A Heap of Broken Images*
First, an image. We see many images now. We do not lack for images. We lack context. This image was one of Le Monde’s featured best pictures from an anti-terrorism march in Paris after the Charlie Hebdo massacre. The sign says “He who would kill a man… kills all of humanity,” a decontextualized quote offered from “Qu’ran 5, V. 32.” It is pedantic to note that it was verse 31. It is not pedantic to quote the full passage, which follows a discussion of Cain’s killing of Abel: “It is for this reason that We declared to the Children of Israel that he who kills a soul neither in revenge for another, nor to prevent corruption on earth, it is as if he killed all of humanity; whereas he who saves a soul, it is as if he saved the whole of mankind.” By decontextualizing and editing the passage, its meaning is changed entirely and it is made to say what we want to hear.
Similarly, the English-speaking world had a debate recently about the nature of a newspaper of which none of them had ever read a single issue based entirely on decontextualized images and what they might mean. It was a bit like watching archaeologists try to interpret shards of pottery from some long-vanished culture. I remember one writer, Canadian naturally, who went so far as to say that she has never and will never look at that handful of decontextualized images because they’re racist and she does not give power to such images.
It was too late- the images were given almost supernatural power by their critics and attackers- perhaps less so by their supporters, who defended them only in principal. One of the ironies of defending an open market in images and ideas is the necessity of trivializing the images and ideas themselves, while rendering their creators symbolic. One of the French cartoonist survivors of the massacre, because he skipped work that day, said in the French press that the irony was the Charlie Hebdoistes were made symbols and they smashed all symbols.
We defend a free market in disempowered images. We defend free speech on the basis that images and words are somehow unreal and can cause no real harm. This goes against a countervailing force in the Western tradition. The power of the image is a theme in Islam, adopted from the earlier Abrahamic religions. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God… We regularly praise “iconoclasts” in our culture, while forgetting our closest reference is to the Protestant iconoclasts who smashed Catholic religions images throughout Europe during the Wars of Religion, which they felt encouraged idolatry, assigning frightening pseudo-religious power to the image.The tendency prevails. We still have plenty of imagephobes (not to mention what Madame de Staël called ideaphobes) in the west.
I come not to praise Charlie, nor to condemn him. When I was living in France, I read the paper often and remember very distinctly thinking it was basically inevitable that the staff would be murdered. I don’t like having thought that thought, nor am I proud that my first thought upon hearing there was a terrorist killing in Paris was that it was almost certainly involved with the paper.
Perhaps more important though is the fact that Paris too is a context and entirely too many of the people living there are decontextualized. I will offer two images of my own from my time there: in the first, a young man of about the age of the shooters and I got drunk on a Paris side street late one night while he poured out his guts in French much better than mine about how impossible it was for him to find a job in the city or a place to live within the city. His father was Algerian, hence a French citizen, and he was born and lived his entire life in France; yet he would never be French. One cannot become French; one is made French.
In the second instance, I interacted with the proprietor of an internet cafe well outside of the main city in the banlieues- I think people don’t realize just how far the notorious Paris “suburbs” actually are from the interior of Paris. The proprietor was in his 50s, dressed in very traditional Muslim dress, and during the time I was alone with him in that shop he glared at me shooting daggers like I’ve rarely encountered before. He could have sent been from central casting for the show 24… or at least that was how I contextualized him at the time. How was he contextualizing me? I have no idea.
Living for entire generations now within the context of no context, we frantically try to make sense of a dizzying array of images and concepts. What’s frightening isn’t that we fail to do so, but that we have no idea that we fail to do so. Meanwhile, those around us are in the same predicament and just as lost. We live in reality grids that don’t intersect. For them, we– and for us, they– are rendered as badly recontextualized images.
What just happened?
When asked the significance of the French Revolution in the early 1970s, Chinese Communist leader Zhou Enlai was reported (or misreported) to answer “It is too soon to say”.
*Update: I realized this afternoon that, of course, that should have been the title.
Its not exactly a clash of civilizations but one big problem with globalization is that the world is becoming a smaller space in bad ways and good ways. We already documented the good ways. The bad ways is that people who believe mutually inconsistent things have to find away to live together without killing each other. What is harmless fun to one person could be something deadly serious to another. State neutrality and philosophical liberalism don’t seem to be working in Europe or other places.Report
I was putting it a bit ironically. When we are confronted with people who sincerely believe that speech and images are an assault on individuals or on God, we get put in the uncomfortable position of having to argue that, no, they are simply not as powerful as those people say they are. We are not allowed to strike someone with a brick, but there are people who sincerely believe “hate speech” or “blasphemy”- words and images- are the equivalent. When responding to that, in order to defend speech, we can’t meet them on those terms, so we have to argue that words and images simply do not have that power.Report
I should say that I point this out as someone who started defending speech and images way back in the PMRC & Women Against Pornography days, so I am used to the argument that words and images are weaponry in some people’s eyes.Report
And what about reporting that would provide a chilling effect on the pursuit of justice?
Of course words and images are weaponry — most people don’t even realize there’s a war on.
😉Report
I’m not arguing that words and images are inert. I am arguing the opposite. Words and images are extremely powerful, which is part of the reason that we protect free expression. Likewise, we don’t need to argue religious fundamentalists out of their belief that images can be blasphemous and heretical. We simply have to defend blasphemy and heresy.
As I said at the time, there is a reason that these extremists attacked Charlie Hebdo and not the National Front. And there is a reason that Ayatollah Khomeini issued his fatwa against Salman Rushdie. It’s the same reason that the Catholic Church prosecuted Galileo or the Communist Party prosecuted Solzhenitsyn or the HUAC went after Hollywood writers. Extremists want to control all representations of their ideology, because they know that controlling words and images is an effective way of controlling people.Report
Ohhhhh okay! This is a fantastic point!Report
I find that point as interesting for what it elides as for what it illuminates. It is true that when extremists lash out at the secular, they tend to attack symbols of the secular. It is equally unsurprising, however, that they are much, much, much (much, much, much, much, much) more likely to attack the religious symbols of other religious groups which they see as impure or threatening in some way. We see this even in the Paris attacks, which included a Kosher grocery, but more often we see it in Sunnis attacking a Shiite mosque, the Taliban destroying the temples of other religions, and so on ad infinitum, unfortunately. Catholics may have gone after Galileo for having the gall to criticize the Pope’s theology directly, but they spent a lot more time, effort, money, and lives, going after Jews and Protestants: they confined Galileo to his home; they murdered as many as 30,000 Huegenots, while the Spanish Inquisition lasted almost 4 centuries.
The most striking aspect of our Westernism is not our love of freedom, but our universal and near complete ability to simply ignore everything that doesn’t happen to us, or to people like us, so that we are able to take extremely rare events that involve us, which are embedded in an historical and even cultural context that involves many, many more events that do not involve us, and decide that those few, rare, events describe the pattern.Report
Wasn’t in the context of no context supposed to be a kind of joke itself?Report
I was tempted to say so at first when I read it years ago, but when I read My Pilgrim’s Progress I realized that Trow was wryly and perhaps a bit strangely stating the horrible reality of things, while pretty clearly dealing with his own mental collapse. I think he was, at the root of it, dead serious with in the context of no context and, for as much as I disagree with it, I still return to that book in my thoughts more than almost any other.Report
Awesome essay, Rufus.
As is my wont, I see this as (yet) (another) clash between two (wait, three… wait, four… wait, five… wait…) different religions. There’s the post-Christian Religion variant one, the post-Christian Religion variant two, the currently-Christian Religion, Reform/Conservative Islam, and Orthodox Islam. (And that’s not getting into the Jewish variants that have insights to offer as well.)
When Orthodox Islam has a couple of members that do something violent and claim that it’s in the name of Islam, the post-Christian variants start screaming at each other without a whole lot of context from what the Reform/Conservative Muslims or Orthodox Muslims are saying about their takes on what happened and, insofar as anything they say is paid attention to, it’s to cherry pick quotes that make the points that the post-Christian variants want to hammer on. (Insights the currently-Christian Religion has to offer are treated similarly but it’s possible to argue against those much more vigorously.)
It’s not where the important part of the debate is happening but it’s pretty much the only game in the part of town where we feel comfortable showing up because there are fewer people glaring daggers at us.Report
The waters of liberalism flow in and the steam flies. It’s depressing, but less depressing than it would be if the waters didn’t fly in the first place.
That said, the French and a lot of the European nations have a serious assimilation problem and they are going to have to tackle it sooner or later. It won’t be fun for them. It’s probably the European equivalent of the reparations quandry that confronts the US.Report
Reparations are only seriously discussed in the blogosphere. Everybody else, including the institutions that can actually institute reparations, ignores it. Its not even a topic of conversation for the most part. The assimilation of Muslim immigrants in Europe is at least talked about. The main problem with assimilation is that assimilation is considered a dirty word in the present by many people. Any attempt to fully integrate Muslim immigrants and their descendants part of the body politic. Its going to require a lot of give and take on both sides. Europeans are going to have to accept a socially conservative, religious minority. Muslims are going to have to accept separation of religion and state.
At this point I think that the United States has many more religious people than most European countries helped with assimilating Muslims.Report
I think the two issues stand close to even in terms of how hard and emptionally fraught they’ll be to resolve. That one is only barely discussed and the other is discussed more widely says something about us that probably isn’t nice.Report
Having lived for a bit in both, it seemed to me the difference between the US and France was that, in the states, they’ll bitch loudly in public about immigrants and expect them to assimilate, while in France they’ll be fairly quiet about how they feel about immigrants and expect them to stay the hell away.Report
American immigration policy basically assumes that if you immigrate here, you are here for good even if your on a status that doesn’t lead directly to citizenship like an H1-B visa or that your an undocumented alien. Eric Posner once described decades of undocumented immigration with a periodic amnesties for those that manage to behave as the American guest worker program. Since the United States assumes that every immigrant is here to stay, it has no problem laying down the law to behave. That we have less post-colonial guilt than other countries helps. European nations really peopled that the guest workers would go home and be replaced by other guest workers on a periodic basis. When this turned out not to be the case, they simply didn’t do anything.
Like I said above, the fact that America has more religious, socially and sexually conservative people than European countries probably proved to be a great assist when it came to assimilating Muslim immigrants, who come from religious and socially conservative countries.Report
Part of it is also the French economy is a deeply regulated and restricted one with regards to employment- so employers have enormous cause and opportunity to be as picky as hell.Report