Julie Szego has published a reply at On Line Opinion to my piece on the mainstream media construction of the “debate” about Iyaan Hirsi Ali and her views. Szego is being something of a delicate flower, and her reply is quite precious. If she’d read my article more closely, she’d realise that it was addressed to all Hirsi Ali’s mainstream media defenders. Many of the statements she’s taken personally are in fact general statements about the three columnists, and more particularly Albrechtsen and Devine.
I will confess I found her piece somewhat emotive and poorly argued.
In terms of the responses from the secular left, I was referring to her failure to cite any Australian examples. It’s clear that the article refers to the Australian debate. She implied that people like Buruma had their antipodean counterparts, but neglected to explain who those people might be. Andrew West’s piece in New Matilda appeared after my article was written.
I’d also note that The Age was approached about carrying a reply to Szego’s piece and we were informed that as far as the paper was concerned, the “debate was closed”. That rule obviously doesn’t apply to Szego. So I find this claim rather ironic in the circumstances:
Actually I wonder whether Bahnisch, clearly wounded by the unflattering passing reference to his site (what quaint reverence for the power of old media!) even read my piece in its entirety.
Alternatively, it’s worth pondering how MSM columnists take to criticism (and take it so personally that they assume using an article as a hook implies the whole piece is discussing that article rather than an overview of the MSM line) from outside their hallowed halls.
Update: Guy Rundle on Szego and friends at Crikey.
“Or is this a none-too-subtle racism that allows white-skinned people the privilege to celebrate the triumph of reason over superstition, but cautions the brown-skinned person, impatient for the same privilege, to tread softly-softly lest they cause offence?”
What a ridiculous question. I don’t think the piece gives an accurate portrait of your eminently sensible discourse on these matters, Mark. The image of you as a gatekeeper, defending orthodox interpretations doesn’t ring true. Szego isn’t particularly reflexive on the differences between this medium, Online Opinion and The Age either.
Well, no, and at one point she complains about “being lumped in together” with Albrechtsen and Devine (pointing to her political views on other issues) but then she reads the whole piece as if it were about her, apparently oblivious to the fact that her views are being discussed along with those of other columnists.
I think the sentence I’ve quoted from her is a tu quoque moment. I doubt any of us felt “wounded” by her article, but she appears quite “wounded” even to the extent of vastly over-interpreting and putting herself at the centre of a piece intended to discuss the MSM generally.
I’m also struck by the fact that the Age declared the debate “closed” when I contacted them about a right of reply, but Szego doesn’t seem to think it is. Of course, I’m more than happy that she’s been accorded a right of reply. But goose, gander, etc.
I have got to say that isn’t a terribly impressive rejoinder on Szego’s part. She tries to rebut the critique of conspicuous denunciations by pointing out that “you can support those working for change from within while at the same time “loudly denouncing� entrenched misogyny wherever it appears�.
She clearly misunderstands the way of thinking that “loud denunciations� functions as shorthand for. It is not a critique of those westerners who take practical steps and denounce barbaric practices but of those whose sole concern is obviously using conspicuous denunciation as a symbol of moral superiority.
I used Tim Blair as an example in the last post on this subject. I searched his blogs for “female genital mutilation� and found that the great humanitarian had posted on the subject a grand total of three times. In each instance FGM was mentioned in the context of attacking TEH LEFT.
Yes, I noticed that misunderstanding as well Chris. And she didn’t address the link between denunciation and an interventionist politics – ie the creation of a ‘feminist’ alibi for war – which I think has motivated a lot of criticism as well.
As someone who has disagreed with a lot of people on this blog at one time or another, I’ve got to say that Mark was one of the few people who actually had the patience to engage my arguments without any point-scoring or ad hominem whatsoever. This, for me, is why the gatekeeper image doesn’t stand up.
The gatekeeper image is another Tu Quoque. A lot of the MSM reaction to blogs and other new media is a fear of losing control of the debate, and in particular of arbitrating who can participate in it. Hence the personal sense of woundedness Szego puts on display. In fact, it’s an emotive reaction and she shows herself unable to see the debate except in terms of friend and enemy:
Let’s unpack this:
(1) Szego is on the left, and Albrechtsen and Devine are on the right, yet she’s not blinded by orthodoxy, and people should realise her position and fall into line behind her.
(2) There’s a putdown in there – unless it’s a reference to the fact that people who live in Brisbane don’t always read The Age!
In fact, Szego is very far from making any sort of reasoned argument. It’s all about ego and control.
…Or is this a none-too-subtle racism that allows brown-skinned people the privilege to embrace liberal interventionism, but when it’s argued against, cautions the leftwing blogger to tread softly-softly, because the brown-skinned person, after all, isn’t competent to argue for herself, and Szego et al must act in loco parentis?…
(Please note I’m referring to valid discussions as to what, for instance,the best way to respond to practices such as FGM should be, not racist abuse, in which case I’m all for jumping in and defending others.)
Thanks, Adam. It’s the Habermasian in me!
It is interesting, Helen, to ponder why MSM pundits think Ali needs so much defending. They actually very rarely let her speak for herself, and move very quickly from discussing her to discussing *important things* like how terrible TEH WESTERN LEFT is.
Like Albrectsen and Divine, Szego’s paid to produce culture-war opinion pieces, and like every other culture-war columnist, “right” or “left”, she does so by leaning over as far as she can to her “side”, pronouncing her opinions in absolutes. Any public voice critical of a chosen idol, or insufficiently critical of a selective bugbear, represents all those capable of being lined up along side that speaker – it’s “poetic-freedom of association”, a well-tuned method of denunciatory argumentation, originally perfected by the Rove neocons.
A very neat coup de grace.
Of mixed metaphor, Rob. Conclusions wildly jumped to in games of trench football?
It’s a great mental image.
In his On Line Opinion piece, Mark Bahnisch criticises Julie Szego, Janet Albrechtsen and Miranda Devine for their inability:
“to cite anyone who actually defended the practice of female genital mutilation on “culturalâ€? grounds, the key point of their critique.”
But a two minute Google search on my part turned up precisely that. One of many examples appears in an opinion piece entitled Eritrea: Is Female Circumcision Necessary?” from the website of Somalia’s Radio Garowe. In this April 2007 article, author Berhane M. Tekeste argues:
“With medical/health concerns out of the way, female circumcision is no different than any other non-therapeutic (not done for medical reasons) surgical intervention. Hence, there is no reason for not accepting female circumcision as such. All other reasons are then subjective and thus cannot be grounds to ban female circumcision or any other surgical procedure for that matter.”
And this apologium for FMG is neither unique nor unusual. Thus Bahnisch is either lazy or disingenuous when he implies, by means of a snide swipe at Albrechtsen,et al, that no such apologia exist.
Perhaps it’s a game of football played during a culture war?
Ah, I get it, it’s a Christmas Day 1914 thing.
Does that make the own goal the German offensive’s failure at the Marne, and the subsequent failure of the Schlieffen Plan? Tsk, tsk, Mark. You should know better than to invade Russia before you’ve finished with the French.
Heh!
Guy Rundle on Szego and friends at Crikey:
http://www.crikey.com.au/Blogs/The-mysterious-left-fills-the-political-frame.html
In UR tr3nchez
Scoring A GOALLLLL!!1!!!1!LOL!1!!!
Szego says that lefties are “unsettled” by IHA.
Well, this leftie isn’t.
This lefite is merely irritated that IHA applies more heat than light to a serious issue.
The career of George Wise and his perfervid anti-Romanism serves as a revealing parallel to IHA’s methods.
On James Gavin’s point, I’d suggest he might be being either lazy or disingenuous. It’s always helpful to read the post before commenting. I made it crystal clear that what I was talking about was the failure of Szego to cite any Australian lefties who held those views. Somalia is not in Australia.
Oh.
I was just too lazy to read James Gavin.
Mark, I think Szego had it all over you. She read the subtexts very well.
Why am I not surprised, Rob?
You should read Guy Rundle’s piece. He nails the rhetorical strategy Szego employs with regard to her mythical left. You should be familiar with it, since you’ve used it too in some of your writing for Quadrant!
http://www.crikey.com.au/Blogs/The-mysterious-left-fills-the-political-frame.html
I don’t often agree with what Guy says but he is exactly right when he claims that:
Guy’s piece is nonsense. It’s a left-wing bowdlerization of the right’s contention that there were two ‘enlightenments’: one sceptical, one radical. The sceptical gave us secular democracy, the radical gave us the French Revolution (“a bas les aristocrats!“)
It’s not the “right’s contention”, Rob, it’s historical analysis.
When are you going to stop seeing everything in partisan ideological terms?
Stop the presses!
The Right has discovered that there is a distinction between Voltairean and Rousseauvian social thinking!
What next? All those royal genealogies tracing back to Adam and Eve forgeries?
Tell it not in Gath!
Must violently disagree with James concerning his accusation of dishonesty against Mark, regrding fmg and “dishonesty”.
Others are far closer to the money in observing the Zzego must be the “Age” heir-apparent to that other pro-Zionist/anti-Arab pain in the butt, Pamela Bone, at the Age
The Age is the Jewish Lobby mouthpeice in Australia and it is also noteworthy as being in the van on another race issue; the vilification of Aborigines.
Like the rest of the populist press it also loves trotting out ego-massaging lip-gloss “feminists”, popular with mortgage-belt Hansonist women.
James is either a complete naif as to the propaganda war waged against the middle east by neo cons and the Israelists for power and oil, or dishonest himself in the extreme for then still trotting out the African tribal practice of comprehensive fmg to convict the middle-east by association.
Yeah, those old Elders of Zion got it right in their Protocols.
Damn those Jews.
Don’t be silly, Rob. There is a Jewish lobby in Australia. To suggest a particular paper might favour its view is not to make a statement that’s at all outrageous.
Indeed, Rob, and to state that is neither necessarily an endorsement or otherwise of their views, though obviously paul doesn’t agree with them.
Paul Walter
I am surprised it took so long for this highly relevant insight to be posted. However, if you what you say is true, I shall start reading The Age today!
Yes, by all means John Greenfield, read the “Age”.
You will be better informed on the whole for that action than you appear to be at this time, since although mediocre compared to the Guardian, it is still light years in front of the the sort of newspapers you would normally read if you read (them) at all, like the Sydney Telegraph.
To Mark and Kim, thanks for explaining what I was saying, it is difficult for someone of my limited talents to know how to explain even the most basic of concept to others, sometimes.
Fancy people being so naive as to actually beleive what they see on the idiot box, what Alan Jones tells them and what they read in tabloid newspapers!