Wonder Woman News
I am reading at Women and Children First on Thursday at 7:30. Be there! (something compels you.)
Aimee Levitt with a brief review and a preview of the reading.
Catherine Kustanczy interviewed me for Mic.
On HU
Featured Archive Post: Dana Schechter on why Natural Snow Buildings is the best band you’ve never hear of.
Caroline Small on Delany and comics definitions.
Me on Static and diverse mediocre genre product.
Kim O’Connor on Michael DeForge’s First Year Healthy and mental illness.
Chris Gavaler on how the evil corporate Hydra monster has hijacked Marvel.
Osvaldo Oyola on romance comics and the weirdness of heteronormativity.
Ng Suat Tong on Dylan Horrocks’ mediocre Sam Zabel, and pens as penises.
Robert Stanley Martin on what’s been overlooked at the Oscars.
Utilitarians Everywhere
At the New Republic I said we should get rid of public intellectuals.
At the Atlantic I wrote about why we should keep the guilt in guilty pleasures.
At Pacific Standard I wrote about
— how copyright damages learning and how I had to use pirated scans to write my Wonder Woman book.
—who is and isn’t responsible in totalitarian regimes.
At Ravishly I wrote about:
—how scientists who fear alien invasion should read Octavia Butler.
—The hidden queer history of the blues.
— To Kill a Mockingbird and imagining that all the racists are poor people.
At Splice Today I wrote about how
—Atheists should own their violence.
—Scott Walker is scary, but not because he’s electable.
Other Links
Terrell Jermaine Starr on harassment of black women online.
Ta-Nehisi Coates remembers David Carr.
Aimee Levitt on chick lit, lit fic, and Single, Carefree, Mellow.
Mikki Kendall on why Mary Shelly isn’t the first sci-fi writer.
On the topic of atheists “owning their violence,” I agree that one’s belief system can motivate violent behavior. I also accept that a lot of the “new” atheists traffic in anti-islamic rhetoric that a person could use to justify violence against muslims… Though, as you note, it can (and has) been used to justify violence against christians, buddhists, etc. However, I think the headline is wrong-headed, and akin to asking muslims or christians to own their violence. Yes, Christians acknowledge the Crusades, but like the atheists you critique this acknowledgment is packaged in a disassociation. That is, they apologize for a violent past, but the apology usually comes with historical explanations that attribute it to a combination of historical-political exigence and a bad actors, as opposed to the ideology baked into the old testament. And to the extent that muslims and christians own contemporary violence, I’m not convinced they should. Like the crusades, or the French revolution, this religious violence is part-and-parcel of a bigger, socio-historical phenomenon that includes religion, but is not reducible to religion any more than it’s reducible to economics, gender, etc. I don’t think that an atheist, or a christian, or a muslim is in any position to own this stuff, or even make a definitive statement about where his or her belief system fits into the cycle of violence.
Nate, just to be sure I understand you — are you saying that ideology can play a key role in motivating violence, but we shouldn’t oversimplify the causes of violence to merely ideology, discounting other factors?
Yes, though I think ideology can and does explain certain social and political trends, and that it finds expression in individual actions. Just not in every case. Cosistency is the hobgoblin of narrow minds and all that.
For example, it would be silly not to see ideology as a motive force on every side of the war on terror. However, religious beliefs, which we could think of as an institutional ideological apparatus, is just one element. Asking people to own the actions of others in that ideological orbit would be equivalent to me apologizing on behalf of Frank Miller for his sexist and islamophobic comics
Correction: religious beliefs derive from the church, which is an ideological state apparatus.
I think there’s a difference between saying, “this is part of my community, and I shoudl acknowledge that,” and saying, “I did this.”
I was with you almost to the very end, Nate. The church (and the mosque, and the temple) cannot be summed up as ideological state apparatuses (apparati?). Sometimes they are, of course, but the relationship varies from state to state and church to church. Often political institutions and religious institutions are in opposition, often they are in uneasy détente, and sometimes the state is an ideological church apparatus. Most often, as with the state and other institutions, the relationship varies issue by issue.
Other than that line, I appreciate the sophistication of your viewpoint on this — ideology does not get a free pass, but it’s not the only causal factor, either.
Noah, great job informing the debate with that Splice Today article. I have always very much appreciated your unbiased, critical thinking on this issue. You represent atheism and reason well, in my opinion.
“Most often, as with the state and other institutions, the relationship varies issue by issue.”
I totally agree with you here, and I can see how my reference to the Church as a state apparatus seems like I have an oversimplified view of the church/state relationship. We see this in the “war on terror” or whatever people want to call it now, where some terrorists are state actors with ties to state sanctioned religious institutions, whereas others are actually at odds with the state’s theocracy. My point about the state’s function as a state apparatus was meant to serve as an example of the way multiple ideologies can and do operate in tandem. I was responded through my phone, hence the dippy presentation.
Noah,
I might agree with you? I suppose the question is what you mean by “this,” when you write “this is part of my community.” Does “this” refer to the violent action, or the belief that contributed to it. If you mean the latter, then I’m on board. If you mean the former, then I’m not.
Also, the titular question of your link was whether atheists should own their violence, and I think owning violence suggests a level of taking responsibility that’s different from acknowledging that atheists have killed in the name of atheism.
Okay. That all makes sense to me, especially the difficulty of posting by phone. I’m living it right now.
I think the violent action stemming from the belief is part of the community and history, yes.
Christians often claim they’re uniquely good and peaceful. But there’s the Crusades. You need to deal with that in a way that isn’t just saying, “whoops, well, that isn’t what we meant,” I think. Talking about the way that state power is seductive, or that all people are sinful, is one way Christians do that (or some christians do it.)
Atheists claim they’re more reasonable and just than other people. But there’s lots of evidence that reason and justice have been used by atheists as an ideological motivation to kill lots of people. How do atheists deal with that? Generally, as far as I can tell, by claiming, not that atheists can make mistakes, but by insisting that the folks doing those things aren’t atheists. I think that’s a problem, inasmuch as when you say, atheists have always been good, you create a situation in which anything atheists do is basically seen as good. If you don’t acknowledge that violence is a potential, and a historical truth, of your community, you end up justifying future violence.
OK, it looks like we’re once again in agreement on this. I suppose I overthought the language of the question. In general, positive change happens when communities acknowledge when their beliefs lead them into error. Disavowal and special pleading are pretty much the opposites of acknowledgment and explanation, and should be avoided.