Skip to content

We Are Too Liberal With Our Contempt

Yesterday, a group of prominent artists, writers, and academics signed an open letter in Harper’s Magazine decrying the rising tide of illiberalism and ruthlessly policed ideological conformity in public discourse. There are some impressive names on the list: Margaret Atwood, Atul Gawande, Gloria Steinem, Salman Rushdie, and J.K. Rowling are just a few of the more than one hundred fifty signatories who are growing increasingly uneasy about “cancel culture” and the censuring of any viewpoints that don’t align with the orthodoxies of the moment.

Rowling, in particular, knows well of what she speaks, having faced quite severe recent backlash for her views on how transgender rights interact with the realities of biological sex. But beyond this or that specific eruption, the signatories point to a worrisome general climate of intolerance that is at least as prominent on the left as on the right:

While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought.

More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes.

Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

I’m hardly the first to observe that what is emerging (online, in particular) is a form of puritanical morality that would rival anything from the more zealous periods of Christian history. And I’m not even on Twitter. I’ve heard it’s, um, worse there. It’s probably not incidental that this phenomenon tends to emerge in post-Christian contexts. We may have left the metaphysics and theology of Christianity behind, but we have enthusiastically preserved the moral absolutes. We are cheerful relativists when it comes to beliefs about God or gods or the lack thereof, but when it comes to (highly selective) understandings and applications of morality, our relativism goes out the window rather quickly.

I think the open letter in Harpers is right to worry about the kind of discursive climate we are creating and enforcing. People are increasingly afraid to say what they think for fear of the swift and retributive judgment of the angry mob. How will people ever learn and grow and modify their views if they’re never allowed to be wrong (or even insufficiently right) without being tarred and feathered online? How is meaningful dialogue even possible amidst so much righteous anger? What about values like freedom of speech, even when it’s not popular? How much social progress has historically depended upon voices who didn’t sing along to the accepted song sheets of the day? And, not to put too fine a point on it, what if the mob is wrong, or at least less right than it imagines?

As I read the open letter today, my thoughts turned to the story of the Pharisee and the tax-collector in Luke 18. Both men are in the temple, praying. The Pharisee gives thanks that he’s not a miserable sinner like other people and helpfully itemizes his righteous deeds for God’s benefit. The tax collector stands off to the side, eyes to the ground, praying for nothing more than the mercy of God. The Pharisee’s performative righteousness would have played well on social media. I thank you, God, that I am not like all those dirty people with the wrong views about race and sex and gender. Look at all the laudatory things that I do for progress on these matters. I could imagine the likes piling up quite quickly. The tax collector’s plea for mercy? Not so much.

And this is the problem, isn’t it? We don’t really do mercy anymore. I worry about the implications of this trend. At the end of it all, the preamble to Jesus’ parable in Luke 18:9 haunts me:

He told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and regarded others with contempt.

Our present climate contains far too much of both, it seems to me. We are too easily convinced of our own righteousness and too liberal with our contempt.

——

Image source.

10 Comments Post a comment
  1. Linda Swab #

    Totally agree, Ryan. Freedom of speech has gone out the window. I personally am biting my tongue over and over so as not to fan the anger around me. And this taking down of historical statues and changing place names because the actions of people back then are now not approved, does not encourage dialogue and understanding. Many have mentioned that we must learn from history to not repeat it, but how can we if we “erase” it for all intents and purposes.

    July 8, 2020
    • Thanks, Linda. I recognize the fear of fanning the flames of anger. It does not bode well for civil discourse.

      July 10, 2020
  2. Yes Ryan, agree fully. It reminds me of the obligation for us seminary students during the women’s lib years. The very good theology often got lost in the rhetoric.

    July 8, 2020
    • Indeed. Self-righteous rhetoric swallows up much that is good or at least worthy of consideration.

      July 10, 2020
  3. howard wideman #

    Franklin Graham response to Supreme Court decision prohibiting discrimination against gays should remove his organization’s tax exemption. Billy Graham would have never endorsed his son 

    July 8, 2020
  4. It’s truly difficult to pronounce confidently on the margins of free speech. Not so hard when speech libels or slanders a person, a religion, a race, etc., but we often hear defense of what is clearly hate speech on the basis of freedom of expression, and that often accompanied by a diatribe against political correctness. Then there are questions of revisionism of history, false reporting and outright lying, all of which really hit home when you see family members taken in by such speech. We have a lot to learn about constructive dialogue, as well as constructive responses to anyone “freely speaking” dissension and division into the body politic.

    July 8, 2020
    • It would be difficult to read the Harper’s letter as condoning hate speech, in my view. I agree, though, we do have a lot to learn about constructive dialogue (or even its possibility) in the age of social media.

      July 10, 2020
  5. We are the Elect, the Chosen Witnesses to the End of the Age, and we ain’t seen nothin yet. 🙂

    “14 But you must remain faithful to the things you have been taught. You know they are true, for you know you can trust those who taught you. 15 You have been taught the holy Scriptures from childhood, and they have given you the wisdom to receive the salvation that comes by trusting in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. 17 God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work.”
    2 Timothy 3:14-17

    July 8, 2020
  6. Douglas Klassen #

    These are great thoughts, Ryan. I read the letter to and right away saw this in the context of what Rene Girard predicted – the escalation of the scapegoat mechanism in the West. I think “cancel culture” is a secondary consequence. In short, people are so filled with anxiety, angst, despair…etc., that they need to project it somewhere. It is easy to join in on cancel culture online. When someone is selected as a scapegoat and “slain” it takes the collective pressure off, for a brief period of time. Sadly, it is the academics, produce managers at the grocery story, pastors, retail clerks, etc., who all become victims of society’s insatiable need to relieve the pressure of its disfunction. In the words of Jesus on the cross, “…they don’t know what they are doing.”

    July 9, 2020
    • Yeah, the scapegoating impulse is certainly alive and well, isn’t it? I think you’re right to point to the anxiety, angst, and despair that is often fuelling some of our darker impulses on these matters. Fear makes us wildly irrational (among other things). Far easier to project these things elsewhere and find someone to blame than to sit with some of the deeper realities underneath our reactions.

      July 10, 2020

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s