 |
 |
On Chomsky Mike Chumer writes "doing nothing and trying to reason with a rationality so different then our own might be even worse." Chomsky and others are not arguing for nothing to be done. I believe they are arguing that something different to violence is the better response. That committing Afghans to starvation is not an appropriate response. I'm not comfortable with discussions of rationality - but I am worried that this is another dubious way to define otherness. >>> Michael CHUMER <[log in to unmask]> 9/19/2001 11:55:51 PM >>> As concern over the form of the reaction by the US mounts academics such as ourselves should reflect both on our roles as scholars and the academic freedoms that we enjoy. Yesterday at lunch I was joined by 2 professors from NJIT ( New Jersey Institute for Technology) whose campus is adjacent to Rutgers-Newark. Our dining area is utilized by faculty from both schools. The conversation focused both on the events , at the fore of our minds at this time, and also on what kind of scholarly forums we should be conducting within both of our schools to openly address the multitude of concerns of students and faculty. We agreed there is value in conducting these forums and will have more discussion as to the forms that they should take. I would be interested in learning how your colleges and universities are addressing discussion forums ( if they are) and also how you as individuals within your own teaching and scholarship are communicating and discussing these events. Taking a different yet somewhat related tack on this, I sense that many scholars fear a violent reprisal and sustained action as are being formulated as we speak. This I can understand. Our kind of rationality has as its basis the value of human life. From this position any action that violates the sanctity of this "value" should be avoided and alternatives sought. However this value which only makes sense for those of us with similar rationality and belief systems prevents the kind of action required to confront yet another form of rationality and beliefs. One that is so difficult to comprehend. One that meticulously planned the destruction of close to 6000 human beings. Perhaps more as is being uncovered in the present investigation. The beliefs we hold prevent us from what I sense is the kind of action required. The beliefs of the "other" in which human life embedded in belief systems different that the "other" have no value precipitates the very action we abhor. It is a sort of humanistic paradox. We value life so as not to destroy it they de-value life and the only answer is destruction. Our values prevent us from acting but theirs spurs them on resulting in violent action. How we deal with this paradox is the issue I am struggling with. In a recent post Noam Chomsky is interviewed and it seems that the suggestion is that a violent form of retribution might result in some sort of unification of the "other" and this strikes a cautionary note. Yet doing nothing and trying to reason with a rationality so different then our own might be even worse. Mike Chumer