If you type Afghanistan into the search bar above you will be taken to half a dozen long reviews of serious books about the War in Afghanistan which were published here in 2012 - 2013 and thus written (both books and reviews) without the benefit of hindsight.
Search This Blog
Monday 30 August 2021
Wednesday 25 August 2021
I was looking forward
to the book, having read the essay which gives the book its title and which was published in the London Review
of Books in 2018. I read it as a cross over book in which professor appears as public intellectual,
seeking to address a wider audience than that comprised of peers and students.
It’s true it’s not a difficult book - I read it in a day - though the short
text of a hundred and ninety pages is followed by ninety pages of academic apparatus.
But though a crossover book, it could readily be assigned as core text for a course
in “Topics in Contemporary Feminism” or some such and I shall imagine myself as course tutor suggesting lines of discussion, despite my evident unsuitability.
I would start us off
with the chapter “The Right to Sex”. I suspect that if you begin with a
narrative of the crimes and thoughts of a violent incel [ involuntary celibate]
like Elliott Rodger, who in 2014 went on one of those killing sprees enabled by
American gun laws, then you are not going to find anyone in the seminar room to
argue that there is a right to sex. No
one wants to side with Elliott Rodger; the only interesting question is whether
he, and those who have followed his path, should be thought of as terrorists or
- to use a term with a long history - criminally insane. Possibly, we need a
new category because the USA sometimes looks from outside like a country as
much at the mercy of terrorists and the criminally insane as of COVID. But deeply unhappy people does not quite cut it.
Within the Western
traditions of political theory only one writer, Charles Fourier (1772 -1837), readily
springs to mind as having argued for a right to sex. He appears briefly at page
87 and I think more could have been made of what he says, not least because his
ideas have - unknowingly - been accepted into fairly common practice. Those who
care for adult people with profound disabilities - people who
need 24-hour care - have to deal with the fact that some of those they care for
want sex and perhaps deserve more than a right to solitary masturbation. A
fairly common but discretely conducted solution is for carers to take their
charges to visit sex workers, quite a few of whom advertise willingness to see
disabled clients and many of whom are willing to see women as well as men.
Public money is quite often used to fund these visits. Fourier would have
wanted to garland the sex workers with ribbons and flowers.
This is not the stuff
of trending social media discussion, though the film The Theory of Everything (2014) does frankly depict aspects of
Stephen Hawking’s sex life. But my fairly simple example of carers accepting the case
for some kind of right to sex could get one into a frame-maintaining discussion
in the way that documenting the activity of incels probably won’t. No one is
going to want to read endless incel manifestos anyway, unless as a student with
forensic interest - think how Freud read the Memoirs of Judge Schreber or
Foucault read Pierre Rivière.
If there was a right to
sex, what would it be a right to? It might be disappointingly minimal and
hardly connect with what we think of as paradigmatic of sexual desire or
But what is
paradigmatic of sexual desire and its fulfilment? Srinivasan’s discussion of
this is scattered over the whole book, but I would start with her first chapter
“The Conspiracy Against Men”. Over the past half century or more, feminists
have painted a very bleak picture of male sexual desire. Either men are
natural-born rapists [ * see footnote right at end] or they are shaped by patriarchal societies into
less-than-fully-human beings who lose no chance to display a toxic masculinity
[I don’t think that Srinivasan actually uses that expression and that may be a choice] they
don’t even realise is theirs. The only advantage to the second way of thinking
is that it leaves open the possibility that in a different kind of society, men
could be shaped differently. The same either-or framing can, of course, be applied
to female sexuality.
One feminist strategy
has been to argue that sexual relations in general, and not just between men
and women, would be better if regulated (legally, morally) within a shared or
enforced commitment to a basically Kantian ethics in which human beings -
persons - are always to be treated as ends
and never as means. Some feminists
have reckoned that this approach can also be deployed to build a case against
pornography, the subject of Srinivasan’s second chapter, “Talking to my
Students about Porn”. But she doesn’t discuss a Kantian approach as such. It
does run into at least a couple of difficulties, though they pull in opposite
Back in the 1970s the
British government established a Committee on Obscenity and Film Censorship
and, perhaps remarkably, appointed a very talented academic philosopher, Bernard
Williams - Knightbridge Professor in Cambridge - to head it. Williams did look
at the question of whether pornography should be regarded as depersonalising,
and therefore bad on the Kantian view, but found - perhaps to his surprise -
that most of those who figured in the pornography of the time, and however much
they might be turned into subjects of fantasy, were generally given quite
definite personal characteristics and were not “just” bodies. This was true of
Page Three girls but also of characters in what was then called hard core
pornography. In accompanying text, they were generally given names, school
leaver qualifications, ambitions, hobbies, and so on. Whatever people wanted
from pornography it did not appear to be just bodies. The same is probably true
today, and video and cam shows allow for the creation of narratives which the still
photography of older pornography could only supply in accompanying text.
But in another
direction, one of the few academic Anglosphere philosophers to write about
sexual desire - Roger Scruton in his 1987 book Sexual Desire [see my review on this Blog 13 June 2020]
- was not entirely convinced that objectification has no legitimate part in
sexual desire. It is not just that sexual desire in unruly but that it is at
least in part satisfied by objectifications (or less strongly, thematisations)
which are consensual and often playful. The key distinction for Scruton is
between sex considered as (merely) appetitive and sexual desire as
intentionally directed towards persons and thus involving imagination in a way
that “appetite” or “instincts” don’t.
Times change and
Srinivasan addresses the pervasive part internet porn now plays in young
people’s lives. It leads men who have watched porn to say to their girlfriends,
You’re doing it wrong (p. 44) and
that is a worry because it introduces into inter-personal relations ways of
organising experience which have been honed by very large and not disinterested
capitalist enterprises. Fifty years ago, it was women who said You’re doing it wrong to their male
partners and who proceeded to provide elementary sex education, guiding the man
to the location of something called the clitoris and helpful conduct in
relation to it. In 1970 Britain’s National Secular Society published a booklet entitled
Sex Education: the Erroneous Zone
which did indeed show that the sex education offered to young people at the
time was inaccurate and misleading. And many argued: it was meant to be. There
is a long history in which organised religions have sought very actively to
suppress sexual knowledge, including of things (like contraception) which were
known about in very distant pasts. The UK publication of the fully-illustrated The Joy of Sex in 1972 was a
breakthrough and hugely important for many people. An obscure but very
different approach to sex education was provided in the same year by the English translation of Freudian and Marxist Wilhelm
Reich’s The Sexual Struggle of Youth
(1934). The translation was the (unpaid) work of someone who went on to become a
well-known Anglo-American feminist theorist, though I don’t think she ever
claimed credit. It was felt worth doing because Reich challenged a narrowly
economistic socialist politics and at the same time showed that obstacles to sexual
happiness - like lack of privacy - are differentially distributed by social
class. I was reminded of this old book by Srinivasan’s final chapter, of which
Time often removes the
original urgency, allowing desire to flourish in the form of marital sexuality.
(For husbands, there is even the word uxorious;
there is no equivalent for wives). Feminists had their doubts about such happy
images of marriage and it was with the institution of marriage that much feminist
writing was concerned; once it gets going, Germaine Greer’s The Female Eunuch of 1970 is simply a
rant against marriage [ see my review on this Blog, 27 September 2016].
what about the rapists? as Srinivasan asks to good effect
in her final chapter. Looked at one way, sexual violence often enough looks
like male violence which happens on some occasion to be sexual. Maybe soldiers
who rape are just deploying a different weapon in a context where violence is
part of what they are expected to use. Looked at another way, rape is
specifically sexual and the fantasies or anger or frustrations or whatever
which fuel it have to be analysed within a more specific theory or narratives -
since not all rapes may be alike. One could, of course try to break down this
contrast. Srinivasan does describe cases, some of which are hard to respond to
in a considered fashion. She mentions the case of Jyoti Singh, raped and
murdered in 2012 (pp. 11-12). I knew the story and remembered that at the time
my reaction had been immediate conversion to the righteousness of the death penalty.
Her killers should all be hanged, no doubt at all. End of.
Some feminists have ventured into the demanding
task of making forensic examination of male violence: in 1987 Deborah Cameron [now
an Oxford professor] and Elizabeth Fraser published The Lust to Kill: A Feminist Investigation of Sexual Murder. But Kate
Millet followed up her Sexual Politics
(1970) with The Basement (1979) a
disturbing study of a single case of the protracted torture and murder of a
teenage girl in which the principal part was played by a woman. I think there
were people who reacted badly to this book, but in principle it could be seen
as an attempt to ask a question about what might be different about (extreme)
Srinivasan’s book is
full of relevant, topical, and challenging examples. But I have always had
ambivalent feelings about relevance. I think that students should
expect to get from university study fluency
in one or more ways of studying the world, just as a student of a language expects to get fluency in that
language. In that sense, I want university studies to be relevant. So a philosophy
student fluent in Kantianism could pick up and run with the sketchy remarks I
made earlier; a student familiar with the nature of rights-based legal and
political theories would be able to assess whether sex is something which can
helpfully be addressed in the language of rights or whether a rights-based
approach is really too thin, too rationalistic. Some theories are more
all-embracing than others, like Marxism and Freudianism, others are more
limited tool boxes. Feminism sometimes aspires to be a theory - though
Srinivasan calls it a movement rather than theory (page xi and then again on
the last page p 179) - but there is a problem that those supposedly fluent in
it either seem to be speaking different languages or aren’t on speaking terms. True,
it’s a tall order to expect half the world’s population to agree with itself.
But in terms of
relevance considerations, fluency is often achieved pedagogically through the
study of simplified examples rather than full-blown topical narratives to which
we quite often can find no other immediate reaction than shock or outrage, like
my own illustrated above. To achieve understanding of how a theory works and
how it can be made to yield results, it is often necessary to take an
uncomplicated, quieter, example in order to see clearly how the basic machinery
of our thinking works or doesn’t work. In a different context, if I was asked to address the giant (or possibly elephant in the room) Nature / Culture topic, I would start with handedness (left/right-handed). Later on, one can look at hard cases -
Srinivasan’s book provides many such cases and she invites us to see that there
are sometimes no easy answers and sometimes no case to answer.
One approach within contemporary feminism, that associated with Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble (1990) strikes me as obscurantist and impossible to become fluent in, so that instead of effective analyses we end up with ritual repetitions of positions to which everyone is expected to nod agreement. Martha Nussbaum provided a trenchant critique back in 1999. But right at the beginning of her book, Srinivasan invokes Judith Butler: “Sex, which feminists have taught us to distinguish from gender, is itself already gender in disguise” and then takes us to her very first footnote reference, to Judith Butler (p.xii. p. 185). Nope. It won’t wash. "Gender in disguise" is a nice try, but it's rhetorical flourish not argument.
anyone teaches the history of modern social constructionist theories from Alfred
Schütz, through Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann and on to John Searle I don’t
know. But, when considered, I don’t think there is any coherent version of
social constructionism which will lead to the conclusion that the world is a
better place for having “gender reveal” parties. I state my case at
I found Srinivasan’s final chapter the most impressive and it should be saved for the last course session. “Sex, Carceralism, Capitalism” fluently deploys theory and argument, sweeps up a lot of apparently disparate material, and points in a clear direction. It’s very well written, refreshing, and persuasive. It is deeply humane and finds a way of formulating that humanity in simple terms picked up and then re-framed from an old 1977 manifesto which includes the sentence, “As feminists, we do not want to mess over people in the name of politics”. Srinivasan catches the thread and runs with it: “This basic principle - of not ‘messing over’ people as a means to a political end - implies that any choice between improving the lives of existing people and holding the line for a better future must be settled in favour of the former” (p 159). She is at that point specifically concerned with making the argument for the full decriminalisation and legalisation of sex work. But if you pause and think about it for a moment, the formulation is also a rebuke to all those who have been willing to concede to the Stalins and Maos of the world, big and small, that the end justifies the means and that it is the Future (as it is imagined for Us by Them) which trumps the Present (as we experience it).
broadens the argument into a critique of what she calls “carceralism” of which
Law & Order feminism has been a sponsor. Here the focus is on the United
States and its extraordinary prison Gulag, fed by an out-of-control police and
(to outsiders) theatrical criminal justice system, and some frankly weird laws.
She rightly makes out the case that those who are already most disadvantaged
are further disadvantaged by Law & Order “solutions” and that the only
solutions which have any chance of working will necessarily involve a big
redistribution of income and wealth from the increasingly rich to the
increasingly poor. I sometimes think that even getting back to where we were forty or fifty years ago
would help a lot. (Switch to the UK for a moment, and answer this question:
When Margaret Thatcher took power in 1979, one of her first important acts was
to cut the top rate of income tax from xx% to yy%. What were the values of xx and yy? Answer at the bottom of the page).
published a very well written, forthright, committed, and in many respects, unusual, book which
will, I am sure, be much read and appreciated. I look forward to reading in the
next book what she has to say (there is already a lot in article form) in the
narrower part of her role as professional philosopher.
* * *
Amia Srinivasan is the
seventh person to be appointed to Oxford University’s Chichele Professorship in
Social and Political Theory since it was created in 1944. The first holder was
G D H Cole (1889-1959), the only holder to be born in the United Kingdom, and
notable as a World War One pacifist, Fabian, Guild Socialist and mentor to two leaders of the Labour Party,
Hugh Gaitskell and Harold Wilson. In Church of England Oxford, he stuck out as
an atheist and when it was his turn to say grace at meal times in All Souls, substituted a two minute silence.
His domestic relations
were rather more conventional; in the biography of her husband which she published
after his death The Life of G D H Cole
(1971), Dame Margaret Cole wrote that though they were married for over forty
years and had three children,
was always under-sexed - low-powered. If he had not married, I doubt very much
he would have had any sex-life at all in the ordinary sense ….For women
generally, except his wife, he never seemed to have any sexual use at all, and
by and large to regard them as rather a low type of being….He believed as
strongly as any anti-Socialist that no woman (except Jane Austen) had ever
achieved first-class honours in art or literature; and he felt that the main
purpose in life of the majority of them was to distract a man from his proper
work …. his sex life diminished gradually to zero for the last twenty years of
his life. Concurrently, he developed by degrees a positive dislike of, and
disgust with, any aspect of sex almost equal to that of the early Christian
fathers …… (pp. 91 - 94)
When they could have
been having sex, husband and wife were instead busy jointly writing popular
detective novels: The Walking Corpse (1931),
Disgrace to the College (1937), Murder at the Munitions Works (1940) -
and over twenty more like that. They employed household servants so one does
not have to imagine titles being worked up as she washed and he dried.
* * *
83% was cut to 60%
* Footnote: In 1978 I recall going into a large University of London student dining hall, greeted by a large banner strung across the entire length of the balcony: ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS. As I ate my lunch I tried to think of a disruptive response which might be hung on a second banner, underneath. I reckoned that a syllogism would do the trick.
Monday 16 August 2021
Reading a novel, you usually
assume a stable text. But - consulting the notes to this edition in the
course of reading - it became clear that this is not a stable text. For first 1890 magazine
publication in the USA, Oscar Wilde submitted a typescript which was then edited
in house. Some simple improvements were probably made but, more importantly,
passages which were overtly homoerotic were toned down, made more bland
and generic. When Wilde expanded the American text for 1891 British publication as a
novel, he also drew back from some of his original commitments as well as
adding new themes to make the novel, let’s say, more “balanced”.
So it’s unclear now
whether Wilde put his name to what he had really wanted to write and to what
extent he was taking pre-emptive action against the cancel culture of his time,
a culture which would not only have disallowed an overtly homoerotic story,
even one couched as a morality tale as this one is, but would also exclude the author from polite society. And Wilde - married man with two children - had one very big foot in polite society even
if by 1890 (when this work was first published) he had the other foot in London’s gay demimonde. Despite its enduring fame, the text of Dorian Gray is a compromise formation which could be read as a reflection of Wilde's compromised position. So I ask, was there a different Dorian Gray that he would really liked to have written?
The novel is built
around an effective Gothic conceit - a portrait of Dorian Gray which
spontaneously changes appearance to track the degeneration of its sitter - and
it has some characteristic Wildean dialogue which hovers nicely between
the frivolous and the profound. It’s a bit uneven and at one point I winced.
For the second version, Wilde added a revenge narrative in which the sailor James
Vane seeks to avenge his sister Sybil who committed suicide after being cruelly
discarded by her Prince Charming, Dorian. By page 198 of chapter XVIII, the
reader knows for sure, though without a name being given, that James Vane has
been unsuccessful in his attempt. This does not stop Wilde right at the end of
the chapter (page 199) labouring the obvious with a flat sentence which reads “The
man who had been shot in the thicket was James Vane” which falls, redundant and very flat.
Wilde could probably have written and published the novel he really wanted to write by a quite simple subterfuge. He could have written in English, employed a translator, and published in French - under his own name or a pseudonym. This thought occurs to me having just read (in the TLS, 13 August 2021) a review of two autobiographical novels, translated into English from the French of Liane de Pougy (1869 - 1950). De Pougy is always called a “courtesan” and, more familiarly, one of les grandes horizontales, both euphemisms for what we would now call a high-end sex worker. Clients on her books included Queen Victoria’s son and heir, the Prince of Wales, later Edward Seventh. Pougy appears to have felt free and been free, to write as she pleased with explicit sexual detail - and get published around the time Wilde was writing.
By the 1950s, Vladimir Nabokov did not even have to translate into French to get his Lolita published in Paris. The USA and the UK have always been bastions of prudery, and still are. As a result, Dorian Gray is a prudish book.
Friday 13 August 2021
To put it briefly, No.
Late in life, G K Chesterton
drew attention to the sub-title of this novel, A Nightmare, and it’s true that its phantasmagoria of chases and
pursuits which play fast and loose with time and space can best be understood
in terms of the kinds of thing which happen in dreams. But that doesn’t solve
the problem that the overall effect is that of something whimsical and silly,
with some cod symbolism/philosophy/theology thrown in at the end in an attempt to
This 1908 book does
have one foot in the real world. Like Joseph Conrad’s The Secret Agent (1907) - a very good novel - it picks up and makes plot-line use of the
fact that contemporary anarchist and other revolutionary groupings across Europe
were heavily infiltrated and even controlled by secret policemen, notably by
agents of the Tsarist Okhrana created
in 1881. Chesterton’s story line amounts to not much more than the successive (and
rather laborious) revelation that six out of seven members of an anarchist central
committee are all policemen, and very British policemen too.
It’s a short book and I
made myself read it all. There are occasional thoughts which resonate, as when
Conrad (authorially) writes, “ The poor have sometimes objected to being
governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all.” - aptly
illustrated in our own time by the super-rich who back Mr Trump and Mr Johnson
and for whom laws, like taxes, are for the little people.
But, still, No. It wasn’t
worth a couple of my evenings.
Friday 6 August 2021
Elizabeth Gaskell’s North and South (1855) often figures somewhere
- though perhaps not very high up - on lists of One Hundred Best Novels in
English, novels which you need to read before you die in order to hold a
dinner-table conversation while still alive. In her Introduction to my Penguin
Classics edition (1995) Patricia Ingham treats it as a novel of ideas, which no
doubt it is.
But that doesn’t make
it a good novel. It has serious shortcomings. The original circumstance of
periodical publication in Charles Dickens’ Household
Words no doubt obliged the inscription of excitement into every instalment
but when those instalments are stitched together the excitement turns (for this
reader) into an unexciting sense of rollercoaster melodrama: Oh no, here we go again …. Though the
experience of death formed a major part of everyday Victorian life, Gaskell
piles up the bodies to the point at which the last of them (Mr Bell’s) which
ought to matter to the reader simply doesn’t; it is so obviously required to bring
the plot to an Enter Stage Left, happy coincidence, conclusion. Earlier in the
novel, it is only the dying and death of the working class girl Bessy, at
the age of nineteen, which really cuts through (for this reader) and that
perhaps because with the benefit of hindsight we know that it was the fate of
many Victorian teenage girls to die old enough to know that they were being
cheated of life and not at all old enough to tolerate the thought. Bessy does enjoy her father's love, but until she attracts Miss Hale's affection and care, Bessy has only the opium of the people to comfort her -
and she is indeed fortunate in her knowledge of the Book of Revelations.
Towards the end, the
chapters become thin and miscellaneous; the energy which infuses the earlier
chapters is missing. It becomes irritating that through some editorial oversight (perpetuated into this modern edition) it is
unclear whether “Cosmo” is the same character as “Sholto” and equally unclear
how old this character is - if I was writing an essay on the novel I would try
to chart the timeline for Cosmo/Sholto; my guess that it is inconsistent. It is
also an irritation that though in this novel London is London and Southampton Southampton,
Manchester is Milton-Northern (what?
forerunner of Milton Keynes?) which in turn is located in Darkshire which is just toe-curling even by Victorian standards of
suggestive names for characters and places. There is also, of course, the extraordinary
Victorian way of evoking characters through their facial features broken down
into identikit components and at which Gaskell excels. But I can take only so many dilating
pupils, quivering nostrils, and swans-neck, goose-neck (surely some mistake? - Ed.), delicate, alabaster …..throats. For my Gestalt taste, it's all too much like Mr and Ms Potato Head.