51吃瓜

Scott Long supports free speech, opposes all censors, abhors the killings and mourns the dead, but he isn鈥檛 Charlie.

There is no 鈥渂ut鈥� about听what happened at听Charlie Hebdo听on January 7.听Some people published some cartoons, and some other people killed听them for it. Words and pictures can be beautiful or vile, pleasing or enraging, inspiring or offensive; but they exist on a different plane from physical violence, whether you want to call that plane spirit or imagination or culture, and to meet them with violence is an offense against the spirit and imagination and culture that distinguish humans. Nothing mitigates this monstrosity.听There will be time to analyze why the killers did it;听time to parse their backgrounds, their ideologies, their beliefs; time听for sociologists and psychologists to听add to understanding.听There will be explanations, and the explanations will be important, but explanations aren鈥檛 the same as excuses. Words don鈥檛 kill,听they must not be met by听killing and they will not make the killers鈥� culpability go away.

To abhor what was done to the victims, though, is not the same as to become them. This is true on the simplest level: I cannot occupy someone else鈥檚 selfhood, share听someone else鈥檚 death. This is also true on a moral level: I cannot appropriate听the dangers they faced or the suffering they underwent, I cannot colonize their experience and it is arrogant to make out that I can. It wouldn鈥檛 be necessary to say this, except the flood of hashtags and avatars and social-media posturing proclaiming听#闯别厂耻颈蝉颁丑补谤濒颈别听overwhelms distinctions and elides the point.

鈥淲e must all try to be听Charlie, not just today but every day,鈥� The New Yorker听. What the hell does that听mean?听In real life, solidarity takes many forms, almost all of them hard.听This kind of low-cost, risk-free, E-Z solidarity is only possible in a social-media age,听where you can strike a pose and somebody sees it on their timeline for 15 seconds and then they move on and it鈥檚 forgotten, except for the听feeling of accomplishment听it gave you.听Solidarity is听hard because it isn鈥檛 about imaginary identifications; it鈥檚 about struggling across the canyon of听苍辞迟听being someone else. It鈥檚 about recognizing, for instance, that somebody died because they were different from you, in what they did or believed or were or wore, not because they were the same. If people who are feeling concrete loss or abstract shock or indignation take comfort in proclaiming a oneness that seems to fill the void, then it serves an emotional end. But these Cartesian credos on Facebook and Twitter 鈥斕�I am Charlie, therefore I am 鈥斕�shouldn鈥檛 be mistaken for听political acts.

漏 Shutterstock

Erasing differences that actually exist seems to be the purpose here 鈥� and听it鈥檚听perhaps appropriate to the听颁丑补谤濒颈别听cartoons, which drew their force from a considered听contempt for people with the temerity to be听different. For the past few days, everybody鈥檚 been quoting Voltaire: 鈥淚 do not agree with what you have to say, but I鈥檒l defend to the death your right to say it.鈥�

鈥淭hose 21 words circling the globe speak louder than gunfire and represent every pen being wielded by an outstretched arm,鈥� an Australian news site听. (Never mind that Voltaire never wrote them;听one of his did.)听But most people who mouth听them don鈥檛 mean them. Instead,听they鈥檙e subtly altering听the Voltairean clarion cry: the message today is,听鈥淚听have to听agree with听what you say, in order to defend it.鈥�听Why else the insistence that condemning the killings isn鈥檛 enough? No:听we听all听have to endorse听the cartoons, and not just that, but听republish them ourselves.听Thus,听Index on Censorship,听a journal that听used to oppose censorship but now is听in the business of people听what they can and can苍辞迟听say,听听for all newspapers听to reprint the drawings:听鈥淲e believe that only through solidarity 鈥� in showing that we truly defend all those who exercise their right to speak freely 鈥� can we defeat those who would use violence to silence free speech.鈥� But is repeating you the same as defending you?听And is it really 鈥渟olidarity鈥� when, instead of engaging across our differences, I just mindlessly parrot what you say?

But no, if you don鈥檛 copy the cartoons, you鈥檙e colluding with the killers, you鈥檙e a coward. Thus the right-wing听Daily Caller听 a list of craven media minions of听jihad who听oppose free speech by not doing as they鈥檙e ordered.听Punish these censors,听till they say what we tell them to!听If you don鈥檛 with what听Charlie Hebdo听said, the terrorists win. You鈥檙e not just kowtowing听to terrorists with your silence.听According to Tarek Fatah, a Canadian columnist with听an evident fascist streak,听silence听is听terrorism.

Of course, any Muslim in the West would know that听being called 鈥渙ur enemy鈥� is a direct threat; you鈥檝e drawn the听go-to-Gitmo card. But consider: This idiot thinks he is defending free speech. How? By听telling people exactly what they听have to听say and menacing听the holdouts with听treason. The Ministry of Truth has a new office in Toronto.

漏 Shutterstock

There鈥檚 a perfectly good reason not to republish the cartoons that has nothing to do with听cowardice or caution.听I听refuse听to post them because I think they鈥檙e racist and offensive. I can support your right to publish something and still condemn what you publish. I can defend what you say and still say听it鈥檚 wrong 鈥� isn鈥檛 that the point of the quote (that wasn鈥檛) from Voltaire? I can hold that听governments shouldn鈥檛 imprison听Holocaust deniers, but that doesn鈥檛 oblige me to deny the Holocaust myself.

It鈥檚 true, as Salman Rushdie听,听that: 鈥淣obody has the right to not be offended.鈥� You should 苍辞迟听get to invoke the law to censor or shut down speech just because it insults you or strikes at your听pet convictions.听You certainly don鈥檛 get to kill because you heard something you don鈥檛 like.听Yet manhandled by these moments of听mass outrage, this truism also morphs into a different kind of claim:听that nobody has the right to be offended at all.

I听am听offended when those already oppressed听in a society are听deliberately insulted.听I don鈥檛 want to听participate.听This crime in Paris does not suspend听my political or ethical judgment, or persuade me that听scatologically smearing a marginal minority鈥檚 identity and听beliefs is a reasonable听thing to do. Yet this means rejecting the only authorized听reaction to the atrocity.听Oddly, this peer pressure seems听to gear up exclusively听where Islam鈥檚 involved. When a听racist 听a chapter of a US civil rights organization this week, the media didn鈥檛 insist I give to听the NAACP in solidarity.听When a rabid Islamophobic rightist killed 77听Norwegians in 2011, most of them at a political party鈥檚 youth听camp, I didn鈥檛 notice many听#IAmNorway hashtags, or impassioned calls to join the Norwegian Labor Party. But Islam is there for us 鈥� it听unites us against Islam.听Only cowards or traitors turn down membership in the听颁丑补谤濒颈别听club. The听demand to join, endorse, agree is all about crowding us into a herd where no one is permitted to cavil or condemn: an indifferent mob,听where differing from one another is thought-crime,听while indifference to the pain of others听beyond the pale is compulsory.

We鈥檝e heard a lot about satire in the last couple of days. We鈥檝e heard that satire shouldn鈥檛 cause offense because it鈥檚 a weapon of the weak:听鈥淪atire-writers听always out听the foibles and fables of those higher up the food chain.鈥澨鼳nd we鈥檝e heard听that if the satire aims at everybody, those听forays into racism, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism听can be excused away.听Charlie Hebdo “has 听a continual celebration of the freedom to make fun of everyone and everything … it practiced a freewheeling, dyspeptic satire without clear ideological lines.” Of course, satire that attacks any and all targets听is by definition not just targeting the top of the food chain. 鈥淭he law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under听bridges,鈥� Anatole France wrote; satire that听wounds both the powerful and the weak does so with different effect.听Saying听the听president of the Republic is a randy satyr is not the same as accusing听nameless Muslim immigrants of bestiality. What merely annoys the one may deepen the other鈥檚 systematic oppression. To defend satire because it鈥檚 indiscriminate is to admit that it discriminates against the defenseless.

Soren Kierkegaard, the greatest satirist of his century, famously听听his听dream: 鈥淚 was rapt into the Seventh Heaven. There sat all the gods assembled.鈥� They granted him one wish: 鈥淢ost honorable contemporaries, I choose one thing 鈥� that I may always have the laughter on my side.鈥� Kierkegaard knew what he meant: Children used to laugh and throw stones at him on Copenhagen streets, for his gangling gait and monkey torso. His听table-turning fantasy is the truth about satire. It鈥檚 an exercise in power. It claims superiority, it aspires听to win and hence it always looms over the weak, in judgment. If it听attacks the powerful, that鈥檚 because there is appetite underneath its asperity:听it wants听what they have.听As Theodor听Adorno :听鈥淗e who has laughter on his side has no need of proof. Historically, therefore, satire has for thousands of years, up to Voltaire鈥檚 age, preferred to听side with the stronger听party which could be relied on: with authority.鈥� Irony, he added, 鈥渘ever entirely divested itself of its authoritarian inheritance, its unrebellious malice.鈥�

漏 Shutterstock

Satire allies听with the self-evident, the听Id茅es re莽ues,听the armory听of the strong. It puts itself on the team听of听the juggernaut听future against the endangered past, the successful opinion over听the superseded one. Satire has always fed on distaste for minorities, marginal peoples, traditional or fading听ways of life. Adorno said:听鈥淎ll satire is blind to the forces liberated by decay.鈥�

Charlie Hebdo,听The听New Yorker听now听, 鈥渇ollowed in the tradition of Voltaire.鈥� Voltaire stands as听the god of satire;听any godless Frenchman with a听bon mot听is measured against him. Everyone remembers his diatribes听against听the power of the Catholic Church:听!听But what鈥檚 often conveniently omitted amid the adulation of his wit is how听Voltaire loathed a powerless religion, the听outsiders of his own era, the 鈥渕edieval,鈥� 鈥渂arbaric鈥� immigrant minority that afflicted Europe:听the Jews.

Voltaire鈥檚 anti-Semitism听was comprehensive.听In its contempt for the putatively 鈥減rimitive,鈥� it anticipates much that is said about Muslims in Europe and the US today. 鈥淭he Jews never were natural philosophers, nor geometricians, nor astronomers,鈥� Voltaire听.听That would do head Islamophobe听听proud.

The Jews, Voltaire wrote, are 鈥渙nly an ignorant and barbarous people, who have long united the most sordid avarice with the most detestable superstition and the most invincible hatred for every people by whom they are tolerated and enriched.鈥� When some American right-wing yahoo听 Muslims 鈥済oatf**kers,鈥澨齳ou might think he鈥檚 reciting听old Appalachian invective. In fact, he鈥檚 repeating Voltaire鈥檚 jokes about the Jews. 鈥淵ou assert that your mothers had no commerce with he-goats, nor your fathers with she-goats,鈥� Voltaire demanded of them.听鈥淏ut pray, gentlemen, why are you the only people upon earth whose laws have forbidden such commerce? Would any legislator ever have thought of promulgating this extraordinary law if the offence had not been common?鈥�

Nobody wishes Voltaire had been killed for his slanders.听If some indignant Jew or Muslim (he didn鈥檛 care for the 鈥淢ohammedans鈥� much either) had murdered him mid-career, the whole world would听lament the听abomination. In听his most Judeophobic passages, I can take pleasure in听his scalpel phrasing 鈥� though even 250 years after, some might find this hard. Still, liking the style doesn鈥檛 mean I swallow the message.听#JeSuisPasVoltaire.听Most of the man鈥檚 admirers avoid or veil听his anti-Semitism. They听know that while his contempt amuses when directed at the potent and impervious Pope, it turns dark and sour when听defaming听a weak听and听despised community. Satire can sometimes liberate听us, but it is not immune听from our prejudices or untainted by our hatreds. It shouldn鈥檛 douse our critical capacities;听calling something 鈥渟atire鈥� doesn鈥檛听exempt it from judgment. The superiority the satirist claims over the听helpless听can be both smug and sinister. In 2014, a former听Charlie Hebdo听writer, accusing the editors of indulging racism,听:听鈥淭he conviction of being a superior being,听empowered to look down on ordinary mortals from on high, is the surest way to sabotage your听own intellectual defenses.鈥�

漏 Shutterstock

Of course, Voltaire didn鈥檛 realize that听his Jewish victims were weak or powerless. Already, in the 18^th century, he saw them as tentacles of a financial conspiracy; his propensity for overspending and getting hopelessly in debt to Jewish moneylenders did a great deal to shape his anti-Semitism. In the same way,听Charlie Hebdo听and its like never treated Muslim immigrants as individuals, but as agents of some larger force. They weren鈥檛听strivers doing the best they could听in an unfriendly听country, but听shorthand听for听mass religious ignorance, or tribal terrorist fanaticism, or obscene oil听wealth. Satire subsumes the human person听in an inhuman generalization. The Muslim isn鈥檛 just a Muslim, but a symbol of Islam.

This is where political Islamists and Islamophobes unite. They cling to agglutinative ideologies; they melt people into a mass; they erase听individuals鈥� attributes听and aspirations under听a totalizing vision of what identity听means. A Muslim is his religion. You can听hold every Muslim responsible for what any听Muslim does. (And one Danish cartoonist makes all Danes guilty.) So all听Muslims have to post听#JeSuisCharlie听obsessively as penance, or apologize for what all the other billion are up to. Aamer Rahman, an Australian comic and social critic, recently tweeted: 鈥淎s a random Muslim I鈥檒l apologise for this Paris incident if random white ppl will apologise for imperialism, drone attacks and Iggy Azalea.鈥� A few hours later he had to add: 鈥淥k Internet, so refusing to accept responsibility and apologise for someone鈥檚 murder doesn鈥檛 mean you endorse or celebrate their murder.鈥�

This insistence on contagious听responsibility, collective guilt, is the flip side of #JeSuisCharlie.听It鈥檚听#Vous脢tesISIS; #Vous脢tesAlQaeda.听Our听solidarity, our ability to melt into a warm mindless oneness and feel we鈥檙e doing something, is contingent on听your听involuntary solidarity, your losing who you claim to be听in a menacing mass. We can鈥檛 stand together here unless we听imagine听you听together over there in enmity.听The antagonists are fake but they鈥檙e听entangled, inevitable. The language hardens.听Geert Wilders, the racist right-wing leader听in the Netherlands,听听the shootings mean it鈥檚 time to 鈥渄e-Islamize our country.鈥� Nigel Farage, his counterpart in Britain,听听Muslims a 鈥渇ifth column, holding our passports, that hate us.鈥� Juan Cole听听that the听Charlie Hebdo听attack was 鈥渁 strategic strike, aiming at polarizing the French and European public鈥� 鈥� at 鈥渟harpening the contradictions.鈥� The knives are sharpening too, on both sides.

We lose our ability to imagine听political solutions when we stop thinking critically, when we let emotional identifications sweep us into factitious substitutes for solidarity and action.听We lose our ability听to respond to atrocity when we start seeing people not as individuals, but as symbols. Changing avatars on social media is a pathetic distraction from changing realities in society. To听combat violence you must look unflinchingly at the concrete inequities and practices that breed it. You won鈥檛 stop it with acts of self-styled courage on your computer screen听that neither risk, nor alter anything. To protect expression that鈥檚 endangered you have to engage with the substance of what听was听said,听not deny it. That听means attempting dialogue with those who peacefully condemn or disagree, not trying to听shame them into silence. Nothing is quick, nothing is easy. No solidarity is secure.听I support free speech. I oppose all censors. I abhor the killings.听I mourn the dead. I am not Charlie.

*[This article was originally published on Scott Long鈥檚 .]

51吃瓜 is a nonprofit organization dedicated to informing and educating global citizens about the critical issues of our time. Please听donate听to keep us going.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51吃瓜’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: / /