w****n
发帖数: 25644 | 1 【 以下文字转载自 Military 讨论区 】
发信人: pokerpro (专业的), 信区: Military
标 题: 美宣部出最新指示了 I am not Charlie Hebdo
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Sat Jan 10 20:50:05 2015, 美东)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/opinion/david-brooks-i-am-not
I Am Not Charlie Hebdo
David Brooks
The journalists at Charlie Hebdo are now rightly being celebrated as martyrs
on behalf of freedom of expression, but let’s face it: If they had tried
to publish their satirical newspaper on any American university campus over
the last two decades it wouldn’t have lasted 30 seconds. Student and
faculty groups would have accused them of hate speech. The administration
would have cut financing and shut them down.
Public reaction to the attack in Paris has revealed that there are a lot of
people who are quick to lionize those who offend the views of Islamist
terrorists in France but who are a lot less tolerant toward those who offend
their own views at home.
Just look at all the people who have overreacted to campus micro-aggressions
. The University of Illinois fired a professor who taught the Roman Catholic
view on homosexuality. The University of Kansas suspended a professor for
writing a harsh tweet against the N.R.A. Vanderbilt University derecognized
a Christian group that insisted that it be led by Christians.
Americans may laud Charlie Hebdo for being brave enough to publish cartoons
ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad, but, if Ayaan Hirsi Ali is invited to
campus, there are often calls to deny her a podium.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage
So this might be a teachable moment. As we are mortified by the slaughter of
those writers and editors in Paris, it’s a good time to come up with a
less hypocritical approach to our own controversial figures, provocateurs
and satirists.
The first thing to say, I suppose, is that whatever you might have put on
your Facebook page yesterday, it is inaccurate for most of us to claim, Je
Suis Charlie Hebdo, or I Am Charlie Hebdo. Most of us don’t actually engage
in the sort of deliberately offensive humor that that newspaper specializes
in.
We might have started out that way. When you are 13, it seems daring and
provocative to “épater la bourgeoisie,” to stick a finger in the eye of
authority, to ridicule other people’s religious beliefs.
But after a while that seems puerile. Most of us move toward more
complicated views of reality and more forgiving views of others. (Ridicule
becomes less fun as you become more aware of your own frequent
ridiculousness.) Most of us do try to show a modicum of respect for people
of different creeds and faiths. We do try to open conversations with
listening rather than insult.
Yet, at the same time, most of us know that provocateurs and other
outlandish figures serve useful public roles. Satirists and ridiculers
expose our weakness and vanity when we are feeling proud. They puncture the
self-puffery of the successful. They level social inequality by bringing the
mighty low. When they are effective they help us address our foibles
communally, since laughter is one of the ultimate bonding experiences.
Moreover, provocateurs and ridiculers expose the stupidity of the
fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are people who take everything literally.
They are incapable of multiple viewpoints. They are incapable of seeing that
while their religion may be worthy of the deepest reverence, it is also
true that most religions are kind of weird. Satirists expose those who are
incapable of laughing at themselves and teach the rest of us that we
probably should.
In short, in thinking about provocateurs and insulters, we want to maintain
standards of civility and respect while at the same time allowing room for
those creative and challenging folks who are uninhibited by good manners and
taste.
Do you think being humorless qualifies you to sit at the adult table? And do
you think being humorless somehow indicates your grasp of...
If you try to pull off this delicate balance with law, speech codes and
banned speakers, you’ll end up with crude censorship and a strangled
conversation. It’s almost always wrong to try to suppress speech, erect
speech codes and disinvite speakers.
Fortunately, social manners are more malleable and supple than laws and
codes. Most societies have successfully maintained standards of civility and
respect while keeping open avenues for those who are funny, uncivil and
offensive.
In most societies, there’s the adults’ table and there’s the kids’ table
. The people who read Le Monde or the establishment organs are at the adults
’ table. The jesters, the holy fools and people like Ann Coulter and Bill
Maher are at the kids’ table. They’re not granted complete respectability,
but they are heard because in their unguided missile manner, they sometimes
say necessary things that no one else is saying.
Healthy societies, in other words, don’t suppress speech, but they do grant
different standing to different sorts of people. Wise and considerate
scholars are heard with high respect. Satirists are heard with bemused
semirespect. Racists and anti-Semites are heard through a filter of
opprobrium and disrespect. People who want to be heard attentively have to
earn it through their conduct.
The massacre at Charlie Hebdo should be an occasion to end speech codes. And
it should remind us to be legally tolerant toward offensive voices, even as
we are socially discriminating. |
|
