Respectability and
Passion
P. Schultz
April 21, 2012
Here is an exchange I
had with a friend on Facebook relating to the comments of a former student who
expressed support for the mass murderer in Norway, which of course created a
scandal at Assumption College.
Peter Schultz: Hey, I
finally figured out Kevin Forts' problem: He hasn't learned yet how to dress up
his rage in academic or professional clothes. You know: Write a book entitled
"The Clash of Civilizations," or one entitled "The West and the
Rest", or disguise your death and destruction as "a war on
terror" fought with the latest technology [like drones] that kill the
innocent in far away places and then compensate the victims when the killings
are discovered - along with calling the deaths "collateral damage."
You could even disguise your policies as "game theory," as was done
in Nam - and then get a Ph.D. using such a theory to justify the slaughter.
Friend: “Really, Peter? Reading books
like "The Clash of Civilizations" or "The West and the
Rest" inevitable leads students to support the killing of 77 innocent
lives? Really?”
(a) Did I say
"inevitably?" Of course not because I don't think that. The argument
was a more subtle one: Academics and experts/professionals are able to disguise
their rage/anger behind a curtain of respectability; and, in some cases, they
may not even be aware themselves of their underlying passions and how those
passions influence their arguments. Aristotle wrote: "Thought moves
nothing." He didn't say that about the passions. (b) I am not interested
in "scoring points" against the likes of Mahoney/Dobski and the books
they assign. What is interesting to me is that when an event happens like
Forts' interview, we talk about it as if it arose all on its own, "out of
the blue". Hence, Forts is characterized as "crazy." [He isn't
or at least wasn't when he was in my classes. He made all the "right"
arguments, the politically correct arguments from a neo-con. viewpoint and
little else.] But to me these events occur in a particular context. Everyone
seems to want to run away from that context, to ignore it and, hence, demonize
Kevin. It is all-too-common and self-serving, but it has important
political/social consequences. To me, it is unrealistic and blinds us to our
situation.
And as far as taking the lives of the innocent, think of how easy it is to do that when it is conceived as an act of "counterinsurgency," which is a "theory" of warfare experts have developed that justifies death and destruction. Also, when taking the lives of innocent people is called "collateral damage," it is easier to accept these deaths and not see the passions underlying these acts. Or, more in line with your thinking, think how much easier it is to "terminate a pregnancy" than to commit infanticide.
And as far as taking the lives of the innocent, think of how easy it is to do that when it is conceived as an act of "counterinsurgency," which is a "theory" of warfare experts have developed that justifies death and destruction. Also, when taking the lives of innocent people is called "collateral damage," it is easier to accept these deaths and not see the passions underlying these acts. Or, more in line with your thinking, think how much easier it is to "terminate a pregnancy" than to commit infanticide.
No comments:
Post a Comment