Brian Leiter, on his blog: (1) Bernstein says, accurately, that Columbia Professor Joseph Massad says there are no homosexuals in the Arab world, though there are men who have same-sex contact. What, I, Leiter KNOW Massad really meant was simply to invoke Foucault's theory of sexuality, because he cites Foucault in two footnotes. [Not mentioned by Leiter, Massad adds that to the extent there are self-identified homosexuals in the Arab world, they are the product of Western cultural imperialism via a conspiracy he calls "Gay International," and they have basically invited Arab governments to persecute them because they are importing foreign ideologies.]
(2) Bernstein says that Marxism is about as scientifically valid as intelligent design, and he's right that most of what Marxists traditionally believed has been discredited. But Marxism is still a valid methodology because it's "amply supported in numerous sociological and historical studies" that "one can explain historical events by attention to how different economic classes pursue their material interests, which lead them into conflict with other economic classes." [You know, that's exactly how I go about my own day: how can I help the upper-middle-class and screw all the other classes today?] Oh, and moral and political ideas are basically just exist to promote and protect class interests. In other words, the crudest sort of Marxist materialist class analysis is still valid, even if all of Marx's other ideas are not.
(3) It's offensive, but not anti-Semitic, for Norman Finkelstein to write that leading American Jewish activists "resemble stereotypes straight out of [Nazi newspaper] Der Sturmer." It's neither offensive nor anti-Semitic for him to write that undifferentiated "American Jewish elites" are imbued with "chauvinistic arrogance, feigned (or imagined) victimhood, and Holocaust-immunity to criticism" resulting in "recklessness and ruthlessness." And it's not at all offensive to say that "coddling them [American Jewish elites] is not the answer. They need to be stopped." Perhaps if Finkelstein were wrong, it would be anti-Semitic, but he's not, American Jewish elites really are that way. And besides, a commenter notes that Finkelstein claims he is highlighting the American Jewish elites' numerous "lethal" flaws as his contribution to the fight against anti-Semitism.
(4) Bernstein says the vast majority of Freud's work is not empirically valid. I, Leiter, have a couple of footnotes in one paper where I cite a defender of Freud who claims that a few of his theses are valid. I won't mention the fact that even accepting this work as sound, that still leaves the vast majority of Freud's work empirically false. [More important, Freud never tried to empirically invalidate his work, and for decades his followers denied that his work should be subject to empirical testing. If Freud turned out to right on some things, well, you know what they say about stopped clocks.]
Back to me [Bernstein]. I'm not going to waste my time rehashing all of Massad's foibles, detailed in many prior posts on this blog, explaining why Finkelstein, who makes misogynistic [stating that a photo of two respected elderly Jewish women may "give you nightmares"] as well as anti-Semitic comments, is a creep, or debating about Marxism and Freudianism. I'll just say that if Leiter and the rest of the far left want to make Massad and Finkelstein their poster children for "scholars" who are "unjustly" attacked, they are welcome to them, just as they are welcome to Ward Churchill. I should note the irony that Leiter, et al.'s concept of academic freedom apparently amounts to "we should be allowed to say whatever we want in however offensive a manner, and not have anyone criticize us, or point out our scholarly and ethical deficiencies to relevant parties." A question for Leiter: if we were to agree that Massad's scholarship is poor, should he be granted tenure because he hates Israel, and expresses such in his scholarship?
And if Leiter wants to keep attacking the "right" for being "anti-science," while defending the idea that major aspects of Marxism and Freudianism are scientifically sound, well, that's his credibility at stake, not mine. And the really funny part is that Leiter apparently exhibits much less of the skepticism regarding Marxism and Freudianism (which historically have been embraced by the "Left") that he famously exhibits regarding evolutionary psychology (which horrifies the far left because it suggests the lack of malleability of human nature).
UPDATE: Post edited slightly for length. And for my response to an equally vapid, and equally unprovoked, attack on me by Leiter (I supposed I should be flattered that he spends so much energy on this, but doesn't he have anything better to do?), see here. And Leiter has added an update that in which he claims that I wrote that he, personally, criticized evolutionary pyschology on the grounds that it suggests the lack of malleability of human nature. The careful (or even not-so-careful) reader of the previous paragraph will see that I never made this claim; I rather claimed that Leiter apparently exhibits less skepticism of theories that his fellow far left-wing ideologues find congenial than of theories that his fellow far left-wing ideologues find problematic for their ideology. That doesn't mean that Leiter's academic critique of evolutionary psychology relies on the ideological reasons that left-wingers find it so bothersome. I'm sure Leiter, who despite his blog persona is a very bright philosopher, understands the distinction.
In any event, you are dead wrong on (2) and seemingly wrong on (1). No opinion on 3 or 4.
Philosophers aren't experimental scientists, so I'm not going to spend time downloading Leiter's SSRN article. But, it's common knowledge that that none of Freud's inspired guesswork has been verified experimentally. Pulling a quote from wikipedia: Peter D. Kramer, a psychiatrist and faculty member of Brown Medical School, said "I'm afraid [Freud] doesn't hold up very well at all. It almost feels like a personal betrayal to say that. But every particular is wrong: the universality of the Oedipus complex, penis envy, infantile sexuality."
I can scarcely imagine the horror of being forced into one of his classes.
On the contrary, his inability to dertermine what do women think has been verified for a full century. And his wondering over it proves that he was not gay.
But as to the real question, was Marx gay, Massad gives not even a clue.
(As with Massad, he defended it by rewriting what Chomsky said and claiming Chomsky must have meant that.)
1) I'm right. Massad is wrong. No he's not.
2) Marx sucks. No he doesn't. Well, maybe some of his stuff.
3) Finkelstein sucks. No he doesn't.
4) Freud sucks. No he doesn't. Well, maybe some of his stuff. Maybe all of it.
5) See numbers 1, 2, 3, 4. I'm done here. This is silly.
---
Yes it is.
Why would anyone place any stock in Leiter's assessments of what science does or does not prove? Where's his scientific competence? Admittedly, he can sprinkle a few favorable cites into a footnote. So can I. So can you. So can anyone. That's what we call a "lawyer's argument."
mearsheimer
Bernstein's response to this claim by Leiter mischaracterizes it. Leiter is clearly right that there are respected and valuable historical works, like E.P. Thompson's Making of the English Working Class, that are written from the perspective that he describes. Bernstein's response seems petulant and insubstantial.
Also, you seem to be conflating the two separate ideas that Leiter mentions, the class conflict idea and the ideological superstructure idea. You mention the former in your post and then the latter in your reply above. Although they can be related, as in Gramsci's writings about hegemony, you can believe in class conflict but not believe in an ideological superstructure.
Did he write this response, which if he were a mere poster and not a member of the VC, might be perceived as snarky and rude, after listening to Mearsheimer's arguments? He doesn't say. I suspect, however, that he hasn't. This is in part because he never responds to any of the many substantive justifications Mearsheimer made, and in part because DB's past writing on the issue suggests he doesn't feel any obligation to read or listen to substantive defenses of positions he viscerally opposes, nor even clarify publically whether or not he has read/listened to such material.
It is my understanding that Professor Bernstein is a tenured law professor at George Mason University. Does his reasoning above imply that he therefore thinks he would have easily also achieved tenure at Stanford, Yale, or any other law school. Does he really believe that? If he doesn't, why does he think, snarkiness aside, that having more than sufficient qualifications for tenure at De Paul implies having more than sufficient qualifications for tenure at University of Chicago? [One can, for example, argue that a professor has clearly outdone all tenured colleagues in his department in the scholarship of his publications without implying that statement would be universally true of all departments.]
True enough, if you believe there is an ideological superstructure, but that's not the point. You can believe that the French Revolution was a bourgeois revolution, and that would be a Marxist interpretation and it would be empirically verifiable or falsifiable. That doesn't mean, however, that you think that the Declaration of the Rights of Man is a bourgeois document. You may, instead, believe that it expresses universal truths. Also, just because you believe that the French Revolution was not bourgeois revolution, doesn't mean that you believe that the Declaration of the Rights of Man expresses universal truths.
Most historians working today, whether Marxist or not, are interested in explaining particular events not really in determining what forces "govern" human history. Most of the modern Marxist scholarship I can think of doesn't suggest that something like "class conflict" explains all events in human history, or is the fundamental driving force of history, but rather that class conflict played some role in a historical setting.
Do you deny all those particular claims about class conflict? Is any history that explains some particular event in terms of class conflict engaging in pseudo-scientific garbage like creationism in your view?
On the other side, I don't understand Leiter's position on item 1. It seems quite likely to me that he's entirely correct and that Massad is using Foucault to argue against "homosexual" as a type in the Arab world. But, I don't really see the relevance of this point. Both people--though from different perspectives--are offering justifications of the repression of homosexuality by suggesting that homosexuality doesn't exist, though Massad's version is admittedly much more complicated. Isn't that really the point?
As for Mearsheimer, a slam-dunk for tenure at a respectable school like DePaul, sufficiently so that Mearsheimer will take a public position on his behalf, should at least be worth of consideration at Chicago, especially someone who is internationally known, already has a couple of books under his belt, and would I'm sure gladly accept an untenured position at Chicago. But we all know that M would lose all credibility with his colleagues if he actually proposed this, right?
To me it would be more likely that Massad started with the thesis that there were no Arab homosexuals, and then found some OK names like Foucault to support his thesis. But I am not a professional philosopher.
And while I have no opinion on how Prof Bernstein sounds, to me Leiter's tone is bitchy:
I'm not saying that Marxism, as in Marx's conception of history is scientifically valid. In fact I'm pretty sure it's not.
But, I don't think your analogy is entirely fair. A creationist might be able to do good biology, but only in so far as their creationism had nothing to do with it. In other words, someone would be involved in bad biology if they claimed some particular animal was created.
But, that doesn't hold for Marxism, and this is the distinction I see. One might deploy certain Marxist ideas (though probably in some modified form) to make a pretty good argument about a particularl historical event, and be able to provide solid evidence. It is not, it seems to me, absurd to suggest that class conflict played a role in fights over unions whereas it is absurd to say creation played a role in the development of frogs.
I understand why you are put off by Leiter's tone, but on this particular issue it seems to me he has a point. There is a distinction between using aspects of Marxism in history and using creationism in biology.
Good lord yes, I'd rather be waterboarded into submission than be forced to take a class from such an evil person.
Is it just me, of is this whole discussion nothing but inside baseball?
Can you point me to these blogs? I do, in fact, read a lot of left-wing blogs, and I haven't ever seen those names come up (aside from Churchill, as a joke).
I'm apparently not reading the same leftists you are. Perhaps I should get out more.
Ok, I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at here. So before I spend some time replying with us possible talking past each other, may I ask what you mean by a "Marxist methodology?" Also, do you think that one might think that some aspects of a Marxist methodology make little sense, but that others are quite useful?
Dennis Fox? While meaning no insult to him, who? Maybe this is just all inside baseball, but good lord. This is really silly. If Atrios, or Kevin Drum, did this, that would be noteworthy. I don't tie you to screeds about immigration, or the racist nonsense that comes out of much of the right, most of which sits just under the radar. You would pull a novel path by actually offering your political opponents the same courtesy you demand for yourself.
I think my point stands.
(1) It is appears to me that Leiter has certainly come out on top on this argument. I would think that DB’s mischaracterizations would be obvious to anyone who first read Leiter’s post and then read DB’s response. Here is just one example: in responding to Leiter’s point that Massad was reflecting Foucault's thesis laid out in History of Sexuality, DB writes that Leiter knows this “because he cites Foucault in two footnotes.” That would be a pretty bad argument on Leiter’s part if that is what he wrote. But lets go to what Leiter actually wrote:
Leiter then goes on to discuss Foucault’s thesis and how it mirrors what Massad wrote. I won't reproduce that discussion here, but it is worht looking at. I’ll leave it to the reader to decide whether DB has sufficiently refuted what Leiter wrote.
As somebody else has already pointed out, he also misrepresents the scope of Leiter’s defense of both Marx and Freud. Given the gross distortations, I seriously have to wonder about DB’s academic integrity.
(2) DB writes: “I should note the irony that Leiter, et al.'s concept of academic freedom apparently amounts to ‘we should be allowed to say whatever we want in however offensive a manner, and not have anyone criticize us, or point out our scholarly and ethical deficiencies to relevant parties.’” DB, please point to where Leiter has ever said that academic freedom protects somebody from having to be criticized? Indeed, to cite to just one post that I came across, his understanding of academic freedom seems to include the right to criticize somebody else when they say something offensive. I leave it to the reader to decide whether DB's attack has any basis in reality.
(3) To the poster who recoils at the “horror” of having to take one of Leiter’s class. Leiter is generally considered by his students, both liberal and conservative, to be a fantastic teacher. Having taken one class from Leiter, I can say that he was an excellent teacher. I learned a tremendous amount from his class. While I’m quite liberal and knew Leiter’s politics, you really couldn’t have guessed his politics from class. Indeed, two conservative friends of mine were surprised to find out from me that Leiter was quite liberal. They both enjoyed his class anyway.
Likewise, regarding your comment that “tyrants” like Leiter keep people out of academia: if you can’t accept criticism of your work (and it appears that DB can), then you should not be an academic.
Now what's interesting when critics of Massad say that he thinks that "Arab governments are justified in persecuting homosexuals" they never support any evidence. If anyone can produce one quote from Massad's article or book that, given a high level of hermunetical wiggle room, suggests that Arab repression of homosexuals is "OK" "justified" "Or not that bad". I would love to see it. Otherwise his critics are engaging in smear tactics not arguments.
Massad opposes cultural imperialism, especially qua 'Gay International'. This is obvious and agreed upon. Massad also accused the Gay International of "inciting discourse about homosexuals", i.e. that men who engage in same-sex acts are being pressured to self-identify (or be identified) as "a gay person". You then say that Massad these crackdowns are "at worst...justified" and at best "an understandable reaction." What you are saying is, of course, silly.
You concede that Massad opposes cultural imperialism and incitement to discourse, but you argue that Massad looks favorably upon the repressions of gays, which is a reaction to the result of something that he opposes!
To break this down further, I see your argument as claiming that:
1) Massad opposes cultural imperialism
2) Massad opposes the incitement to discourse.
3) Massad thinks the results of 1 and 2 are "justified [or] understandable"
Does it ever cross your mind that maybe Massad opposes cultural imperialism via the Gay International precisely because of the resulting crackdown?
On this issue about Massad:
Does it ever cross your mind that maybe Massad opposes cultural imperialism via the Gay International precisely because of the resulting crackdown?
But isn't that precisely the problem? Massad's argument would seem to suggest that the "Gay International" is not in fact an organization fighting for the rights of Gay's, but a form of imperialism which itself produces the crackdown. Our scrutiny is directed at the "Gay International" rather than the government crackdown, or at the very least split between the government and the "Gay International."
Let me suggest a hypothetical that clarifies the issue I think. Imagine that we studied a small town in Mississippi and found that prior to some date "homosexual acts" went more or less undiscussed and un-legislated in this town, until the advent of the gay rights movement in the late 20th century. Suppose we then argued that repression in this town was in fact a reaction mainly to the imperialism of urban centers where homosexuality as a kind had become the rule, and thus saw it is mainly an attempt by a small town to avoid urban oppression. How sympathetically would we view that argument? How different is it from Massad's position?
Again, everything you said so far is a positive judgment. It can be tested/argued against based on evidence.
You then write: "and thus saw it [repression of homosexuality] is mainly an attempt by a small town to avoid urban oppression".
Massad argues that, in the case of Arab nationalism, much of repression is the result of anti-westernism. However, he does argue that the repression supported by Islamism is the result of strict sexual mores.
So, given your analogy, do you think Massad believes that the repression motivated by a hatred of the West is justified, but the repression motivated by strict sexual norms (the Islamists) is not? If so, why?
I do not see what is so controversial about arguing that some people in Egypt favor repression of homosexual identity because homosexual identity is associated with the West. Holding this belief can easily be jibed with an antipathy to cultural imperialism and/or the efforts of the 'Gay International'. I lament their efforts precisely because of the effect it has in the Arab world.
And this is silly:
Massad's book and article is scholarly. His book and article is devoted to a very particular and narrow subject, as nearly all scholarly works are. Do not criticize him for writing and article or book that he did not write.
I'm not sure whether or not he thinks either is justified. But I do think that his account puts the blame partly on the "Gay International" for imposing western values. He might consistently object to both the "Gay International" and the crackdown.
What I contend is that the objection Bernstein brings to this is in the very notion of the "Gay International" as an imperialist organization rather than a genuine expression of human rights. Massad very well might object to the notion of "human rights" as just another extension of Western imperialism, but this makes pretty plain the fundamental disagreement between him and Bernstein. In other words, I understand the point of view from which Massad objects to Bernstein, but I don't see how Bernstein's characterization of it is dishonest.
I do not see what is so controversial about arguing that some people in Egypt favor repression of homosexual identity because homosexual identity is associated with the West.
What is controversial is the notion that Gay rights is a form of western imperialism.
Unless you contend that Massad merely claims it is perceived as imperialism, but that it in fact might be something else?
Is this what you mean by:
Massad's book and article is scholarly. His book and article is devoted to a very particular and narrow subject, as nearly all scholarly works are. Do not criticize him for writing and article or book that he did not write.
I agree with much of what you said about Massad. I don't really know if Massad is arguing that 'Gay rights' are ispo facto imperialist--I don't think he is. Rather, I think his argument is that the conception of 'Gay rights' as brought into the Arab world via the 'Gay international' is a form of cultural imperialism. I don't think Massad would object to 'Gay rights' existing in the Arab world if these 'Gay rights' were autochthonous. Regardless, this points are splitting hairs, or, if you like, academic.
You wrote:
Bernstein, after misrepresenting Massad's views by selectively quoting him (twice!), wrote that Massad expressed an "apparent sympathy for Arab governments who respond by persecuting gays". Bernstein also called Massad's views a "Ahmadinejad-ish ideology regarding gays". Moreover, Bernstein also wrote: "It's not clear if he is just apologizing for Arab gov'ts persecution of homosexuals, or actually things it's a good thing, more likely the former, but he doesn't even make that clear."
Bernstein also linked approvingly to an article by The New Republic's Jamie Kirchick. Kirchick claims that "Massad...legitimizes...the deservedly reviled views on homosexuality espoused by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad." Note that Ahmadinejad has sanctioned execution of homosexuals in Iran. Also, Kirchick writes that "Massad's intellectual project is a not-so-tacit apology for the oppression of people who identify openly as homosexual."
This is the kind of smear tactics that David Bernstein and Jamie Kirchick have used against Massad.
After all the political stakes in this debate are high. The much more general disagreement here is about the appropriate place of (depending on your frame of reference) "Western values" or "human rights" in critiquing various parts of the world. If you hold that human rights are in fact universal and not particular, you are going to view the position that they are imperialist impositions as abhorrent. If on the other hand, you tend to see them as ideologies in the service of oppression, you are going to be similarly upset by the opposition. In other words, the tone here in my view represents how fundamentally opposed both camps are to one another at a basic level, rather than any particular malice.
(Please, I understand that Massad's point in the article is much more narrow than this. What I'm suggesting is that it's a particular example of a much larger disagreement. I don't know Massad well enough to state what side he takes on all other issues regarding the universality of concepts like human rights, all I'm claiming is that on this particular issue his argument is consistent with the view of those rights as western constructs, in this case based on the notion of homosexuality as a kind. And I think it's this larger disagreement that is informing the tone of debate.)
Well said. I would give more credit to Kirchick and Bernstein if they did not repeatedly use selective quotations by Massad, or if they expressed ANY desire to accurately represent Massad's views. If Massad's views are as vile as they say, surely they can present a shred of evidence.
(1) There are homosexuals in the West and in the Middle East;
(2) Homosexuals in the West often identify themselves as a sociopolitical group in much the same way as people of various religions, ethnic, national and racial backgrounds;
(3) Homosexuals in the Middle East do not so identify themselves and instead treat their homosexuality more like any other personal preference of which their society and their governments disapprove;
(4) Westerners' insistence that Middle Eastern states respect a group identity which Middle Eastern homosexuals do not assert is one way in which the West tries to force its social paradigms on the Middle East.
I do not know enough about the subject to say whether I agree with that argument (or, even if I were to agree, whether I would find anything wrong with the West's approach), but that is what I understand Massad to be saying. This analysis is neither opposed to nor in favor of gay rights and tells us nothing about Massad's view on the subject; it simply describes the situation as Massad sees it.
At a minimum the argument is worth taking seriously. The commenters on this thread, however, are debating assorted charicatures of this argument. These straw men are not worth taking seriously, but that fact says nothing about whether Massad's actual position is reasonable or not.
This thread would be more enlightening if participants (including Prof. Bernstein) were discussing Massad's actual argument instead of charicatures thereof.
At this point the debate is between Prof. Bernstein's characterisation of Massad's argument and Prof. Leiter's characterisation of Massad's argument.
What I would really like to see happen now is for Massad to appear and straighten everyone out, a deus ex machina scene like in Annie Hall when Marshall McLuhan appears and corrects some schmuck Columbia professor's interpretation of his work.
In other words, with or without Gay International, gays in arabia are demanding the right to love like anyone else. Does Massad even talk about this?
RickM: "If anyone can produce one quote from Massad's article or book that, given a high level of hermunetical wiggle room, suggests that Arab repression of homosexuals is "OK" "justified" "Or not that bad". I would love to see it."
I would be much more comforatable if you can produce any statement, or just one quote, where Massad unequivocally denounces the repression or crackdown against gays, regardless of any supposed justification.
Dude, this would never happen because Massad believes there are no gays in Arabia, just men who like to have sex with other men, same as everyone else. Quit trying to impose your western cultural stereotypes on near eastern people, you cultural imperialist, you.
Are you familiar at all with any type of academic scholarship? When writing an academic paper or book, the goal is to pick a topic and stay on topic. Massad's scholarship focus' on the cultural relations between the West and the Arab world--no one should be requiring him to denounce repression of homosexuals.
Glad you're back.
However, your criticism, and Randy R.'s criticism, basically amounts to calling Massad a polemicist.
Has Edward Said ever wrote a book called "The Question of Israel"?
Has Alan Dershowitz ever wrote a book called "The Case for Palestine"?
This exercise is fun, but silly.
That's a straw man argument. That Massad has expressed his opinion about some political issues does not mean he has to express his opinion about others, even when those he writes about. And it certainly doesn't mean that when he is silent about his viewes he must take the position you deem most despicable.
You seem to fault Massad equally when he expresses an opinion with which you disagree and when he expresses no opinion. Is the only way he can avoid fault in your eyes to expressly adopt the same views you do?
Is it appropriate to fault Massad for purportedly basing his scholarship on his political positions and then also fault him for not taking such positions at all? Or, perhaps more accurately stated, is it fair to presume that someone's unstated opinion will always fit your preconceptions of him? Would you feel someone who wrote that way about you was being appropriately dispassionate and objective?
(my italics)
I haven't read Massad's book, but, given that the press that published Massad's book is accurately representing his work, it seems that Massad does lament the repression of gays in the Arab world.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/News/0706massadprs.html
In Desiring Arabs, Massad writes that "the rise of islamism in the arab world, the incitement to discourse by the Gay International, and the appearance of the AIDS epidemic on a global scale are the main forces behind the emergence of this new discourse." p192
Now, this suggests that Massad places these three elements on the same normative plane of judgement. It doesn't make sense for him to view some of them favorable and some of them unfavorably--they all incite discourse and that is Massad's central gripe. So, critics of Massad, do you think that Massad thinks that the effects of the Gay international on the Arab world, Islamism, and Aids are all good things? Or do you think he thinks they are all bad things?
I have read it. I don't think Massad "is expressing understanding of gov't persecution of homosexuals".
If you were at all familar with postcolonialism, or Massad's work, you would know that the need is to not just "blame the west", but also to blame those in the postcolonial countries who adopt the narrative from the West. That is why Massad lumps the Gay International with the Islamists. The Islamists are repressing homosexuals in part because they are adopting a worldview in direct contrast to what the West is saying. Where the West says there are straight people, and there are gay people, the Islamists are saying that there are no gays AT ALL in the Arab world, ONLY STRAIGHTS. Massad is saying that there are neither gay nor straight prepackaged sexual identities.
Massad's book largley focus' on the Arab world. From the U of Chicago Press website:
"These assumptions have been disputed ever since Edward Said’s Orientalism sparked fierce debate over the biases at the heart of Western study of the Arab world. But left out of this argument was the history of how Arabs themselves wrote and thought about their own sexual desires. In Desiring Arabs, Joseph Massad brings to light the other side of the story by investigating a massive compendium of overlooked Arabic writing from the nineteenth century to the present."
I think my comment at 10:21pm shows that Massad does not look favorably upon repression of homosexual activity in the Arab world.
In my mind this supports the reading that he doesn't intend to support the repressive practices so much as he views them as at least partly (probably mainly) the fault of the "Gay International" and it's hegemonic discourse.
David- The Islamists are NOT "trying to preserve a traditional Arab culture". They are asserting that there are ONLY straight people in Arabia. They are also critized by Massad, because they fall victim to the Gay International's incitement to discourse.
I sense that your operating assumption is that Massad believes that any and all resistance to Western imperialism is by default a good thing, and thus that when the Arab nationalists repress homomsexuality identity, it is good because it was incited by the West. Why this can't be explained by a failure of Arab nationalism is beyond me.
Many political commentators in America criticize George Bush for supporting anti-Ahmadinejad revolutionaries in Iran. They do this because anyone in Iran who is associated with Bush is immediately discredited, and thus so are their efforts. This does not meet that these critics approve of the following repression of political dissidents.
How you make the leap from making something vile "understandable" to "perhaps even defensible" is beyond me. Did Hannah Arendt make the Holocaust "defensible" because of her powerful explanatory power of her discourse on the "banality of evil"? Of course not.
Well, Rick, this is really pretty clear. Massad is putting most of the blame for repressing gays not on the Arab gov'ts, but on Gay International.
In other words, the gov'ts are saying that they are forced into repressing gays because of these outside interlopers. And Massad agrees.
So now we know: those Arabic governments cannot be held responsible for the execution of gays -- it's primarily the fault of Gay International.
And this is what passes for 'scholarly research"? Baloney.
I don't think this is getting us anywhere. No matter how you spin his article, Massad is (1) extremely hostile to the Western gay rights activists he calls "Gay International", (2) hostile to (at least the "upper class") Arabs who consider themselves to be gay or homosexual, (3) hostile to the idea that there is such a thing as natural homosexual identity, and (4) sympathetic to the reasons he thinks Arab governments persecute homosexuals, if not the persecution itself. He is entitled to have these opinions. But to get back to the original point, Leiter only notes point 3, as if Massad was merely a social constructivist writing about sexual identity in the abstract, and not a Middle East Studies scholar who comes across as much more sympathetic to Arab governments persecuting gays than to gay rights activists and self-identified Arab gays. If Massad had the same views, but was known as a "right-winger" on Middle East issues, many of his current defenders would be attacking him. Note that Hannah Arendt may have tried to understand the Nazis, but while it's been years since I read her, I don't think there was any question that she had empathy for the Nazis' victims, and supported those who opposed the Nazi program on human rights grounds. If she had spoken as contemptuously of victims of Nazi persecutions as Massad speaks of what he calls Westernized Arab gays...
So it's not our fault we have to kill our people, it's all the fault of the US. Stop advancing crazy ideas like freedom and equality, and we will stop the executions.
And this is what passes for 'scholarly research"? Baloney.
Well, it's not exactly silly. Granted, I think you could ask some pretty hard questions about some of his use of evidence (check out the article for that, you can contact me by e-mail and I'll see if I can get you the full text). But if you accept the assumptions:
1) That concepts like "human rights" and particularly "gay rights" represent contingent aspects of Western Culture not objective moral values.
2) The adoption of Western ideas by people outside the west constitutes an imperial imposition (indeed, they can't really be said to freely "adopt" them, compulsion is always part of the process).
then the rest follows pretty well.
As someone who accepts neither, I think the text serves as a kind of reductio ad-absurdum of this position, but I'm not sure I'd attack it as necessarily not being scholarly. Rather, I think I'd say I disagree quite pointedly with both the political assumptions and conclusions of the author.
"The credibility of Massad's argument also hinges on the idea that the "Gay International" is responsible, apparently almost single-handedly, for bringing debate about homosexuality to developing countries -- a phenomenon he terms "incitement to discourse" -- and is also responsible (pp. 188-189) for any backlash that may occur.
This is plainly ridiculous. " Gay City News. More:
"It seems rather perverse to suggest that the "Gay International" is forcing people to choose between "gay" and "straight" when the only choice offered by Arab society -- the law, religion, and the public attitudes in general -- is to be straight or at least to pretend to be.
When Massad accuses the West of "foreclosing and repressing myriad ways of movement and change and ensuring that only one way for transformation is made possible," he does not elaborate on what these "myriad ways" might be in terms of sexuality if the "Gay International" would only stop interfering. If people listened to the clerics, myriad prohibitions seem far more likely.
In the current climate of stifling religiosity, Muslims not only are enjoined to refrain from same-sex activities but also masturbation and kissing between unmarried couples of the opposite sex. Even when they are married, according to some clerics, couples should avoid oral and anal sex, and take care not to catch sight of their partner's naked form while having intercourse.
According to Massad, "It is the very discourse of the Gay International which produces homosexuals, as well as gays and lesbians, where they do not exist" (pp. 162-3). In saying this, he revives an old and largely specious argument as to whether such people exist, and have existed, at all times and in all societies."
"Massad appears similarly blinkered to the human cost of the prevailing attitudes toward homosexuality in Arab countries -- the murders of gay men in Iraq, entrapment by the police in Egypt, the arrests of men who "behave like women" in Saudi Arabia, the beatings at the hands of families, the futile and potentially harmful psychiatric "cures," blackmail, the lack of state protection, and more. There is no real acknowledgment of a problem that Arabs should attend to.
In a dismissive footnote (p. 188), Massad refers to reported ill treatment of gay men in the Palestinian territories: "The most recent campaign [by the 'Gay International'] has targeted the Palestinian Authority (PA). The campaign started two years after the eruption of the second intifada.
Okay, I'll but that, but only up to a point. But if we accept that, then we have to accept just about anything, no matter how absurd.
Premise One: The moon is made of green cheese.
Premise Two: Green cheese can be very tasty.
Conclusion: The moon might be very tasty, especially with a light merlot.
If we accept Presmises one and two, then certainly the conclusion logically follows. Therefore, this is scholarly? Then every argument for creationism is also scholarly! More -- he purports to write about gays -- a whole book! -- without interviewing one gay person, and certainly not any gay people who are currently living in arabic countries. That's like writing a book about the role of women in our society without every consulting even on female. Such a book would never be considered scholarly.
This guy Massad is just making things up. As they Gay City News shows (I didn't quote the whole article, but you can google it), all his premises are dubious at best. His whole claim that Gay International has done anything to create a gay movement is unsupported even in his own book, and that is the basis of all his conclusions.
Sorry, I'm with DB on this one. Massad may have sympathy for gays, but he puts all the blame for their repression at everyone else's door except his own.
I still disagree that Massad is in any way sympathetic to persecution of Gays in the Arab world. No one has presented quotes from him that suggest he is unsympathetic because of overblown or hyperbolic rhetoric. Others have claimed that his argument ipso facto apologizes for the repression of homosexuals in the Arab world--this, I have explained, is silly. Its perfectly consistent to lament the effects of the Gay International in the Arab world and lament the repression of putative homosexuals in the Arab world.
I reprint my earlier comment:
Also,
In Desiring Arabs, Massad writes that "the rise of islamism in the arab world, the incitement to discourse by the Gay International, and the appearance of the AIDS epidemic on a global scale are the main forces behind the emergence of this new discourse." p192
Now, this suggests that Massad places these three elements on the same normative plane of judgement. It doesn't make sense for him to view some of them favorable and some of them unfavorably--they all incite discourse and that is Massad's central gripe. So, critics of Massad, do you think that Massad thinks that the effects of the Gay international on the Arab world, Islamism, and Aids are all good things? Or do you think he thinks they are all bad things?
So when you say:
I'm not sure whose argument you are commenting on.
RickM: "Massad's scholarship focus' on the cultural relations between the West and the Arab world--no one should be requiring him to denounce repression of homosexuals."
So in other words, Rick admits Massad never actually denounces the repression of gays, but he reads into it from .... somewhere. Of course, without any support.
And yet Rick complains that WE are the ones reading into Massad's text things that aren't there. Rick likes it both ways, and instead of addressing the issue, he just ignores it. And there is no question that Massad places the blame for repression of gays on Gay International. And that's okay with Rick.
But Rick doesn't stop there. He issues us a challenge:
"So, critics of Massad, do you think that Massad thinks that the effects of the Gay international on the Arab world, Islamism, and Aids are all good things?
"The Gay International and its activities are largely responsible for the intensity of this repressive campaign. "
Bu,t although Massad says this at one point, he obviously says something else at another: ""The Gay International and its activities are largely responsible for the intensity of this repressive campaign. " Clearly, Massad believes that GI is primarily responsible, although other factors, such as islamism and AIDS are partly so.
So which is it? Usually, scholarly works don't contain internal contraditions. They are usually well thought out. I thought that is obvious, but silly me, Rick thinks this is a well researched book.
Ok. Well in one sense I'm commenting on Kirchick's and Bernstein's (earlier) claim that Massad is 'apologizing' for persecution of gays in the Arab world.
But in reference to the #4 you quoted... It is perfectly consistent for Massad to oppose Western cultural imperialism and to oppose repression of homosexuality activity in the Arab world that was inspired/justified as an opposition to Western cultural imperialism. One can oppose 'something' in the abstract without supporting all opposition to that 'something.' And this is what, I think, Massad's position is.
Dictionary.com:
1. to offer an apology or excuse for some fault, insult, failure, or injury: He apologized for accusing her falsely.
2. to make a formal defense in speech or writing.
American hertige:
1. To make excuse for or regretful acknowledgment of a fault or offense.
2. To make a formal defense or justification in speech or writing.
The OED:
To speak in, or serve as, justification, explanation, or palliation of a fault, failure, or anything that may cause dissatisfaction; to offer defensive arguments; to make excuses. Also in modern usage: To acknowledge and express regret for a fault without defense, by way of reparation to the feelings of the person affected
No, I don't think Massad is doing any of these things by explaining why Arab gov'ts repress homosexuality activity, any more than I think anyone saying that the 'terrorists' hate us because of American foreign policy are apologizing for terrorism.
Usually, when people write about a subject with the intention to understand it more, such as anti-semitism, raceism, homophobia, misogony and the like, they will often make a statement that they are not agreeing with their subjects, or that they are attempting to justify such racism, etc. Rather, they are merely exploring the issue to better understand how these people think they way they do.
It seems to me this is Massad's approach, that he is exploring the reasons why these governments insist on harsh punishment towards gays. If so, it's reasonable for Massad to just give us a line that says, of course, I deplore the execution of any person for their sexual activity, or something like that.
So I find it rather odd that in an entire book, Massad can't bring himself to insert one sentence, even in a footnote to allay all doubt. One can attempt to 'read into' his intentions all he wants, but it's his book, and if he didn't say it, we can assume that was a conscience reason not to.
Therefore, I can only conclude that Massad really doesn't care about the fate of gays, but is more concerned about how Gay International interferes in these countries.
On this, he is clearly on shakey ground. There really has been little or no activity on the part of the major gay rights groups to enter the middle east.
So the bottomline is that his premise, as noted above, about Gay International is shakey at best, and at worst just not true. Which makes his entire thesis quite suspect.
You devoted a whole blog post to the subject, and have yet to condemn Arab regimes that repress homosexual activity. I can therefore assume that you have no qualms with the repression in the Arab world.
If you are going to condemn people for reading into his works things he didn't say, then you, Rick, should refrain from doing the same. Yet earlier, you had this to say: "Now what's interesting when critics of Massad say that he thinks that "Arab governments are justified in persecuting homosexuals" they never support any evidence. If anyone can produce one quote from Massad's article or book that, given a high level of hermunetical wiggle room, suggests that Arab repression of homosexuals is "OK" "justified" "Or not that bad". I would love to see it."
So you condemn everyone for reading things into Massad's article that he didn't say, and yet you read into his text that he condemns violence towards gays when he doesn't say that. Either we all agree that everything he means is in the text, or it isn't, but you can't pick and choose as you have done.
Likewise, if you are writing a scholarly text, as you claim he did, you don't leave room for ambiguity, internal contradictions, and sloppy research, as has been proven here already.
I have to conclude with the others and state that Massad's article isn't in any real substantive way a scholarly work, and that his presmises and conclusions are highly dubious.
Oh, and yes, I deplore the punishment that middle eastern governments met out towards anyone regarding their sexual activity.
There, that wasn't so hard to write. I sure Massad could have done the same. But he did not.
thanks for the discussion.
"Western presumptions about Arabs’ sexuality are not without practical effects. Massad gives startling examples of their repercussions, from the torture methods used by the British colonial army against Palestinian revolutionaries in the 1930s to the US army’s scandalous abuse at Abu Ghraib, and the persecution of allegedly gay males in Egypt."
Hammerly, given that the review is accurate, do you think Massad opposes all of these things, or favors all of these things?
If you have to resort to quoting other people to explain Massad's intentions, then he certainly isn't a clear writer, and you shouldn't dismiss the other people who find the same article does not in fact support your contentions. And you shouldn't insist on asking questions when you fail to address the questions asked by others on this blog. In fact, you make a point of ignoring some people's questions simply because they are inconvenient to your explanations.
All this could be cleared up with a simple statement from Massad. If you know him, please ask him to do so. If not, we are left with only his published words, and his words are, as you are forced to admit, severely lacking in certain areas. Otherwise you would not have to quote from the Jordan Times to put words in his mouth.
Massad is not on trial. "(And as any good lawyer knows, silent means assent)" is irrelevant. To say that Massad assents to the repression of homosexual activity in Egypt because he does not explicitly denounce it--despite the fact that the Arab governments are not his central topic--is childish.
I already made my argument before, in the comment at 10:21. I stand by it.
As for "In fact, you make a point of ignoring some people's questions simply because they are inconvenient to your explanations." I ignored Randy R's comments because they are silly and childish. I have not ignored David's comments, because they are not silly nor are they childish. The same goes for Michael Benson.
Despite his claim to be disciple of Edward Said, he also assumes that there is one, unchanging and "authentic" Islam and Islamic culture, in which "authentic" situation there are no gays, only people who act in polymorphous-perverse sexual conduct. To assume that there is one, unchanging and "authentic" Islam and Islamic culture, that it cannot change, and that within it everyone has his or her predetermined and "authentic' place is in fact orientalism--exactly the concept of Islam and Islamic culture that Said accused scholars of the 19th and
early 20th century of propagating.
I have several gay friends. They are aghast at Massad's article. They say that what Massad assumes and describes as "authentic" about people who engage in gay sex in Muslim culutre is in fact a situation where gay people are remaining closeted out of fear of death at the hands of govt-religious institutions. Massad doesn't condemn this--of course not, because it is "authentic." Are my gay friends imperialists?
Are my gay friends imperialists?
I think that's the core issue here (and I think Bernstein could make his argument tighter by focusing more clearly on this point). It's true, Massad does not explicitly defend the practice of repression. But he casts gays who view themselves as fighting such repression as imperialists who are ultimately primarily (I think that's consistent with his wording) responsible for the repression. That's what I think makes this objectionable, and it isn't in anyway a straw man. It's very explicitly the point of the article.
Massad does say that the "Gay International produces an effect that is less than liberatory," which suggests that the Gay International, as the 'producer' is primarily responsible for the repression. Moreover, " The Gay International has succeeded in inciting discourse by attracting antigay Islamist and nationalist reactions to its efforts."
Also, Massad quotes Khalid Duran, a Moroccan social scientist, as writing that "Morocco has become a favorite playground for European gay men." Massad then writes, "Duran understands that gay sex-tourism in Morocco incites a discourse that has negative effects." There. Massad thinks that effect of the incitement to discourse from the West creates negative effects. The primary effect of this incitement to discourse is repression of homosexual identity.
But the fact remains that Massad blames everyone for the government's repression except the government itself. And the fact also remains that Rick keep attributing to Massad things he never said, and when called on it, he merely dismiss the arguments as childish or silly. Apparently, Rick knows more about what Massad means than is indicative in the text of his article.
That's fine. I'm not hear to convince Rick or anyone else, but I think that anyone, like myself, reading this blog would undersstand what's really going on, and further discussion is pointless.
As a gay man myself, I am appalled that anyone would blame gays in the west for having any responsiblity at all for the execution and imprisonment of gays in the middle east. That should be obvious on its face, but apparently it is not. Such is the state of politics in the US today.
I hate to get this snarky but... You do understand that one can attribute "primary responsibility" to one factor while attributing partial responsibility to other factors, do you? They are not contradictory statements.
Also, I never said that Massad does attribute the repression to the efforts of the Gay International.