Speech Acts

Ok, I was going to comment on the Danish cartoons issue a while ago, and never found my way here. I admit it is scary to see the reaction, and I support the idea of a secular public sphere, in which blasphemy is not acceptable grounds for violence. But still, you have to marvel at the arrogance of the Danes. The prime minister refuses to meet with Muslims who want to "dialogue" about the issue. Even more egregious: the paper refused cartoons of Jesus because they were deemed offensive, before putting out a call for cartoons about Muhammed, basically saying "please send us something offensive."

But what's the appropriate response? Certainly not legal action against the paper or the cartoonist. Some gestures of goodwill toward Islam by the government wouldn't hurt. It's a good opportunity, though, to think about how to struggle with media without censorship. How to hit them where it hurts for doing something stupid? What motivates newspapers? Obviously sales, but I'm not holding my breath that the usual readership are going to do anything.

It occurs to me that awards carry some weight for cultural institutions like this. Clearly, it's high time for a negative award system. While competing for pulitzers and their equivalent, then, newspapers also have to try to avoid nomination for an award for the worst abuse of the journalistic profession, or some such. That would get interesting.

In any case, the rioting and burning and general anti-Danish business is a perfect opportunity for all of us not to be Christopher Hitchens. That guy is so annoying-- his islamophobia is intense. Somehow he is getting all this praise as a "public intellectual," when his thinking is mush: there are scary Muslims out there, including people like the 9-11 hijackers. They critique western society, so anyone else who critiques western society must be destroyed. Meanwhile, the Bush empire promises to destroy the scary Muslims, so rah, Empire! Man, when lefties go right they go all the way wrong.