As Riazat Butt reports in the Guardian, Rt. Rev. Catherine Roskam, bishop of New York, recently delivered herself of the opinion that domestic violence was culturally acceptable in some parts of the world, and that "even the most devout Christians" were guilty of it.
Here's what Roskam actually said:
We have 700 men here.
Do you think any of them beat their wives? Chances are they do. The most devout Christians beat their wives.
Culturally, many of our bishops come from places where it is culturally accepted to beat your wife. In that regard, it makes the conversation quite difficult.
Pay attention at the back: this is a nice example of a common rhetorical strategy - the ad hominem circumstantial (where the circumstance is the opponent's culture). The invocation of violence against women is proof of African savagery; the association is supposed to degrade the African bishops' credibility.
Is it racist? Of course. The only reason Bishop Roskam offers for thinking that the African bishops at the conference beat their wives is the fact that they come from 'cultures' in which beating women, we are told, is acceptable. Her argument shares a basic assumption of modern racism - that race determines culture. Hence the bishop is careful to say that Africans beat their wives despite being Christians; they are unable to escape their culture to which their race has consigned them.
The African bishops might have argued as follows. The most efficient way of ending human lives in history was the large-scale inter-state violence of the 20th century. Almost all the large-scale inter-state violence was organised by 'white' people. Almost every instance of large-scale inter-state in the 20th century was supported by the relevant Christian leaders (cf. Mussolini and the Catholic Church in the Second Abyssinian War for a particularly tawdry example); ordinary white Xtians participated in large numbers too. Therefore, 'white' Xtian leaders have no right to speak about moral matters.
The premisses are true; the structure of the argument is pretty much identical to Roskam's argument. Why then doesn't it pass the laugh test? Because its implicit racism is not so implicit. When it is pointed out Roskam's argument suffers from the same fault, puzzlement ensues. The point is striking; it demands explanation. Fortunately, the explanation is obvious: there's a prior, widely-held belief that Africans, in virtue of being Africans, are especially prone to savagery. Roskam could be sure she would find a receptive audience for her rubbish: for those to whom the belief is a truism, her argument is the merest common sense.
Remember the context of the discussion in which Roskam intervenes. The argument is this: what sexual mores are compatible with Anglicanism? The correct way to conduct that argument is to inspect scripture, doctrine, and tradition, then determine which sexual mores the (carefully interpreted) texts and practices favour. Roskam's opponents include many, if not most, of the African bishops. Her argument is irrelevant to the discussion: it could be entirely true that the African bishops are wife-beaters while also being entirely true that their side has the better of the argument. Roskam's argument is an ad-hominem circumstantial (I'm assuming that it is true that wife-beating is not as deprecated in Africa as it is elsewhere.)
No one is obliged to argue with those who are irrational or sub-rational. In any case, we aren't obliged to give as much weight to the arguments of those who are less rational than us. We live in a society in which there's a widespread belief that Africans are congenital savages.The point of Roskam's intervention is to show an example of African savagery, in the hope that it will lower the credibility of the side with which most of the African bishops have allied.
____________________
EmmanuelGoldstein is a guest poster.
Trackback(0)
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
