The sacred, the profane and the public sphere #1

I'd hoped to collapse a whole lot of thoughts about this into a single post but in the course of doing a little background reading into the issue of religion and the public sphere I got a little distracted by something which I'd intended to use only as a passing example - which is that of the proposed ban on the burka in France.

To begin with, the fragrant Agnès Poirier points to the dichotomy between the French and the British political culture and argues that such a debate could never take place in Britain. She's right about this and for the right reasons - although her take on the differences between the historical experiences of France and Britain is a little shaky. This can be seen in the way in which she conflates republicanism and secularism. Citizens of a country with Cromwell in their history tend not to, or at least shouldn't, make the same mistake.

Anyway, Oliver Kamm in a short article in favour of such a ban quotes both her and Christopher Hitchens approvingly. Norm, however, takes issue with what he considers to be an illiberal measure. All this left me with a curious feeling: I agreed with Norm's conclusion along with the reasoning that lead him there, yet I found myself much more in agreement with the spirit of what Oliver Kamm, Christopher Hitchens and Agnès Poirier have written on this subject because whether by default or design I think they do more justice to the historical context. This, I would argue, teaches us something fairly straightforward: for liberty to flourish, religion and the public demonstrations thereof, have to be circumscribed.

It does not follow that a ban on the burka is either expedient or necessary but in the discussion of this issue the trajectory that human liberty has taken, along with the agency that has secured this, could do with being appreciated more fully. By way of explanation as to what on earth I'm talking about, can I refer you to a rather depressing piece from Laurie Pennie? On this subject, with what one can only assume she imagines to be sarcasm, she writes the following:

"It's always a nice surprise to see a government trying to stick up for women."

To which one feels obliged to respond thus: it could only come as a surprise, nice or otherwise, to someone who is woefully ignorant of the role that the modern state has played in securing rights for women in the last couple of hundred years or so.

An understanding of this should serve as a counter-balance both to those who can't tell the difference between communism and fascism, as well as those 'libertarians' who believe the modern state must of necessity always be the greatest threat to liberty. For the latter, that they don't find many women in their ranks is no co-incidence - this for reasons I would have thought were obvious. Not so, though, for the ahistorical generation, which leads me back to Ms Pennie:

"It is patriarchy rather than religion that oppresses women across the world, whether it wears the face of an Imam, an abusive partner or a government minister."

Note the jutxa-position here: patriarchy rather than religion. But they can't be separated - at least not the monotheistic salvation religions - which is why her second combination doesn't make any sense. Nothing to choose between the cleric, the husband and the state? At the risk of making broad-brush generalisations, I would insist that the lessons of history would suggest otherwise. The uncomfortable truth is that wherever regimes that are secular have triumphed, even those deemed to be 'totalitarian', this has almost always been accompanied by significant advances in the position of women in society.

None of this should be taken to be an argument supporting a ban on burkas or anything like it. I intend to argue, on the contrary, that the public space should be as lenient as possible towards modes of behaviour that people might find either intolerable because they are profane or unacceptable because they are seen as demonstrating a piety that is insufferably anachronistic - but this will have to wait for now...

Makes you wonder what hope there is for the Middle East...

When we still have this kind of shit going on in the comfortable West...

There was more of the fuckers than normal this year for some reason.

Ian Wilson, Grand Master of the Orange Order said,

"There is no place in our celebration for public drinking, abusive behaviour or offensive chants."

Really? Because I became aware of the Billy Boys. I knew them by their noise. This was on account of the fact that they were singing a charming little ditty about Fenian blood or something. I can't speak for my Fenian friends but personally I found it quite offensive.



Aesthetically displeasing marching people: the zeitgeist has dispensed with your services, kindly leave the world stage...

Understanding anti-Semitism

"Is it possible to 'understand' the rise in 'anti-Semitism'?", asks Ben White? The inverted commas are his - and one is tempted to fall into the default sarcastic teacher mode and ask, "What's 'with' them, exactly?" - but I don't want to do that. This isn't going to turn into a semantic argument about what people mean when they say 'understand' or 'understandable' because blogosphere experience would suggest that this is more than pointless - as this offering, for example, undoubtedly is.

Instead I'd say this: the answer to Ben White's question is of course it's possible to 'understand' anti-Semitism - intellectually rather than empathetically - but it helps if you aren't a complete ignoramus. Here I'm thinking those of us who are rather concerned about this issue should rely less on the techniques of literary criticism and semantics. Because there is evidence, both historical and contemporary, that can be brought to bear here.

How do we know that contemporary anti-Semitism cannot be reduced to the behaviour of the state of Israel? One reason is simply because it predated it - the themes, the narrative, the material - by some time. Even White feels obliged to acknowledge this:

"Thirdly, European culture has a history of anti-Semitism (as it has also been guilty of racism to other peoples) that has been, and probably still is, embedded in collective consciousness. Its roots can be traced, at least to some extent, to the shameful teachings of many in the Church."

Mr White has a nice touch for understatement, I think you'll agree? How 'many in the Church'? Fairly comprehensive for most of the time, I'll think you'll find. Orthodox, you could even say. To what extent? I think most historians would file that under 'fairly large'... On reflection, perhaps the semantics thing is unavoidable. But this shouldn't distract us from what we already know or, in the case of the rest, what they should know.

This most ancient of prejudices has persistent themes, as most people are aware - but we should also be aware that its resilience has partly to do with its adaptability. So, for example, with the Christian anti-Semites - conversion was the solution. This through fire if necessary, as we saw with the Inquisition.

As European clerical tyranny began to exhaust its rage and fury, the milder conversion of assimilation became the preferred cure for the Jewish problem. But with the rise of fascism and the new pseudo-science of biological racism, European anti-Semitism takes a new malevolent twist: assimilation (which always had its limits) becomes the problem rather than the cure.

It is in this kind of context that the whole Israel thing should be understood, which brings me back to White's dismal piece. Chief amongst the causes of anti-Semitism for him?

"One is the state of Israel..."

The problem with the Jews is that they have a state that behaves badly? But it used to be that they didn't have a state that was the problem - that they were a wandering people that lacked a feeling for Blood and Soil - rootless, cosmopolitan, disloyal.

It has been frequently suggested that pointing out any of this - or indeed referring to anti-Semitism in any capacity whatsoever - is a 'red herring' designed to distract from Israel's occupation. I feel I must demur and insist that one thing is not another thing. I'd be interested to know, for example, what it is about Israel's behaviour that leads 31% of Europeans [pdf - p. 16] to believe that Jews had at least something to do with the present economic troubles? Or one could ask what it is about Israel that has provoked some 23% of Europeans to believe that the Jews were responsible for the death of Christ? No doubt we should look forward to some argument suggesting that this isn't anti-Semitism because there is no evidence to suggest Europeans any longer have any hang-ups about the whole Deicide thing?

But we needn't persist with this line because one of the interesting things thrown up by the survey linked above is that most Europeans do not share the comfortable delusion that the rise in anti-Jewish feeling can be reduced to attitudes towards Israel (see p. 26). Is this indicative of a better understanding of both the present situation and of history than amongst those who feel - how to put it delicately? - rather relaxed about the contemporary anti-imperialist gloss that is being given to old-fashioned Jew-hatred? If so, I find that unsurprising.

People losing their damn minds #23

According to the Torygraph one firm in Newcastle has taken the whole 'dress-down Friday' thing a little too far:

"David Taylor, a business psychologist, told workers at design and marketing onebestway, in Newcastle upon Tyne, that a Naked Friday idea would boost their team spirit.

He was called in to help the firm after six staff members were forced into taking redundancies at the start of the credit crunch."

Has he lost his damn mind? I'd say no - he's obviously a genius if he can persuade people that what is needed to boost morale is not something totally passe like more money or something boring like health coverage or a goddamn pension plan. That would be so 1990s. Instead, why not turn up to work in the buff?

No, no - those who have clearly went and lost their goddamn minds are those who responded, "Hey - that sounds like a plan", and then go and fucking do it!

If you read the whole thing, a Miss Jackson enthused about the experience retrospectively:

"It was emotional but we found we were much more able to talk to each other honestly – and have been since."

Uh huh? You couldn't just go to the pub and get drunk after work like everyone else? The whole story's about some bizarre place where hippy bullshit meets capitalism and comes up with something really fucked up. I may do something serious about this one day but for now I'll leave you with more of Miss Jackson's wisdom:

"We're all beautiful, whether we've got big bodies or small ones."

I would have thought that reason and experience would be enough for anyone to dismiss this statement out of hand. But just in case, there's some photographic evidence too.



The mentally-ill at work: "Do you like my fruit bowl?" To be candid, I find it a little unsettling...

MOTs for teachers

Yet another reason why I'm glad I don't teach in England:

"The government yesterday unveiled plans to roll out a licensing system, similar to that in place for doctors and solicitors, under which all teachers will be assessed regularly by their headteachers and face being barred from schools if they are not performing well enough."

I doubt there is but just in case there are any teachers suffering from the illusion that their profession is something akin to the legal or medical: take a look at your wage slip.

It goes without saying that they haven't thought this one through. I doubt it'll run for the following reason: at some point it's going to dawn on headteachers that this teacher assessment will involve them going into classrooms on a regular basis while there are still children in them. Anyone who thinks this is going to happen doesn't know anything about how the modern school operates. Prediction: government and unions will come to some shit compromise that involves more power to middle management since 'school leaders' will be too busy spreading their managerial expertise like a prize stallion spreads his semen to do anything as mundane as actually stepping foot inside a classroom.

Unsurprisingly, given his track-record, Conor Ryan thinks it's a good idea:

"It makes sense to ensure teachers' skills are up-to-date, though it will be important that the focus is on what matters to good teaching, and not on simply reinforcing passing fads."

By suggesting it could do anything other than reinforce passing fads, Conor Ryan forfeits any serious claim to our attention. Actually we need to amend that: it will obviously do this and strengthen the cult of the manager - the latter here is regrettably anything but a passing fad.

Disappointingly, David "I'm a school governor" Aaronovitch deprived me of some amusement because he failed to take up this MOT thing directly - but he's still on not bad comedic form when he asks the question, "Who said school targets don’t work?" Um, well - quite a lot of us have been saying it for some time, David. I appreciate we're just 'producer interests' talking so not worth paying attention to - but there was this Cambridge University review thingy - the most thorough review for 40 fucking years - that came to pretty much the same conclusion. But why bother with that when you can wheel out some anecdote about Jim Callaghan in the 1970s?

I could point out that tank-boy then goes on to conflate the National Curriculum with targets - obviously related but not the same goddamn thing - but I don't have anymore time for remedial education. How about MOTs for pompous windbags pontificating on the subject of education instead?

Update: Francis Gilbert on the subject:

"I bet the brown-nosers will love the idea of introducing teachers' licences: they'll thrive on the paperwork and back-covering. But most good teachers know that the idea is asinine. The only people who need their licence revoked are the jokers running our schools."

Quite.