I know we are meant to hold up for discussion anything at all. I understand that we cannot declare it out of bounds for questioning, either by ourselves, or others. We agreed to this. That being said, I was uncomfortable with the anger and violence expressed last class in regard to Margaret Atwoood...I am unable to tell if it was the violent suggestions, the intrusion of such suggestions into a seemingly peaceful space, or the destruction of an icon that bothered me...I have no idea what was happening, and it was all over so fast.
SOOO - I was thinking about whether or not this kind of response is useful in a classroom. Okay, perhaps not exactly that response, but a very strong and emotional one, without any specific evidence to back it up. Saaaayyy, a teacher's response to a piece that students might really have enjoyed. A deliberately adversarial approach, which would inevitably become a part of the overlapping Hermeneutic circles within the room...In what ways does this kind of input alter one's relationship with the text? How much of that difference is founded in one's perception of the text of the other, the one *offering this input?
I'm still thinking about it.
I'm reading about all of this business too.
I'm interested in learning more.
http://www.haaretz.com/haaretz-authors-edition/the-shadow-over-israel-1.293653
Since this implicitly applies to me, I'll add a little context:
ReplyDelete• Defying Appeal from Gaza Students, Atwood set to Accept Daily Prize - http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11255.shtml
• Novelist Atwood Boycotts Boycotts - http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/33345/novelist-atwood-boycotts-boycotts/
• Margaret Atwood Cashes In - http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/05/margaret-atwood-cashes-in/
Which I contrasted with the position of Judith Butler, e.g. - http://usacbi.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/judith-butler-as-a-jew-i-was-taught-it-was-ethically-imperative-to-speak-up/
Now, in defense of the hallowed "national hero", and to build on the Haaretz article linked above, it appears Ms. Atwood's misanthropy was perturbed during her recent visit to the Middle East (q.v. http://www.rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/rabble-staff/2010/06/margaret-atwood-rethinks-israel). If she takes on a different hue, I'd still think her problematic - *because it took her so long to come to [what I view as] an unavoidable observation, i.e., that Israel is a rogue state.*
To take the "hermeneutic question" in a different direction, lets use the Congo - currently the site of (again!) mass rapes. We're talking on the order of tens of thousands, if not more. Now what if Atwood decided to speak at a university which received its funding from the junta which rules the Congo? What if she went multiple times, spoke on behalf of the junta in editorials? What if one day, after some random epiphany, she decided maybe the junta wasn't as angelic as she'd been construing it as. Would that be problematic? Would it affect a reading of her texts? *Should* it?
Hope that helped. :)
Kimberly: thank you for speaking on this. i too felt very uncomfortable with the violent language that was directed at Ms. Atwood (in her absence but in our presence). I'm embarrassed to have to acknowledge, in hindsight, that i retreated into a mental space of "ignore it and it'll stop". I'm glad you refused to ignore it.
ReplyDeleteTobey: Context is important; but for that very reason i think we can and should distinguish between the complexities of a longstanding political conflict, on the one hand, and the somewhat more readily comprehensible particularities of a classroom discussion on the other.
I think that therefore some consideration and acknowledgement of the effect(s) of the specific comments — the intrusive "violent suggestions" — that you made would be in order, and valuable.
Ryan: "Context is important; but for that very reason i think we can and should distinguish between the complexities of a longstanding political conflict, on the one hand, and the somewhat more readily comprehensible particularities of a classroom discussion on the other."
ReplyDeleteBy that do you mean we should [temporarily?] ignore the fact that she's made a habit of tacitly supporting warcriminals for the sake of a classroom discussion on metaphor?
Ryan: "I think that therefore some consideration and acknowledgement of the effect(s) of the specific comments — the intrusive 'violent suggestions' — that you made would be in order, and valuable."
I'll readily acknowledge the violence implied in saying "I want to stab her in the eye." But I also readily acknowledge the violence implied in supporting warcriminals during an academic and cultural boycott. See, for example, Zizek's "Violence": http://www.amazon.com/Violence-Big-Ideas-Small-Books/dp/0312427182
To reiterate, I do not see a great deal of ambiguity in Israel's role as a rogue state. My "mild disdain" for Atwood mutated into outright contempt after she decided to speak in Israel *after* the Mavi Mara freedom flotilla, *against* the pleas of Gazans and other academics.
To each their own, obviously, but I think contempt can be an appropriate and reasoned response.
Hmm...Tobey, I really appreciate your response here. I was, obviously, trying to express discomfort, but then also trying to look at where discomfort might take a classroom conversation. My end comment about still thinking about all of this, reading about it and being interested in learning more --> these are things we struggle to maintain in an educational environment, and yet were brought about here...I even ended up in multiple conversations after class, some with fellow students I wouldn't normally talk to at that time --> to me, that's great. The trick is in how it was all brought about...that's all in the end...it's interesting.
ReplyDelete**Tobey - as a side note, my father accuses me of being ridiculously one-sided and unable to see reason in regard to Israel...I sympathize with the emotional response...I can't understand what else there could be..in fact, I suspect that admitting emotion to the conversation may be part of a solution...if there is to be one...
Hi Tobey,
ReplyDeletebefore i say anything else: let’s try to avoid a flame war here, ok?
Two things; the second more important than the first.
First, you posed a question to me, but i don't think i can answer it... I’m not sure i understood it, but honestly, if it wasn't simply rhetorical then i have to wonder if it was entirely sincere… It’s not a 'fact' that Atwood has "made a habit of tacitly supporting war criminals", that is a judgement. And it’s a rather dubious one, i think. Not because the leaders of Israel haven't committed war crimes, but because (so far as i can tell) Atwood has never supported them, tacitly or otherwise. To say she has is just wildly reductive. I object to the implicit "with us or against us" ultimatum (Who are “we”? Count me out.). Frankly, her doubts about the cultural boycott strategy are valid.
I'm going to assume you strongly disagree and so i'd like to gently suggest that we not indulge in a tangential ping-pong over this here and now (maybe over a beer sometime?). FYI: i’ve joined many protests of Israel's military aggression over the years: i share your outrage, though we may disagree about certain tactics and outcomes. (I’d like to believe a two-state solution might still be reached, and, although there seems to be less and less hope for this, i think Atwood's reflections on her experience in Israel could help to rekindle those hopes…)
Second, i am still uneasy about the violence in your expression of 'contempt' in class, especially given the contextual background patterns of gendered violence. Maybe my concern is amplified by my counselling background, but i'm fairly certain that, to say the least, any instance of a man verbalizing the desire to commit violent acts against a woman ('metaphorically' or not) is something that introduces some unsafety in a classroom.
However, given Claudia’s policy, stated in the outline and the first class, that “you can say and ask anything in class, but that you cannot declare what you (or others) have said or asked off-limits for questioning” i am questioning whether or not you actually think it was appropriate to say "I want to stab [Margaret Atwood] in the eye” in class. It made me uncomfortable.
I'm only emphasizing this again because it is what prompted me to respond in the first place, and (to my understanding) it is what prompted the initial post here (of course Kimberly may wish to correct me if i'm misinterpreting her).
Kimberley: "I was, obviously, trying to express discomfort, but then also trying to look at where discomfort might take a classroom conversation."
ReplyDeleteCould you clarify as to whether it was discomfort at the implied transgressive violence (i.e., "I want to stab her in the eye") or the devaluation of a contemporary Canadian icon?
Kimberley: "I even ended up in multiple conversations after class,"
Glad to have inspired some discussion and reflection. :)
Kimberley: "my father accuses me of being ridiculously one-sided and unable to see reason in regard to Israel."
Within this context I would suggest "ridiculously one-sided" works as an argument when you're talking about more or less equal combatants, but does not apply here. The Palestinians have committed war crimes. They are ruled by corrupt, vicious, theocratic warlords. But that's doubly true for Israel, which receives billions in funding and military etc from the US, Canada, UK, etc. Israel's successive invasions of Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, etc., do not, IMO, leave room for cogent two-sided debates.
Similar with your father (and many others, I suspect), my father-in-law is similarly inclined to support Israel. He also thinks capitalism is just the keenest ideology ever. *cough* O.o
***********************************************************
Ryan: "It’s not a 'fact' that Atwood has 'made a habit of tacitly supporting war criminals', that is a judgement."
Hrm... Well, if she's been making apologies for Israel, then yeah, I'd say she's made a habit of supporting war criminals. How many times has she pandered to Israeli interests? How many op-eds has she written with a pro-Israeli slant?
And judgment? Can you imagine intelligence in the absence of judgment?
Atwood has been cheerleading for Israel for years. I have no problem making a judgment against her.
Ryan: "Frankly, her doubts about the cultural boycott strategy are valid."
I wonder if you say the same thing about scabs who break picket lines... as someone with a background in labour history, I veer towards different values...
Ryan: "I'm going to assume you strongly disagree"
Well, I strongly disagree about the boycott issue, but you're right - it isn't worth stretching further than its constructive use. We all, after all, have a paper to write. ;)
Ryan: "i am still uneasy about the violence in your expression of 'contempt' in class"
Hrm... I'm pretty sure this is the same gesture towards tolerance critiqued so thoroughly by Zizek: (http://kasamaproject.org/2010/06/07/zizek-against-tolerance/).
Ryan: "any instance of a man verbalizing the desire to commit violent acts against a woman ('metaphorically' or not) is something that introduces some unsafety in a classroom."
Uhh... I'm not sure how an expression of contempt - phrased figuratively - morphs into an "unsafe classroom".
Secondly, having counselled battered women years ago, I also share an aversion towards man-on-woman violence. As well, having stood by my mother as she fled a husband who beat her to a pulp, I share your sensitivity to how violence can terrorize. But I don't see how it applies here at all.
Ryan: "i am questioning whether or not you actually think it was appropriate to say 'I want to stab [Margaret Atwood] in the eye' in class."
Definitely. But, knowing that it causes you discomfort, I would be willing to try something more colourful next time - perhaps a pack of hyenas?
All that aside, see also: hyperbole: "Any rhetorical device or figure of speech that employs exaggeration. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally."
Since there was an interest in justifying my response, to better support my contempt, here are a few more details:
ReplyDelete• For more on the academic/cultural boycott of Israel see: Palestinian resistance and international solidarity (http://rac.sagepub.com/content/50/1/1.abstract)
• For a response to critiques of the academic/cultural boycott see: "Muzzling debate on academic boycott through selective resort to 'academic freedom' (http://www.pacbi.org/etemplate.php?id=1132)
• Here are some emails recounting challenges posed to Atwood re. her continued support of Israel during a cultural boycott: (http://mycatbirdseat.com/2010/05/dear-ms-atwood-i-regret-to-inform-you-that-you-have-failed-the-lie-detector-test/)
• Here's a plea from the Palestinians begging Atwood to recognize the boycott and refuse the award (What's the relationship between the Israeli State and Tel Aviv University? What role does culture play in Israel's propaganda?): (http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Action.php/2010/04/09/call-for-margaret-atwood-to-join-cultura)
• A Lebanese network has listed Atwood among those being boycotted for supporting Zionism: (http://boycottzionism.wordpress.com/2010/08/04/boycott-artists-supporting-israel/)
• Some say Palestine is the ultimate test of honesty: (http://www.salem-news.com/articles/may092010/atwood-letter-rd.php)
• More on Judith Butler (+ Tutu, Chomsky, Naomi Klein, etc) on the cultural boycott of Israel + the effort to divest Berkely from Israel (http://mondoweiss.net/2010/04/judith-butler-joins-chomsky-tutu-klein-and-a-growing-chorus-worldwide-in-support-of-berkeley-divestment.html)
• And here's more on Butler's rejection of the Berlin Civil Courage Award (on the basis of racism, etc): (http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/06/28/judith-butler-refuses-award-at-berlin-pride-citing-racism/)
I think Butler has the right idea.
Hey Tobey, I'm starting to feel a little weird about all this, but it's still interesting. You asked for clarification - like I said, there was a lot going on, so it's hard to say precisely what it was that was bothering me in the end...I think the tone of voice and suggested action were the most of it...the rest has brought about interesting discussion etc. *shrug* As for Dad and this particular discussion, if it comes up again, I'll bring up your point (we do, however, do our best to avoid this one and about three other very particular conversations). Thanks again for all of the info -I'll have a look at more of these articles.
ReplyDelete