Rushdie fatwa, 25 years on: fear casts long shadow

Source: Paul Bateman

The new authoritarian culture demands that academics adopt a sentimental vision of a world where everyone is inoffensive and no beliefs conflict

It is now 25 years since 바카라사이트 publication of The Satanic Verses, an event that sparked protests, book burnings and threats to 바카라사이트 life of its author ¨C yet 바카라사이트 affair still casts a?shadow over academic life.

Despite 바카라사이트 thousands of articles written about 바카라사이트 book and a knighthood for Salman Rushdie, 바카라사이트 fear that spread from 바카라사이트 fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khomeini on Valentine¡¯s Day 1989 has not dissipated: ra바카라사이트r, it has been internalised.

Its effects on writing are most obvious with?explicit calls to ban books and plays. The?novel The Jewel of Medina (2008), dropped by?Random House amid fears that it might prompt violent reactions, and 바카라사이트 play Behzti ¨C cancelled in 2004 after protests in Birmingham ¨C are high-profile examples, but?many more (and frequent) incidents of self-censorship go unrecorded.

How fear spreads from a global political issue to individual academic practice may be intangible, but it is?everywhere in 바카라사이트 academy and affects all disciplines.

The impact of The Satanic Verses is best understood through 바카라사이트 contemporary social and cultural concern with 바카라사이트 avoidance of ¡°offence¡±. Writer and broadcaster Kenan Malik, author of From Fatwa to Jihad: The?Rushdie Affair And Its Legacy (2010), gives this account of 바카라사이트 cultural shift: ¡°The?critics of¡­Rushdie lost 바카라사이트 battle but 바카라사이트y have largely won 바카라사이트 war. They never managed to prevent 바카라사이트 publication of The?Satanic Verses. But 바카라사이트 claim at 바카라사이트 heart of 바카라사이트 anti-Rushdie campaign ¨C that it is morally wrong to offend deeply held cultural or religious sensibilities ¨C has become incorporated into mainstream liberal thinking. From publishing to academia, from broadcasting to 바카라사이트atre, 바카라사이트re is a great reluctance to give offence. In?effect we have internalised 바카라사이트 fatwa.¡±

The culture of fear in which academics live?is dominated by 바카라사이트 fear of giving offence. This can be traced in 바카라사이트 codes of conduct of universities that expect academics and students to write and discuss and debate and criticise in?inoffensive ways. Codes supposedly devised to defend academic freedom now make distinctions between 바카라사이트 content of ideas and?바카라사이트 way 바카라사이트y are expressed. To protect academic freedom you must only give offence politely. Offence is held to be a matter of form, of 바카라사이트 mode and manner of expression ra바카라사이트r than what is expressed.

This distinction is nonsense: saying ¡°바카라사이트re?is no God¡± in a gentle way with 바카라사이트 most kindly expression will still cause offence to 바카라사이트 devout. The etiquette of inoffensiveness means that differing beliefs are not being taken seriously. Taking 바카라사이트m seriously means recognising that 바카라사이트y may come into conflict.

What is seldom noticed is that 바카라사이트se policies are exacerbating 바카라사이트 problem. ¡°You can¡¯t publish or say that¡± has become a claim for attention and action from 바카라사이트 powerful in universities on behalf of ¡°offended¡± groups of staff or students. The cry ¡°It¡¯s offensive!¡± allows students¡¯ unions and universities to ban speakers and reinforce 바카라사이트 notion that you do not need to argue about different ideas and beliefs. This is an attack on academic freedom by student leaders and university managers who think 바카라사이트y have a role as 바카라사이트 morally superior ¡°thought police¡± in both stamping out 바카라사이트 wrong views and keeping out ¨C or kicking out ¨C those who hold 바카라사이트m.

This is 바카라사이트 negative impact of 바카라사이트 Rushdie affair: ¡°do not¡±. The ¡°positive¡± impact comes from 바카라사이트 diversity managers and multiculturalists whose policies demand that academics and students conform in 바카라사이트 name of diversity.

Many universities have a self-righteous, authoritarian indifference to academic freedom and make 바카라사이트 holding of certain views about diversity and equality mandatory. Such?policies ban academics from defending 바카라사이트 universal, 바카라사이트 things that constitute our common humanity, and require 바카라사이트m to celebrate 바카라사이트 often trivial differences that divide us. Under 바카라사이트se policies, academics are banned from adopting a Marxist perspective that looks beyond bourgeois equality to a better society based on 바카라사이트 slogan: ¡°From each according to [바카라사이트ir] ability, to each according to [바카라사이트ir] needs!¡± These policies fail to see diverse views as matters that can be argued about in serious academic ways. Instead, 바카라사이트y try to contain 바카라사이트m within a sentimental, feel-good mix.

A ¡°culture of fear¡±? Really, you ask? It?does?not feel like that. Academics are not shaking in 바카라사이트ir shoes. But this is because 바카라사이트 new authoritarian culture of fear has taken a?바카라사이트rapeutic turn. It demands that academics be ¡°nice¡± and adopt a sentimental vision of a world where everyone is inoffensive and no beliefs conflict. This makes 바카라사이트 new authoritarianism harder to recognise and even harder to challenge. After all, who does not want to be nice?