Chronicle on Cole

Couldn’t Althouse have typed “Whatever!” and saved me the goddamned time?

and he used “anti-Semitic” to mean “anti-Arab”. It was very jarring to hear

In other words, he used the word correctly, instead of the way modern propaganda dictates that it be used, and you found the truth distasteful.

If you believe anti-Semitism (by its dictionary definition) is acceptable, but anti-Jewish sentiment is unacceptable, you need to start using words that make your prejudices clear, instead of implying that the dictionary should be rewritten to reflect your prejudices.

Because as we know, word meanings are timeless functions of transcendental truths rather than functions of use…

Wherefore should we credential toadmaster? This thread can only descend into an inflammable mess.

“The fact that this post is not filed under “Middle East Politics” isn’t going to stop anyone in the comments, is it?”

Why on earth would it? Do you really think the non-hiring decision had nothing to do with Mideast politics?

“The fact that this post is not filed under “Middle East Politics” isn’t going to stop anyone in the comments, is it?”

Ah, but it is descending into a totally different internet classic than you thought–the language flame!

My take, like “proportional” and “Euro-centric” it has one very commonly used meaning with its own under and overtones and another not wholly compatible academic meaning. Sometimes people confuse them on purpose, sometimes by accident.

But if Cole were to say to a general audience that the Danish cartoon riots were caused by Anti-Semitic cartoons, it would be rather confusing. He’s fully aware of that.

But if Cole were to say to a general audience that the Danish cartoon riots were caused by Anti-Semitic cartoons

Then that would be a god damn stupid thing to say, wouldn’t it? The cartoons were anti-Islam, and as a large number of Islamic people are not Semitic, and a large number of Semitic people are not Islamic, describing the cartoons as Anti-Semitic would be a really stupid thing to do.

Here’s a hint, for once, try to use words to clarify rather than to obscure.

Can’t all of us non-Aryan mongrels (and Aryan mongrels too) just get along?

I’m not sure Mr. Alpers’ point is correct — “homophobia,” I’m pretty sure, is formed by truncating the peculiar English word homosexual, with no reference to the Greek root for “same,” which in compound would (unless the heat has eaten my brain) be homoiophobia.

In case it occurs to anyone that “peculiar” above is directed at gay people, I should note that it refers to the mixing of Latin and Greek roots in the notorious 19th century. Which is still preferable to the Vatican document “Homosexualitatis problema,” pseudo-Latin if there ever was.

Attempting to re-track the discussion:

My understanding is that the kind of people who make offer and tenure decisions consider ALL forms of “popular” writing (newspaper editorials, magazine pieces, blogs) or TV/radio punditry to be, at best, a frivolous hobby, or at worse, a negative factor indicating that the candidate has too much time on his or her hands which they should be devoting to academic publishing.

No matter that bloggy-blog-blog evangelists think bloggy-blog-blog postings are the gooshiest greatest bestest thing a person can do, they aren’t making the offer and tenure decisions.

Discuss.

It strikes me as very worrisome for a professor to misuse the language of his field

For those playing along at home, that’s called circular reasoning. Mark your “lynch an academic” scorecards appropriately.

My understanding is that the kind of people who make offer and tenure decisions consider ALL forms of “popular” writing (newspaper editorials, magazine pieces, blogs) or TV/radio punditry to be, at best, a frivolous hobby, or at worse, a negative factor indicating that the candidate has too much time on his or her hands which they should be devoting to academic publishing.

Sure, DeLong will be getting his pink slip any day now, right?

Your claim is horseshit. Educating the public on matters one has been subsidized to study is not frivolous.

Why not just be honest and say you hate the messenger, and plan on ignoring the message?

“For those playing along at home, that’s called circular reasoning.”

No, it’s not – but there’s no point arguing subtle points with someone unable to accept the language as it exists.

“Sure, DeLong will be getting his pink slip any day now, right?”

You’ve heard of tenure – or have you?

I should have bothered to read Cole’s usage of “anti-Semitic” before posting about it. Here’s the quotation in question (from this link provided above):

So, to take the Prophet Mohammed and to depict him with a large nose and a bomb in his turban, it’s a continuation of those exact same anti-Semitic and racist themes that have been characteristic of European colonial discourse for 150 years. This is not something new, and people in the Middle East are tired of it.

My reading of this passage is that the term “anti-Semitic” refers to the cartoon’s large nose. Now I think we can all agree that large noses are an anti-Semitic stereotype. I think that Cole is suggesting that this stereotype is, in this case, being applied to the image of Mohammed. Cole is, by way of noting this stereotype, drawing connections between anti-Semitism and broader European colonial discourses. But he is most certainly not using the term “anti-Semitic” simply (or perhaps at all) to refer to anti-Arab sentiments. He is linking these sentiments to anti-Semitism (in the manner in which most of us understand the term).

Perhaps it’s time to end this tempest in a teapot?

Wait a minute here. Michael Bérubé was in a band that once opened for The Ramones! Now that ‘s just so awesomely cool. Anyone got a link to that post?

I thought I saw something about the origins of “anti-semitism”. Ah it’s here : –

http://philip.greenspun.com/politics/israel/

“antisemitism …… The word was coined in 1879 by Wilhelm Marrih to replace the then-current term Judenhass, which translates literally as “Jew-hatred”. Marrih hated Jews and conjectured that middle-class Germans were turning away from the practice of Jew-hatred because the term for the activity sounded ugly. The neologism antisemitism was intended to sound more scientific and therefore make hatred of Jews more appealing to educated people in an industrial age”

I doubt Marrih had much time for Arabs, either, but..

‘Wait a minute here. Michael Bérubé was in a band that once opened for The Ramones! Now that ’s just so awesomely cool. Anyone got a link to that post?’

Frankly this strikes me as a more interesting topic than the tiresome ‘anti-semitism’ discussion that this post has somehow generated. So: how about it? Academics who were once in rock bands, and what this says about their current research themes?

I am still waiting for the post I was promised on the Tomorrow People incidentally.

Just for the record (for I have no wish to join the wider discussion about the subject of this post, or any unconnected discussion about modern Middle East politics): the name is Wilhelm Marr, not Marrih, which appears to be a typo that has spread through various unreliable web sites. The traditional German term for hatred of Jews is “Judenfeindschaft”, which Marr replaced with “Antisemitismus” on grounds of his racial theories. The newer term has the incidental drawback of encouraging the half-educated to make assertions about “the way modern propaganda dictates that it be used”, unaware that the term is itself an instance of modern propaganda.

Moving right along…

Dan Drezner wrote this:
“After I was denied tenure at Chicago last year, there was news-media conjecture that my blog was partly to blame”

Now DD’s position is a little different from JC’s, because Cole was tenured at a top research institution, not to mention president of a professional association, but denied an offer at a different research institution, while DD was denied tenure at a top research institution, and got picked up at Tufts (great place, but not University of Chicago).

My question is, in relation to Drezner, could the argument confidently be made that he had the sort of publications that means that he should/would have been tenured at Chicago, if not for something else – perhaps blogging – weighing him down? Does he have a paper, for example, that’s now a must read for a grad seminar in IR? Or were his publications pretty good but not up to the rather high U of C bar? In other words, is Drezner’s U of C tenure decision a bone fide case of blogging martyrdom or not?

If you guys are going to be so remarkably punctilious at construing (please, not “parsing”) the term ‘anti-semite’, would you agree to stop using the preposterous “native American” when you mean”indigenous American”?

Otto’s
“question is, in relation to Drezner, could the argument confidently be made that he had the sort of publications that means that he should/would have been tenured at Chicago, […]?”

Yes.

That’s not by itself responsive to the question “is Drezner’s U of C tenure decision a bone fide case of blogging martyrdom or not?,” about which Dan was carefully circumspect in his Cole essay. But with respect to the question about quantity, quality, and citation-impact of publications, the answer is certainly yes.

Brendan, you must have missed the Tomorrow People post.

Jacob L: But with respect to the question about quantity, quality, and citation-impact of publications, the answer is certainly yes.

Thanks. Can you recommend one of DD’s publications for me to read?

Ben Alpers truncates the quote in #25 to attempt to obscure Cole’s meaning.

You’re half right, Richard. Rereading the quotation, I should have included more material. I was not, however, trying to obscure Cole’s meaning. I was just commenting too sloppily on a blog about a subject that I’d still maintain is not that important.

Apologies to all. I should have read and commented more carefully.

Now can we talk about something more interesting?

Okay, Richard, here’s the entire Juan Cole quote:

Well yes, but the question is what exactly is going on? And one thing that should be underlined is that it’s widely thought that the mere depiction of the Prophet Mohammed is somehow being objected to. I don’t think most Muslims care too much if the Danes want to draw pictures of the Prophet Mohammed. And indeed, there’s a famous issue of the French adventure magazine Tintin with the Prophet’s picture on the front, and nobody ever made a big deal out of that. The issue is really more a kind of racist depiction of the Prophet Mohammed. Now, we in America don’t have a strong sense of European colonialism, but most Muslim countries have been ruled for much of the last 200 years by Europeans. And while the Europeans were ruling places like Algeria, they weren’t nice to Islam or Muslims. And they had a racist discourse about it. They depicted Semites as fanatical, as violent, as irrational, and therefore, as needing European rule. So, to take the Prophet Mohammed and to depict him with a large nose and a bomb in his turban, it’s a continuation of those exact same anti-Semitic and racist themes that have been characteristic of European colonial discourse for 150 years. This is not something new, and people in the Middle East are tired of it.

I still don’t get the objection here. This seems a perfectly valid use of the term to describe racism against Semitic peoples within the larger context of European anti-Semitism and colonialism.

Well now, all this time I thought anti-American demonstrations were directed at the United States, when in fact, they were directed at the native or inhabitant of a North American or Central American or South American country.

Brendan, YOU MISSED IT!!!

Its here:

https://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/09/the-tomorrow-people-not-behind-the-sofa-out-of-the-closet/

Sorry everyone else.

I still don’t get the objection here. This seems a perfectly valid use of the term to describe racism against Semitic peoples within the larger context of European anti-Semitism and colonialism.

As was said sarcastically well up-thread in #5, “Because as we know, word meanings are timeless functions of transcendental truths rather than functions of use…”

Of course, words change their meanings regularly. Currently, “anti-Semitism” means discrimination against Jews. See: both definitions here:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anti-semitism

#6 suggests that anti-Semitism should ONLY mean hatred of Semitic people, and not Jews.

This is sort of like arguing that “homophobia” should only be used in sentences like, “Ever since that gay man beat him to within an inch of his life, he’s hasn’t been able to walk into the same rule as a homosexual without breaking out in cold sweats — a clear case of homophobia!” and hatred of gays should get a new term.

Now, the question is, HOW a word with a clear, unambiguous meaning, could change meanings. Partially through middle east experts using it in a different way on news broadcasts. Then, the question is WHY Juan Cole, an expert who clearly knows the meanings, history, and common usage of the term would use it in a non-standard meaning if not to change the meaning . . .

and given that this operation seems to have been planned well in advance of the actual Hezbollah kidnapping

Irrespective of how you think this war is being carried out, if you were advising Israel, wouldn’t you suggest they have an operation all planned out for a Lebanese Hezbollah attack? (As well as numerous other potential attacks?) How is it probative of anything that Israel had planned ahead for one of the two or three most likely military eventualities?

Christmas: I think his point is that you can’t work out the meaning of the word anti-x by looking up the word ‘x’ in a dictionary.

See also the word ‘submarine’, which does not usually mean a member of a shipborn infantry unit with a particular sexual preference.

I think that the objection is very simple:

Usage trumps theory when it comes to language.

People, generally, do not USE “anti-Semitic” to mean “anti-Arab.” They use it to mean anti-Jewish. Maybe that’s wrong in some theoretical sense. But language follows usage — not what is technically correct.

Again, in some technical sense “anti-Semitic” might very well mean “anti-Arab.” But that’s not how the term has been used for the past century.

Usage trumps theory when it comes to language.

It should be possible to hold that in this case Cole’s academic freedom was not violated, and yet still be concerned that:

1) Concerted and highly partisan outside pressure was put on the appointment process;

and that

2) this pressure caused top administrators to reject department-level decisions. At Yale decisions such as this are finally made at the very top; and the greater the threat to Yale’s public image–as in the related recent decision not to admit the so-called “Yale Taliban” as a regular student–the more autocratic the decision.The outside pressure in this case was directed as well in the direction of the $$endowment$$, which will remain inviolate at least until it is Bigger Than Harvard’s.
This decision most certainly was handed down from the President’s office;

and that

3)this sort of capitulation by the administration was certainly craven, but also is, in its own way, a threat to academic principles. The outside pressure that led to this decision would be deflected by a principled administrator, not channelled.

Curiously enough just yesterday I was talking to a colleague here, with some 20 years experience at Yale, who said the upper levels of administration at Yale were filled mostly by “cowards.” Hmmmm. . . .

But look, the phenomenon of prejudice against Semitic people is real. What are we going to call that? I guess Cole could’ve just made up a word, and said “this racist caricature of Mohammed with shadowed eyes, dark skin and a hook nose is characteristic of Europe’s dark history of OOGYISM!”, but that would’ve been gibberish. As it was, he was talking about racial prejudice against Semites, so it really doesn’t seem unreasonable that he would use the term “anti-Semitism” to describe that. In context it doesn’t seem objectionable at all, and nobody else in that transcript seems to be confused (“What? But Professor Cole, it’s semantically impossible to apply the term ‘anti-Semitism’ to anyone but Jewish people, and Mohammed was not Jewish!”), and the reason they’re not confused is because his meaning is perfectly clear. This is not a stealth campaign by Cole to strip “anti-Semitism” of its meaning; it’s a legitimate use of broader, if less prevalent, meaning of the term which seems perfectly understandable within the context of the discussion.

Jim Henley has also linked to Raimondo in the past. Should I start picketing outside his house now, too?

“Anti-Arab” or “anti-Muslim” works very well for most purposes. “Semites” are a vague group of people who very rarely correlate exactly to whatever group of people you are currently hating (who hates Babylonians, Ethiopians and Cartheginians, but not Morroccans?). It adds confusion without increasing accuracy

—

There is a difference between citing Raimondo to call him “nuts” or to “Fisk” him as Henley did (do people still say “Fisk” anymore?) versus citing him to say, “Here are some good points.”

Re. #59:
So providing a Devil’s Dictionary definition of anti-semitism is trolling? Jesus. I see the term used that way all the time, and as so many comments here point out, usage is the surest guide to definition.

It is getting mighty petty around here.

There is a difference between citing Raimondo to call him “nuts” or to “Fisk” him as Henley did (do people still say “Fisk” anymore?) versus citing him to say, “Here are some good points.”

Right, so let’s see what Cole actually said:

[Raimondo] makes the maximalist case for the significance of the scandal. I wish the argument were more nuanced, and there are many things in it with which I disagree…. But because Raimondo pulls no punches, he forces us to consider the degree to which Congressional foreign policy on the Middle East in particular has become virtually captive to the Zionist lobby…. He clearly goes too far, but how far should an analyst of this case go?

Richard, your efforts at sliming Cole are ridiculous. One only has to click on the link to see that you are misrepresenting him. This is what Brad DeLong rightly calls “defecating in the stream of public discourse”. You should be ashamed of yourself.

“should no better.” That’s “should know better.”

Glenn Reynolds and Ann Althouse (both:yay!!!!)

Steve

I’m amazed that nobody’s referenced what Cole said on his own blog about the matter. It’s right here, and he says that like baseball players, professors get looked over by other teams all the time. He didn’t apply to Yale. He’s perfectly happy where he is. In fact, he sees a move to Yale as a step down.

So maybe his blog didn’t have much to do with it. Would anybody here with experience standing before, sitting on, or observing academic hiring committees care to comment?

“Concerted and highly partisan outside pressure was put on the appointment process”

I certainly haven’t read all Cole’s scholarly output. The impression I get about his meteoric rise to fame is that it was linked more to his political-blog output rather than his scholarly output. If he had not written a blog, is he of sufficient stature in the field that it would have been likely he would be hired to one of the tip-top positions in it? When I look at Google Scholar I see that most of his work was pre-2000 on the Baha’i faith. Any Middle-East scholars out there?

What was his reputation like in 2000?

If we are to look solely at scholarly work is a specialist on the Baha’i faith with the overall Middle East scholarly reputation of Cole likely to get one of the very top spots? I would initially think “no” but of course I’m not in the specialty field in question. I would suspect that you would want someone with a specialty in a higher impact and more historically relevant religion in the region (Islam, Christianity, or even Judaism). But I’m aware that I’m not particularly informed in that opinion.

If my guess is correct, or nearly correct, it is possible that some portion of Cole’s writing on his blog influenced his reputation positevly in order to get consideration for the position. If that is true, which is pretty much unprovable at this point, the negative aspects of the blog should be available for consideration as well.

I’ll do something unconventional here, and put up a comment that actually is about the subject of Cosma’s post.

I suspect to some degree Cole’s blogging did undermine his appointment to Yale’s faculty. For one thing, in his blog he was ranging outside the core area of his expertise, which I believe is Baha’i and some related 19th century history. Of course most people do that – we all have opinions outside of areas we’re trained in, and there’s no rule against blogging your opinions – but he was using his “Middle East studies professor” status to give his opinions more gravitas than they otherwise would have if he was posting as plain old “Juan from Ann Arbor.”

Second, at times he has lost his cool quite publicly on his blog (didn’t he say “one two three four, we don’t want your [expletive] war?”). It’s one thing to lose your cool in conversation, but in writing? When you have time to read what you wrote before hitting the “send” button? Spittle-flecked, indeed.

Third, he has voluntarily made himself a poster child for the leftie view of the Iraq war, Israel, and related subjects. The world being what it is, I don’t doubt that a number of influential Yale alumni voiced opposition to giving him the imprimatur of a Yale professorship. That’s their privilege to use their money as they see fit; they are not obligtated to give their money to Yale. It would be nice if people were totally altruistic and ignored what their contributions go for, but that’s not the real world. So to that extent, Cole is dealing with the downside of the added visibility he gave himself by his blog (complete with being asked to provide quotes to the media on issues of the day, which means he gets his name in the paper). I suspect he’d have snuck under the radar if he hadn’t made himself so visible.

A great many American academics have pubically promoted war and oppression in Palestine and Iraq. Nobody seems very interested in parsing their unfelicitious sentences. Of course what’s wrong with the treasonous clerics is not what they say. It’s what they mean. And the fault isn’t stylistic, it’s moral. It’s about time that somebody start spraying luminol on the hands of all those tenured OpEd writers.

Sebastian, I usually agree with you, but I’m not sure you’re right here. Cole was a big shot on the academic circuit without his blog. I don’t know him at all, but from a distance he appears to me to be the kind of guy who is good at networking and working the relationships that you need to get attention. He was president? chairman? of the Middle East Studies Association (or whatever the name of the thing is). So he seems to be the sort of ambitious, hard-working guy who knows how to move up in the world that would get enough attention to qualify for a Yale professorship. That’s a point in his favor, in my view. It’s the American way. His political views are, shall we say, sinistral in the extreme, but in academia that’s hardly unusual. No, I think the blog and some of the collateral effects of the blog are what killed the Yale appointment.

But don’t shed tears for Juan Cole – he has tenure at one of the nation’s top universities. And he still gets his name in the paper.

I fear that most of this discussion has been conducted in ignorance of nineteenth century French racial and colonial thought saw Muslim Algerians, e.g., as Semites and employed the same discourse, about rigidity, fanaticism, and torpidity, with regard to them as it did with regard to Jews.

See D Kimon, La pathologie de l’Islam et les moyens de le détruire : étude psychologique /
Paris : Chez l’auteur, 1897 (French Book Club)

and

Gabriel Hanotaux and Muhammad Abduh, L’Europe et l’Islam, Cairo: Imprimerie Jean Politis, 1905.

I didn’t invent this usage. It was widespread in the literature.

I’m not sure what it has to do with the subject of the Chronicle forum. But the posters who brought it up and flogged it are not only trolls, they are not very well read trolls.

Regardless which side one takes in the “semitism” debate, the term’s application to racial or ethnic groups is considered by anthropologists to be pseudo-scientific nonsense. It seems “anti-Semitism”, the original term, was chosen because Marr and others believed in a now discredited theory that held that certain racial groups and linguistic groups coincide. In 1872 the German philologist Max Müller pointed out that “Aryan” and “Semitic” were philological, not ethnological, terms, but he was in a minority. “Semites”, at the time, were defined as natives of a group of Middle Eastern nations related in ethnicity, culture and language. Under this theory “Semites” included Jews, the various Arab groups, and ancient peoples such as the Assyrians, Canaanites, Carthaginians, Aramaeans and Akkadians (ancestors of the Babylonians). The theory of a Semitic “race” has long since been discredited, but the Semitic “languages” do include the above groups.

Whatever about the ways in which the term anti-Semitism is misapplied, anti-Semitism is a real and nasty thing.

And apparently it has something to do with how the French treated the Muslim Algerians. Who knew?

It is suprising that a speaker of multiple languages would not understand that even the most direct translations have different connotations. Perhaps a French speaker, or one armed with a French dictionary, would understand the word differently coming from a culture that has a long history of oppressing both Jews and Algerians. Maybe not. I don’t know. That, however, is simply not English, as reflected by English language dictionaries.

Now: Is it not clear that once you have successfully changed the meaning of “anti-Semitic” (or, as claimed here, changed it “back” to its “true” origins in 19th century France), the next step is to state that the Jews of Israel are, in fact, European (not Semitic) in origin, and since the Jews of Israel hate their (Semitic) neighbors, then the parade example of anti-Semitism is, in fact, Jewish treatment of Muslims?

It goes beyond “unspeak” to reverse-speak, where the word ends up meaning close to its opposite.

mk

“Oooh, stunning rebuke, barry! “You can’t handle the truth!” Because X’s “politically incorrect truth” is absolute and could never legitimately be seen by Y as a “leftie view”. I’m glad that’s been definitively resolved; and now, back to your regularly scheduled analysis of irrelevant linguistic traditions.”

Posted by Shelby

That’s a stunning rebuke yourself, Shelby – Stuart makes some stupid assertions, with no proof whatsoever, but you’re fine with that.

Is there some Middle Eastern equivalent of Godwin’s law at work here?

Right! Let’s get back to the important stuff, namely, my band opening for the Ramones in 1982.

And Joey Ramone was himself Jewish!

Coincidence or conspiracy?

Jeez………Seems to me the original quote, from comment #2, was perfectly clear in its context, and Mr. Cole doesn’t appear to be trying to make some back-handed or loaded point about “Arabs are semites too”:

…”most Muslim countries have been ruled for much of the last 200 years by Europeans. And while the Europeans were ruling places like Algeria, they weren’t nice to Islam or Muslims. And they had a racist discourse about it. They depicted Semites as fanatical, as violent, as irrational, and therefore, as needing European rule. So, to take the Prophet Mohammed and to depict him with a large nose and a bomb in his turban, it’s a continuation of those exact same anti-Semitic and racist themes that have been characteristic of European colonial discourse for 150 years.”

Luci, I agree – when viewing the original quote, it’s quite clear. Now, there *might* have been honest confusion from those who viewed the trimmed version (I found it suspicious), but not any longer. It’s just more Swift Boat lying.

“Is there some Middle Eastern equivalent of Godwin’s law at work here?”

Posted by garymar

Yup – if one opposes even one policy of the state of Israel, one is anti-semitic, wars against God, and is disloyal to the USA (for US citizens).

It seems to me there are two fundamental racist archetypes:

1. rich, cunning, conspiratorial, greedy, secret killer

2. poor, stupid, lazy, angry, rapist

If you take ‘anti-semitism’ as a phrase in itself (some omit the hyphen), it means the first, and can be generalised to analogous bigotry about oil-rich arabs, perhaps Chinese in SE Asian countries, and other ‘market-dominant minorities’.

The French anti-Arab racism JC talks about seems to fit the second pattern better.

Howevere, the caveat is that Arab anti-Israeli/Zionist/Jewish feeling, even when extreme, prejudiced or bigoted, doesn’t always match either stereotype. I even think that when it apparently does draw from that tradition, as in Hizbollah dressing in black and giving stiff-arm salutes, it is sometimes a deliberate attempt to ‘push the buttons’ of the Israelis.

I don’t disagree with much that Richard Bellamy has to say: it is certainly curious to hear “anti-Seminitism” as a term that includes groups beyond Jews given the term’s widely acknowledged (however contrived) use in English today. The point is fair enough.

That said, I don’t know why this should be grounds for becoming upset. For one thing, each of us have different areas of expertise: I work on Hegel (as has Richard, so perhaps this will be a good point). Hegel uses any number of terms in his native German (and translated English) that break quite a lot from their traditional usages. “Aufheben” is a common German word, transformed into a peculiar unity of creation, negation, and preservation. It has no English equivalent, although “sublation” seems the best available. Furthermore, Hegel’s use of “will,” “freedom,” “reason,” “the state,” and even “Christianity” are all rather different from any conventional understanding….or of his day (discounting similarities with fellow Idealists, such as Fichte).

Nor is this off-topic for another reason. Perhaps Richard might agree that Hegel and many other philosophers regularly espouse old words in new ways, but all of this lacks of sinister connotations that such a move with “anti-Semitism” might present us. However, of course, many a great mind has thought Hegel’s word games were worse: Sir Karl Popper argued that Hegel helped open the door for Hitler; Lord Bertrand Russell believed Hegel was the philosopher of totalitarianism.

Now I am sure Richard will agree with me that no matter Hegel’s *many* faults, he is no fascist, totalitarian. People who characterized him as such grossly misunderstood him. We might agree because we are both political philosophers with an interest in its history—although Richard is far, far more capable than I. We understand the nuances, terminology, etc of the Hegelian project. This is often obscure at best (if not impenetrable) to those who have not studied Hegel in depth.

In the end, my point is simple. I agree that Cole’s use of a term is curious and I can see why Richard might be troubled by it. However, the actual content of Cole’s use is on all counts innocent: there may be some reference to someone with nasty views—Richard’s interests in Italian Idealism may well have led him to cite Gentile…Fichte and perhaps Heidegger also held curious views that seem nasty—but such views are not Cole’s. The use of his term is not meant to cause war or great suffering, although there was a time that Hegel’s terms were thought to help contribute to the rise of Nazism (a far worse charge—however false—than anything levelled at Cole). If Hegel can be found to be ok and innocent of the charges, then surely Richard must agree Cole is ok.

He may well be genuinely distressed by Cole’s usage—I am sympathetic with this. However, neither he nor I are Middle East experts. If we were, we might have a greater understanding of the subject. What seems strange and alarming in Hegel and Cole might be less so for Popper/Russell and us if we had greater expertise. Many scholars still think Hegel dangerous and perhaps (with greater expertise) Richard’s views will continue to hold, but things would be different then.

I hope this resolves the issue…although I fear not!

Forgive a non-academic for asking, but how much more desirable is it to be a professor at Yale than at Michigan? Is the pay that much better? The campus? The students?

I don’t think the new address could have been much more prestigious.

Oh dear. To clarify for Mr. Brooks, who gives me more expertise than I deserve through an overlap of names, I am not a British professor, but merely a Philadelphia lawyer. (I am also not the fictional star of Upstairs, Downstairs, in case there was ever such a misconception.)

My apologies to Richard—I assumed he was my friend and professor at University College London. That said, I am glad to see my substantive point did not go unnoticed.

Stuart, referring to your post #107:

“Third, he has voluntarily made himself a poster child for the leftie view of the Iraq war, Israel, and related subjects. ”

“His political views are, shall we say, sinistral in the extreme, but in academia that’s hardly unusual. “

Barry, I do take your point. Essentially, I only meant to highlight that those of us who are not Middle East scholars may see some of their academic discussions out of the proper context. Thus, I see Richard’s worry. However, I am not a Cole-basher: as with Hegel, once read in the proper context, the worry goes away.

Besides I fail to see *anything* dangerous in Cole’s views in any event. He’s a highly accomplished chap who did not seem to earn what he deserved.

P.S. I’m afraid that while I live in the UK, I am actually from that New Haven place (forget the name of its main university though…) and poor at old British sayings…

Barry, I’m sorry, but I just don’t see how anything I said was even that controversial, much less stupid. Cole has indeed been very visible and adamant about his views, and he gets quoted a lot, especially by bloggers on the left side of the spectrum – is it that you do not like the term “poster child”? And his views are indeed noticeably to the left (that’s what “sinistral” means – you can look it up if you don’t believe me). It might be that people to the left of me (I view myself as roughly centrist, tending to libertarian) don’t view him as particularly left – and that’s ok – but it’s a matter of perspective.

I don’t appreciate being called stupid. I find disagreement perfectly fine (I’m a lawyer, after all, so dealing with disagreement is my bread and butter), but there was no reason to call me stupid. I have opinions just like you do. If you find my conclusions erroneous, say so. I didn’t insult you, please don’t insult me.

Barry, to me he looks pretty far left. I base that on his pretty consistent (not 100%, but pretty consistent) opining that the US is wrong, that Israel is wrong, etc etc etc. That is a leftie trope these days – wasn’t always, but nowadays it is.

As I observed before, he might not appear left to you – if you’re standing on the left he might be close by to your views – but to those of us who are not consistent lefties, but are more eclectic, he sure looks very sinistral. I don’t doubt that he states the truth as he sees it, but don’t you see that “as he sees it” is a whopper of a qualifier? If I thought Pat Robertson was the second coming of Leonardo da Vinci, the total Renaissance man (I don’t, of course, but stay with me on this), then if I said so I’d be stating the truth as I saw it. And that view would be no less extreme than what you said about Cole. Yes, I understand that agree more with Cole than with Robertson (me, I tend to disagree with both), but the analysis is precisely the same. I believe Robertson has a doctorate, too.

This is an issue of perception, Barry – it’s not a stupid assertion by me about Cole, it’s simply a difference of how one views the world. You view it differently. That’s what makes the world go ’round.

Stuart, this means that ‘so-and-so is an extreme leftist’ becomes ‘*from my viewpoint*, so-and-so is an extreme leftist’.

Rather a different thing.

Congrats on the C&L link. I can’t get hired as a high school history teacher in Alabama, but I think it’s because I won’t coach basketball.

Eventually the larger universe, and particularly academia, will recognize blogging as published writing and factor it in with every other hiring factor out there. It will be up to those bloggers seeking those rare openings at Yale (sorry not to get all choked up about it) to make sure their spelling and their stories are correct.

Huh. For ages now I’ve assumed that Richard Bellamy the CT commentor was Richard Bellamy the political theorist. Live and learn.