Butterflies, Memes, and Narratives
David Brooks had me going there, with the first several paragraphs in his column today. He had me thinking a new David Brooks had suddenly emerged, as a butterfly from its chrysalis, with powers of insight and perception the old David Brooks could only dream of having.
Alas, it is the same old clunky, clueless David Brooks:
Here is what inspired the false hopes:
We’re all born late. We’re born into history that is well under way. We’re born into cultures, nations and languages that we didn’t choose. On top of that, we’re born with certain brain chemicals and genetic predispositions that we can’t control. We’re thrust into social conditions that we detest. Often, we react in ways we regret even while we’re doing them.
But unlike the other animals, people do have a drive to seek coherence and meaning. We have a need to tell ourselves stories that explain it all. We use these stories to supply the metaphysics, without which life seems pointless and empty.
[...]
Most people select stories that lead toward cooperation and goodness. But over the past few decades a malevolent narrative has emerged.
And then the bucket of cold water, as Brooks proceeds to do exactly that which he decries:
That narrative has emerged on the fringes of the Muslim world. It is a narrative that sees human history as a war between Islam on the one side and Christianity and Judaism on the other. This narrative causes its adherents to shrink their circle of concern. They don’t see others as fully human. They come to believe others can be blamelessly murdered and that, in fact, it is admirable to do so.
This narrative is embraced by a small minority. But it has caused incredible amounts of suffering within the Muslim world, in Israel, in the U.S. and elsewhere. With their suicide bombings and terrorist acts, adherents to this narrative have made themselves central to global politics. They are the ones who go into crowded rooms, shout “Allahu akbar,” or “God is great,” and then start murdering.
When Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan did that in Fort Hood, Tex., last week, many Americans had an understandable and, in some ways, admirable reaction. They didn’t want the horror to become a pretext for anti-Muslim bigotry.
So immediately the coverage took on a certain cast. …
[...]
A shroud of political correctness settled over the conversation. …
This is, indeed, the narrative that has been flitting about among the literati in the chattering class and in the blogosphere. Marc Lynch confronts it:
Since the Ft Hood atrocity, I’ve seen a meme going around that it somehow exposed a contradiction between “political correctness” and “security.” The avoidance of Nidal Hassan’s religion out of fear of offending anyone, goes the argument, created the conditions which allowed him to go undetected and unsanctioned in the months and years leading up to his rampage. American security, therefore, demands dropping the “political correctness” of avoiding a confrontation with Islamist ideas and asking the “tough questions” about Islam as a religion and the loyalty of Muslim-Americans.
This framing of the issue is almost 100% wrong. There is a connection between what these critics are calling “political correctness” and national security, but it runs in the opposite direction. The real linkage is that there is a strong security imperative to prevent the consolidation of a narrative in which America is engaged in a clash of civilizations with Islam, and instead to nurture a narrative in which al-Qaeda and its affiliates represent a marginal fringe to be jointly combatted. Fortunately, American leaders — from the Obama administration through General George Casey and top counter-terrorism officials — understand this and have been acting appropriately.
That last is critical, because whatever anti-Muslim sentiments exist among ordinary Americans (and statistics show that it’s actually decreasing) are less significant than how public officials and authority figures react to those sentiments:
… Asking whether “Americans as a group are virulently biased against Muslims” isn’t really the right way to look at the issue. If you’re a member of a minority group that suffers discrimination, you don’t want to know what the average American thinks about you; you want to know whether there’s a substantial and persistent group of Americans who are strongly prejudiced against you, and whether their expressions of prejudice will be generally tolerated. You’re afraid, basically, of the Cossacks, and what you want to know is whether the Tsar will clamp down on them or not—or whether, in the old worst-case scenario, the Cossacks work for the Tsar. The immediate and unequivocal statements of public authorities are ways of codifying political mores and saying, no, the Cossacks don’t work for the Tsar, and in fact the Tsar will put them in jail if they try anything.
[...]
… Certainly, the most important thing for Jewish Americans is that society as a whole recognise the existence of anti-Semitism; everybody knows it will never be eradicated entirely. That’s why the immediate efforts by General George Casey and by Janet Napolitano to head off anti-Muslim reactions to the Fort Hood massacre have been so compelling and reassuring. And this is also why attempts to link the massacre to “political correctness”, and to imply that Muslims should be subjected to greater discrimination and surveillance, are so misplaced and dangerous. The fever swamps of the nativist internet are currently awash with anti-Muslim bigotry; they always will be. The question is whether the major media and responsible public officials make concerted, pro-active attempts to prevent such bigotry from spreading into the mainstream. …
opinions powered by SendLove.to
9 Responses to “Butterflies, Memes, and Narratives”
I've got to disagree. First of all, what is the value of mocking David Brooks as “clueless”? If not Brooks, which Republican writers can you criticize without resorting to ad hominem attacks? Might I suggest that you have constructed a narrative toward Republicans that ensures conflict and anger?
Also, I'm going to defend Brooks on substance. Give him credit for doing exactly what Marc Lynch recommends: describing Islamic extremists as a “marginal fring” while calling for cooperation with the great Muslim majority.
But be careful; if you give Brooks a fair hearing, you may slowly start drifting toward the political center….
It's no surprise that this event would be politically exploited and corrupted to suit alternative lefty views and desires.
I can understand why you dislike Brooks, he attempts to probe the modern day psyche of liberals, and he is no dunce as you persist in calling anyone who isn't 100% ultra-liberal. However, I see what you meant in this particular article, it went from a straight line, well expressed and then veered at the end. I did not agree with his conclusion. In his defense, this is an extremely difficult subject, it would take a team of psychologists (strike that), a team of very smart people to separate out terrorism from plain flipping out.
If not Brooks, which Republican writers can you criticize without resorting to ad hominem attacks?
Is this meant to suggest that Brooks' writing makes sense? Because if so, I don't see it.
Might I suggest that you have constructed a narrative toward Republicans that ensures conflict and anger?
Does it bother you this much when Republicans and conservatives refer to “those 'evil' insurance companies” as their way of supposedly restating the supposed “liberal” position on health care? I've never complained about that, but it's high on my list of grating annoyances. Why can't Republicans simply describe the liberal Democratic position on health care reform and the private insurance industry accurately, rather than acting out what they think Democrats think about health care reform or any one of a dozen other topics.
I perceive that Republicans are extraordinarily sensitive to negative descriptive language about themselves, but have no problem whatsoever using words in a way that not only mocks liberals but also distorts their position. Yet, in my perception, I don't see me or people like me calling conservatives on every single adjective or turn of phrase. Do you?
By contrast, you will notice here that I have used words to express my own opinion of David Brooks's intellectual abilities and capacity for logical reasoning. I do not parse language so as to impute my own interpretation of Brooks' columns as if I were channeling him.
Give him credit for doing exactly what Marc Lynch recommends: describing Islamic extremists as a “marginal fring” while calling for cooperation with the great Muslim majority.
Where did he do that? Can you give me a quote?
But be careful; if you give Brooks a fair hearing, you may slowly start drifting toward the political center….
What you're missing here is that I did give Brooks a “fair hearing.” I read his column, every word of it and judged its quality against my understanding of reality and common sense, which is quite different from his. You seem to believe that because you think Brooks is perceptive and reasonable, that must mean that, objectively, he is, and I should think so, too. Well, I'm sorry, but I don't.
By the way, calling a New York Times columnist “clueless” for a column he wrote is not an ad hominem attack. I am characterizing the strength, quality, and value of his arguments, not him as a person. And I think it should be clear to a reasonable reader that “clueless” refers to the way Brooks thinks as demonstrated by what he writes, and not to Brooks as a human being.
On the other hand, expressing one's dislike for and disagreement with Barack and Michelle Obama's political philosophy, or some specific thing they did or said, by criticizing Michelle Obama's choice of clothing, or her arms, or the size of her butt, is an ad hominem attack. I could give literally countless examples of this kind of personal attack from the usual suspects in talk radio and elsewhere, but for now I will refrain.
Finally, I will say that I don't even begin to understand the implied assumption in your sentence, above, that “drifting toward the political center” is so unquestionably a good thing that even *I* the flaming liberal agree that it is a good thing, and deliberately refuse to give David Brooks “a fair hearing” because if I did then I would have to consider drifting to the political center, and my stubborn pride just will not allow me to admit that that would be for the best.
The concept of the “political center” is, if possible, even more repugnant to me than open, unabashed far right ideology. At least you know what someone like John Boehner or Michele Bachmann stand for and what they believe. David Brooks is wishy-washy and doesn't appear to really understand his own arguments or why he's taking the positions he does, and that's much more irritating than someone like Bachmann, who really and truly believes that the feds are going to come and put her children into re-education camps. She's a loon, but at least you know she truly buys her own looniness. With someone like Brooks, I get the sense he takes the middle position on principle, because he believes that is the best position to take in any argument. It's the concept of the center that he believes in, not the particular centrist argument he's making at the moment. Indeed, he even said that straight out in one of his columns. I'd have to go back and search to find out which one, but it was either during the campaign shortly before the election, or immediately after the election.
But again, I don't share your belief that the “political center” is a great place to be, and that I must, perforce, secretly want to be there.
I don't think Brooks is a “dunce.” And I didn't call him that. I think he is confused, inconsistent, and illogical in the arguments he makes. As you basically suggest yourself in your comment.
And by the way, Adesnik? if you are reading this, that first sentence — or the first half of it at least — is exactly the verbal behavior I was talking about. Is my use of the word “clueless” to characterize David Brooks's column really so much more “unnecessary” than the sort of veiled sneering fake psychologizing imputation of hidden motives as a rhetorical undermining device revealed in that sentence? And note, I'm only bringing this up as illustration. Normally, I wouldn't even bother to point it out. It's far too common an occurrence to point out something like that everytime it happens. I try to pick my battles.
I admit, you did not say dunce, but I think you really dislike his reasoning in general, so I misquoted you. He is too right for you, and others, one of whom called him an idiot. You set up a straw man, inadvertently or not, praising his first paragraphs. Perhaps your side should tackle the terrorism/flipped out subject and see how you do. It looks simple until you do it and it is easily criticized and scoffed at. Also, I only referred to this one article, most of his other articles are spot on, from a moderate's view point, anyway.
BTW: I also think NYT's Dowd and Rich are good and well reasoned writers, and although I often disagree with their opinions, I respect them. Do you have any respect for right of center writers?
Please, Kathy, call me David! First of all, let's celebrate our agreement on one critical point. There is no intrinsic value to the having the center-most position in any political debate. Yet centrism also goes by other names, such as pragmatism and compromise. In fact, many of President Obama's admirers praise him for his commitment to pragmatism and compromise, a commitment they considered lacking in President Bush.
There is a constant tension in democratic politics between principle and compromise. Thus, I certainly do not concur with your assessment of “the concept of the 'political center'” as “repugnant”. If memory serves, when Republicans controlled both the executive and legislative branches from 2002 thru 2006, Democrats often criticized the GOP for rejecting centrism in favor of unmitigated ideology.
Now back to David Brooks. You asked for a quote to demonstrate that Brooks practices what Marc Lynch preaches. Here it is, from the column you cite in your article. The first sentence is actually the last sentence you quoted. The second sentence is the one that follows it:
I think I win this one hands down. Brooks uses the precise word, “fringe”, that Lynch insists on. Although I prefer to be magnanimous in victory, this point goes directly to your claim,
I confess, my own partisanship and ideological commitments have tripped me up many times. I have had enough egg on my face to make many an omelette. So my purpose is not to condescend or suggest that I approach politics from a better place than you do. But I am asking you to ask yourself whether the casual use of terms such as “clueless” to describe Brooks makes it far too easy for you to ignore both your own imperfections as well as Brooks' actual arguments.
I think I win this one hands down. Brooks uses the precise word, “fringe”, that Lynch insists on.
Don't go popping any champagne corks yet, David. Meaning is made by more than just individual words, much less one word. I call this the “Yes, but” rhetorical principle. Brooks covers himself by sticking in the word “fringe” to indicate that he is not making a statement about the Muslim world in general, or the Islamic faith in general — and then he proceeds in the remainder of his column, to do exactly that, as here (where he actually demonstrates the technique by making his first sentence a disclaimer, and the rest of the paragraph a biased narrative):
Next, he attacks “political correctness” — thus himself employing the very narrative that Marc Lynch warns against. It's harmful “political correctness,” you see, that leads people to decry religious extremism that leads to violence, without explicitly naming Islam. It's “political correctness” that leads Pres. Obama, for example, to say that no religion endorses the idea of a God who endorses the killing of innocents. Because, clearly (so the narrative goes), Islam does say that God endorses violence and the Koran makes it mandatory to kill infidels, and on and on and on. Mind you, Brooks doesn't say all of this. He doesn't have to. Everyone understands the narrative, although no one who subscribes to it will admit it IS a narrative.
And this is another important point. Brooks does not give the slightest indication that the particular narrative HE decries — call it the “allahu akbar-jihadist” narrative — is not the only narrative. He does not acknowledge (because, I believe, he does not understand) that his entire column is a narrative as well — the narrative that says that, if the media and the president and government leaders and bloggers, et al., do not explicitly attribute an act like Hasan's to Islamic extremism, if they do not name Islamic extremism as the problem, and go through the litany of received wisdom about suicide bombers and the requirement to kill infidels and take over the world, they are being “politically correct” and trying to avoid the real problem because they don't want to offend Muslims.
It is precisely this narrative that Lynch condemns — in part because it's wrong, but also because it's harmful to the very goal people like Brooks supposedly seek. Endless fulminations about the “Islamic jihadi suicide bombing threat” — without any attempt to put it into a larger context or to name the extreme, often religiously inspired, usually unreasoning hatred and prejudice that exists in our society (read anything Mark Steyn has written for illustration), that feeds it — is itself a narrative. Brooks lays out that narrative in seemingly blissful unawareness that this is what he is doing — and the fact that he himself is not a Mark Steyn-like hater only make that more egregious, in my view. Because he should know better. But he doesn't.
I guess I'm dense, but I found it impossible to follow your interpretation of what Brooks thinks or espouses.
Could you fill in the blank in a few words, please.
Brooks is a __________________________.