You hate censorship, but then it is the Slippery Slope argument that does you in, in the end. Yesterday Harrogate asked Sarah, a regular contributor to the Situation, if Yale oughtn't to ban staged suicides by invoking the safety clause. Of course, even a hard-core lover of spectacle like Harrogate was implying that yes, Yale ought to ban the use of its facilities for staged suicide.
And so what Harrogate felt left with, in the end, is his old go-to hatred of slavishness to Rules. There is no such thing as a catch-all rule. As much as possible in the Law and in the enforcement of Rules, and even moreso in the realm of cultural critique, things need to be approached in their own particular context. An 18 year-old getting a blowjob from a seventeen year old assuredly does not deserve to labor for the rest of life with the sex offender tag. An 18 year-old getting the same thing from a twelve year old, on the other hand.....
No law, no law, no doctrine can cover it all, there is always the unforseen chink in the armor, fly in the ointment, choose your cliche. We still need people. When a rule is broken, we need to be honest about it and intercede, rather than hiding behind that rule. Witness the Michigan and Florida debacles, what fools we have as a nation made of ourselves, on that score. Consider Cool Hand Luke's sage words, "Calling it your job don't make it right, Boss."
Rule of law is better than rule of men, this is true. But men and women make the rules, and very, very often fuck things up in the process. It is up to all of us to retain the ability to look at things with our own eyes, instead of bowing to doctrine.
But anywho. The Shvarts case is a unique thing and the Yalies need to treat it as such, rather than desperately looking for a clause to safely apply. And again, crucial to how this phenomenon has been playing out on the blogosphere is the Slippery Slope argument. Here is Ben Shapiro using that argument as part of what can only be described a pro-censorship performance. The article, entitled "No Bodily Fluids in the Public Square," includes many nuggets that Situationers might want to incorporate into their ruminations, such as:
All rights have reasonable limits. The right to bear arms does not include a right to own a nuclear weapon. The right to free exercise of religion does not include a right to ritualistic child sacrifice. The right to free expression in art should not include a right to film yourself having an abortion; neither should it include a right to use feces, urine or any other bodily fluid in public, nor should it include a right to engage in sex acts before live audiences.
All of us will find Shapiro's erudite reflections symptomatic of something very familiar: that is, when it comes to how Americans think about and talk about Art, the traditionalist affect--expressed in part through the strong desire for an objective standard of what constitutes worthwhile artistic expression, is very strong indeed.
In a different context, Harrogate was very recently and (sniff, sniff) brutally reminded how strong that affect is, in the community he currently occupies, although this is to say nothing against that community, which he has in his own way come to affectionately embrace.
Shapiro speaks for a huge chunk of the populace that spans the entire nation, blue, red, whatever.
5 comments:
A few points...
First, the "slavishness" to the rules. If you make this argument, you need to separate from the fundamental rules of the community and the day to day rules. There needs to be a fundamental, higher law to ensure fairness. You can only approach law in a case by case basis if there is a fundamental law and a series of precedent to make sure the law is clear.
Second, I think that your examples may not add clarity to this. The staged suicide is much difference than an ambiguous art project that may or may not have used blood. With Michigan and Florida, there was a lack of fairness and legitimacy in the entire process on multiple levels.
Third, the problem with the case by case basis it is subject to the will of those who make the decision based on their tastes or desires. A case by case basis may allow child labor because it is necessary to the times in which we live. A case by case basis may require poll taxes or literacy tests. Without a fundamental law or precedent, all of these are back on the table again.
Fourth, the problem with the argument at the end is that it does not differentiate between self-regarding and other-regarding actions. Child sacrifices can be banned because it hurts another. Yet, you cannot make the same argument for art.
Finally, the end of the post suggests a new ethical standard, one of majoritarianism. In this, the community gets to decide as a case by case basis. Without some form of fundamental principles or precedents to prevent this, then art, speech, religion, etc., serve only the majority.
Agreeed, mostly. Harrogate does not propose the obliteration of law or even day to day rules. He only posits that in America, in his experience at least, whether it is the arts, atheletic competition, politics, what have you, too often these Tools are substituted for thought.
And yes, everything that went down with those states was and continues to be exemplary of illegitimacy. But Harrogate's central Warrant is that, as the Bible says, In the Beginning, there was a Rule which most reasonable people did not or do not understand, let alone get behind. And all that has wobbled forth since, has reflected that unstable foundation. But enough of such boringness, and back to the art project.
Your rejoinder about the wide difference between staged suicide and what this artists has done, is also Harrogate's point--without getting on board with it, he only maintains that the Slippery Slope Arguments influences this debate.
And Jeez-A-Lou! Hopefully thou dost not think Harrogate in any way subscribes to the Shapiro article!!!! The guy himself has proven himself consistently a moron.
He is a moron though, who in this case speaks for many who are not morons, however wrong we may think them to be. And that matters.
I did not expect you to subscribe to the Shapiro piece; I just noticed something extremely odd with it.
I would start with Michigan and Florida. The problem is that people knew the rules and they knew what to expect. Voters knew that the votes would not count and went to vote because amendments were on the ballot. Some did not vote. The candidates knew the vote would not count as the party. The rules in this case were clear and important.
The problem is when people attempt to make exceptions from the rules for political gain.
As for the slippery slopes, they are present in every argument. Sometimes they may be true other times, fallacious. Whether or not they are accepted rest within the audience. But, the suicide would be a false analogy and doesn't help the debate.
I think that the suicide analogy works in that it is an example of one hurting oneself. Maybe a more apt analogy would be performance art in which someone cuts himself and bleeds before the audience. Yale is claiming that it can't let this project be because it contradicts their responsibility to the safety of their students. Women and girls are told not to use drugs to induce miscarriage except under the care of a doctor because they could endanger their health. It's possible that this girl endangered herself by using hormones or herbs that might be harmful if used improperly.
I do think that an important question to consider here is, what is Yale's responsibility to the welfare, or "safety" as they have chosen to call it, of their students? Assuming that Yale does have a responsibility to its students, does it extend to this case? This woman (arguably) risked her physical health for art. Should Yale allow this to happen?
Post a Comment