global ethics has to temper a respect for difference with a respect for the freedom of actual human beings to make their own choices. That’s why cosmopolitans don’t insist that everyone become cosmopolitan. They know they don’t have all the answers. They’re humble enough to think that they might learn from strangers; not too humble to think that strangers can’t learn from them.”