A worthwhile comment by Clio's Jonathan Dresner about a comparison which I thought was pretty fatuous at the time (and now wish I hadn't been too lazy to post about), and which particularly annoyed me because the underlying criticism was one that I broadly agreed with. Misused historical analogy is one of the most intellectually corrupting schticks in the blogosphere (I'm reminded of those 'slave states vote GOP' maps last November), and deserves much more scrutiny: Tim Burke's posting about their misuse is recommended background reading. A couple of Dresner quotes:
What does it tell us? It tells us that this is a political movement concerned with changing an aspect of public life through the use of communication, public comment and, at times, humor, ridicule and rhetorical excess. Sounds like a lot of good rallies I've been to.
And that's all you get... The nature of the problem, the importance of that aspect of public life, the nature and methods of communication and comment, the fairness of the ridicule, the scale and the consequences, are all different. The GPRC was a vast atrocity, combining the worst elements of witchhunts, Inquisitions and McCarthyism with the power of a thoroughly totalitarian modern regime. The results were horrific, in human and cultural terms -- not as much outright death as in the Great Leap Forward (though it was more deliberate), but plenty of personal abuse, fear and suffering, and the destruction of cultural treasures and historical materials is a different sort of crime against humanity. (Yes, I'm teaching 20th century China this semester, why do you ask?) Even McCarthyism wasn't the Cultural Revolution -- God willing, it's the closest we'll ever come; I think there are reasons to be concerned for the political health of the nation and that it can happen here (which is one of the reasons that I have deep reservations about legislating academic matters)... but it hasn't yet ...
I believe that the details of these cases matter because we are so often wrong in drawing conclusions about social phenomena. We overreact to our own experience and to the personal experiences of others; we over-rely on logical formulations (or intuition, or "gut reactions") to cover gaps in evidence; we resist restructuring narratives with which we are comfortable. We need to address individuals and episodes before we get to patterns; we need to engage arguments rather than "taking names." If we can keep the conversation civil and focused, we might even change some minds, though that's terribly rare for some reason. If we can agree that there's a problem (and I think there is at least one problem), and on the nature of the problems (we're a long way apart on that score), then we can talk about solutions. I'm going to keep trying.
Posted by Alan Allport at March 20, 2005 06:46 AMI did quote that Billmon comparison with approval on my own site. I liked it because it points out the ideologically driven, non-reality-based flavor of the announcements and rhetoric of the current right wing. Also the strange phenomenon of the nation's most powerful political figures appealing to the young to join them by "rebelling" against older ways of thinking -- especially since the targets of such "rebellion" again include teachers and scholarly keepers of the cultural patrimony. The Chinese Cultural Revolution is among the nasty 20th-century phenomena that has taught us to watch out whenever the moral appeal of the underdog is harnessed by the party in power. And to be doubly wary when an anti-intellectual party mocks and degrades the idea of scholarship.
Analogies don't have to be exact. It's no answer that something alleged to bear a resemblance to a previous horror is not itself, at present, horrible. Part of remembering a horror is vigorously warding off anything that smells even faintly like it.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at March 20, 2005 12:21 PMAt least half a million people (and probably a great many more) died in the GPCR; nobody so far as I'm aware has had as much as a fingernail broken by Mr. Horowitz's occasional bouts of spleen. The comparison is as unsound in tactics, taste, and morals as an analogy between the Contract With America and the Holocaust.
Posted by: Alan Allport at March 20, 2005 12:28 PMWell, then, take away the idea of "analogy" and simply note that slippery slopes have tops as well as bottoms, and when you find you've wandered near the top of a slippery slope it's best to step away.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at March 20, 2005 01:32 PMThat doesn't change the fact that crying wolf when there isn't even a toy poodle in sight only lays you open to charges of ridiculous exaggeration - and undermines the genuine, if less emotionally charged, concerns that you might have. Want to keep Horowitz and co. in business? Keep layering on the hyperbole, honey.
Posted by: Alan Allport at March 20, 2005 01:50 PMI guess the bottom line is that some people have a sense of humor about this sort of stuff and some people don't. It's easy to see what camp you guys fall in.
It's funny, because over and over again I hear conservatives whining about what humorless droids us politically correct lefty commissars are.
Takes one to know one, I guess.
Posted by: Billmon at March 20, 2005 09:02 PMAlan, I had no idea you were a Horowitz apologist!
Obviously we can expect you to be post questions about washing bloodstains off your jackboots next.
Poodle-dog Arf! for the irony impaired, who seem to be multiplying lately.
I guess the bottom line is that some people have a sense of humor about this sort of stuff and some people don't. It's easy to see what camp you guys fall in.
Ah, so the problem is that I don't get big yucks out of the frivolous use of mass atrocities. Fair enough.
Posted by: Alan Allport at March 21, 2005 04:23 AMIf it's any comfort, Alan, I think he meant both of us.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at March 21, 2005 09:15 AMYes, Bill, you must always remember that you, as a liberal, are to be held up to infinitely higher standards than people like "Occasional Spleen" Horowitz will ever be.
Posted by: Alan Hogue at March 21, 2005 10:13 AMJudging by Technorati, there aren't a lot of bloggers who agree with Alan, Martha and myself that the difference between an aggressive lobbying effort for a semi-legislative proposal and a massive state-backed terror is that great.
Before we start talking about slippery slopes, for example, it would be worth asking whether the slide exists: how often have Horowitz-like movements turned into Maoist states? Never. Maoist and fascist states have very different origins. If we're going to worry, let's worry about something real.
The comparison stinks "billmon", and the "you have no sense of humor" jibe is cheap and meaningless and a typical response from someone who's been called out for crossing the line.
Posted by: Jonathan Dresner at March 24, 2005 03:25 AMFrom Alan's quote, a point worth giving a second look:
I think there are reasons to be concerned for the political health of the nation and that it can happen here (which is one of the reasons that I have deep reservations about legislating academic matters)... but it hasn't yet ...
Posted by: Alan Hogue at March 24, 2005 10:12 AM