Arresting thinking

German sociologist Andrej Holm has just been released on bail by German federal police. After his arrest under paragraph 129 of the German Penal Code on suspicion of “membership of a terrorist organisation”, he was held in solitary confinement for a week, only being allowed out of his cell for one hour a day. His home and office were searched, his mail intercepted, and his defence lawyers still don’t have access to the evidence being used against him. What was Holm’s crime? Apparently, he used the word “gentrification”.

In what has to be one of the most absurdly Orwellian attacks on academic freedom this year, Holm and another academic were apparently targeted on the basis of the police’s amateur discourse analysis that found “key words and phrases” in common between their academic work and the leaflets of a radical group opposed to gentrification, militante gruppe (mg). Apparently, they both use such seditious terms as “gentrification”, “inequality” and “imperialism”, and according to American professor Peter Marcuse the police’s 80,000-page dossier (so far not shared with the defence) also compares the use of punctuation and abbreviation. The evidence presented so far really is as thin as whether Holm uses “G8” or “G-8”. Apparently the similarities are “striking, and not to be explained through a coincidence”.

The police have been sure to pepper these pathetic accusations with accusations of “comprehensive conspiratorial contacts and meetings” with “Florian L.”, another arrestee, but these are equally fatuous. The fact that Holm didn’t take his mobile phone to meetings supposedly adds to their “conspiratorial” nature, and he is also accused of attending the protests against the 2007 G8 Summit in Heiligendamm – along with about 25,000 others. The most striking charges, though, relate directly to the academic qualifications of the accused. Dr “B”, the academic arrested alongside Holm who isn’t even accused of writing anything inflammatory – it’s simply that he is “intellectually in a position to compile the sophisticated texts of the militante gruppe” and “as [an] employee in a research institute has access to libraries which he can use inconspicuously in order to do the research necessary to the drafting of texts”. If the capacity to write a document and access a library is now grounds for arrest, then millions are potentially at risk of such treatment, and academics are signing an open letter demanding their colleagues’ release.

Many academics choose to devote their energies to assisting the state, developing problem-solving analyses to combat “extremism” and “terrorism” and other government objectives. These individuals are left alone while those more sceptical academics whose work openly criticises the status quo - while never advocating violence- are subject to criminal prosecution. The heavily politicised nature of this assault on academic freedom is clear. Academic freedom means academics must be at liberty to study what they please and publish what they think after following a rigorous process of research and peer review by which the academic community regulates itself. It also means a certain distancing from the possible consequences of the research. Academics can’t legitimately be held responsible for what’s done with their work in the public, political sphere, since this would stifle their pursuit of knowledge and truth. However unpalatable the truth might be, its pursuit is the specialised role of the academic and its value to society is recognised in the very idea of academic freedom.

Academic freedom doesn’t shield academics from the consequences of the actions they undertake outside the profession, such as engaging in political or criminal activity – in these spheres they’re subject to the same rough-and-tumble debate or judicial sanctions as anyone else. But it does mean that even if Holm’s work is being used by mg, and even if he knows it, he can still publish and not be damned. It does mean that neither Dr “B” nor anyone else can legitimately be harrassed for having a PhD and access to a library, just in case he provides some intellectual grounding for a radical group, or anyone else. To hold Holm or “B” responsible for what mg do makes no more sense than holding Karl Marx responsible for Josef Stalin’s brutal inversion of the emancipatory promise of Marx’s analysis of capitalism, or holding the moral philosopher Adam Smith responsible for Margaret Thatcher’s economic policies. The capacity to think should never be criminalised.

Lee Jones

'English, motherfucker, do you speak it?!'

Although it is not a 'free speech' story, strictly speaking, this news item from the Scotsman indicates that people who immigrate to the UK will no longer be free to learn to speak...English, that is. Or certainly not as freely as before.

The UK government has decided, in yet another authoritarian clampdown on freedom of movement, to shut down 'bogus' language colleges to dissuade immigrants from entering the country. Now, anyone who has ever walked down London's Oxford Street will have noticed a number of first floor offices advertising themselves as reputable language schools. You may even have thought to yourself, 'that might be a bit dodgy'. Or if you're 'a bit dodgy' yourself, you may even have thought them to be a front for any number of illicit activities, starting with prostitution, via forgery and money laundering, and ending with drug-smuggling. But most people don't think like that. I certainly don't.

In any case, the government seems to have found yet another way to plug those mythical 'porous borders' that allow those 'foreign hordes' looking for work to slip through. It is unclear from the report whether the schools are alleged actually to be fronts for other illegal activity (dope, cash, ho's) or whether the colleges are simply fakes that allow foreigners to pretend to be students to allow them to stay and work in the UK. It seems though that the latter is true, in which case the government doesn't even have the 'crime-fighting' justification - it's simply a brute crackdown on immigrants. Further, it seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to a couple of dodgy language schools that have popped up. Worse, many of these schools provide a service (at the cost of a few hundred pounds per student) that the state no longer adequately provides - i.e. a place for new immigrants to learn English. If the government were indeed serious about being 'able to offer international students the assurance that they are applying to trustworthy and good quality learning institutions in the UK', in the words of the higher education minister, Bill Rammell, they would fund language schools.

Regardless, Bill Rammell, felt compelled to make the point that, 'the government welcomes the many genuine international students who come to study in the UK each year.' But anyone wanting to learn to speak the language, or worse, only pretend to for something as spurious as earning a living, is NOT WELCOME. To Rammell, 'genuine' international students are probably those that are well-educated, middle-class, and who more likely than not already speak some English.

The irony of this story is that Gordon Brown told The Sun on the very same day: 'We are going to take a far tougher line. I want a message to go out - if you come here you work and learn our language.' That's right, and if you think you can sneak in to this country and work by signing up to learn our language, well buddy, you're seriously mistaken! Er...?

The insistence that immigrants learn English, integrate and take part in civil society is a desperate and populist move. It is a further irony that the ability to converse with fellow citizens, to speak freely - integral to taking part in the political process, being an active citizen as well as a good neighbour, etc - has been so seriously limited by this government in other ways. Now they are even making it difficult to learn English in the first place, or to use that avenue to covertly get in, get a job, get paid, get involved, get educated, get the vote, get a life... Get it?

It's like being stuck between a rock and a... an... er... um... er... what's that word again?

Alex Hochuli

Bad language

As was pointed out in a recent post below, the case of George, the 10-year-old whose parents were shocked to receive a visit from the police after he called another boy ‘gay’ in an email, is indeed disturbing. But what is the proper response to this kind of incident? We can cry ‘police state!’ and remonstrate about ‘PC gone mad’. We can also be sensible and point to the waste of police time. We can even be more nuanced and take issue with the policing, in the place of the parenting, of children. But that misses the point.

This is a free speech issue at heart. And it’s more complicated than it appears.

As a way of clarifying the matter, let’s compare George’s case with a hypothetical ‘hate crime’: a gay man is bullied, perhaps even assaulted, during the course of which he is called ‘gay boy’ in a derogatory manner. In such a case, it would be foolish to focus on the aggressor’s use of the word ‘gay’. Firstly there is the criminal issue to deal with and then, more importantly (socially speaking), there is the real underlying problem of homophobia. A case such as this would warrant our moral condemnation and a political argument against homophobia, not speech codes against the use of the word ‘gay’.

On the other hand, you have little George in Cheshire. In his ‘bullying’ of the other boy, his use of the word ‘gay’ is purely incidental. It bears about as much relation to homophobic assault as the fumigation of your house to deal with a pest problem does to Saddam Hussein’s attack on Halabja (i.e. they both used gas). This emphasises the real problem with the above responses to this case: they all work on the assumption that the boy is at fault and that the very use of the word ‘gay’ is wrong.

Leaving aside the question of bullying, what is there to suggest that George’s use of the word ‘gay’ is problematic? Do we think he is a homophobe, that he’ll grow up to attack gay men? As I’ve argued before, this relatively recent tendency to endow words with greater meaning than that which was intended by the speaker draws undue attention to the capacity of language to cause offence, rather than language’s paramount importance in permitting rational argument. The consequence of taking issue with the language we use amongst ourselves is the legitimisation of third party intervention, which in this particular case seems so utterly preposterous.

Alex Hochuli

This just takes the Mckey

It ain’t cool to be overly fastidious about language. Deliberate attempts by a single institution or organisation to manipulate or manage the language others use often end in failure. One would really need to live in Blair’s world for such endeavours to be successful (that is Eric Arthur Blair, of course). Nevertheless, some keep trying.

Last week it emerged that McDonalds will be launching a campaign to urge the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) to alter its definition of the slang word, ‘McJob’. The term, popularised by Douglas Coupland’s Generation X at the beginning of the 1990s, signifies a low-pay dead-end job. The fast-food chain argues that this pejorative definition, first entered into the OED in 2001, no longer fits the contemporary reality of employment in the hamburger restaurant.

Many corporations are defensive about their image, and McDonalds are rightly known for being particularly litigious, but what is striking in this case is not Mickey-D’s zeal for pettily defending its trademark, but rather its ‘compassionate’ justification for a change in the definition: "We believe that it is out of date, out of touch with reality and, most importantly, it is insulting to those talented, committed, hard-working people who serve the public every day" (my italics).

There is an agonising falseness about this ‘concern’ for their employees’ ‘feelings’. But without getting into a huff about workers’ pay and conditions, we should ask why McDonalds are pursuing this PR defence of their employees’ dignity. Surely it will expose them to charges of hypocrisy? Actually, Ronald McDonald is cleverer than that – the clown with the red afro reckons that the argument about employees’ feelings will hold purchase with the public. And he’s probably right.

As has been widely noted elsewhere, the perception of language as being a means of rational communication is changing to that of being an act in itself. This new status is unwarranted, especially in the case of political speech which truly is a means to an end, not an end in itself (contra poetry, for example). This explains why debates over what words we use have become legitimate political battlegrounds, in some cases even taking precedence over what is happening in the world ‘out there’ (see this article on the banning of the 'N-word' in New York). In such a context, we can surely understand why some people might be swayed by McDonalds’ appeals to sign their petition. One might even conceive of ‘progressives’ arguing for a change to the current (denigratory) definition of a ‘McJob’ on the grounds of ‘showing solidarity’ with burger-flippers the world over.

A correlative recent case is that of Professor David Coleman where students at Oxford University seemed more intent on preventing him from airing his anti-immigration views than on actually campaigning for open borders. Such stories point to a strange new political shadow-puppetry going on. Where nowadays few are prepared to take action against real injustices, it is increasingly legitimate – and desirable – to intervene on behalf of the ‘vulnerable’ to protect them from exactly what matters least – words.

The consequences are two-fold. Firstly, this fixation on language obviates the need for real political action by appearing to ‘deal with the problem’. In the McDonalds case, a McJob is magically transformed into meaningful, well-remunerated employment; or rather, the difficulties faced by minimum-wage service sector workers are resolved through them no longer having to face the ignominy of having one’s job referred to as ‘unstimulating’. Secondly, the blurring of the line between speech and action – whereby causing offence is an actual harm – gives undue importance to the emotional impact of words, instead of to their capacity to rationally inspire action.

The logic of those self-described progressives who earnestly seek to protect the vulnerable from harmful words, and of those such as McDonalds who in Orwellian style try to convince you black is white, is the same: don't change the world, just change perceptions. And the consequence is the same too: our capacity to initiate political action through rational argument is severely diminished.

Alex Hochuli