E.M Forster (portrait by Dora Carrington) |
E.M. Forster was famous for his novel A Passage to India which dealt with the clash of cultures as a
metaphor for the internal machinery—human language—that inevitably separates
all individuals from each other. Noam Comsky might talk about a universal
grammar, but both syntax and semantics conspire to create the modern form of a
Tower of Babel, a tower of “paradigm shifts,” to quote Thomas Kuhn’s famous
locution. A Passage to India should be required reading in a world where even a
liberal minded organization like PEN can find itself divided by the conflict
between free expression and a sensitivity to cultural differences, as
manifested in the recent conflict over the Charlie Hebdo award (“Charlie Hebdo Award at PEN Gala Sparks More Debate,” NYT, 5/4/15). Forster also wrote a book
called Two Cheers for Democracy, a
series of essays in which he defended liberalism. Here again Forster’s mild
mannered, ambivalent and often tortured thinking deserves to come to the fore.
The classic liberal finds his or her views more threatened then ever in our current
climate. He or she buckles at a multi-culturalism that threatens free speech
while at the same time feeling protective of constitutional rights of those
extremists who would stifle all expression. Will liberal ideals which champion
privacy, constitutional rights and due process be able to survive in a world
where government agencies increasingly need to take action? Will liberal ideals
survive in a world where search warrants and Miranda rights go down the drain,
as our fear of terrorism mounts? And can you make exceptions and suspend certain
rights, under particular conditions? Oliver Wendell Holmes seemed to think so
in the famous Schenck decision in which anti-draft sentiments at war time were
equated with “falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic." However, in a subsequent dissent, Abrams v. United States, he seemed to reaffirm the rights of expression
in the same theater of war. The classic liberal is a latter day Hamlet,
inhibited from action by too many thoughts and preconditions. And yet we
sometimes forget that without all the questioning, without all the concern for
due process and human rights—that constitute the liberal mandate—we would have
nothing left to defend against the onslaught both of terrorism and its equally
totalitarian backlash. You don’t want to hear about wishy washy liberal ideals when your blood is boiling and you’re ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater, opting for revenge at all costs. But isn’t this exactly what the terrorists want? After they’re finished pillaging the historical memory of antiquity, they’ll get us to commit hara-kiri by doing away with everything we stand for.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.