X Close

The historical amnesia of culture warriors Work that's cancelled for being 'of its time' was probably objected to, at the time

A 1989 protest against Salman Rushdie's book, The Satanic Verses. Credit: Staff/Mirrorpix/Getty Images

A 1989 protest against Salman Rushdie's book, The Satanic Verses. Credit: Staff/Mirrorpix/Getty Images


July 14, 2020   6 mins

His work was substantial, his opinions horrendous, his reputation a battleground. It was February 1949 and the Fellows in American Letters of the Library of Congress had decided to award the inaugural Bollingen Prize for Poetry to Ezra Pound for The Pisan Cantos. Pound, a giant of modernism, had begun the poems in a US Army detention camp and finished them in a psychiatric hospital under indictment for treason, having spent much of the war broadcasting anti-Semitic, fascist propaganda for Mussolini. The judging panel, which included W. H. Auden, Robert Lowell and Pound’s friend T. S. Eliot, justified its decision on purely aesthetic grounds, because to take into account Pound’s politics “would in principle deny the validity of that objective perception of value on which any civilized society must rest”.

The prize and its justification ignited an argument which blazed for six months: can art be separated from politics? Should the intolerant be tolerated, let alone rewarded? Should liberalism take account of the consequences of speech even as it defends the right to speak? To put in in 2020 terminology: “Should Ezra Pound be cancelled?”

The phrase “cancel culture” might have been coined by the Devil to ensure maximum rancour and confusion. It is currently both ubiquitous and uselessly vague. The offences under its rickety umbrella range from an unguarded line in an interview to serial sexual assault; the punishments stretch from a rough week on Twitter to career annihilation; the prosecutors might be a powerful institution or a few powerless tweeters.

As if that weren’t muddled enough, the current debate is largely taking place in a state of historical amnesia, as if the issues were as novel as the terminology. The sociologist Jib Fowles called this fallacy chronocentrism: “the belief that one’s own times are paramount, that other periods pale in comparison”. The author and academic Philip Seargeant suggests “the narcissism of the present”.

For many progressives, this unknowing is indeed a kind of generational vanity: only we, in the early 21st century, have the moral clear-sightedness and mettle to reprimand behaviour that our predecessors let slide. There is a whole click-friendly genre of journalism dedicated to scolding “of its time” art in the tone of a disappointed schoolteacher, while oblivious to the fact that many of their points were made at the time.

For their opponents, meanwhile, chronocentrism magnifies the danger of current challenges to free speech: the mob is at the gates, the clock is ticking and the survival of liberalism itself hangs in the balance. Novelty inspires urgency. It doesn’t help them to point out that conservative writers were routinely warning against “liberal fascism” and “a new McCarthyism” 30 years ago, nor that some of them simultaneously endorsed censorship of work that offended them. Both versions of the fallacy imply that, roughly between the peak of the Enlightenment and the launch of Twitter, it was plain sailing.

This narcissism of the present became a little grotesque in the response to last week’s instantly notorious open letter to Harper’s, ‘A Letter on Justice and Open Debate’. Critics caricatured the signatories as a bunch of pampered, out-of-touch gatekeepers who are unaccustomed to criticism or challenge, as if decades of literary feuds, brutal reviews, boycotts and controversies had never happened.

Try telling that to Salman Rushdie, who was not only threatened with the ultimate cancellation by the Ayatollah Khomeini but had to listen to eminent figures from across the political spectrum say that, regrettable though it was, he had brought the fatwa on himself by writing the damn book in the first place, and who might therefore know a thing or two about threats to free speech. (The Algerian author Kamel Daoud has also received a fatwa.)

Other signatories, such as Noam Chomsky, Greil Marcus and Todd Gitlin, have been defending freedom of expression since the 1960s and are unlikely to draw the line at JK Rowling. Anyone disappointed by their participation hasn’t been paying attention. These people know that there are in fact worse things than being shouted at on Twitter. Most of them aren’t even on Twitter.

The Rushdie affair began in 1989, which happened to coincide with the height of the political correctness wars of the 1980s and 1990s. I remember the efforts to cancel, quite literally, works such as Bret Easton Ellis’s American Psycho, Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ and Ice-T’s Cop Killer — just some of the examples that made many Gen X-ers extremely antsy about censorship from any side. I was left feeling that you couldn’t decry censorship from the Right while encouraging it from the Left, or vice versa.

I have a stack of out-of-print books from the early 90s about arguments that are both half-forgotten and strikingly relevant. Take this line: “We have not abrogated anybody’s First Amendment rights. We’ve just said we don’t want any kid to be forced to read this racist trash… Anybody who teaches this book is a racist.” That was a high school administrator in 1982, talking about The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Or this apparently timely observation: “For the first time in American history, those who call for an extension of rights are also calling for an abridgement of speech.” That was Christopher Hitchens in 1993.

Whether or not you agree with either of them, we have clearly been here before. Give me a current culture war flashpoint — no-platforming, identity politics, diversified curricula, whatever — and I’ll find you a precursor.

This, though, is still the relatively recent past, so let’s jump back to 1915 and D. W. Griffith’s horrific masterpiece The Birth of a Nation. Nobody would now dispute that it is viciously racist but it’s essential to remember that many people thought it was viciously racist then, and tried to have it banned for inciting hatred and violence. “We are aware… that it is dangerous to limit expression, and yet, without some limitations civilization could not endure,” argued the great civil rights activist W. E. B. Du Bois. Liberals were torn, as liberals usually are,“between two desires,” wrote one journalist. “They hate injustice to the negro and they hate a bureaucratic control of thought.” Ultimately, the film remained in theatres but the protests became an inseparable part of its legacy.

The Pound affair concluded in August 1949 with a congressional decision that the Library of Congress should stay out of the business of prize-giving in future. Helpfully for us, the arguments were well-documented in the May issue of Partisan Review, which solicited opinions from half a dozen prominent thinkers, including three of the Bollingen jurors. They were all writing in the knowledge that Hitler had demonstrated the ultimate destination of dehumanising hate speech while Stalin had zombified a nation’s culture by prohibiting anything that deviated from Soviet orthodoxy, so the worst-case scenarios were more than thought experiments.

The only point upon which the writers could all agree was opposition to censorship. Karl Shapiro, one of the dissenting judges, opposed the award on the grounds that Pound’s hatreds infected his poetry, as did Irving Howe: “A hand to defend him from censors, fools and blood-seekers, yes. But a hand of honor and congratulations, no.” Clement Greenberg wrote that, as a Jew, he felt both offended and made “physically afraid” by Pound’s poetry, yet didn’t necessarily object to the prize. George Orwell thought that the judges should have asterisked their decision by mentioning Pound’s “evil” opinions. William Barrett, the magazine’s editor, derided the kind of performative ultra-liberal who celebrated the award precisely because Pound was so reprehensible:

“I am against censorship in principle even though in particular cases it might be publicly beneficial, because censorship, once invoked, is difficult to control and therefore dangerous. I think this is as far as liberalism need go… Liberalism is urged here to countenance things that deny its own right to exist — and for no other purpose but to show off. There is a kind of childishly competitive bravado in this need to show that one can out-liberal all other liberals.”

Such a person, he thought, might next try to honour “a bad poet who expresses antisemitism just in order to show how liberal he can be”.

Although you’ll rarely find a case as clear-cut as a poetry prize for a treasonous anti-Semite, the arguments hold up. Of course, social norms change and the boundaries of acceptable opinion shift. Technology has transformed the discourse, too, by amplifying other voices (all of the writers arguing over Pound were white men) in arenas that are much noisier than the pages of Partisan Review.

More worryingly, the 1949 consensus that censorship is a line one should not cross no longer holds, nor does the assumption of good faith on the part of one’s opponents on a matter of conscience rather than partisan allegiance. Yet the fundamental disagreement about the priorities of liberalism does not feel that different from the furore around Peter Handke, a former supporter of Slobodan Milošević, winning the Nobel Prize for Literature 70 years later, or the staff of Charlie Hebdo receiving an honour from PEN after 10 of their colleagues were murdered in 2015. No case sets an iron precedent; the central conundrum is never resolved.

One positive outcome of the recent furore over statues was much greater awareness of the history of slavery, imperialism and why certain monuments were erected in the first place, but it has still been framed, for the most part, as an argument between the present and the past: the enlightened living versus the dead racists.

I think we could all benefit from learning more about the history of arguments themselves. Evan Smith’s No Platform, for example, explains how restrictions on campus speech have been hotly contested for almost half a century. Helen Lewis’s Difficult Women: A History of Feminism in 11 Fights tells a story of friction — sometimes productive, sometimes not — rather than unanimity and takes care to resurface thorny pioneers who have fallen out of the historical narrative. Lewis quotes James Baldwin: “I think that the past is all that makes the present coherent, and further, that the past will remain horrible for exactly as long as we refuse to assess it honestly.”

By paying our forerunners the respect of acknowledging that they thrashed out many of the same issues of conflicting rights as us, we can remind ourselves that these dilemmas aren’t going to be resolved in a hurry, nor do they have to be. We are neither the first nor the last nor the most important. Years from now, when “woke” and “cancel culture” are rusting on the lexical scrapheap, these arguments will still be raging and perhaps a subsequent chronocentric generation will have forgotten that we cared enough to have these fights, too.


Dorian Lynskey is an author, journalist and UnHerd columnist.

Dorianlynskey

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

16 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Alan Girling
Alan Girling
4 years ago

A needed perspective perhaps, but at the same time, I don’t think one should be falling into ‘it has always been thus’ complacency. Things can and do degenerate, severely and in the ugliest of ways. Pound may have been ‘controversial’ but I don’t think there’d be a chance in hell that he’d be published today, or if he was, the weight of politics would send him and all his associates instantly into oblivion. Indeed, they already have been. In poetry today, perhaps more than other arts, and perhaps because it is never seen as mere entertainment, aesthetic considerations have virtually no place or weight in the judgement of anyone who has any sway. It is all about social / political import of the correct kind. The folks today who are absolutely certain that all debates are over, purity and enlightenment are upon us, and the ‘end of history’ must be harshly enforced, are ascendant in all significant and insignificant realms. The time may not be unique, but it is ours.

A Spetzari
A Spetzari
4 years ago

The offences under its rickety umbrella range from an unguarded line in an interview to serial sexual assault; the punishments stretch from a rough week on Twitter to career annihilation

This is an odd way to frame it. Naturally people are less bothered by the former(s) and more concerned by the latter(s) in that sentence, but that doesn’t mean that the concept of ‘cancel culture’ is vague and unspecific. That’s just listing scenarios where it’s effective and when it’s not.

Second part of the piece is good though. What’s glaringly obvious in this whole episode is that those trying to cancel are acting as if we are at a low point in history for equality – when that is demonstrably absurd and the clearest indication that they are indeed blinded by the ‘narcissism of the present’.

Cheryl Jones
Cheryl Jones
4 years ago
Reply to  A Spetzari

Spot on. That’s why I think it’s slightly different. Another point picked up was the Generation Xers resistance to censorship. I remember the Rushdie Affair well and it horrified me. I will always choose to stick up for ‘offensive’ art rather than support the censors.

Katy Randle
Katy Randle
4 years ago

The sad thing is that “bureaucratic control of thought” is exactly what many are calling for. It is no longer enough to do good; one must “undergo unconscious bias training”.

Basil Chamberlain
Basil Chamberlain
4 years ago

I often think of C.S. Lewis’ comment, “The present is also a period.” But I also think, like Alan Girling, that we shouldn’t forget that these debates, while always ongoing, can result in pretty dangerous outcomes if one of the “wrong sides” comes out on top. As Mr Lynskey himself writes, “the worst-case scenarios were more than thought experiments” in the 1940s. We are not living in one of the worst-case scenarios now, but we are are closer to them than we were twenty years ago.

Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
4 years ago

I like the phrase, “the narcissism of now”. Today’s cancellers show a remarkable lack of self-awareness and an even more remarkable egotism. It doesn’t occur to them that, in a hundred years from now, some impossible to predict aspect of their belief system will be judged to be as horrifying and unfathomable as the acceptance of slavery seems to us now.

Geoff Cox
Geoff Cox
4 years ago

My money’s on trans. But I might has a small bet on the multi-cultural society.

Though this all supposes societies remain broadly free to think and speak. With the ability to spy, record, broadcast, persecute, arrest and prosecute, the one world government in waiting might have different ideas and we could actually be living at the time freedom disappears for good.

Jaden Johnson
Jaden Johnson
4 years ago

That’s a tremendous comment which beautifully summarises my own view.

boflynns
boflynns
4 years ago

Let me restate James Baldwin: “I think that the past is all that makes the present coherent, and further, that the past will remain horrible for exactly as long as we refuse to assess it honestly.” That includes the history books our kids use in school.
And Alan, yes, Pound would be published today. I would scrimp and save to get him published if I had to.

Steve Gwynne
Steve Gwynne
4 years ago

Interesting. I have a feeling that the underlying societal platform for cancel culture also changes over time. It seems in Pound’s time, cancel culture was more about the integrity of liberalism whereas now the basis of cancel culture seems more about the economy as expressed through a politicised ethical consumerism.

For sure, the notion of a civilising mission seem to be the consistent theme underlying the arguments about censorship but whereas then it was about the integrity of the civilising mission itself with liberalism at its heart, today it is more about how the civilising mission is shaped and driven by the economy with possibilities of censorship largely focusing on consumption brands and livelihoods dependent on cultural consumption.

Similarly, whereas in Pound’s time, societal ethics were largely shaped by a clearly defined cultural elite, now societal ethics are largely shaped by a much less defined popular culture.

Consequently, whilst similar themes persist, especially the integrity of the civilising mission, the franchise of opinion formers has expanded exponentially.

So what about the next chapter of our ongoing culture wars, sustaining the civilising mission under harsh conditions of resource scarcity with the franchise extended with the intervention of AI.

ruiz9418
ruiz9418
4 years ago

The mother/father of all dualities includes the previous, present and future ages of wo/mankind. That we can and do evolve is a given, though never fast enough or *enough* in one’s own lifetime if one is at the mercy/beneficiary of racism, ethnicism, sexism (in all its forms & manifestations), nationality and religion.

In the 1001 ways we distinguish and distance ourselves from one another, the polarization that is created by the will to harm and the will to censor is ameliorated by only one thing: civil discourse.

johntshea2
johntshea2
4 years ago

Sounds like what C. S. Lewis denounced as “Chronological Snobbery”. Conversely, others have praised “The Power Of Now” above all else. In any case, if the author really thinks it’s all just business as usual at the moment he’s not paying attention.

Claire D
Claire D
4 years ago

“he had brought the fatwa on himself by writing the damn book in the first place.”
Much appreciated.

trentvalley57uk
trentvalley57uk
4 years ago
Reply to  Claire D

Have you read the book. It was a fantasy novel as most books are. So censure was only demanded by the muslim world as they decided to take offence. An excuse to fire up young muslims who were getting too westernised. A call to unite with their ideology and fight for Allah, and return to muslim values

Dan Poynton
Dan Poynton
4 years ago

I would guess not. It seems almost every critic of this book has never been near anything of Rushdie’s. There was that beautiful story Rushdie told of the young Muslim who had taken part in a book burning of Satanic Verses. His girlfriend had then insisted that he actually read the book. On doing so, he immediately found Rushdie to apologise to him in person.

Dan Poynton
Dan Poynton
4 years ago
Reply to  Claire D

I hope you realise the profoundly sinister implications of confirming a statement like that. If we do not band together as a society to deny bigots – religious or otherwise – their power to threaten/cancel us, then their power will dominate us. In turn, this will come round to bite you when you say something that fundamentalist Islam (or other ideology) deems unacceptable. Please have empathy for others.