I’d like to introduce a new term: Rekab
Street. That’s Baker Street spelled backwards, and it represents the
opposite of Sherlock Holmes’ approach: rather than notice the anomalies
and detect evidence of criminal or shameful activity that people have
deliberately tried to conceal, residents of Rekab Street systematically
ignore any clues that violate the expectations/demands of their
preconceived narrative, sweeping aside the anomalies and highlighting
precisely what has been created to mislead. It is, in a sense, a process
of stupefaction.
Rekab Street exists in many fields.
In a sense, Thomas Kuhn’s book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, focuses on the problem, in particular, on the resistance to anomalies that contradict the paradigm. He cites a study by Bruner and Postman
about how the resistance to anomalies that violate expectations can be
so strong that people can literally not see that a deck has some playing
cards with red spades and black hearts. The authors note the psychological discomfort felt by people confronting these anomalies (which their minds literally do not want to see).
In my own chosen field of medieval history,
I have found precisely this kind of resistance. My early (and now
current) work focused on a substantial trail of evidence indicating that
for over half a millennium, Latin Christians had been tracking the
advent of the year 6000 from the Creation (at which point the millennial
kingdom would begin), but that as the date approached, the clergy (our
unique source for documentation) dropped the dating system and adopted
another that pushed off the apocalyptic date. Among the many events of
note that coincided with the advent of these disappeared dates was the
coronation of Charlemagne, held on the first day of the year 6000
according to the most widely accepted count, but dated by observers as
AD 801.
I argued this “silence,” on something so critical reflected not
indifference, but deep anxiety. Like Conan Doyle’s “Silver Blaze,” the
main clue was the dog who did not bark. In response, I found
that medievalists clung to their view of Charlemagne as someone with his
feet firmly planted on the ground, who would never be moved by such
silliness. As a result they handled the evidence in ways that resembled
the work of clean-up and construction crews rather than that of detectives and archeologists.
Since 2000, the reigning approach for understanding the Middle East
conflict between Israel and her neighbors has focused narrowly on the
what’s called the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” The resulting (or
founding) paradigm for such an approach is what I’ve called either PCP
1 (politically-correct paradigm) or PCP 2 (post-colonial paradigm). In
both cases, the framing conceit is the Israeli Goliath and the
Palestinian David. And so powerful is the underdogma
that governs this view that all evidence to the contrary gets swept
aside. So insistent are the demands to support the underdog, that the
cost of ignoring empirical reality seem a small price to pay.
What results, is a process of determined, deliberate stupefaction, in which we must inhabit Rekab Street, we must ignore critical evidence, bow down to ghoulish idols, literally render ourselves stupid. We must not talk about honor-shame culture much less adopt a paradigmatic view that privileges such concerns in understanding the Arab/Muslim hatred of an independent Jewish state in Dar al Islam. We should not discuss Islam’s triumphalist obsession with dominating and humiliating non-believers. We cannot discuss anti-Semitism or the Holocaust without equating it with Islamophobia, lest we offend people we might identify as agents of a new blood-dimmed tide. We cannot discuss the repeated evidence that our humanity is being systematically abused to benefit people who literally embody everything that we progressive, democratically-minded people abhor.
And as a result, we are fully misinformed by our media and our academics, who think that “attacking the most powerful” is a sign of courage regardless of who’s right, who prefer to preen about their moral superiority even at the direct cost of empowering those who hold their morality in contempt, who attack their critics savagely even as they embrace their enemies; who can’t tell parody from reality because the procrustean beds they impose on the evidence have led them to invert empirical reality.
Thus babies killed by Hamas become the occasion of cries for sympathy for Gazans assaulted by Israel. And terrorists who disguise themselves as journalists become the occasion for accusing Israel of deliberately killing journalists. An army which undergoes a disastrous defeat, gets handed laurels of victory
for their performance. The world’s army with (by far) the best record
when it comes to reducing civilian casualties on the other side in urban
warfare get’s painted at the world’s most brutal army.
The inhabitants of Rekab Street cannot break step with the parade of the Emperor’s New Clothes.
Of course were this merely a children’s tale for adults, the tailors
merely financial tricksters, the emperor merely vain, and the court
merely foolish and frightened of losing face, it might be
alright (don’t want to impose too high standards here). But when the
tailors are malevolent agents of a ruthless cognitive war of aggression,
the new clothes are icons of hatred
designed to arouse genocidal fury against the very people witnessing
the parade, and the court is aggressively dishonest, it’s another story.
Something like the opposite of harmless. If we survive this challenge,
there will be an entire field of scholarly research into the tendencies of intellectuals to commit civilizational suicide.
No comments:
Post a Comment