The Casualty of Critique – Simon Appolloni

I recently watched Monty Python’s “The Life of Brian” (again and, as always, for a good laugh – who can forget the scene where the crowd gathers to hear Jesus give his Sermon on the Mount; yet some, having to stand way at the back, have trouble hearing:

-Man: I think it was, “Blessed are the cheesemakers”!
-Gregory’s wife: What’s so special about the cheesemakers?
-Gregory: Well, obviously it’s not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.)

The DVD came with extras including a history of the making of the film (some 30 years ago), noting the controversy surrounding its release. The clip ended with a poignant question: would “The Life of Brian” be made today? And you know, I’m not sure.

I’m really not sure whether or not the creative artists would self-censure themselves in light of the strong ethos prevalent in today’s climate to tone down critical questioning when it comes to religion.

Contrarily, I bring your attention to the recent kafuffle over the building of a mosque in New York just blocks from Ground Zero and the threat to burn Qur’ans. Writer Irshad Manji, in a recent Globe and Mail commentary (August 26, 2010), makes a good point on this issue. She points to an American in Tennessee who, feeling so offended by anti-mosque activists in his state, decided to support more mosques stating, “I found local citizens to be intolerant and un-American…so as a gesture of tolerance and Americanism, I donated to the mosque building fund.”

Manji, quite rightly I’d add, questions the uncritical nature of his largesse. She states, “Bob should have asked the imam: ‘Where will the men’s side of this mosque be?’ It’s a discreet way of discerning whether the project will replicate segregation, and thus whether the mosque will wind up bolstering the intolerant behaviour that Bob can’t abide.”

And it’s not just with religion that we are witnessing this casualty of critique. I also bring your attention to the recent CBC National report on the Alberta oil sands, which aired on 27 September. I have to say it played somewhat like a high school journalism project – nay, I apologize to high schoolers, as I think they would have taken a more critical stance. It was fluff reporting, replete with insipid interviews in hovering helicopters – ignoring the irony in that – and revelations about who (the environmentalists or corporations) is winning the public opinion war (perhaps The National is vying for that spot), none of which is as vital as the underlying issues which were left unexamined. It’s difficult not to wonder how much CBC might have been playing to its audience in Alberta and – more importantly – its Alberta-heavy government in Ottawa, which would love to de-fund it into oblivion.

What is happening to the discipline of critique of late? Am I wrong or are things getting worse? How is it, for example, that Rush Limbaugh can refer to the American president as ‘Imam Hussein Obama’, the ‘best anti-American president we’ve ever had’ and still have his job? Keep in mind, as Paul Krugman notes in the New York Times (August 29, 2010), that Limbaugh is an utterly mainstream figure within the Republican Party.

We seem to find ourselves in a dim era whereby we can obtusely condemn a critique of one religion, accept willy-nilly the customs of another, kowtow to the corporate powerful and allow a mainstream pundit to utter complete nonsense without commensurate admonishment from the masses, including his own party. Understand, this is not to say we are without our critical crusaders – even within the CBC – though their ranks seem to be shrinking. Nor is this an argument for who is right and who is wrong – and please, nor that one religion is inherently unthinking while the other inherently misogynist. I am arguing that our engagement with critique needs invigorating.

Wendy Brown makes an interesting case to do something related, though with regard to tolerance, which I consider a sister of critique.* She argues that we need to re-examine how we approach tolerance. She notes how it has become a discourse of depoliticization. The uncritical embrace of tolerance displaces important questions about identity, citizenry and questions about justice. Brown is not against tolerance per se, but questions the naïve blessed status it has achieved in Western democracies. The problem rests with accepting a tolerance that has transcended deeper questioning of what is most just in this particular instance and for the common good of society (and the environment). Brown argues that we must not depoliticize issues of inequality, subordination, ignorance, paternalism or marginalization, nor confuse sensitivity or respect for others with justice, equity and the ongoing – and perhaps never ending – search for truth.

I would go one level deeper and locate the issue at the neglect of our duty to articulate profound questioning of what is most just in any particular instance and for the common good of society, even if it means gaining enemies. Is fear, greed or complacency to blame? I don’t know. But something inclement seems to be gaining momentum, a dynamic that could be holding back the modern-day Monty Pythons from creating, national broadcasters from offending, Tennessee good-willers from asking poignant questions, and Republican Party members from admonishing their own.

Bibliography:

Wendy Brown. Regulating Aversion: Tolerance in the Age of Identity and Empire. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2006.