Archive for the ‘Culture Wars’ Category

The American ‘way of life’ is unsustainable for so many. Is it time to build radical forms of community? – America Magazine

I spent the early months of the coronavirus pandemic feeling desperately claustrophobic. Quarantined in a one-bedroom apartment in New York, I would sometimes imagine my fire escape was a creaky porch in the woods somewhere as I sat outside in the early evenings, listening to my neighbors cheer and bang pots for the essential workers carrying the city on their backs. Life felt stuck: no way to plan, nowhere to go, nothing to build toward. The calendar had been emptied of weddings and dinners and reunions; the comforting rhythms of weeks and seasons disappeared. I found myself alternately plotting wild adventures and pining for a quiet, communal life.

A professor of mine used to call this kind of musing Jesuit daydreaming, his description of the rich Ignatian tradition of spiritual discernment. I should pay attention to daydreams, he said, because they can be more revealing than I might first assume. In this case, I think he is right: My pandemic mind loop was tracing the problem I have come to see as one of the great dilemmas of modern life.

In my work as a religion journalist, I often offer a mental image to explain the importance of the beat to secular colleagues and readers. While not everyone describes themselves as having faith or even feeling spiritual, everyone has those searching moments in the middle of the night, covers pulled up high as they are lying in bed wondering how to have a good life. More often than not, peoples descriptions of what a good life looks like depend on a single factor: the strength of the community around them. As a reporter, it is my job to follow along as individuals and communities try to figure out who they want to be and how they want to live.

Over the past eight months, however, the path toward a good life has become obscured for many Americans. As I sat inside my apartment daydreaming about the future, dozens of people on my street were getting sick, losing family members or navigating the anxiety of being immunocompromised during a public-health crisis. Many Americans, especially in New York, have spent their last eight months mostly alone, and mostly at home, sometimes unable even to wave hello to loved ones from a distance.

The unemployment rate in New York City this summer reached 20 percent; many beloved businesses will likely never come back after the shutdown. The basic ingredients of a good lifedecent health, the warmth of family and friends, economic stabilityare now out of reach for far more people in our country than at the start of 2020.

But the pandemic has also revealed the extent to which a good life felt elusive for countless Americans far before any of us had heard of Covid-19. This is not just a matter of money or resources. In my reporting, I constantly find evidence that Americans feel isolated and unmoored from their communities, unsure of their place in the world.

I am thinking of a Black Southern Baptisttrained pastor who could not stomach taking his kids to church within his denomination anymore because of his fellow church members reluctance to talk about racism. A longtime staffer at a major American archdiocese who feels daily rage at the Catholic Churchs inability to address the clergy sexual-abuse crisis. A young woman fired from her job at a conservative Christian advocacy organization because she spoke out against President Trump. A Catholic professor who bitterly wishes the Democratic Party had room for his pro-life views. These are all examples from the world of religion and politics, but they speak to a deep and expansive truth: In many parts of American life, people feel the institutions that were supposed to guide their lives have failed, and that there is no space for people like them.

[Want to discuss politics with other America readers? Join our Facebook discussion group, moderated by Americas writers and editors.]

The result is a widespread sense of mutual mistrust. Last year, the Pew Research Center found that fewer than one in five Americans say they can trust the government. Nearly two-thirds of Americans have a hard time telling the truth from lies when elected officials speak, and even more believe the government unnecessarily withholds important information from the public.

I have encountered plenty of mistrust in the course of reporting stories. People believe they know my politics, suspect me of bias and assume I will be hostile to religion because of where I work. Religious leaders may be the most distrusted group of all. As one influential Catholic businessman in Boston told me a couple of years ago, following the sexual-abuse scandal, I go to Mass about three or four days a week. Im not into Vatican politics. Im not into Vatican museums. Im not into people who wear red slippers and fancy robes. I bought into this as a kid, because of the life of Christ. So Im in. But Im not drinking any Kool-Aid.

This year I have been reporting on the way political and spiritual alienation plays out in northeastern Pennsylvania, a historically Catholic area important in national politics. The mayor of Scranton pointed out to me that people in the city and region were devastated by the 2018 grand jury report that detailed dozens of instances of child sexual abuse in their diocese. Taken together with the Penn State sexual-abuse scandal and widespread corruption among public officials in the area, she said, local residents had effectively lost their government, their football team and their church. Versions of this story are playing out across the country, leaving Americans feeling unsure of who they are and who they can trust.

And we certainly do not trust one another. Our lives as Americans are increasingly sorted by partisan identity, in ways that are frankly shocking. Researchers have found that Republicans and Democrats drive different kinds of cars, watch different television shows and listen to different music. We tend to live next to neighbors who share our political beliefs and often pick our friends and communities based on shared convictions.

Surveys show that a significant minority of Americans basically never encounter people with different worldviews from their own and would be unhappy if their son or daughter were to marry someone from the opposite political party. This sense of tribalism is exacerbated by political officials who intentionally sow division, seeing chaos and animosity as a political strength rather than a collective weakness. As President Trump said on the grounds of the White House during this years Republican National Convention, apparently referring to Democrats, liberals or just people who do not support him: Were here, and theyre not.

I am offering this litany not as general doomsaying, but to paint a backdrop showing why it is that some Americans might feel unsure of how to build a good life at this distinctive moment in our history. In pandemic times, we spend our days literally isolating from one another, shut away and alone. In spirit and identity, however, Americans were already isolated, feeling sold out by their leaders and dissatisfied with the implicit contract of American life.

My Jesuit professors did not just teach me to daydream. They hammered home how important it is to be a man or woman for others, that this is the point of education and a simple guideline for how to live out our lives. In my travels through American communities, the most joyful and peaceful people I have met are doing just that. Their lives are entwined with the lives of others, and they happily embrace their obligations to their community. But as a broader culture, I think we have lost our knack for building this kind of civic utopia. It is hard to be a man or woman for others in a culture that is dominated by us versus them.

As a journalist, I see it as my job to be a kind of guide, or perhaps a mapmaker. I plot landmark moments and trace the direction of currents, showing readers places and people they would otherwise never encounter. I think the widespread sense of mutual suspicion and total isolation in our country is the most urgent, big-picture story of religion and politics right now. In my reporting, I see two major kinds of reactions to this kind of cultural frustration. One is an attempt to repair America. And the other is an attempt to build something new.

Much of what I cover in the world of religion and politics falls into the realm of the culture wars: efforts to win over our culture and shape our politics with a specific vision of the good life. I routinely interview political organizers, writers, legal advocates and politically active clergy persons from the left and the right who describe an existential battle for the soul of America, to borrow a phrase from former Vice President Joe Biden.

When I speak to pro-life activists who have dedicated their lives to ending abortion, they describe this years presidential election, and the Supreme Court appointments associated with it, as generation-defining events. They speak of abortion as being evil and are horrified by the rhetoric and convictions of their opponents.

Or take the progressive Black pastors who have staged protests at state capitols across the South over lack of access to health care and cuts to social safety-net programs, calling these life-or-death policy decisions that define who we are as a nation. One such set of protests, led by the Rev. William Barber in North Carolina, was explicitly framed as a fight over morality in public life. In the view of these activists, there is no morally or biblically sound argument for government policies that leave poor and working-class Americans struggling to make it.

Perhaps most powerfully, the massive protests we have seen unfolding across America this year are a cry to change the status quo of racism and police violence toward Black people in this country. I have watched as religious group after religious group contends with its own history of racism and bigotry, at times participating in those marches for cultural change. I met an octogenarian sister of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Scranton who described the backlash to a giant Black Lives Matter poster erected on the campus of Marywood University, the college her congregation oversees. In her mind, there is no question that the sisters should be joining this kind of movement for racial equality.

These struggles over what it means to be Americanour greatest sins, the lives we value, our political idealsare critically important. To many, these fights are a matter of survival. They may be exhausting. And for good reasons, they may exacerbate Americans sense that there are people on their side, championing the right values, and people on the other side, pushing for a country they do not recognize or believe in. These fights are necessary.

And yet, I cannot seem to get rid of my sneaking suspicion that these abstract debates over who we are as a nation of 330 million people do not actually get us very far in our search for the good life. So much of Americas cultural attentionon social media, in the news, in pop cultureis directed toward life at a grand, almost unfathomable scale. I am personally responsible for helping create this sense that life only matters at the national level, and so are my colleagues at large in the media. We report on trends sweeping the nation, on the latest drama surrounding the president, on the hashtags trending on Facebook and Twitter. Two things are true at once. These national political debates matter. And they may actively make it harder to be a human with a sense of fellowship, personal direction and a meaningful life.

That is why I have been following a sort of countercultural movement that seems to be blossoming now in America. People are seeking to build vibrant alternatives to the mainstream, versions of the good life that are idealistic, intense and built around the mutual dependence only possible in small communities. The people I am interested in have often gone through some sort of personal awakeningperhaps they discovered faith or became dissatisfied with the 9-to-5 monotony of workaday life. They are religious converts, hard-core environmentalists, skeptics of consumer capitalism. And they are willing to radically alter the way they live in search of the good life.

There are small networks of Black schools, community gardens and food-distribution centers that fashion themselves after the work of Marcus Garvey, the 19th-century thinker and activist who argued that freedom for Black people can only be won through self-reliance and independence from existing, white-dominated institutions. Or, to consider something radically different, there is St. Marys, Kan., a little Catholic town almost exactly in the middle of the country, where parishioners of the Society of St. Pius X (a priestly order that is considered canonically irregular by the Vatican) have built a community where they can worship, play, work and teach their children surrounded by people who share their theological convictions. The priests celebrate Mass in Latin, the families have tons of babies, and the life cycle of the town runs on a Catholic liturgical calendar.

Vibrant, largely young communities like St. Marys, whose members see themselves as stewards of true faith and tradition against the secularization and liberalization of American society, have been the subject of much discussion in elite, conservative circles. An unexpected theater hit in 2019, Heroes of the Fourth Turning, centered on a fictional Catholic college in Wyoming whose students and faculty had created a mini utopia of conservative values. Notably, Rod Dreher chronicled these kinds of communities in his 2017 book The Benedict Option, in which he called on Christians to gird themselves for a long period of cultural marginalization. Mr. Dreher imagines and observes people building their own schools, developing rich prayer practices and, above all, insulating themselves from the toxic influences of secular American culture. Much of his book focuses on the expansion of L.G.B.T. rights and acceptance in America, purporting to show why conservatives should anticipate cultural rejection in the years to come. In Mr. Drehers telling, at least, one motivation for opting out is fear. He is convinced that mainstream America no longer celebrates, or perhaps even tolerates, people who share his beliefs.

But I think this focus on conservative retrenchment misses the richness of this countercultural moment. American life is not possible, or does not work, for so many peopleit is either unattainable, unaffordable or uninspiring. The choice to live differently does not have to be motivated by terror or anxiety. It can also be driven by a search for broader horizons.

American history is littered with examples of utopian projects, built out of religious zeal or an idealistic vision for the common good. Members of the mid-19th century Oneida community in upstate New York believed Jesus had already returned and that sinless perfection was possible in present-day times. A little closer to the mainstream, Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin founded Catholic Worker houses out of a desire to model Catholic social teachings: living in community, forfeiting personal wealth, offering hospitality to the poor. People in these communities believed that to live well, you have to give up nearly everything: your privacy, your claim to personal property, your assumptions about the structure of life. They had a vision for what was true and righteous, and they were willing to radically transform their lives to obtain it.

Perhaps, if people were left alone to build their little ideal communities, there would be less fodder for the culture wars. No side would need to defeat the other in a battle for the soul of America. We could each define the soul of America as we wish. And yet, the challenge is in doing this without losing a kind of civic vocabulary, an ability to empathically imagine the life and perspective of our neighbors. No matter how much we may fantasize about a world perfectly crafted to reflect our beliefs, surrounded by people who share our taste and convictions, the truth is that America works only if starkly different people are willing to vote in the same precincts, to respect each others rights and traditions, and to remain civil at city council meetings. We are caught between the demands of nationhood that lock us into dangerous cycles of conflict and the search for a small, good life that may tempt us to neglect our duties to engage as citizens.

We are living through a period of crisis in American life, in which it is no longer obvious that Americans share a sense of stewardship over our democracy. Our disunity is evident in the biggest news stories of the day. Crowds of protesters faced off against police night after night in cities listed off like war zones on the front page: Portland, Kenosha, Minneapolis. Culture-war fights bloom over the smallest impositions on our daily lives, like wearing a mask to diminish the spread of Covid-19. And our collective anger over politics has spiked dangerously. While polling is a rough and unrefined tool for understanding how Americans are feeling and thinking, the numbers are stark. A New York Times survey from early this summer found that voters are mostly feeling scared, anxious and exhausted about the state of affairs in our country. A CNN poll in August found that nearly 80 percent of Americans say they are angry about how things are going in this country, including more than half who say they are very angry. Previous CNN surveys asking the same question never found levels of American anger anywhere near this high.

It will be months, years even, before we fully understand the way American communal life has been affected by Covid-19. No in-person gatherings for months on end. Donations drying up as families struggle with unemployment or salary cuts in this economic drought. People moving away from cities in an attempt to find more affordable housing or to care for sick parents or siblings.

The biggest megachurches and richest organizations will be fine. It is the fledgling communities that will founder: the small churches with bi-vocational pastors, the vibrant grassroots groups that do not own a building or have much by way of savings, the communities of women religious whose numbers have literally been cut in half because of Covid-19 deaths. Zoom is no replacement for praying together in person, hands joined as voices rise together in hymns. New babies deserve to be feted with communal meal trains and passed from person to person in the back of a social hall. Mourning demands long hours of sitting together in quiet, a parade of neighbors showing up with aluminum trays of rosewater sweets. This quotidian form of togetherness is not to be taken for granted. It is one more painful thing to lose in our pandemic times.

This year will be remembered for many thingsCovid-19, mass protests, the presidential election. But the theme lingering behind it all will be communal breaking, the further fracturing of an already isolated and angry nation. Community seems like a long-lost indulgence. Any kind of collective gathering feels like a precious treat that might be taken away at any moment. Pain, struggle and anxiety are the language of this year. When I ask my neighbors how they are doing, they mostly say, Hanging in there. It is a strange time to be thinking about radical new forms of community, to be questioning our assumptions about how we need to live in order to live well. But maybe that is a small gift in an otherwise lost year. Perhaps pandemic times will give us the freedom to question everything, and to commence new experiments in living.

Read more:
The American 'way of life' is unsustainable for so many. Is it time to build radical forms of community? - America Magazine

The federal budget reveals an ideology that is set to kill any recovery just as it is getting started | Greg Jericho – The Guardian

As expected the budget was political and ideological and full of spin, but what its forecasts highlight is how it is also rather ineffective.

Budgets are incredibly detailed and packed with small statements and information that can either be minor and unimportant or massive in scale and import and yet just as easy to miss.

I spent most of my time on Tuesday looking at the tax cuts and economic predictions and by the time I looked up I had little sense of anything else that had occurred.

It means I missed aspects such as despite the arts agencies receiving a Covid payment the portfolio budget statements show that the National Gallery is getting a 12% funding cut, the National Museum 9%, and the Australian National Audit Office which investigated the sports rorts a 12% cut.

(The War Memorial meanwhile is getting an extra $16m and will increase staff by 12 gotta love culture wars.)

More ideology was present by absence the absence of an extension of the jobseeker bonus payments, or any mention of climate change other than in a footnote relating to diplomacy.

The budget papers are of course utterly riddled with spin.

For example 2017-18 was used as the base year for tax cuts which meant all figures included last years cuts. But nowhere was any table showing next years situation when the $1,080 low and middle income tax offset is removed.

Next year workers on between $45,000 and $90,000 will actually be getting a $1,080 tax rise. Enjoy!

For all the hope of a 'V shaped' recovery, by mid 2022, we will still be in a worse position than we were during the GFC

The budget also contained multiple assumptions which even the Treasury department seemed embarrassed to make.

For example it notes that while a vaccine is assumed to be available from the end of 2021, it will take some time for complete global coverage. It will also take some time for the damage to household and business balance sheets and labour markets to be repaired.

The very next sentence is there is substantial uncertainty around the path to recovery.

Aint that the truth.

The government also assumes that 2021-22 will see a big boom off the back of massive consumer spending and the housing construction.

This boom and low population growth means the budget predicts that GDP per capita will grow faster in 2021-22 than it has since the 1960s.

In 2023-24 company tax revenue apparently will jump from $67.2bn to $92.5bn making it responsible for 57% of that years total tax revenue increase. Not bad for a tax that only accounts for around 20% of all tax gathered.

But it looks nice on the page and is set to occur after the next election so lets not pretend there is any need to be realistic.

The budget also reveals just how committed the government remains to the idea that the private sector will save us.

Yes, they will spend a mass of money this year and the next, but it is not really to stimulate the economy.

Despite spending much more than occurred during the GFC, public sector demand is expected to grow by much less than it did then.

The government is spending money but its lack of real growth in investment (on, say, social housing or renewable energy) means it is not really delivering as much bang for its buck as occurred during the GFC.

In 2021-22 the budget predicts public sector demand will grow just 2.5% the lowest since 2014-15, while somewhat laughably it assumes the private sector will grow by 7% faster than occurred even during the mining boom or the 1990s recovery.

And yet all this recovery is not for much.

Graph not displaying properly? Click here

Just one sentence in the budget papers reveals how slow the recovery really will be.

It states the employment to population ratio is expected to remain around 1 percentage points below its March 2020 level in the June quarter 2022

To give that some context, the GFC saw the employment to population ratio fall 1.35% points.

For all the hope of a V shaped recovery, by mid 2022, we will still be in a worse position than we were during the GFC.

And yet at that point the government will be massively reducing government spending and relying on the private sector as though things are going well!

This is not a budget that reveals a government which has changed its spots. Rather it is one that reveals its ideology is set to kill any recovery just as it is getting started.

Link:
The federal budget reveals an ideology that is set to kill any recovery just as it is getting started | Greg Jericho - The Guardian

Judith Butler on the culture wars, JK Rowling and living in anti-intellectual times – New Statesman

Thirty years ago, the philosopher Judith Butler*, now 64, published a book thatrevolutionised popular attitudes on gender.Gender Trouble,the work sheis perhaps best known for,introduced ideas of gender as performance. It asked how we define the category of women and, as a consequence, who it is that feminism purports to fight for. Today, it is a foundational text on any gender studies reading list, and its arguments have long crossed over from the academy to popular culture.

In the three decades sinceGender Troublewas published, the world has changed beyond recognition.In 2014,TIMEdeclared aTransgender Tipping Point.Butler herself has moved on from that earlier work, writing widely on culture and politics. But disagreements over biological essentialism remain, as evidenced by the tensions over trans rights within the feminist movement.

How does Butler, who is Maxine Elliot Professor of Comparative Literature at Berkeley, see this debate today? And does she see a way to break the impasse? Butlerrecently exchanged emails with theNew Statesmanabout this issue. The exchange has been edited.

***

Alona Ferber: In Gender Trouble, you wrote that "contemporary feminist debates over the meanings of gender lead time and again to a certain sense of trouble, as if the indeterminacy of gender might eventually culminate in the failure of feminism. How far do ideas you explored in that book 30 years ago help explain how the trans rights debate has moved into mainstream culture and politics?

Judith Butler:I want to first question whether trans-exclusionary feminists are really the same as mainstream feminists. If you are right to identify the one with the other, then a feminist position opposing transphobia is a marginal position. I think this may be wrong.My wager is that most feminists support trans rights and oppose all forms of transphobia.So I find it worrisome that suddenly the trans-exclusionary radical feminist position is understood as commonly accepted or even mainstream. I think it is actually a fringe movement that is seeking to speak in the name of the mainstream, and that our responsibility is to refuse to let that happen.

AF: One example of mainstream public discourse on this issue in the UK is the argument about allowing people to self-identify in terms of their gender. In an open letter she published in June, JK Rowling articulated the concern that this would "throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels hes a woman", potentially putting women at risk of violence.

JB: If we look closely at the example that you characterise as mainstream we can see that a domain of fantasy is at work, one which reflects more about the feminist who has such a fear than any actually existing situation in trans life. The feminist who holds such a view presumes that the penis does define the person, and that anyone with a penis would identify as a woman for the purposes of entering such changing rooms and posing a threat to the women inside. It assumes that the penis is the threat, or that any person who has a penis who identifies as a woman is engaging in a base, deceitful, and harmful form of disguise. This is a rich fantasy, and one that comes from powerful fears, but it does not describe a social reality. Trans women are often discriminated against in mens bathrooms, and their modes of self-identification are ways of describing a lived reality, one that cannot be captured or regulated by the fantasies brought to bear upon them. The fact that such fantasies pass as public argument is itself cause for worry.

AF: I want to challenge you on the term terf, or trans-exclusionary radical feminist, which some people see as a slur.

JB: I am not aware that terf is used as a slur. Iwonder what name self-declared feminists who wish to exclude trans women from women's spaces would be called?If they do favour exclusion, why not call them exclusionary?If they understand themselves as belonging to that strain of radical feminism that opposes gender reassignment, why not call them radical feminists?My only regret is that there was a movement of radical sexual freedom that once travelled under the name of radical feminism, but it has sadly morphed into a campaign to pathologise trans and gender non-conforming peoples.My sense is that we have to renew the feminist commitment to gender equality and gender freedom in order to affirm the complexity of gendered lives as they are currently being lived.

AF: The consensus among progressives seems to be that feminists who are on JK Rowlings side of the argument are on the wrong side of history. Is this fair, or is there any merit in their arguments?

JB:Let us be clear that the debate here is not between feminists and trans activists. There are trans-affirmative feminists, and many trans people are also committed feminists.So one clear problem is the framing that acts as if the debate is between feminists and trans people.It is not.One reason to militate against this framing is because trans activism is linked to queer activism and to feminist legacies that remain very alive today. Feminism has always been committed to the proposition that the social meanings of what it is to be a man or a woman are not yet settled. We tell histories about what it meant to be a woman at a certain time and place, and we track the transformation of those categories over time.

We depend on gender as a historical category, and that means we do not yet know all the ways it may come to signify, and we are open to new understandings of its social meanings.It would be a disaster for feminism to return either to a strictly biological understanding of gender or to reduce social conduct to a body part or to impose fearful fantasies, their own anxieties, on trans women... Their abiding and very real sense of gender ought to be recognised socially and publicly as a relatively simple matter of according another human dignity. The trans-exclusionary radical feminist position attacks the dignity of trans people.

AF: In Gender Trouble you asked whether, by seeking to represent a particular idea of women, feminists participate in the same dynamics of oppression and heteronormativity that they are trying to shift. In the light of the bitter arguments playing out within feminism now, does the same still apply?

JB:As I remember the argument in Gender Trouble (written more than 30 years ago), the point was rather different. First, one does not have to be a woman to be a feminist, and we should not confuse the categories. Men who are feminists, non-binary and trans peoplewho are feminists, are part of the movement if they hold to the basic propositions of freedom and equality that are part of any feminist political struggle. When laws and social policies represent women, they make tacit decisions about who counts as a woman, and very often make presuppositions about what a woman is.We have seen this in the domain of reproductive rights. So the question I was asking then is: do we need to have a settled idea of women, or of any gender, in order to advance feminist goals?

I put the question that wayto remind us that feminists are committed to thinking about the diverse and historically shifting meanings of gender, and to the ideals of gender freedom.By gender freedom, I do not meanwe all get to choose our gender. Rather, we get to make a political claim to live freely and without fear of discrimination and violence against the genders that we are. Many people who were assigned female at birth never felt at home with that assignment, and those people (including me) tell all of us something important about the constraints of traditional gender norms for many who fall outside its terms.

Feminists know that women with ambition are called monstrousor that women who are not heterosexual are pathologised.We fight those misrepresentations because they are false and because they reflect more about the misogyny of those who make demeaning caricatures than they do about the complex social diversity of women.Women should not engage in the forms of phobic caricature by which they have been traditionally demeaned.And by women I mean all those who identify in that way.

AF: How much is toxicity on this issue a function of culture wars playing out online?

JB:I think we are living in anti-intellectual times, and that this is evident across the political spectrum.The quickness of social media allows for forms of vitriol that do not exactly support thoughtful debate. We need to cherish the longer forms.

AF: Threats of violence and abuse would seem to take these anti-intellectual times to an extreme. What do you have to say about violent or abusive language used online against people like JK Rowling?

JB: I am against online abuse of all kinds.I confess to being perplexed by the fact that you point out the abuse levelled against JK Rowling, but you do not cite the abuse against trans people and their allies thathappens online and in person.I disagree with JK Rowling's view on trans people, but I do not think she should suffer harassment and threats. Let us also remember, though, the threats against trans people in places like Brazil, the harassment of trans people in the streets and on the job in places like Poland and Romania or indeed right here in the US.So if we are going to object to harassment and threats, as we surely should, we should also make sure we have a large picture of where that is happening, who is most profoundly affected, and whether it is tolerated by those who should be opposing it.Itwontdo to say that threats against some people are tolerablebut against others are intolerable.

AF: You weren't a signatory to the open letter oncancel culturein Harper's this summer, but did itsarguments resonate with you?

JB: I have mixed feelings about that letter. On the one hand, I am an educator and writer and believe in slow and thoughtful debate.I learn from being confronted and challenged, and I accept that I have made some significant errors in my public life.If someone then said I should not be read or listened to as a result of those errors, well, I would object internally, since I don't think any mistake a person made can, or should, summarise that person.We live in time; we err, sometimes seriously; and if we are lucky, we change precisely because of interactions that let us see things differently.

On the other hand, some of those signatories were taking aim at Black Lives Matter as if the loud and public opposition to racism were itself uncivilised behaviour.Some of them have opposed legal rights for Palestine.Others have [allegedly] committed sexual harassment.And yet others do not wish to be challenged on their racism.Democracy requires a good challenge, and it does not always arrive in soft tones.So I am not in favour of neutralising the strong political demands for justice on the part of subjugated people.When one has not been heard for decades, the cry for justice is bound to be loud.

AF: This year, you published, The Force of Nonviolence. Does the idea of radical equality, which you discuss in the book, have any relevance for the feminist movement?

JB:My point in the recent book is to suggest that we rethink equality in terms of interdependency.We tend to say that one person should be treated the same as another, and we measure whether or not equality has been achieved by comparing individual cases.But what if the individual and individualism is part of the problem?It makes a difference to understand ourselves as living in a world in which we are fundamentally dependent on others, on institutions, on the Earth, and to see that this life depends on a sustaining organisation for various forms of life.If no one escapes that interdependency, then we are equal in a different sense. We are equally dependent, that is, equally social and ecological, and that means we cease to understand ourselves only as demarcated individuals.If trans-exclusionary radical feminists understood themselves as sharing a world with trans people, in a common struggle for equality, freedom from violence, and for social recognition, there would be no more trans-exclusionary radical feminists. But feminism would surely survive as a coalitional practice and vision of solidarity.

AF: You have spoken about the backlash against gender ideology, and wrote an essay for the New Statesmanabout it in 2019. Do you see any connection between this and contemporary debates about trans rights?

JB: It is painful to see that Trumps position that gender should be defined by biological sex, and that the evangelical and right-wing Catholic effort to purge gender from education and public policy accords with the trans-exclusionary radical feminists' return to biological essentialism.It is a sad day when some feminists promote the anti-gender ideology position of the most reactionary forces in our society.

AF: What do you think would break this impasse in feminism over trans rights? What would lead to a more constructive debate?

JB: I suppose a debate, were it possible, would have to reconsider the ways in which the medical determination of sex functions in relation to the lived and historical reality of gender.

*Judith Butler goes by she or they

Read the original:
Judith Butler on the culture wars, JK Rowling and living in anti-intellectual times - New Statesman

Legal experts are freaking out about Bill Barr’s actions to help Trump win – Salon

Legal experts are increasingly alarmed by Attorney General William Barr's efforts to help President Donald Trump win re-election.

The attorney general has joined the president in attacking voting integrity and civil rights demonstrators, and he has described his role in the election in explicitly religious terms that show Barr believes he represents "moral discipline and virtue" against "individual rapacity,"reportedThe Guardian.

"His abuses have only escalated as we have gotten closer and closer to the election, and as the president has felt more and more politically vulnerable," said Donald Sherman, deputy director of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "I can't put it more plainly than this: The attorney general is a threat to American citizens having free and fair access to the vote, and is a threat to American having their votes counted."

Barr has recently asked federal prosecutors to consider charging protesters with sedition and designated New York City, Portland and Seattle as "anarchy" zones, which helps Trump whip up hysteria about public safety.

"I think this attorney general is demonstrably more committed to the political success of the president, and the president's political agenda than any attorney general in history I can think of," said Neil Kinkopf, a Georgia State law professor who worked in the Office of Legal Counsel under Bill Clinton.

Kinkopf testified against Barr during his 2019 confirmation hearing, when he warned senators the deeply conservative Washington veteran believed in giving the chief executive "breathtaking" powers.

"When I testified against him, I recognized how dangerous the unitary executive theory is," Kinkopf said. "But what I didn't appreciate, and I don't think anybody appreciated, was just how fully he would deploy that theory in advance not of rule-of law values, but in order to advance both the president's political agenda, and I think more deeply for Barr, his own social and religious commitments."

The attorney general has accused Black Lives Matter protesters of fomenting chaos as part of a socialist revolution, and he has described himself as a bulwark in a battle between good and evil.

"The attorney general sees himself clearly as fighting culture wars that are to him moral and religious," Kinkopf said, "and those are deeper, I think, commitments for him than the commitment to federalism, and so to the extent that the balance of federal and state power gets in the way of achieving what he wants to achieve in the culture wars, he's willing to cast that aside.

"So if there weren't a culture war angle on it, I think he would take the position that states and local governments should be left to police their own communities, and the federal government should keep its nose out," Kinkopf added. "But because he sees something at stake in the current protests that jeopardizes what he feels as being the proper order of society, he's not troubled about using federal power to pursue what he views as being the right results."

Read the original here:
Legal experts are freaking out about Bill Barr's actions to help Trump win - Salon

Don’t Make the Election About the Court – The Atlantic

David Frum: 4 reasons to doubt Mitch McConnells power

The Republican Party knows how to use polarizing rhetoric to split people along tribal lines. Donald Trump spent most of the 2018 midterm campaign talking up the caravan, the Central American refugees who were marching toward the U.S. border seeking asylum. Their numbers were small to begin with, and they dwindled further as they neared the border. Nonetheless, they made a useful talking point for Republicans, who wanted to remind their base on which side of the ideological divide they belonged. When Trump sent the U.S. military to the border, the subsequent outrage was justified, but it was also a trap: It drew attention away from real-life issues and encouraged voters to think they had to make a false choice between the caravan, crime, and illegal immigration on the one hand, and tradition, safety, and law and order on the other.

In a few key states, that gimmick worked. The caravan helped him, former Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri bluntly said after she lost to Josh Hawley, a Republican. She noted that her opponent was also helped by the Kavanaugh thing, meaning the story, presented by Republican media, of an upright conservativea man trying to protect familiessmeared by dangerous liberals.

Inciting a culture war didnt work everywhere. And in places where it didntin all those suburban House seats won by centrist Democrats, for examplethat was often not because candidates loudly denounced the presidents use of troops at the border, but because they changed the subject. When undecided voters were thinking about jobs and health care, they were prepared to break their habits and vote for Democrats.

Read: What Ruth Bader Ginsburgs death means for America

Politicians in other parts of the world also use culture wars to their advantage. In 2018, I wrote about the Philippines, a country whose president, Rodrigo Duterte, managed to keep voters minds on his shocking policy of murdering drug dealers. Rather than thinking about poverty or illiteracy, his electorate argued about whether they were for him (and thus for law and order) or against him (and thusas he would put itin favor of crime and drugs). A recent study I helped design also showed, among other things, how the Italian populist Matteo Salvini gained traction by keeping Italians focused on the polarizing subject of migrants, even as the number of actual migrants dropped dramatically. Polarization is a well-known authoritarian tactic, too. Russian President Vladimir Putin has his state-controlled media cover the perfidy of the West rather than the countrys declining living standards. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoan has used anti-Greek rhetoric in the run-up to elections to avoid discussing his own countrys economic mess.

Visit link:
Don't Make the Election About the Court - The Atlantic