Tyler Cowan is a well-known and often quoted economist who writes on, among other things, the economics of culture. He is considered to be a "moderate" Libertarian rather than a fringe one.
Today in his assorted links, Cowan links to two articles, Sex, Lies and Hinduism: Why A Hindu Activist Targeted Wendy Doniger’s Book (Time) and Why Free Speech Loses In India (New Yorker) on the recent suit by "Hindu nationals" to ban Wendy Doniger's recently published book on Hinduism as an ill-informed denigration of the religion, and purposefully so based on her ideology.
Doniger is Mircea Eliade Distinguished Service Professor of the History of Religions at the University of Chicago Divinity School. In my view, her views on religion in general and Hinduism in particular bear about as much relation to reality as the Chicago School of Economics does to the economy. This is borne out in the comments section by others working in this field.
Be that as it may, the question is over freedom of expression in a country other than the US. Here I think that Americans tend to be rather naive about comparative culture and what is happening in the world today.
The American mindset is one of American exceptionalism, which implies using American ideas, institutions and culture as a paradigm for globalization. This is really what U. S. hegemony is about. Because Americans are self-righteous in this way, there is a presumption not only that other should behave in accordance with this pattern but also that they must be made to behave in this pattern.
That is a dangerous presumption that is based on cognitive bias, ignorance of context, a cultural superiority complex, and nationalistic hubris.
Other countries take their cultural heritages seriously, and some — those of India and China, for example — are far more venerable in age than European, especially modern European. These cultures are also far more populous than Western.
If globalization is to proceed peacefully, the transition from tribalism to transnationalism needs to be managed smoothly. Offending other cultures based on one's own cultural bias is not the way to proceed.
Ramanan notes in a New Yorker comment that India has a constitution and laws that were applied by the highest court in the land and the decision against Penguin and Doniger were consistent with those laws.
"Free speech has innumerable enemies in India, and comparably few principled defenders — against whom vast legal, political, and social obstacles are arrayed."
What an amazingly misleading statement. The truth actually is that in India free speech and freedom of expression is the last thing we worry about in India. I suppose if I were in a college I might worry about my clothes (in some cases, not everywhere) but this has nothing to do with the State.
There is a clause in the constitution which is usually used in cases when the author has said something totally ridiculous and totally provoking religious people. Most controversies on books are in the case where some religious sentiments are involved and it is a precautionary measure to prevent rioting etc.
If I want to write a book, issues such as someone in the government stopping me from doing it will hardly cross my mind unless I say something really stupid thing about a religious leader or try to assassinate some character.
The cry in India about free speech is like a super-pampered kid complaining that his parents' allow him enough freedom. Totally misleading article this.Many Americans don't realize, for example, that Canada has laws that exclude intentional misrepresentation on new broadcasts from the constitutional right of free speech.
..various sections of CRTC regulations prohibit the broadcasting of "false or misleading news" by radio and television licensees, and that in 2011 the CRTC declined to narrow those regulations to apply only to "news that the licensee knows is false or misleading and that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public."
"...The CRTC regulations apply only to Canadian broadcasters using Canadian airwaves." (source)America is wrestling with multiculturalism and pluralism internally. It had better get used to it internationally as we enter the global age.
10 comments:
Whether there are compelling criticisms to be made of Doniger's analysis or not, she is eminently well-qualified to write a book on this topic and offer it to the scholarly community for their consideration. I am sure there are very many people in India who would appreciate the opportunity to read this book, and who will now be denied that opportunity by the tyranny of a cowardly majority who, by their own admission, hold the position that the fact that the presence of a book in their country "hurts their feelings" is sufficient grounds to restrict its dissemination.
Defensive evangelizing Christendom right on cue in a comment to Ramanan there Tom:
"Yet apparently it's alright to disparage Christianity, since the "Movement to Save Education" chose to characterize Doniger's book as "written with a Christian Missionary Zeal." blah, blah , blah....
Oh brother! rsp,
Matt, Christian evangelism is a very sore point in many parts of the world, which see it as Western in the sense of oppressive and exploitive, designed to undermine native culture and tradition. US policy promotes evangelism in places where it is very unwelcome.
This is a big part of what's going on in the Islamist-Chistianist world right now, and it leads to violence.
This is going to be one of the most contentious and difficult matter wrt globalization, and I think most Americans are still very naive about it.
"Whether there are compelling criticisms to be made of Doniger's analysis or not, she is eminently well-qualified to write a book on this topic"
Like Milton Friedman and the Chicago boyz are well-qualified in econ. I have to look at her work and translations from time to time as a professional matter and, oh, brother.
" I am sure there are very many people in India who would appreciate the opportunity to read this book"
That won't actually. They'll have to import a foreign version. Publication isn't permitted in India, but I very much doubt that anyone interested in reading it won't be able to get their hands on a copy.
Yeah Tom I'd like to see them go try to evangelize Saudi Arabia... see how well that goes over...
otoh his wiki page says that Blackwater's Prince has moved to UAE or somewhere over there so perhaps stand by for some more evangelical hijinks...
rsp,
Tom, whether you or anyone else happens to approve or disapprove of her views intellectually is neither here nor there.
People in the Chicago school say things all the time which conflict with my personal views about social and economic truth, and with some of my deepest moral commitments. Sometimes the things they say even hurt my feelings. But I would never dream of resorting to political authorities to suppress those views.
Let's not be too delicate about what is going on here. People who have securely held and well-founded moral and intellectual commitments welcome open intellectual discussion of their views, even uninformed discussion, because it gives them an opportunity to defend those views publicly and correct errors. People who are emotionally attached to views that are built on a fragile tissue of confusion and fantasy, and that the believers doubt themselves at some level, resort in their cowardice to sheer political power to suppress discussion of those views, so as to protect themselves from their own self-tormenting doubts.
I am not saying that she doesn't have a right to her position. And the Indian court has decided she doesn't have right to publish it in India.
I understand that because I understand where they are coming from and how India is a different place from America. Americans can wring their hands over it, but it will not change India, China, Islamic countries or other countries with different customs, traditions, heritages and issues. Viewing this a merely about ideas is naive. It's about different ways of living and relating.
The parallel here is quite striking, I think, between this fiasco resulting from a lack of appreciation for national differences and cultural sensibilities and the imposition of Chicago school neoliberalism through Western-controlled "international institutions" like the IMF and US intervention to impose its puppets. It doesn't go down well.
In addition, there is cultural memory. America is a young country with a short cultural memory and a very selective one. Most of the rest of the world has a longer cultural memory. In Islamic cultures the crusades happened yesterday, as it were. Moreover, India is still recovering from the British Raj. And if Westerners don't think there is going to be huge payback for colonialism when China gets the chance to do it, they are dreaming.
Smooth sailing into globalization through neoliberal policy being imposed is a pipe dream of Western elites, one which Putin has already dashed in Russia after the disastrous attempt at forced "liberalization" that turned Russia over to the Russian mafia.
These are serious issues and the notion that imposing "democratic capitalism" is going to solve them smoothly and peacefully is naive.
Yes India is a different place than America. In America you cannot speak frankly about Christianity without being persecuted by cowardly Christianists; while in India you cannot speak frankly about Hinduism without being persecuted by cowardly Hinduists. They are clearly completely different countries.
Yes, these are differences well-known to social scientist, but many economists and Western business people ignore them or deny their relevance.
It's not politically correct to say it, but America is itself is now involved in a religious war that is an extension of the Civil War that had it roots in colonial times, based on cultural differences.
Post a Comment