Horizon

'Indeed, things have gone further. Around 1963 the philosopher Michael Polanyi presented his theory of ‘moral inversion’, according to which disapproval once directed at an activity may become directed instead at the people who still disapprove of it. By moral inversion we protect ourselves from our previous beliefs and from the guilt of discarding them. Moral inversion has infected the debate about sexual inversion to the point of silencing it. To suggest that it would be better if children were not exposed to homosexuality or encouraged to think of it as normal, that the gay scene is not the innocent thing that it claims to be but a form of sexual predation — to make those suggestions now, however hesitantly, is to lay yourself open to the charge of ‘homophobia’. And this will spell the end of your career in any place, such as a university, which has freedom of opinion as its guiding purpose. In this area, as in so many others, the ruling principle of liberalism applies; namely, all opinions are permitted, so long as they are liberal. '

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?id=5980&issue=2005-04-16

I do think it probable that Said's interpretation of the western academic view of the Islamic world was accurate once, but the man's own influence has combined with the heightened sensitivities of the nineties and petrodollars to entirely remake academia. In particular, he's still right that "a scholar sitting in Oxford or Boston writes and researches principally, though not exclusively, according to standards, conventions, and expectations shaped by his or her peers" — but these conventions are subject to sweeping changes, and his own writing effected such a change.

Critics of middle eastern studies programs like Daniel Pipes would no doubt agree with Said's point, and especially with the idea that the scholars "are therefore affiliated to the mechanism by which national policy is set." They'd argue that these scholars nowadays have an agenda set by post-colonialists like Said himself, and are heavily influenced by funding from the Persian Gulf. Rather than lending a veneer of respectability to neo-colonialist enterprises abroad as Said argues (and as may have been true thirty years ago), the critics charge that modern departments provide apologetics for the excesses of the Muslim world and propagandize against defensive action by the West. This is where Robbie's "moral inversion" comes in.

My suspicion is that both Said and Pipes exaggerate a bit. My only image of the middle east before college was probably that Arabian Nights-informed "orientalist discourse" Said describes. However, the notion that academia is an engine for its reinforcement seems absurd to me — my only exposure to any modern middle eastern studies was through a month on post-colonialism in an Intro to Women's Studies class, heavily influenced by Said and Fanon. And I hardly think that my fellow students studying Islam or Middle-Eastern history in other departments got anything different.

The bad old days weren't as bad as Said describes. And the bad new days aren't as bad as Pipes makes out, either. I'd be very careful, however, of any application of Said's analysis to the current state of Western intellectual culture. This would be akin to blaming wealthy Manhattanites for anti-Irish prejudice.

If you're interested, Bruce Bawer put together an excellent summary of Said-criticism in a Hudson Review article at the time of Said's death.

One more thing struck me about this quote:

There is no denying that a scholar sitting in Oxford or Boston writes and researches principally, though not exclusively, according to standards, conventions, and expectations shaped by his or her peers, not by the Muslims being studied.

This state of affairs seems terribly unfair. But if you think about it a bit, it only has limited applicability. Imagine if Roman Catholics got to set the standards and conventions of reportage on the results of next conclave. Would we really want to see news coverage that asserted without qualification that the Holy Spirit had chosen the heir of Peter and avoided any discussion of factional politics? Would we want the parameters textual criticism set by biblical literalists? Does it make sense for scholars of the Qur'an to follow the expectations of those who believe it to be "uncreated"?

It is often a tragedy when subjects of study aren't consulted. We would reject a history of slavery which ignored the testimony of slaves. But there's no universal that demands that any study must conform with the wishes of its subjects in order to be fair.

I agree that a cool, detached study of anything would have to be independent of the subject being studied. Which, I think, should have been Said's point - that scholarly work should be free from any sort of channeling, whatever its source.

Thanks for the Bawer article. I have to wonder, though, if it isn't colored by anger over 9/11 and Said's unwillingness to say what Bawer wanted to hear.

Perhaps Said was trapped in that dilemma of the human being as intellectual. As members of the human community, we are compelled to take sides; but I don't know how an intellectual can. Intellectuals do take sides all the time and it seems to me that this is the thing that undermines their role as critics.

And as much as he abhorred the West's treating Islam as an abstraction, he seemed to view it as one as well. Which makes me wonder if it wouldn't be a useful exercise to once and a while remove the labels on our foreheads and put them them in another room. The innocents under attack by the barbarians bit may be useful for tightening the skin on the war drum, but I don't see where it gets us in the long run. What if we stopped seeing ourselves as the beacon of liberty and our current adversaries as Muslims, for maybe just a week?

I have to wonder, though, if it isn't colored by anger over 9/11 and Said's unwillingness to say what Bawer wanted to hear.

Certainly the timing (early 2002) would color his view. Though I suspect that Bawer is influenced less by "Said's unwillingness to say what Bawer wanted to hear" than by the more laudatory obituaries that came out upon Said's death, and their failure to reevaluate Said's ideas in light of 9/11 and the second intifada.

Bawer's drifted slowly rightward the longer he lives in Europe. He's always tended to be a bit screedy, but I've usually found him worth reading.

"Moral inversion." That's interesting. Can anyone explain to me how the idea of "moral inversion" is anything but a convenient way to sneer at the possibility of moral change in any form? Please be specific. I'd be obliged, thanks everyone. Alan

PS: And no, I am not going to go out and buy some Polyani, so don't send me a link to amazon. Thx.

And as much as he abhorred the West's treating Islam as an abstraction, he seemed to view it as one as well.

I think you are absolutely right on the money, Bobby. This is one of the reasons I never finished Said's book. Based on my reading of the first ~50 pgs. this book appeared to me to be full of such blind spots, not to mention dubious logic. But of course it wouldn't be fair to slam the book based on a partial reading. What is your overall opinion of it so far?

that the gay scene is not the innocent thing that it claims to be but a form of sexual predation

Where in the world do people get such ideas from?

Can anyone explain to me how the idea of "moral inversion" is anything but a convenient way to sneer at the possibility of moral change in any form?

Well, I haven't read any more than you have, but do think that some interesting things happen when people (or entire disciplines) make a dramatic position change. It's not unfair to point out such reversals and ask questions about how prior belief in X colors a current belief in anti-X.

We once had a discussion on abgo about the fanaticism of the convert and folks like Genovese and Horowitz. I think that Said's critics might charge that modern (post 1990) middle eastern studies departments show something similar, granting Said's Orientalism thesis to have been previously correct.

I've got no idea if Polyani develops the idea or merely uses it to sneer. I'm not too fond of his example, and haven't bothered googling.

We once had a discussion on abgo about the fanaticism of the convert and folks like Genovese and Horowitz. I think that Said's critics might charge that modern (post 1990) middle eastern studies departments show something similar, granting Said's Orientalism thesis to have been previously correct.

Yeah, it's certainly useful to ask such questions, and I don't mean to suggest that you are being disingenuous, but I do think that this whole concept is highly suspect.

First of all I'm not sure what I think about taking an obvious and well-attested psychological structure which manifests in unbalanced people and applying it to social, institutional, or otherwise communal change. And always, it seems, with that little bit of circular logic: "these people are unbalanced because their views are wrong, therefore their views are wrong (and incidentally they are not to be trusted)."

Even when applied to an individual you happen to disagree with it is far from the ideologically neutral appellation which people disingenuously try to pass it off as, is it? I mean, some cases are pretty obvious (Horowitz), but for the most part it's just another rather dirty variety of ad hominem attack.

The funny thing about this tactic as a piece of rhetoric is that in a backhanded way it portrays one's own side as an equally extreme view. It's not run-of-the-mill Republicans who snap and become left wing looneys (and vice versa).

A Hogue wrote '"Moral inversion." That's interesting. Can anyone explain to me how the idea of "moral inversion" is anything but a convenient way to sneer at the possibility of moral change in any form? Please be specific.'

To be specific--and incidentally I quoted the Scruton piece with by no means full approval--I think the concept of 'moral inversion' is a useful term for dealing with the noisy, righteous, self-appointed policemen (see Flaubert's maxim) who have emerged in academia and the media over the last 40 years with their ever-ready charge-sheet of cultural/gender/ethnic thoughtcrimes.
I think that Scruton's probably going way out on a limb in thinking that these policemen (Martha and yrself spring to mind as good local examples of the gendarmerie) are protecting themselves from guilt at discarding certain conservative opinions by directing righteous ire at those who may still hold them. I also think he's wrong about the gay scene, but Scruton is very Right Wing and I would imagine takes the gay scene as very much an abstract concept--to make a proper judgement he would need to swap his tweeds for leathers and get empirical, though of course his conclusions would then be just as useless to the academic...

To answer Alan's question of whether I thought Covering Islam is worth a reading, all I can say is that I will finish it despite how difficult Said makes the task. I tried Orientalism about a year ago and gave up after twenty-five pages because I didn't believe I could bear nearly four hundred pages of the stuff. His writing is not difficult to follow, but it is his constant, merciless hammering home the point that wears me out.

I do think his point is worth considering. The bridge of reasoning he builds is supported by some pretty tenuous guy ropes, though, and at the end I suspect I'll be satisfied with just contemplating the bridge rather than crossing it.

First of all I'm not sure what I think about taking an obvious and well-attested psychological structure which manifests in unbalanced people and applying it to social, institutional, or otherwise communal change.

That's an excellent point. I remember taking much offense at a number of psychological profiles of either the president or the generic "Bush voter" after the election that were nasty rants using some variation of this technique as cover.

I remember taking much offense at a number of psychological profiles of either the president or the generic "Bush voter" after the election that were nasty rants using some variation of this technique as cover.

There are self-righteous jerks on both sides, no doubt about it. I see a lot of that kind of behavior around here. I believe it's caused by insularity. Where I live, I can address a room full of people I hardly know and make a negative statement about Bush without even so much as a hedge. Such an environment encourages an offensive cliquishness which smacks of junior high school playground politics to me. I find it revolting but I've had to get used to it to some degree. I went to a pub to watch the second or third debate and afterwards all of these grad students were telling me to my face that there was no way Kerry could lose. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Apparently they didn't make the slightest effort to figure out what was going on in the rest of the country.

To be specific--and incidentally I quoted the Scruton piece with by no means full approval--I think the concept of 'moral inversion' is a useful term for dealing with the noisy, righteous, self-appointed policemen (see Flaubert's maxim) who have emerged in academia and the media over the last 40 years with their ever-ready charge-sheet of cultural/gender/ethnic thoughtcrimes.

Not at all, I stand for justice, freedom and the American way. Ha ha, no, but really, I'm an insidious anti-rational ideologue who only pretends to think of 1984 as cautionary. Okay, point #1: "moral inversion" does indeed accurately describe us sinister leftwing brainwashers. Check.

I think that Scruton's probably going way out on a limb in thinking that these policemen (Martha and yrself spring to mind as good local examples of the gendarmerie) are protecting themselves from guilt at discarding certain conservative opinions by directing righteous ire at those who may still hold them. I also think he's wrong about the gay scene,

This looks like a big contradiction of the above. In what way, in that case, can "moral inversion" be an accurate description of me and my cronies? Based on Scruton's quick definition of the term, I had the impression that this is precisely what it means.

but Scruton is very Right Wing and I would imagine takes the gay scene as very much an abstract concept--to make a proper judgement he would need to swap his tweeds for leathers and get empirical, though of course his conclusions would then be just as useless to the academic...

That's not true at all, if Scruton cruised some gay bars dressed in leather he would have much more right to talk. As it is he just comes off like a homophobe in the true sense of the word, a man who spends an inordinate amount of time worrying that gay men are just waiting for their chance to jump him. I don't recall seeing a picture of him, but my guess is he has nothing at all to worry about.

No such thing as gay men in tweeds? The mind boggles at where or how to start explaining, so I think I won't bother.

'This looks like a big contradiction of the above. In what way, in that case, can "moral inversion" be an accurate description of me and my cronies? Based on Scruton's quick definition of the term, I had the impression that this is precisely what it means.'

Because he DEFINES moral inversion as: disapproval once directed at an activity may become directed instead at the people who still disapprove of it.

That describes you and your fellow coppers. I WAS TAKING ISSUE with him filling in the psychological blanks. Polyani has the correct end to the equation, but Scruton's maths are wrong, IMO, in getting there.

'That's not true at all, if Scruton cruised some gay bars dressed in leather he would have much more right to talk.'

Well ok, it's nice to see someone respecting empiricism...

'As it is he just comes off like a homophobe--'

Ah, now, this is where I start agreeing with Scruton again: PC Left's drive to demonise people that don't agree with their shibboleths into appearing deviant: all your doing there mate is writing yourself a new Old Testament. It's Scruton's right to disapprove of homosexuals if he wants to: but his point is, is that the PC Left have made that a career-destroying transgression. Which is a bigoted situation. I'm using bigoted in its OCD def. 'A person with an obstinate belief in the superiority of their own opinion.'

'in the true sense of the word, a man who spends an inordinate amount of time worrying that gay men are just waiting for their chance to jump him. I don't recall seeing a picture of him, but my guess is he has nothing at all to worry about.''

Old Scroot's got a face like a slapped arse. But your final sentence is deeply adolescent.

That describes you and your fellow coppers

You seem to be assuming that what you describe as the Horizon gendarmerie are a batch of heretics-turned-inquisitors, which implies a conversion. They'll speak for themselves, but I'm pretty sure nobody here has the ashes of a John Birch Society membership card in their trashcan.

I'm pretty sure nobody here has the ashes of a John Birch Society membership card in their trashcan.

This brings back a vivid childhood memory. My father once idly suggested we let the John Birch Society send some literature to our home. My mother was appalled. "Max, don't you dare!" she said. "Once you get on their mailing list, you'll never get off!" The only other times I remember her getting that fired up was when my older brother got the crabs and when my grandfather said he thought Martin Luther King was a trouble-maker.

'You seem to be assuming...which implies a conversion'

I'm not.

Because he DEFINES moral inversion as: disapproval once directed at an activity may become directed instead at the people who still disapprove of it.

That describes you and your fellow coppers.

But in fact Scruton's definition does apply a strange psychological mechanism to what in effect is the act of changing one's mind. "Disapproval once directed at an activity may become directed instead at the people who still disapprove of it." What is this, the law of the conservation of disapproval? It assumes that this disapproval is some kind of psychological force that for some reason is perverted and misdirected, which is utter nonsense. And without such connotations it is tantamount to criticizing people like me for not being morally conservative, i.e., it is a useless term except as a pseudo-psychological smear.

Ah, now, this is where I start agreeing with Scruton again: PC Left's drive to demonise people that don't agree with their shibboleths into appearing deviant: all your doing there mate is writing yourself a new Old Testament.

The guy clearly said that homosexuals are "predatory". That sounds like irrational fear to me.

Cripe, I leave town for a lousy two weeks and the mishegoss quotient around here goes through the roof.

Yeah, some homosexuals are predatory. Some heterosexuals are predatory. Some metrosexuals are predatory. Some red-haired left-handed Minnesotans are predatory. A majority of persons in all of the said categories are perfectly nice people. Simple, OK?

Mr. Scruton, however, does not seem like a nice person. I for example have no special objection to hunting and eating wild game, but the glee with which Scruton wrote a cuisine essay calculated to disgust vegetarians -- I think it was in the Guardian around last Christmas -- was just plain, well, predatory.

So why give the jerk the attention he wants?

the glee with which Scruton wrote a cuisine essay calculated to disgust vegetarians

So why give the jerk the attention he wants?

A counterproductive post, Martha. I had no intention of reading the guy when he was shooting his mouth off about whatever he thinks the gay scene is, but now that I find out he's an unrepentant carnivore, I may have to go look him up.

Yeah, some homosexuals are predatory. Some heterosexuals are predatory. Some metrosexuals are predatory. Some red-haired left-handed Minnesotans are predatory. A majority of persons in all of the said categories are perfectly nice people. Simple, OK?

Uh, I just wanted to make it clear, in case it wasn't, that this was absolutely not the point I was trying to argue.

But thanks for the new Yiddish word, M.

'But in fact Scruton's definition does apply a strange psychological mechanism to what in effect is the act of changing one's mind.'

It isn't just changing one's mind though is it, it's the drive to change everyone else's mind as well on pain of being judged a deviant; hence the new demonizing language: homophobe.

'"Disapproval once directed at an activity may become directed instead at the people who still disapprove of it." What is this, the law of the conservation of disapproval? It assumes that this disapproval is some kind of psychological force that for some reason is perverted and misdirected,
which is utter nonsense.'

It may not be perverted and misdirected shame as Scruton says but it is *wrong* because so often this new tolerance has brought an intolerance with it. You *have* to have the P.C line on homosexuality or you will eventually find yourself in trouble. You're getting hot under the collar because you don't like the imputation that your righteous, two-fisted 'if they don't agree kick their ass' tolerance is actually in itself very intolerant.

'And without such connotations it is tantamount to criticizing people like me for not being morally conservative'

No it's criticising people like you for being intolerant when you make a big show of being tolerant.

', i.e., it is a useless term '

Which brings us back round to where we started. I think Moral Inversion is a handy term to describe the post cultural revolution militia, people like you.

'Yeah, some homosexuals are predatory. Some heterosexuals are predatory. Some metrosexuals are predatory. Some red-haired left-handed Minnesotans are predatory. A majority of persons in all of the said categories are perfectly nice people. Simple, OK?'

I have no idea why you felt the need for this obvious and condescending homily or who you felt you were addressing- I certianly didn't need to hear it.

'Mr. Scruton, however, does not seem like a nice person. I for example have no special objection to hunting and eating wild game, but the glee with which Scruton wrote a cuisine essay calculated to disgust vegetarians -- I think it was in the Guardian around last Christmas -- was just plain, well, predatory.'

Well teasing Guardian readers--with the blessing of the Guardian's editor--is not a sex crime yet-it may of course be one in SF...

'So why give the jerk the attention he wants?'

Hey, the copper got the nightstick out and said scram!

Tsk

AH, don't worry, I knew you were disagreeing with Scruton. But I have to say it was hard to extract a point from any of the above.

But I have to say it was hard to extract a point from any of the above.

We started out with one. I was trying to understand why Airbrushed liked the term "moral inversion", and now I guess I know. Ben probably put it best and wisely ducked out before the denunciations began.

Ben ... wisely ducked out

Yes, but it got me somewhat interested in Scruton. In looking for Martha's savory article, I stumbled across a summary of his Animal Rights and Wrongs. He apparently claims that while humans can have rights, animals cannot. However, humans have duties which include certain responsibilities towards animals, like prevention of cruelty to them and preserving species from extinction. This seems like an accurate description of the moral universe I inhabit, but unfortunately Scruton seems so wordy and disreputable that I can't be bothered.

That said, I certainly wouldn't mind being paid five thousand pounds a month by Japan Tobacco -- perhaps he could tell me where to sign up.

'But I have to say it was hard to extract a point from any of the above.'

Really. OK: I think Moral Inversion is a handy term to describe the outlook of people who are noisily politically correct. Alan Hogue doesn't. We argued. He blustered and used words like 'utter nonsense'and proposed that Scruton couldn't know anything about gay people because he was probably very ugly.
I stuck to my guns and said that why I disagreed with Scruton's supposition as to WHY P.C absolutists are the way they are, I agreed with him as to HOW they are. Quite simple really.
But Alan Hogue didn't like it, he didn't like it one bit but could only see it as being 'tantamount' to a criticism of not being morally conservative.
In short: he didn't want to see what was being said, but wanted to find an insult to his politics. He seems to think now that I have 'denounced him'--where in fact I have not said anything about him in my last reply to him that I didn't say in my first one. (Just in case the old abg-o dodge of 'I've decided not to speak to you any more on this topic because you're now beneath the pale' etc).

'We started out with one. I was trying to understand why Airbrushed liked the term "moral inversion", and now I guess I know.

As I just said to Martha: I have not said anything about you in my last post that I didn't say in my first post. I said in my first reply that you and martha were PC policemen. What do policemen do? They enforce and are intolerant of people they feel have infringed their laws, so the comments you object to are the same thing said in a more direct way. I know their is a tradition of semantic prissiness here and on the scottish newsgroup, but really...

'In this area, as in so many others, the ruling principle of liberalism applies; namely, all opinions are permitted, so long as they are liberal.'

'Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.'

You're repeating yourself, Robbie.

ABC: I admit I was a little late, but I am quite sure I understand the point you were trying to make now, so there's no need to go over it again. Maybe "utter nonsense" is a far more vehement phrase in Britain than in America, but I was not very upset by your unflattering descriptions of me, so don't worry about that.

Oh, and my flippant comment about Scruton's looks was not meant to suggest he knows nothing about the gay scene, but that his apparent fear of homosexuals preying on him is not rational.

'You're repeating yourself, Robbie.'

Well--and I'd have thought this would be obvious, but I'm learning not to take that for granted here-- you see I explained things every clearly and there was a deal of obtuseness going on, or seemed to be. So I had to spell it right out.