Hermeneutic Heretic

English is Spoken Here - Yahoo! News
The second dumbest statement in the debate over Senate legislation establishing English as the national language came from Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), who said it was needlessly divisive.
ADVERTISEMENT

Wait. A law that unifies a country under a single language is divisive? What kind of logic is that?
…
many “accommodations” made to non-English (principally Spanish) speakers everywhere, from public transit to automatic teller machines to those annoying recorded messages when you call to complain about your phone bill.
…
Despite these warning signs, we’re told “We don’t need a law to declare the obvious–English is and always will be our national language.”

Not if we continue on this course. That’s why this debate is more than symbolic. Laws to strengthen English as our national language are an expected and reasonable reaction to a movement to turn America into a bi-lingual, or worse, nation, for no better reason that it’s required by “progressive” dogma. It’s a movement that will only divide us more.
…
From these folks, there’s little or no discussion about how allowing America to become a nation of second languages helps to unify us. That’s because it so obviously doesn’t. So, instead of rational argument, they variously call their opponents “mean-spirited” and “divisive.”

This is a good example of the ‘logic’ fallacy. Viz. only logically consistent arguments are valid. The author operates with the following syllogism. More unified entities have fewer parts than divided entities. One national language is less than multiple possible languages and therefore a nation with one ‘national’ language is more unified than a nation with two or more. The columnist’s appeals to rationality are a common argumentative ploy on both sides of the argument along with equally frequent appeals to selected empirical evidence (whether qualitative or quantitative).

Czech lobby in Washington takes a second seat to Poland - 22-05-2006 - Radio Prague
There are three criteria that countries must fulfil in order to qualify for the proposed amendment to the U.S. Visa Waiver Program. The first is membership in the European Union; secondly, they must be allies in the war in Iraq or in Afghanistan, contributing at least 300 soldiers to the effort; and lastly, of course, the given country can not pose a security risk to the United States. While Poland meets all these requirements, the Czech Republic is lagging in the number of soldiers it’s contributing to the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yet, there is a catch to this point. In total, the Czech Republic actually has more than 300 people in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are 96 serving in Iraq, and 220 in Afghanistan, but about 100 of those in Afghanistan are part of an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission under the United Nations, and these do not count according to the American criteria. In other words, Poland is the only new EU-member country which has been lobbying for a visa waiver, and clearly fulfils all the requirements.

There are many discussions about the USA being a new imperial power from the point of view of its enemies. But this shows that they are an imperial power from the perspective of its allies. Czechs have always been sympathetic to many US foreign policies - in many cases slavishly so - and this clamoring for a no-visa status is another example of the need for ‘recognition’ as a ‘civilized’ - non-barbaric - country (a symbolic parallel of the Limes Romanum). Of course, speaking as a Czech citizen who occasionally has to travel to the US, not having to go through the Byzantine (pun intended) visa application process would be very convenient and doing without the attendant humiliation by suspicous bureaucrats is also nothing to be sneered at.

But I’m more interested in the cognitive aspects of this debate, the United States does not have to feel or even behave like an Imperial Power in order for others to not just perceive but also treat it as such. Now, the debate whether it is appropriate to call the US an Empire rests on the folk-perception of analogies as all-or-nothing beasts. But whether an analogy is a valid basis for decision-making (such as those of the Czech government) rests purely in the head of the analogy-maker. It is the analogy apologist who has to identify and justify the mappings between the two domains. And here, symbolic analogies will do just as nicely as objective ones. In this particular case we have a whole host of examples of empires that can stake out our semantic field (domain) so it is only a matter of quantity of these mappings whether we accept the analogy as valid. Their quality will be determined by our knowledge of both domains which in the case  of US as Empire is also a matter of great contention. Thus we return to the subjective criteria in individual cognizers whether they will allow the US is Empire blend in their minds.

CNN.com - ‘National’ or ‘common’? Senate ponders what to call English - May 19, 2006
WASHINGTON (AP) — Whether English is America’s “national language” or its national “common and unifying language” was a question dominating the Senate immigration debate.

The Senate first voted 63-34 Thursday to designate English as the “national language” after lawmakers who led the effort said it would promote national unity.

But critics argued the move would prevent people with limited English from getting language assistance required by an executive order enacted under President Clinton.

So the Senate also voted 58-39 to make English the nation’s “common and unifying language.”

“We are trying to make an assimilation statement,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, one of two dozen senators who voted Thursday for both English proposals.

There are many myths in the linguistic community about  the social and codificational peculiarities of English which particularly when compared with French is said to be much more open to change and welcoming of variety. Also, unlike many other languages it is not ‘designated’ as the official or national language in the countries that are associated with it. There is a concommitant myth about the UK and US as being (at least relatively) free of linguistic nationalism (or, as some claim, nationalism altogether). But debates like these reveal that English is just like other languages with respect to its community and the identity of its speakers. And lest we think this is a sign of some new worrying conservative influence, we should remind ourselves that this is not the first time such debates are held in the US (or UK or Australia). But those interested in the legacy of enlightenment (among whose numbers I reluctantly and cautiously count myself), should hope that these symbolic largely unnecessary bills get forgotten before they have a chance to become law, if for no other reason than to cling to the two-century-old mirage of the US as a beacon of intellectual and moral progress.

Cartoon Warfare (Ann Applebaum, WP)
In recent years “the personal is political,” a phrase whose origins are lost deep in the history of the women’s movement, has among other things come to mean that just about anyone is allowed to transform her personal experience into a political program. Writing about oneself has a long history: The memoir, the autobiography, the roman à clef, the essay that draws on personal experience to make witty social observations — all are legitimate literary forms. But writing about oneself and then turning these observations about one’s narrow social circle into a party platform or a tax policy — that is a more modern invention, and one of more questionable legitimacy and usefulness.

I wonder if this note is historically accurate. Certainly, Dickens tried to make social points as did Tolstoy and others. Using this ‘I know a guy who’ approach to social science also has a long tradition. But it does bring up a point of interest. Namely, what role does the ‘illustrative example’ play in our knowledge of social systems? It has an analogous question in the sciences where we could ask: ‘What role does our knowledge of the bevior of ideal gas play in our knowledge of the weather?’ The bigger question follows: does knowledge of parts (or purported parts) of a bigger system contribute to our knowledge of the system or should we approach the system as an independent entity with its own properties and rules governing its behavior (and treat the similiraty of these properties and rules to those of the systems components as the self-similarities we find in magnified fractal shapes)?

Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems.

When Fukuyama was toying with the Hegelian notion of the end of history - end of intellectual evolution and a victory for Western liberal and democratic ideals - he probably did not foresee that in a little over a decade this quote would receive so much attention. (E.g. here). This is a very seductive notion to many in the West who have become tired of the depressing news from around the world (Darfur, East Timor, Indonesia, Iraq) and are sick of the constant ’save the world’ drives. Coupled with a distrust of the current world leadership (Bush, Blair), it could seem that many people think that Ahmadinejad makes a lot of sense. Strip away some of the religous language and you have a worthy successor to the Communist Manifesto (or at least an introduction to it). And in indeed, it is hard to argue that the “liberal democratic systems” only work for about 25% of the world’s population leaving the rest of the world behind. Most proselytizing efforts on behalf of democracy around the world have so far failed - instituting industrialized shells around political systems that are far removed from what might be considered ‘liberal democratic’ ideals. (As defined through the various charters of Western countries or the Western-influenced UN.) However, there has been little discussion (at least as far as I could see) of the paragraph immediately following the one most often quoted:

We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point – that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: “Do you not want to join them?�

Is this the alternative that we need to institute to counteract the undoubted global failures of ‘liberal democracy’? Most certainly not. Not because of the Islamophobia statements like these seem to foster, but because over the centuries proselytizing efforts of major religions have suffered as much failure as those of ‘liberal democracy’ (probably more given that they had a sizeable head start).

The problem is ‘ideology’ of any sort must discard awareness parts of reality to maintain an illusion of consistency. (And if the reality won’t stay shut out, it is worth it to suppress it through any means available.) The problem of ‘liberal democracy’ around the world is not that it couldn’t succeed but that it is applied as zealously as any other religion with a political dimension (and are there any other?). The convertites are required to comply with all often contradictory minutiae of the doctrine which the initiates often only pay lip service to or ignore their domestic context (IMF, Worldbank, UN Security Council, EU). A nice case study of this are the requirements leveled against the EU accession states.

Here is the problem with the essentially religious doctrine of liberal democracy (again as defined [similarly to major religions] by the various charters): It is not a description of how the paragons of liberal democracy actually function but a distillation of the ideals the stereotypical democracies aspire to. They are as unrealistic as the communist dreams of heaven-on-earth society, and just like them, they are killing people around the world as we speak.
So, if we are sympathetic to Ahmandinejad’s analysis of the state of the world and timorous of the path he wishes to set the world on, what can we offer as an alternative solution. Probably not just the pragmatist ‘realpolitik’ that is so admired by many. The problem there is that the realism of this approach always derives from the reality as perceived by some interest group with enough clout to impose it on the decision makers. In the past, I have proposed a secular communism (rule by those who believe in the communist ideals but are not imposing their dogma on the government - just like the Biblical commandments are only loosely applied in most Western countries), but, in fact, any secularist ideology will do. These are represented by faith and conviction in doing good (according to any belief system, including liberal democracy) coupled with a strict separation of this belief from government. The result will be muddy and confused but that is the only way I can think of that can avoid the disastrous suppression and remolding of reality by  fundamentalist proponents of any of these belief systems that the last two millenia or more have been a witness to.
Here’s the full text of the final section of the eight-page (4000 word) letter:

Full Text : The President of Iran’s Letter To President Bush
…History tells us that repressive and cruel governments do not survive. God has entrusted
The fate of man to them. The Almighty has not left the universe and humanity to their own
devices. Many things have happened contrary to the wishes and plans of governments. These
tell us that there is a higher power at work and all events are determined by Him.

Can one deny the signs of change in the world today?

Is this situation of the world today comparable to that of ten years ago? Changes happen fast
and come at a furious pace.

The people of the world are not happy with the status quo and pay little heed to the promises
and comments made by a number of influential world leaders. Many people around the wolrd
feel insecure and oppose the spreading of insecurity and war and do not approve of and accept
dubious policies.

The people are protesting the increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots and the rich
and poor countries.

The people are disgusted with increasing corruption.

The people of many countries are angry about the attacks on their cultural foundations and the
disintegration of families. They are equally dismayed with the fading of care and compassion.
The people of the world have no faith in international organisations, because their rights are
not advocated by these organisations.

Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of
humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the
sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic
systems.

We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point –
that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the
prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: “Do you not want to
join them?â€? …

Feminismus jako islám
Muslimové mají obecnÄ› rádi feministky asi stejnÄ› jako feministky muslimy. PÅ™esto je feminismus jako islám. ProÄ?? Protože:

a) islám je hlubokým a významným myšlenkovým hnutím s ustavenou, zajímavou tradicí.

b) islám je pestrý a mnohorozměrný, nabízí spoustu cest a směrů.

c) islám klade otázky, které nikdo jiný neklade, a bez něj by bylo naše myšlení chudší.

d) to nejviditelnÄ›jší ze souÄ?asného islámu jsou extremisté, zjevnÄ› nebezpeÄ?ní nejenom sami sobÄ›.

Interesting, if slightly fallacious analogy appeared on a Czech website. It goes like this:

“Muslims generally like feminists about as much as feminists like them. Nevertheless, feminism is like Islam. Why? Because:

a) Islam is a deep and important intellectual movement with an established and interesting tradition.

b) Islam is multifaceted and multidimensional offering many paths and directions.

c) Islam poses questions which are not posed by anyone else and whithout which our thought would be only the poorer.

d) The most visible aspects of today’s Islam are extremists who are obviously a danger more than just to themselves.”

The analogy is interesting and the author goes on to explore the concept of Islam as a young immature religion which hasn’t undergone reformation (he calls it ‘paradigmatic loss’). This is an appealing analogy that I’ve subscribed to for a long time but it carries with it certain danger. It only allows us to see Islam through the perspective of our own past - and implicitly subscribes to the ‘end of history’ thesis - maintaining a ‘Hegelian’ teleological view of history.

By the time he reaches d, the author, as so many others, simply starts to believe the conservative propaganda on both Islam and feminism. The fact that he cites the discredited Bernard Goldberg (author of the misguided Bias) makes it pretty clear. The problem is that the visibility he takes as evidence is not (to a large extent) controlled by the proponents of either movement. A hundred sexually harrassed or assaulted women do not warrant half the attention as one man who loses a job as a result of fair-treatment lawsuit. A hundred muslims killed by landmines left over some brave soldiers certainly do not command as much attention as one suicide bomber. Our willingness to see (make visible) is the problem not ‘their’ willingness to do.
In short, it might be worth asking the question (as the president of Iran recently did) is it feminism and Islam that need to change or is it us?