Artists and morality (that old chestnut again)

The Philosophy of Art & Aesthetics.

Moderator: e_dog

User avatar
e_dog
Posts: 2764
Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 2:02 pm
Location: Knowhere, Pun-jab

Post by e_dog » May 7th, 2005, 2:05 pm

for a manifesto by Tristan Tzara, the dadaist poet, see the following link:

http://www.english.upenn.edu/~jenglish/ ... tzara.html

for an art histoian's overview on the movements of dada and surrealism check out Hopkin's Dada and Surrealism, one of the Oxford Very Short Introductions series. (though at over a hundred pages, it is fairly comprehensive for a very short introduction.)

for a few blurbs on Duchamps' visual art

see also:

http://www.we-make-money-not-art.com/ar ... 003860.php

http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/ ... 98-1.shtml

Maple Leaf Up
Posts: 5
Joined: May 2nd, 2005, 12:39 pm
Location: The Great White North

Post by Maple Leaf Up » May 8th, 2005, 12:06 am

Edog,

I fear you may have conflicting ideas in need of clarification. Initially, you stated: "for example, a terrorist gets an idea for a terrorist plot from a Clancy novel, then one of the consequences of his writing is increased violence. " You also stated: "there is moreover, no clear cut distinction between fiction, propaganda, and military plans and orders. it may well be that apocalyptic fantasies bring about the apocalypse. " Finally, you stated: "blaming Nietzsche for Nazism is a bit like blaming Christ for the Crusades...".

If you believe terrorists may get their ideas from novels or that fantasies may bring about reality, then may we not blame Nietzsche, at least in part, for National Socialism? I am not necessarily advocating this position; nevertheless, I feel you ought to clarify your ideas.
Drinking Far Too Much, Copulating Too Little.

To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.

Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once he grows up.

User avatar
e_dog
Posts: 2764
Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 2:02 pm
Location: Knowhere, Pun-jab

Post by e_dog » May 8th, 2005, 11:11 am

a very trenchant observation; not sure if i can satisfactorily respond.

but i suppose the difference is a matter of foreseeable-ness. whereas the idea that someone would or might directly copy a scene or plot from a story is not at all hard to imagine, it is difficult to see how a complex system could grow out of a given philosophy. perhaps it is foreseeable that some distorted ideology can grow from any given system of thought or writing. and for that reason, then Nietzsche is not free from guilt for throwing out into the world potentially toxic ideas. but i think the connection between Nietzsche and Nazism is much exaggerated. in fact, Nietzsche's expressed views are antithetical to National Socialism and antisemitism, and i could prove this textually if i had the time. (briefly: in Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche devotes a whole chapter to criticizing and indeed ridiculing the concept of 'fatherland.' throughout his writing, Nietzsche expresses greater respect for Judaism than for Christianity; and while his anti-religious viewpoint means that he disrespects both plenty, the same could be said for other atheistic thinkers like KarlMarx or Bertrand Russell, though admittedly in a very different way, tone.)

i think the inconsistency you see is a result of the emphasis i am making to challenge assumptions. i.e. since it is assumed that a spy novel is harmless entertainment, i am argue that in fact it is not entirely harmless and thus not free from all blame, but i am not saying that the novelist deserves all the blame or even as much blame as the actual terrorist, if someone acts out in violence a plot from the novel. i am not saying that a novelist is a terrorist. i am saying that the novelist must reflect on the possible consequences of his work. and that he is not entirely free from resonsibility or even guilt. morally, not at law.

on the other hand, since some people assume that a radical thinker is responsible for all actions that purported followers claim to do in the name of his ideology, i am arguing, to the contrary, that to do so ignores the proper emphasis which is on how the subsequent violent followers have distorted the meaning of the original.

now these may appear to be inconsistent positions but i don't think so. the truth is that a writer can be "partially" responsible for subsequent consequences, even if they go against his intentions, even if he is not as responsible as those who order or carry out the acts. this principle applies to novelists as well as philologists.

thanks, for forcing me to refine these thoughts. i await your reactions.

User avatar
e_dog
Posts: 2764
Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 2:02 pm
Location: Knowhere, Pun-jab

Post by e_dog » May 8th, 2005, 11:20 am

one more point to clarify.

methinks the claims of connection are quite different, even if subtly, in the hypothetical case of the spy novel and the case of Nietzsche and Nazism.

in the latter, the claim is that there is some connection of "meaning" -- that somehow Nazism follows from the logic of Nietzsche's position. if that is the claim, it is i believe quite false.

on the other hand, i don't think anyone would claim that a novelist or filmmaker that gets "copycatted" in a copycat crime, intended the crime to result. indeed the crime scene in the story is likely to represented the 'bad guys' against whom the hero struggles. in an action film, it may be that the author's intent is completely irrelevant, it is the vivid depiction and romanticization or stimulating nature of violence that counts.
I don't think 'Therefore, I am.' Therefore, I am.

User avatar
mousey1
Posts: 2383
Joined: October 17th, 2004, 3:54 pm
Location: Just another animation.

Post by mousey1 » May 8th, 2005, 1:35 pm

ooooooo edog...

this is sooooo "Educating Rita" :D

ever see that?

I feel so Ritaish sometimes.

Thanks for the links. I really enjoyed reading Tristan Tzara's manifesto. I like the way he writes. I think I am a dada doist without knowing it. I like people who write and think like he, so human. It was a short piece but I got a good gist, I think.

I'm familiar with Duchamp's fountain. I think some of his thinking was definitely in the toilet, or urinal, if you will. But when you stop to think about it, really think about it, it makes you think. :roll:

Now back to the regularly scheduled discussion. Think of me as the time out, the commercial for light beer....you know half the taste, half the calories, half the substance, but the same buzzzzzzz and costs a helluva lot more. Well, I'm two for one! Havin' a sale! Going fast!

Christ man, I gotta lay off the beer it's makin' me light headed.

I'm your not so comedic interlude!

Someone change the channel already....sheesh! :P


(This is what is known as following a train of thought all the way to it's illogical conclusion..... :roll: ....and not unlike a lemming!!!!!)
I used to walk with my head in the clouds but I kept getting struck by lightning!
Now my head twitches and I drool alot. Anonymouse

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/mousey1/shhhhhh.gif[/img]

User avatar
Jenni Mansfield Peal
Posts: 154
Joined: February 18th, 2005, 9:33 pm
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Post by Jenni Mansfield Peal » May 8th, 2005, 11:16 pm

Mousey, you make me laugh, laugh, laugh

Art is of humans; all of the rubrics with which we judge human endeavor may be applied to it.

For instance, replace the word "art" with the word "voice."

Must voices be free?
Must voices be educated?
Must voices be encouraged?
Must voices be regulated?
Are all voices equal?
Can voices do good works?
Can voices do harm?
Can voices be sincere?
Can voices be false?
Can voices be lasting?
Can voices be inconsequetial?
Profound - shallow?

Each of these is a debatable human question whether aplied to a policy or a single event. Provocative voices and provocative art beg these questions.
They provoke so much trouble that individuals and societies sometimes wonder what they're worth. They try to create systems of valuation. But the real gold is in the new creation; I believe that people will always love new creations, as much as they will continue to revere the art, the well met reply, religion, and history of the past with which they have become comfortable. But it's bound to cause friction - that's what provocation does.
JMP
Photos by Tom Peal

Trevor
Posts: 176
Joined: September 8th, 2004, 9:34 am

Post by Trevor » May 9th, 2005, 10:57 am

Hi E-dog,

"but i suppose the difference is a matter of foreseeable-ness. whereas the idea that someone would or might directly copy a scene or plot from a story is not at all hard to imagine,

I think you may have a somewhat valid point with your statement of "foreseeable-ness", at least for certain situations....such as intentionally suggesting action in a mentally challenged person who can not facilitate right and wrong or make healthy choices for themselves. Same with the mentally ill...So I guess if you can forcast the outcome of a piece of writing with a fair amount of accuracy, and the intent is there, then knowing the effects of your writing perhaps should hold you somewhat responsible in certain situations. Giving a pyromaniac a box of matches is pretty much the same as starting a fire though you may not have said start a fire, or verbally implied it, or even struck a match. Much in the same way, intentionally planting an idea in the mind of a mentally handicapped/mentally ill person knowing there is a good chance they will act upon it, should hold you somewhat responsible for their actions (though I'd like to stress intent). This can also work in positive ways as well, such as a speech maker calming an angry crowd because he knows the words to quell them thereby preventing violence. He is then partially responsible for the peaceful resolution of the crowd.

But since ficticious literature (or art in general) is rarely written for the insane (moreso written by them), or mentally challenged, or for a teaming mob of angry dissidents, we can assume that the intentional audience for most authors does not include the above and it is by chance, or choice of the insane etc, to come across the literature of those they may base action upon or develop a skewed version of an author's ideas. Much in the same way a ficticious book may inspire a crazy murderer to hang his victims, a rock may inspire the same person to bludgeon someone to death...So perhaps we can safely assume, that such inspiration is unintentional, unforseeable and somewhat choatic or random in nature. Also the violent acts of this person will occur regardless of wherein lies the inspiration for method -- for their fits of violence to occur are not relative to their method. I say this because murder is not about a gun, or knife, or hanging, or an idea in a book. What determines the object of manifested violent dellusions can be somewhat choatic in nature but relevant to what is present in their surroundings -- such as Berkowitz's talking dog ordering him to kill. Therefore it becomes impossible to ever predict what will set off an unstable person because the dellusions will project themselves on to that which is available whether it be a dog or a book or a "I'm so hard done by". Therefore it makes about as much sense to partially blame a dog for Berkowitz's actions, as it does to blame "Catcher in the Rye" for Chapman's false interpretation.

As for the sane....To some extent we are all products of environment and genetics, and we are all shaped and influenced by things within our society, including fictitious novels, but that does not mean we are unable to make choices. And when we make a choice, whether or not that mimics someone elses actions or follows the words of another, it should not lessen personal accountability. Also I believe, in regards to foreseeable-ness, it is a big stretch to imply there is a problem with fictitious novels and their relation to violence. Most violent acts are not copy-cats, in fact percentage wise, i would say intentional copy-cat acts aren't even a noticeable margin and are largely done by those with mental illness. If anything, novels are the copy-cats and it is only a small percentage of literature that inspires change in society, whether good or bad. Considering the library of all literature, it is more likely to be the novelist inspired by his surroundings then vice versa. There are hundreds of millions, perhaps hundreds of billions, of things written by mankind, yet only a miniscule pittance of that has had any real influence on society or people in general. Largely, for an audience, art is nothing more than a time filler. Now of course, with that said, I'm not trying to deny responsibility for an author on work intent on inciting a malicious act/s, simply because there is a good chance his work won't be remembered in twenty years. I'm just trying to state, that if there is a connection between art and violence, it is a very thin line, and very infrequent in comparison to the enormous arena of art.

I don't think it is fair to place responsibility of others on an author for writing something ficticious. The meaning of fiction boils down to "not real - but imagined", and if a random person who is allowed to purchase and read fiction interprets pretend-land as reality, then perhaps the responsibility should lie with themselves or just chaulk it up to unpreventable insanity or the actions of such.

"it is difficult to see how a complex system could grow out of a given philosophy."

You mean like variations on democracy, capitalism, Stalinism, Communism, Socialism, laissez-faire economics, facism, darwinism, tribalism, nihilism, and so on?

"if someone acts out in violence a plot from the novel. i am not saying that a novelist is a terrorist. i am saying that the novelist must reflect on the possible consequences of his work. and that he is not entirely free from resonsibility or even guilt. morally, not at law. "

The sticky thing for me is dismissing responsibility, even in some lesser part, from a person who commited a crime onto someone uninvolved. Sure you can draw a thin-line connection from author to reader, but you can do that with everything that has come into contact with anyone. Plus if we start holding ficticious stories at fault, then shouldn't we logically hold the institution of writing partially responsible....and then we can just boil it down further and put partial blame on those who invented words. Not that it isn't fun to do so, but it just doesn't make sense to partially blame a scribe who existed thousands of years ago for 9/11.

Should it really become society's responsibility to protect the minds of citizens from ideas stemming from the society itself? Perhaps for the challenged and ill, but you can't deny them the right to literature based upon preconcieved and potentially false notions of how that may affect them. Nor, as Lincoln once said, "Can you strengthen the weak by weakening the strong." If novels may influence people to act out violently, and it is society that influences a novelist to write about violent acts, perhaps we can start blaming society for the relationship between art and violence. If violent acts are the product of a novelist's influence, and a novelists ideas are the product of society's influence, then the responsibilty of violent acts should rest upon that which influenced the novelist and not the novelist himself, which again, detracts from personal accountability by everyone involved and becomes this blanket of blame, not to mention we boil our choices down to the result of environment rather than personal choice. This begins to sound like we have no real control of our lives, and if this is so, no one is ever really to blame, of course this is an exaggeratiion to illustrate a point but personally it seems to be the direction of this train of logic. Perhaps if we want to take this road, we can just cut out the novelist middle man and put the blame on society in general.


"the truth is that a writer can be "partially" responsible for subsequent consequences, even if they go against his intentions,"

Then lets suppose Clancy is "partially" responsible for the furthering of terrorism, is he now also partially responsible for furthering anti-terrorism as well? Are his novels not only the disease but also the cure? His stories deal more heavily with the destruction of terrorists and the people who are against terrorists, then actual acts of terrorism. And if his novels' focus remains more on anti-terrorism, then shouldn't we start saying he is more responsible for helping to end terrorism, then he is for perpetuating it. If its okay to assume that reading a Clancy book may inspire a terrorist act based upon the content, can we not assume it will also inspire non-terrorist behaviour? Personally for me, its all silly to think any of that, however, if we are to believe authors of fiction are partially responsible for violence, then we can assume they are also partially responsible for non-violence. And since most ficticious literature is based on good overcoming evil, shouldn't we then assume that fiction has done more work to end violence, then to further it. Should we start praising fiction for all it has done to end violence?

I don't think anyone can deny literature, from Neitzsche to Clancy, is influential to some extent, that extent usually being an individual experience. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be around and we wouldn't be discussing it. However, is being responsible for an idea, the same as being responsible for acting upon that idea? Should ficticious writers or philosophers be accountable for conclusions made by someone else and subsequent conclusions acted upon? Sure a ficticious book glorifying bank robbery will make the reader think of bank robbing. That's as clear as me writing "tits" and you thinking of breasts. However, if I ficticiously write, "I enjoy the soft inviting texture of a warm breast -- so much so, that I randomly grab strangers' tits.", should I be responsible for someone grabbing a stranger's breast if they read this? And if being partially responsible for someone else's actions is as easy as that, I can simply absolve myself of this responsibility by writing, "Grabbing breasts without permission of the person, is wrong, bad and dangerous."...Perhaps we can just state, saying good things makes good things happen, and saying bad things, makes bad things happen.

Personally i'm at the point where I think in certain situations an author should be responsible for actions based upon their work if their intent is to incite such action or manipulate a vunerable person into action. However, in other situations, such as misinterpretation by a reader, or writing taken out of context by the ill, it is too chaotic in nature to predict, too random and unmeasurable to hold an author responsible. As Maple Leaf was pointing out, its as silly to blame Neitzsche for Nazism, as it is to blame acts of terrorism on Clancy. The false interpretation of both is not the fault of the content or context, thereby dismissing the author's responsibility, but rather the fault of the reader for twisting it into a self serving doctrine. I'm sure any good terrorist will contrive an excuse and method for their actions even without the existence of Clancy, imagination and justification are powerful things.

Another thought -- Perhaps there is always a connection between art and violence, occasionally through inspired external action -- occasionally simply through thought. This connection is sometimes the responsibility of the artist, sometimes the responsibility of the audience, and sometimes both. I think it is an impossibility for us to measure in most circumstances. Is Mien Kampff responsible for some people becoming Nazi's, even up to today? Perhaps in the wrong hands a person would be influenced to become a Nazi, but it becomes somewhat minor if it is nothing more than a vehicle for hateful projection, rather than a creator of hate itself. I only say minor because the underlying cause is not a book, but something else. It would have manifested in one form or another, whether it be following the ridiculous doctrines of a dead facist, or a new one created by themselves.

Anyways, that's where I'm at on this discussion. Sorta boiling it down to it all being situational rather than strictly defined by.


Mousey:


I'm familiar with Duchamp's fountain

Me too, I swear I used it once while on a bender...lol..Personally, I appreciate him trying to push the boundaries of what can be considered art, but I'm rather prone to think that particular piece is more of a statement about art, then art itself...though arguably there is a fine line, and a gray one at that between the two. I guess like most people, I have a certain amount of unintentional habit to cling to established labels for simplicity's sake. For me its the two labels; some things are art, some things are not....though I admit what I consider art is probably dated and could use some injections of fresh thought. I guess the questions still remain, is art the thought behind something, or the thought it inspires in others, or the act of creation, or a culmination of all of the above to various degrees? I guess for as much as I fault that piece, here I am discussing thoughts on what constitutes art, so it infuriates me to admit, that it is an effective piece, because I want to habitually cling to my older notions of art.

Hi Jenny:

I really liked the way you stated:

Provocative voices and provocative art beg these questions. They provoke so much trouble that individuals and societies sometimes wonder what they're worth. They try to create systems of valuation. But the real gold is in the new creation; I believe that people will always love new creations, as much as they will continue to revere the art, the well met reply, religion, and history of the past with which they have become comfortable.

....well said.

User avatar
mousey1
Posts: 2383
Joined: October 17th, 2004, 3:54 pm
Location: Just another animation.

Post by mousey1 » May 9th, 2005, 11:06 am

Jenny Peal....were you pealing with laughter? :D

It pleases me that I made you laugh.

And your other comments have provoked me.

Is there really anything more delicious to the eye and palate than the wonderful savour of creative juices overflowing. Pour me a glass of that anytime. With some corn on the side it makes for a down home good time.
I used to walk with my head in the clouds but I kept getting struck by lightning!
Now my head twitches and I drool alot. Anonymouse

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/mousey1/shhhhhh.gif[/img]

User avatar
mousey1
Posts: 2383
Joined: October 17th, 2004, 3:54 pm
Location: Just another animation.

Post by mousey1 » May 9th, 2005, 11:26 am

Literature and art can never incite me to violent acts.....

but it can incite me to eroticism!!!!!

Hmmmmm, what does that mean, what does that mean?

What can be gleened?

Writers and artists should stick to the romantic in their endeavours!

That way we could "Make love not war!"

And they would be responsible for societies return to sanity!
I used to walk with my head in the clouds but I kept getting struck by lightning!
Now my head twitches and I drool alot. Anonymouse

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/mousey1/shhhhhh.gif[/img]

User avatar
mousey1
Posts: 2383
Joined: October 17th, 2004, 3:54 pm
Location: Just another animation.

Post by mousey1 » May 9th, 2005, 12:53 pm

Having said the above I now return to the scene of my crime to confess.....

I lied to a degree, something which I am sometimes wont to do for various reasons!

Literature and art can incite me to contemplate violence given the right circumstances and motivators, for instance:

Injustice, injustice, injustice....depravity(unless of course it's my brand of), cruelty of any kind and sometimes just sometimes, complete stoopidity.

But it is only contemplation.....revelling for a time in a little self indulgent "vengeance is mine" scenario.

Art in any form when it is used to make powerful purposeful statements, which I see no problem with, and welcome with open eyes, can incite to action, and if it is positive action then it is all well and good....it is the perceived negative actions that are worrisome. But works of fiction and art for arts sake a la your Clancy's et al, I believe are for entertainment value. Those who would use them as springboards to leap into terrorist action can take full responsibility for all, and I honestly believe one cannot hold the author to shouldering any of the blame. It boils down to free will or insanity. If there are those who would jump on the bandwagon simply because it is passing by and sparked an idea, they are, in my opinion, riding alone!

There, was that clear as mud? Any questions? :)
I used to walk with my head in the clouds but I kept getting struck by lightning!
Now my head twitches and I drool alot. Anonymouse

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/mousey1/shhhhhh.gif[/img]

User avatar
e_dog
Posts: 2764
Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 2:02 pm
Location: Knowhere, Pun-jab

Post by e_dog » May 9th, 2005, 3:50 pm

Trev:
And since most ficticious literature is based on good overcoming evil, shouldn't we then assume that fiction has done more work to end violence, then to further it. Should we start praising fiction for all it has done to end violence?
Indeed we should. there are some great anti-war books that may have had an impact on some people.

but an "anti-terrorist" book is apt to be just espousing one terrorism against another. i.e. someone like Clancy might not be against terror; he is just in favor of American terror against its competitors, real or imagined.

Trevor again:
And if his novels' focus remains more on anti-terrorism, then shouldn't we start saying he is more responsible for helping to end terrorism, then he is for perpetuating it. If its okay to assume that reading a Clancy book may inspire a terrorist act based upon the content, can we not assume it will also inspire non-terrorist behaviour?
the logic of "anti-terrorism" is like that of "antithesis" -- an anti-thesis is just a thesis opposed to another thesis. the forces of antiterror are one terror fighting another. the result is more terror, not less -- that is, escalation.

moreover, just saying that a violent act portrayed is asigned to the 'dark side', or is intended as representing something evil, doesn't mean it will be deterred in the actual audience. don't think of an elephant! don't do this act which we are going to elaborately describe how to do! etc. etc.
I don't think 'Therefore, I am.' Therefore, I am.

Trevor
Posts: 176
Joined: September 8th, 2004, 9:34 am

Post by Trevor » May 9th, 2005, 7:57 pm

Hi Edog,

"moreover, just saying that a violent act portrayed is asigned to the 'dark side', or is intended as representing something evil, doesn't mean it will be deterred in the actual audience. don't think of an elephant! don't do this act which we are going to elaborately describe how to do! etc. etc."

Yes of course, I think its already established that some nutbars will see acts of violence as neato and won't be able to grasp the context from the content. Now we are just going in a circle. But if writing is so easily interpreted for wrong doing, it can just as easily be interpreted for doing good things as well by the exact same people. It all becomes a mute point. It is impossible for every human being to interpret the same work in the same way. Some people are just crazy and some are just stupid. But lets stop blaming entertainment for the actions of the misguided or insane.

"the logic of "anti-terrorism" is like that of "antithesis" -- an anti-thesis is just a thesis opposed to another thesis. the forces of antiterror are one terror fighting another. the result is more terror, not less -- that is, escalation."

Yeah, I guess opposing Germany in WW2 was a mistake because it just led to more terror. I don't think it is as clear cut as you are stating. I hardly think killing a group of people who are plotting to blow up a building filled with innocent people, should be called an act of terror. Sure its an act of violence, but not all violence is unjust or uncalled for. Occasionally, and unfortunately, there are times when force is needed. I think maybe if you are referring to certain instances, such as Iraqi prisoners at Guatanamo (sp?) Bay, your idea holds true, but there are so many examples of when your above statement is false so I don't think it fair to state it as the logic of anti-terrorism.

User avatar
e_dog
Posts: 2764
Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 2:02 pm
Location: Knowhere, Pun-jab

Post by e_dog » May 9th, 2005, 9:00 pm

i did not claim to identify the logic of antiterrorism (b/c there is no such thing) but rather the logic of "antiterrorism" i.e. an ideological concept.

but also note that i never said that "antiterrorist" efforts are necessarily a "mistake" simply because they are in some sense also involving terror or terrorists. perhaps i should qualify my claim about escalation to say "usually" or "often" there is more not less violence.

saying that X and Y are both terrorists doesn't rule out the possibility that one is worse than the other.

it might be that WWII is an illustration of the point. a terrorist regime, Nazi Germany, was defeated by another terrorist regime the Stalinist Soviet Union, with help from another, the United States. (don't think the U.S. can be called a terrorist state? think about the use of atomic weapons against Japanese cities in the Pacific theatre. and this led to further escalation of the terms of global power struggle -- the Cold War, etc. etc. and a slew of Clancy novels!) in this case it was of course a good thing that the Nazis were opposed and defeated, but that doesn't mean that the liberating forces were exactly pure of heart.

Trevor
Posts: 176
Joined: September 8th, 2004, 9:34 am

Post by Trevor » May 10th, 2005, 9:18 am

Hi Edog,

"i did not claim to identify the logic of antiterrorism (b/c there is no such thing) but rather the logic of "antiterrorism" i.e. an ideological concept"

The ideological concept of "anti-terroism" is not fighting terror with terror as you purport. The ideology of anti-terrorism is to achieve peace and quell forces that may cause terror upon a society by means of peaceful or violent resolution -- peaceful preferred, though often violent. Whether or not this is always the case in every situation is certainly debatable. Anti-terrorism -- as I was trying to illustrate with my Guantanamo Bay example -- certainly does at times cross over and become terror as well. However, armed special forces storming a plane held by hijackers and forcefully quelling further harm, is not an act of terror. It is not terror fighting terror. It is a violent solution to a terroristic action (which is what targeting civillians is considered). Nor is talking them down to a peaceful resolution considered terror fighting terror. Tracking dangerous substances such as chemicals or nuclear material, is also not an act of terror. Furthermore, all of these measures are not based on an ideology of "forces of antiterror are one terror fighting another", even if at times their roles conflict with a "righteous" code and their power is abused. The intitial labelling of "terrorists" was to describe a group of people who caused terror in society by targeting weak points, ie..civillian population, non military targets, etc. to instill a sense of terror within the general population thereby causing subsequent turmoil in government through the discontentment of the society in hopes of achieving their goal...which is to sieze power. A good example of this was Spain's backing out of military involvement in Iraq after the beheadings of public sector contractors in Iraq, and bombings in Spain.

All terrorists have been fairly labelled -- is certainly a false statement when applied across the board to individuals, organizations, institutions and countries. As is vice versa for anti-terrorists. In many cases oppressed people who wage guerilla warfare on a regime, have been called terrorists, and treated as such, just as many times terrorists have not been labelled such even though they have embarked on widespread terroristic acts. However, poor or false implimentation of an ideology and bad labelling, does not change what the ideological concepts of "terrorist" and "anti-terrorist" stand for. One stands for a seizure of power based upon causing terror in the general public, the other stands for protecting power by eliminating terror for the general public. This, in my opinion, are the real opposing thesis' of terrorism and anti-terrorism.

"but also note that i never said that "antiterrorist" efforts are necessarily a "mistake" simply because they are in some sense also involving terror or terrorists. perhaps i should qualify my claim about escalation to say "usually" or "often" there is more not less violence. "

Yes for sure there is sometimes more violence and not less, but escalation is usually a matter of the size and willingness of parties involved and is not always the case. There have been many terrorist plots and organizations that have been stopped and never heard of -- so other times there is actually less violence; though violence may have been used to achieve this. Much like the righteous side to the ideology of war is to achieve peace, so is the ideology of anti-terrorism. What is usually reported by the media, gov't, military etc. are the ongoing battles that can not be swept beneath a rug...these are the larger terrorist organizations who can go the distance due to membership, leadership, willingness, monetary funds and so on -- whether they be made up of a faction of society or the gov't themselves. Again, whether or not these are real terrorists, is debatable, as is a terrorist or anti-terrorist label of the opposing force. I know you have not stated otherwise, but since you are largely, though not solely, representing a negative viewpoint of: violence to solve violence = terror vs terror, I think it is important to state for clarity, not all violence is an act of terror, terrorism or terroristic in nature.

"saying that X and Y are both terrorists doesn't rule out the possibility that one is worse than the other."

For sure, some side always has to be the lesser of two evils or the better of two goods.

"it might be that WWII is an illustration of the point. a terrorist regime, Nazi Germany, was defeated by another terrorist regime the Stalinist Soviet Union, with help from another, the United States. "

So where in should the label of terrorist be made? When dealing with large entities, such as a global war and participating countries, I think it becomes muddy waters. Is it not just as fair to say the U.S. in regards to how it handled certain elements and situations in the war with Germany, acted in a terroristic manner, thereby making them terrorists --- as it is to say, the U.S., in regards to how it handled certain elements and situations in the war with Germany, acted admirably, honorably, and justly in defense against a terroristic gov't, thereby making them anti-terrorists? I would say largely, the U.S. when dealing with Germany, did not act in a terroristic fashion. Yes, at times they did partake in cruel acts not only against military but the general public as well, but for the most part, if anything, Germans - both civilian and military, recieved fair treatment considering the nature of Germany's crimes.

Perhaps the nature and intent of all sides involved should be considered, rather than just calling all of them terrorists simply because they all, to varying degrees (some large - some small in relation to the extent of the war and all its occurances), had participated in an act/s that could be construed as terroristic. It is no more fair to label them "terrorists" based on a few acts, then it is to label them "anti-terrorists" based on a few acts. I think in the case of a world war, if we are to define what consitutes terrorist, it should be with broad strokes -- though certain instances may contridict the such said definition. For practical reasons, we tend to define groups by the prevelant side of their nature or majority of members within their society. As much as I hate organized religions and would beam with glee to call the Roman Catholic Church an institution of pedophiles, it would not be fair to do so considering the vast majority of people within that organization are not pedophiles nor are involved with the church to support a pedo's philosophy. Every society, and every faction within a society, will have elements ranging across the whole spectrum of what people are. Perhaps objectively it is fair to label an organization based on every single element within itself and state that at any given time, these elements may arise to the forefront or play a role. However in practical terms, stating everything is everything, or it is what it is, has very little functioning use. Hence our use of generalizing large entities with single or few labels.

"(don't think the U.S. can be called a terrorist state? think about the use of atomic weapons against Japanese cities in the Pacific theatre. and this led to further escalation of the terms of global power struggle -- the Cold War, etc. etc. and a slew of Clancy novels!) "

Certainly in the case of war against Japan, the States became terrorists by performing one of the most cruel and perverse acts ever concieved by mankind. Their targets were civillian, their intent was to dismantle Japan's will to fight by the immmediate widespread destruction of civillian population and a undisputable show of supreme force. It was such a devestating act that the damage from that despicable moment still lives on today. But the war against Japan was a seperate war from Germany even though it took place in nearly the same time frame -- Germany had surrendered months before Hiroshima. For the record, Japan and Germany actually had very little to do with one another during WW2 and both sides had their own seperate agendas; though similar in nature. Basically, the States was fighting two wars on two seperate fronts, against two seperate enemies at the same time. Not only did they wage war differently against Japan, but also Japanese military personnel and civillians recieved different treatment than their German counterparts. A good example of this was the internment camps for Japanese Americans, and the lack thereof for German Americans. So yeah, definitely agree with you in the war against Japan, America became terrorists.

For me, the defining seperation between terrorist and anti-terrorist is the targeting of peaceful civillian population in order to achieve their goals -- even when the goals of the terrorist and anti-terrorist are the same. It is not why or what they are fighting for, it is the method by which they hope to achieve their goals.

Anyways, we are started to get way off topic, and the whole point of this discussion was not to define terrorist or anti-terrorist, but rather should a ficticious novelist who writes about terrorists and anti-terrorists, be held somewhat responsible for furthering terrorist activities? I will state again what I said, in the case of Clancy, he is pretty cut and dry, black and white with his ficticious work (as are most authors). There are bad guys who wish to harm people, and there are the good guys who wish to prevent this. Sure they use not only intelligence, resourcefullness, but violence as well which is just a reflection of the society he lives in and not the one he created. The roles of good and bad are clearly and easily defined in his writing. It is a shame that some people may misinterpret his work, especially considering it is ficticious, however, he should not be accountable for insane people who by chance or choice take his work as inspiration for behaviour. They are the unmeasurable variable.

So a question I'd like to pose -- what is the responsibility of abstract art in relation to violence? Couldn't we assume that since abstract art can be interpreted in a million different ways that abstract artists are by far, the most irresponsible of artists because they bear some responsibility for all evils?

Trevor
Posts: 176
Joined: September 8th, 2004, 9:34 am

Post by Trevor » May 10th, 2005, 9:41 am

One more point I'd like to make:

Is a discussion about if the U.S. is anti-terrorist or terrorists in real life all that relevant to an openly, admittedly ficticious novel? The whole purpose of fiction is not to be constrained by reality....its to make up a new one that idealy suits the characters and plots. Sure it sometimes mimics things in real life but its hardly a fair representation of it. For this discussion, who really cares if the US or Germany or Japan or USSR are terrorists or anti-terrorists? The whole point of Clancy's stories, like much of his genre, is to entertain people by creating good guys triumphing over bad guys. His stories, though occasionally loosely based on occurances, have nothing to do with what happens in real life. The whole world in Clancy's novels, though similar to real life, does not exist, never has. Nor does he owe it to the public to give an accurate depiction of terrorists and anti-terrorists in his ficticious work. Anyone who gets their life info or violent inspiration from ficticious novels has some serious mental issues and the author can not be at fault for the inability of someone to discern fantasy from reality when their are no attempts by the producer of fiction to call their work reality.

Post Reply

Return to “The Anti-Academy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest