As I watched the recent attack on the Charlie Hebdo
publication in horror with everyone else, the role of deep historical memory,
even historical trauma, was clear at a number of levels. The details of this specific attack are still
unfolding, and in fact at least as I write, the attackers remain at large in an
unfolding hostage situation. But the
outlines of the context raise some questions, as well as possibilities for
clarity and progress.
Juan
Cole does a powerful job of discussing some more recent history which may
have, he argues, radicalized the attackers, such as the invasion of Iraq and
related torture at Abu Ghraib. As we
think about radicalization, identity and history, though, I’m also led to ask
two other questions.
Given that we know schools, like the media, faith
institutions and families, are a key institution of “identity making”, I first
wonder what the schooling of the two suspects was like. The NYT
reported that at least one of them had dropped out of school, and no doubt
consequently were poor and unemployed.
What were their classrooms like? Did schools reach out to include
them? Did teachers have the skill and
autonomy they need to meet the needs of such students? Were they allowed to express their identity
or told not to? Was their own history or identity taught at all? Recognized and
respected? No school, teacher or
curriculum obviously are to blame for their bloody crimes, but if we are to
understand the systems of which we are all a part, these are questions worth
asking.
Second, a reflection on dialogue and satire. Dialogue is probably the most common tool
practiced by peace educators and peace builders. As distinct from debate, dialogue has as a
goal improved relationships and understanding between participants. Debate is
focused on “winning” an argument, a criteria which cannot help but be
subjective (which I must admit despite my love for a good debate). This is why so many debates end with both
parties feeling they’ve won.
What is the role of satire, such as that published by
Charlie Hebdo, in debate and dialogue? Is there something in the nature of
satire’s lampooning and mockery that shut dialogue, and perhaps debate,
down? Or alternatively, does satire
indeed provoke debates that we’d otherwise be afraid to have? Voltaire and Mark Twain are among my favorite
thinkers, and Colbert my favorite comic, so forcing myself to consider
alternative views that question satire here is difficult. Does it indeed mock that which demands
mocking as a form of a check on power? In
which case…does anyone need to mock the mockers? My concern about those (Bill Maher comes to
mind) who set themselves up as satirists is that too often they don’t actually
need to marshal a logical chain of argument.
They simply need to caricature.
It would be wrong to say satire doesn’t involve an intellectual
argument; no fan of Twain could claim so.
Yet the dialogue facilitator in me, the peace builder and student of
Elise Boulding and Ghandi, knows that making peace with an enemy, and
acknowledging their humanity, is the harder but more sustainable path. For this, reform of inequitable global
systems, a legacy of the historical trauma of colonialism, is a must.
Avowed academic and supporter of academic freedom that I am,
I can only “come down” on the side (why must there always be “sides? Isn’t that
itself simplistic?) of
#jesuischarlie. After all, free speech
is necessary for the dialogue I call for above and the murdered journalists
fought for it bravely. Yet satire, if it
is to be useful, must target power. I
look forward to increased publication in mainstream Western media of lampooning
of such realities as xenophobia, Islamophobia, and white, male and Western
privilege.
