The rhetoric of reaction - Griffith Review

The rhetoric of reaction. by Martin Krygier. RHETORIC WAS UNDERSTOOD by Aristotle to include those many, often refined, techniques of argumentation ... Featuredin Introduction(1) Collidingworldsofpeopleunlikeus—JulianneSchultz Memoir(5) Welcometomyworld—KevinBannon Somethingtoremembermeby—MarkMordue Blackunlikeme—VincentPlush Fiveactsoffriendship—DavidSornig SomeclubsIhaveknown—JayVerney Review(2) Apreposterouslife—SimonCaterson Citylife,countryliving—DanielFlitton Fiction(1) Nightrescue—StephenMoline Essay(8) Thetroublewithempathy—DavidBurchell Therhetoricofreaction—MartinKrygier Wholetthedogsout?—MelissaLucashenko Thepainterandthewriter—FrankMoorhouse Tiesthatbind—MargaretSimons God’sonlyexcuse—RobynWilliams Imaginationtheeverydayart—SigridThornton Onfeelingsuperior—JohnMarsden Reportage(3) Talesfromthedesertcamps—MadeleineByrne Australiabynumbers—DavidDale Aschoolreunion—BruceElder OnlineOnly(3) NorthernExposure–crossingtheminefieldsofJaffna—PeterDavis Thepainofdisrespect—DewiAnggraeni Habitsofinclusion—KayFerres Purchase Essay Therhetoricofreaction by MartinKrygier RHETORICWASUNDERSTOOD byAristotletoincludethosemany,oftenrefined,techniquesofargumentationunavoidableindomainsoflife,suchaspoliticsandlaw,wherepersuasionisnecessarybutconclusivedemonstrationisunavailable.Itisunavoidable,significantandtherearegoodandbadformsofit.AsSamuelGoldwynmightobserve,however,we'vepassedalotofwatersincethen.Today,"rhetoric"isalmostalwaysspokenofpejoratively,andmoreoftenthannot,dismissively:wordswithoutweight("emptyrhetoric"),whichaddnothingbutadornment("mererhetoric").If,inAustralia,itisalreadysuspicioustobeeloquent,itisunpardonabletoberhetorical. WhatIhaveinmindissomewherebetweentherefinedandthecorrupt.ThesortsofrhetoricIdiscussherearesignificant,butnoneofthemistoberecommended.Certainly,theyareallaboutpersuasion.I'mnotafanofthem,butthey'renot"mere"hotair,orsweetwords,orjuststyleasopposedtosubstance.Indeed,they'renotmere anythingandtheyarefarfromempty.Theyhavetheirroleandsignificanceinpublicdebate. Ontheotherhand,myusagefollowsthemoderndebasedunderstanding,indisapprovingofthem.Fortheircontributionsto"theconversationofcitizens",whilereal,areofaspecific,negative,sort.Inparticular,theyincludewaysofframingissues,resolvingthem,andavoidingthemthatblockconversationsratherthenfurtherthem.Thesortofconversationalcontribution,perhaps,thattheAmericannovelistRingLardnerhadinmindinoneofhischaracter'sresponsetoaquestionfromhisgrandchild:"Shutup,heexplained". AndIamconcernednotjustwithanyrhetoricbutquitespecificallywiththatwhichItaketobethespecificprogenyofreaction.Andthoughtheword"reaction"inthebadsenseisitselfahighlyrhetoricalterminpublicdebate,Imean,inthefirstinstance,somethingquitespecific:aresponse, a"re-action" toclaimsorviewsthatassault,orgiveaffrontto,somethingoneholdsdear.Orareunderstoodtodoso. Inthissensereactioncangoinanypoliticaldirection.WhiteAustralianscanrespondinreactionarywaystoattacks,orwhattheytaketobeattacks,uponwhattheyvalueintheirsociety;so,too,Aboriginestodenigration,orwhattheytaketobedenigration,ofwhattheyvalueintheirs.Infact,Idon'tthinkthereisanythinginprinciplewrongwiththemotivationthatfuelsreactioninthissense.ThoughIwillbefocusingonitsdangers,itisnotnecessarilyignoble.Indeeditsoppositemightbe.RecalltheFrenchnotice,sometimessaidtohavebeenseeninaPariszoo:"Beware!Thisanimalisvicious!Whenattackeditdefendsitself."Oftenithappensinpublicdebatethatonefeelssomethingtowhichoneisattachedemotionally,personally,morally,intellectually,isbeingattacked,denigrated,soldshort,treatedwithfrivolouslackofseriousness,respectorconcern.Andoftenthatispreciselywhatishappening.Feelingthat,onecanfeelstung, personallystung, andwishtostingback. I'veknownsuchfeelings.WhenIfirstthoughtofthisessay,Iconceivedofitasapolemic,attacking,asonecommonlyattacks,thesqualidactivitiesofopponents.Ihavecometorealisethatpartofthedescriptionthatfollowsisself-descriptionandpartofmyanalysisisself-analysis.   ASITHAPPENS,I wasborn,indeedinmyparticularcaseconceived, ananti-communist.Thereasonswerenotonlygenealogical.Communismassaulted,oftenwithferociousintensity,almostallthethingsthatseemedtometomatter–amongthemfreedom,rights,civilsocietyandtheruleoflaw,nottomentiontelephonesthatwork.Andcommunistsdidsodeliberatelyandtypicallywithoutremorse.Itistrue,butscarcelyadequatetosay,thatIthoughtthatwasamistake.Ihatedit.Minewasa"reactionary"position,inthissense,ifevertherewasone,definedasitwasinthefirstinstanceintermsofwhatitrejected.AndIalsodeplorednon-communistanti-anti-communists,plentifulinAustralia,who,morerightlythantheyknew,consideredmeandminereactionaries,atleastinrelationtothemandinthesenseIhaveinmind.Onereasonformyreaction,andforitsheat,waswhatItooktobethecontempt,thelight-mindeddisdain,sooftendisplayedforwhatseemedtomeprecious.ThatisoneaspectofmylifethatIdon'tregretatall.Inthatcaseitservedmewelltobeareactionary. Overthepastcoupleofyears,IhaveagainrecalledsomeofthosereactionaryemotionswhenIfeltdisturbedbywhatItooktobethevisceralgleeofsomecriticsofthewarinIraq.Forsome,Isuspected,thewarprovidedawelcomereleaseforananti-Americanismthathadbeenpentupwithnowhereobvioustogosince1989."Atlast!"Icouldimaginethemsaying. Thereare,ofcourse,manygoodreasonstocriticisethiswar,andreactionofthissortoftensimplymissesthepointinrelationtothem.InthiscaseIcan'tdisavowtheemotion,butIhavecome–thoughwithsomediscomfort–toseethatitisnotalwaysreliable.Unreflectedupon,itmightwellleadanyone,andnotonlypeopleIdon'tlike,inthedirectionsIwillshortlydescribe.Andso,thoughmyparticularcriticismsherearenotintendedasself-criticism,theymaywellboomerang. WhatItaketobethemotivationalsourceof reaction,then,seemstomedefensible,andIwillreturntosomeimplicationsofthatattheendoftheseremarks.However,whatmatterstheniswhatyoudowithit,andherewhatI'vecalledtherhetoricofreactionisnottheonlywaytodobusiness,thoughitisreadilyavailableandthetemptationstouseitaren'tsmall.Unfortunately,itisadistastefulbutcharacteristicpartofAustralianpublicdebate.And,thoughourdebatesseemespeciallyrichwithit,itisnotonlyfoundhere.Isuspectthetemptationtoindulgeinitwilloccurwhereverandwheneverthewoundisdeeptoattachmentsthatmatter,sourcesofnationalidentityprominentamongthem.Soonewilloftenfindit,particularlyinargumentsoverwhatKeithWindschuttlehasaptlydubbed"thecharacterofthenation".However,theextenttowhichthatisallonefinds,thatitdominatespublicdebate,varies.Isuspectitisausefulindexoftheintellectualquality,opennesstocomplexity,spaceavailableforconversationratherthannoiseandfumes,characteristicofaparticularpublicculture.Itsprominenceisinverselyrelatedtothesethings.InthedebatesI'mconcernedwith,it'sbeenextremelyprominent,andItakethattospeakillofourpublicdiscourse. In2002IwroteabouttworoughlysimultaneouscontroversiesthatoccurredinAustraliaandPolandoverallegationstakentosuggestanationalconnectionwithterriblewrongsallegedlydonetomembersofnationalminorities.InAustralia,ofcourse,thebroadcontextisthatofdebateaboutthehistoryofwhite/Aboriginalrelations;themorespecificcatalystwasthe Bringingthemhome report.Morerecently,ofcourse,wehavehadthe Fabrication/Whitewash stoush.(TheFabricationofAboriginalHistory, KeithWindschuttle,MacleayPress,2002;., Whitewash. RobertManne,ed, BlackInc.,2003)[i] InPoland,thepainfulcontextisrelationsbetweenethnicPolesandJews;thecatalyst,inturn,abook, Neighbours byJanGross(PrincetonUniversityPress)[ii] thatappearedinMay2000aboutamassacreoftheJewsofasmalltownbytheirPolishneighboursthattookplaceinNazi-occupiedPolandin1941.Inbothcases,theintensityandheatraisedbythesecatalyticvolumeswereunanticipatedandremarkable. Iwasstrucknotmerelybytheexistence ofsimilarsortsofresponsestoallegationsthatshamefulthingsoccurredinthesetwocontextsseparatedwidelybytime,spaceandsubject,butalsobytheclosesimilaritiesinthecharacter ofthemoveshereandthere.Theparallelsare,I'mconvinced,notaccidental.Thoughfewifanyparticipantsineithercontroversyhadanyknowledgeoftheother,andthoughtheparticularsallegedhaddifferentcauses,charactersandconsequences,therewasasenseinwhichthedebatewasinbothplacesoverthesamething:reactiontopainfulunsettlementofacertainmythofnationalrectitude. Attheendof  InDenial (BlackInc,2001),RobertManneasksaverysimplequestionaboutchildremovals:"Whyhassomuchenergybeenexpendedintheattempttodeny...thatareallyterribleinjusticeoccurred?"[iii] Thatisthemeta-questionofthatdebateanditcanbegeneralisedtothelargerdebateaboutwhite/Aboriginalrelations.HereIammoreconcernedwithhowthanwhy. YoumightrecallthesceneinMontyPython's HolyGrail,whereSirLancelotiswelcomedbythehostofaweddingparty,manyofwhom,amongthemthebride-to-be'sfather,hehasjustdismembered.Overtheprotestsofthesurvivors,thehostremindsthem:"Thisissupposedtobean'appyoccasion.Let'snotbickerandargueaboutwhokilledwho."Thisisagambitoftenassociatedwiththosewhosayitonlymakessensetoconcernourselveswithforward-looking"practicalreconciliation",nottofussaboutthepast.ThatmovewasnotavailableinPoland,bytheway,sincethereweresofewJewsleftafterthewar,butithasbeenpopularhere.It'saclassicallyreactionarymove,sinceitisonlyeverheardin reactiontocritiquesofaspectsofthatpast.NoonehasheardJohnHowardsay,forexample:"Let'snotworryaboutGallipoli.Let'sjustworkouthowtoimprovethelotoftheTurks." Therhetoricalpointofthisisobvious.Ifsuccessful,itmakesitdifficult,badformeven,toexpressconcernsaboutthecharacterofanation'spast.Thereisadifficultywithit,though.Onitsown,thispleaforforgetfulnesscanonlyplausiblybemadebypeopleother thanthosewhoactuallymakeit.Determinedcosmopolitans,resolutecitizensoftheworld,mightreallyhavenoconcernwiththepastdoingsofaparticularnation.What'sGallipolitothem?Butthepeoplewhomaketheclaiminourpublicdebatesarecommonlyhostiletocosmopolitanism.Theyarepatriots,proudoftheirpastand,inother,celebratory,circumstances,volubleaboutit.Asmanypeoplehavepointedout,simplemoralcoherencerequiresshamefortheshamefulaspectsofourpast,fromthoseproudoftheprideful.Moreover,theiractsbetraytheirwords.Muchthoughtheyseektominimisediscussionofsadmoments,they act asthoughitmatters. Ifquestionsaboutthepastcan'tbequelledthisway,thenextreactiontodisturbingallegationsissimplytodenythem.Ofcourse,thatisalegitimatelyavailableresponseifonehasevaluatedevidenceandfounditwanting,asWindschuttleclaimstohavedone,butwhatisinterestingisthespeed withwhichreactorsjumpedtodenial,ofstolenchildren,ofmassacres–hereorinPoland–immediatelytheallegationsappeared.Bothhereandthere,investigationofthesethingshasnotbeeneasyorquick.AndthoughWindschuttle'sbeliefsarewellknown,hisfirstvolumewasnotavailableforsometimeandlatervolumesaren'toutyet,andhischorusofsupportersdidn'tevenwaitforthefirstone,soquickoffthemarkweretheyafterhisfirst Quadrant articlein2000.Soit'shardtoknowwhattheclaimsofhisearlyandvociferoussupporters,whohadnotdonetheresearchWindschuttleisstilldoing,werebasedon.Actuallyitisnotsohard.Likeanauto-immunesystemofapeculiarlyhyperactive,allergicsort,ifreactiontoperceivedthreatorpainisallowedtooperateundisciplined,itwillsimplyseektoexpelwhatunsettlesit.Presumptivedenialissimplysneezinginprose.   OFCOURSE,DENIAL can'tjuststaypresumptive, andthereisnodoubtthatdeniersdoargueaboutevidence.Windschuttlesaysthatisallthathedoes.ButhereacommonstrategyofreactioniswhatDirkMoseshascalled"crazedpositivism",thatisinsistenceonstandardsofproofthatcommonlycannotbemet,"thefetishisationofdirectevidencetounderwriteeveryhistoricalconclusion",suchasademandthatHitler'ssignatureonanordertoexterminateJewsbeproduced,oreyewitnessevidencecorroboratedofanyallegationofmurder,howeverimplausibleitmightbetoexpectthat.ThisishowWindschuttlecanpretendtobesocertainofhis118,nowrevisedto120,TasmanianAborigineskilled,notwithstandingalaternonchalantoraladmissionthatifwecontemplatetheadditionofwoundedAborigineswhomighthavediedunseen,thatfiguremightneedtobedoubled.Noroomhereformurdersunreportedbytheirperpetrators,though.Thissortofstrategyhastwoappeals:first,itmakesithardtoproveanythingmuchhappened,particularlyinthosecircumstanceswhenitwasleastlikelytohavebeenrecorded;secondly,andmoreparticularly,itmakesthebusinessoftalkingaboutthepastprettysimple.Noinferencesnecessary,no"convergenceofevidence",noroomforhistoricalimagination,likethatofIngaClendinnen.Justcountingofreassuringlysmallnumbers. Countingoccursinanothercommonrhetoricaltrope,too.Oftenweareexhortedtorecognisethattherearemoregoodsinournational"balancesheet"thanbads,asthoughtorecogniseoneinvolvesdenyingtheother.Thisallowsonetoacknowledgethepossibilitythatbadthingshappenedinourpast,whichmightproveonoccasiontobeunavoidable,buttocancelthemwiththeundoubtedmanygoodthingsthatalsohappened.Buthistoricalgoodsandevilsarenottobebalancedinthisway.Torecogniseoneandtheotherisnottoindulgein"black-armbandhistory"oritsopposite,butmerelytoshowduerecognitionofthemoralcomplexitythatcommonlyexistsinanation'spast.AsJerzyJedlicki,adistinguishedPolishhistorian,hasputit:"Whatthencountsinthegeneral,nationwidebalancesheet?Heroismorbaseness?Compassionoralackofmercy?Bothcount:thereisnowayonecansubtractonefromtheotheroroffsetonewiththeother.Therewillalwaysbetwoseparateledgers."Or,asJanGross,theauthorof Neighbours thatexposedtheJedwabnemassacre,observes:"Simplyput,afterall,wearedealingherewithaquestionofethics,andnotofaccountancy." Thereisanotherreasoncountingandethicsoftenpartcompany.Thebadsyoucancount(likethegoods)areoftenonlyasmallpartofwhatneedstobeunderstood.Perhapsthatiswhythereissomuchfocusonthem.Iamacquaintedwithanumberofformercommunistcountries.Inrecentyears,therehavebeencontroversiesoverhowmanypeoplewerekilledinthem.ThereisaliteratureofdebateaboutthefiguresinRobertConquest's TheGreatTerror (1968), forexample,andanotheronearoundtheglobalestimatesessayedinthe BlackBookofCommunism (ed.MarkKramer,HarvardUniversityPress,1999). Theseareimportantcontroversies,buttheyarealsomisleading,sometimesdeliberatelyso.Fortheyleadusawayfromthemanywaysthathavenothingtodowithkilling,inwhichthecommunistsystemblightedlives.Buttherearenogravestonesforthoseinjuries.   ASOWENHARRIES haspointedout,"comparsonsmaybeodiousandanalogiestricky, buttheyarealsoindispensable".DiscussingthewarinIraq,hedrawsanalogieswiththeSuezCrisis,notwithstandingthat"theanalogyisnotexact,ofcourse.Analogiesneverare."Thoughanalogiescan'tbeexact,theycanbeintellectuallyandmorallyusefuliftheyilluminateasubjectbydrawingparallelsonemightnothavethoughtofwithoutthem.Bycontrast,theyareuselessorharmfuliftheparallelsmakenosense,orthedifferencesaresogreatorimportantastonullifythem,oriftheironlypointistoelevateordemeanone'ssubjectbybathingitinreflectedgloryorgore. Criticsofcontentiouspoliciesorhistorieswilloftenbedrawntoanalogieswitheventstheevilofwhichneedsnodemonstration,totransferourassessmentoftheexamplechosentowhattheyareactuallycriticising.Defendersofsuchpoliciesorhistorieswillresistsuchanalogies.Allthiscangooninanintellectuallyrespectableway,sinceanalogiesaremadenotfound,andtherewilloftenberoomforargument.Butanalogiescanbeusablerhetorically,ascanrebuttalofthem,forreasonsneitherintellectualnormoral.ThishasoftenbeenthecaseinthedebasedwaysweinvokeorcondemntheinvocationoftheHolocaustandgenocideinlocalarguments. AnalogieswiththeHolocausthavecloudeddiscussionsonallsides.AccordingtoWindschuttle,whatisdespicableaboutthe"orthodox"historiansofAustraliaisthattheyhaveledustothinkofourhistoryasonaparwithNazism.Iagreewithhimthatanyonewhoventuressuchananalogyisplayingwithmoralfire.Analogieswithcataclysmicevents,perhapsnonemorethantheHolocaust,areamongtherhetoricalstrategiesthatshouldalwaysbehandledwiththegreatestscrupulousness,sensitivityandcare,equallyformoralasforintellectualreasons.Forsuchanalogiesareoftencheap.Whenso,theyareinexcusable.Themoralstakesaretoohigh.ThisdoesnotmeanthatallcomparisonswiththeHolocaustareillegitimate.Thatcouldn'tbethecase,sinceeventodenysimilarityyouneedtocompare.Butidentificationsofdifferentsortsoftragedy,whichdissolvemassivedifferencesofquality,quantity,intentionandmannerofexecutionare,Iwouldwanttosay,notmerelyfoolishbutsinful. TheAustralianstoryisveryfarfromNazism.TragicasthehistoryofsettlementhasbeenforAborigines,itisnotauniqueorunprecedentedtragedy.Notevenrareinhumanhistory.TheHolocaustwas.WhenIbegantrying,afewyearsago,togetsomemeasureofourhistoryofsettler-AboriginerelationsIreadtheso-called"orthodox"historians,amongthemReynoldsandRowley.SofarasInoticed,theysaidnothingoftheHolocaust.Theytalkedoffear,oflackofpolicingandbiasedpolicing,ofracistcondescensionand,onoccasion,ofmurder.Whattheydescribedgaveplentifulreminders,notofNazism,butoftheoldwisdomthatmanisawolftoman. Thereisnotmuchconsolationintheordinarinessofthatfactbutitremainstruethatthereislittleunimaginableinwhathappenedhere.Ourdifficultyhasbeentoimaginethatoursorthadbeeninvolvedinit,notthatanyonecouldbe.Forweknowthattheyoftenhavebeen. SoWindschuttleisrighttoresisttheanalogywithNazism.However,giventhathedoesnotofferupevenone"orthodox"historianwhomakestheanalogy,itseemsoddtojustifyhisthreevolumesasadebunkingofit.Actually,aspartofarhetoricalstrategy,it'snotatallodd.Sincenooneiscaught inflagrante,somepreparationisnecessary,ofcourse,andhegivesitbymakingaquickleapfromthosehistoriansheattackstoothers,mainlyjournalists,whohaveusedtheanalogy,sothattheformercomeoutastheorgangrinders,thelattermerelythemonkeys.Butiftheydidn'tmaketheanalogy,whatistheattackonanalogieswithNazismdoinghere?Alienatingthereaderfromtheenemy.Andthat'sthepoint. Whatisneeded,andwhattheanalogywarsexclude,isanintellectuallyandmorallycomplexappraisalofthecharacterofcontacts,overlongperiodsoftime,betweenwhitesandAborigines.Itislikelythattherewasgoodandbadinthosecontacts,asIngaClendinnenhassensitivelyandimaginativelydemonstratedinDancingwithStrangers (Text,2003). Itisalsolikelythattragedywaswrittenintothescript,whateverindividualsdid,assoonaswhitesdeterminedtostayandproliferatehere,pastoralindustrybecameattractive,andsoon.Anditislikely,too,thatmanyshamefulthingsoccurred,amongthemkilling,forcibleabductionofchildrenand,ofcourse,wholesaledispossessionofland,whichnoonedeniesandwhich,evenhaditbeendonewithexquisitepoliteness,speltthebirthofourwayoflifeandthedeathofthatofAborigines. Therearemanywaysofbehavingbadly,leadingtoterribleconsequences,thatweknowaboutbecausehistoryisfullofthem,eventhoughitisnotfullofHolocausts.Haddefendersof"thecharacterofthenation"beenlessconcernedtodenywhatnooneshouldsensiblysay,andgrapplewithwhatis,atthesametime,inpartsaveryhappyandinothersaverysadstory,ourpublicconversationmightbeinbettershapethanitis.   ANOTHERCONCEPTTHAT oftenlendsitselftoinaptanalogies, indeedoftentothesameanalogies,isgenocide.InsomewaysIwishthewordhadneverbeenusedintheAustraliancontext.Foritisveryhardtodiscussrationally,becauseofthepassionsitinflamesandthecomparisonsitinevitablydemands.Itisalsorarely,inmyexperience,discussedingoodfaith.ManywhocarelesslyaccusewhiteAustraliansofgenocidetradeontheassociationofthetermwiththeHolocaust,tosuggestsomeassimilationbyanalogyofthetwo.Ontheotherhand,manyouttodenytherewasgenocideinourhistoryfocusonthewordforaparticularreason.Focusingoncriticismoftheanalogyallowsonetosmearandthenignoreclaimsthatshameful,evendreadful,thingsoccurred:it'snotgenocide,sowe'rehomefree.Butitisnotassimpleasthat. ThewaythetermfiguresintherhetoricofreactionissimilartothewaytheHolocaustdoes,andforthesamereason.Wefinditveryhard,andmanypeopleseenoreasontotry,tothinkofgenocidewithoutassimilatingittoitsmostdreadfulexample,wherewithoutdoubtgenocideoccurred,butsodidmanyotherdreadfulthings.However,thereisasophisticatedliteratureongenocide,muchofwhichemphasises,asHannahArendtdoes,andfollowingherRaimondGaitaandRobertMannedo,thatweneedsome concepttocapturethedistinctiveeviloftryingtodoawaywithapeople, whichisadifferentaimfrommurderousresettlementofthemorevenfrommasskillingswithoutthatparticularaim.If"genocide"isalsolinkedwiththeHolocausttodothatwork,eventhoughthetermwascoinedbeforetheHolocaustoccurred,thensomeothertermisneeded.Theissue,inotherwords,isnotdisposedof;wearesimplyleftwiththeneedtofindsomeotherwordandidea.[iv] IfearthattheconceptissodrenchedwithHolocaustassociationsthatitisnolongerhelpfultogeneralpublicconversation,incontextswherethatanalogyismisplaced,eventhoughtheconceptualcaseforitisconvincing.Butthatcanbearguedbothways.However,eventhislevelofcomplexityisneverbroachedbytherhetoricofreaction.NomatterhowoftenpeoplewhoknowsomethingaboutgenocideinsistthatthisdoesnotnecessarilymeantheHolocaust,thatrhetoricsweepsthesepettyconceptualdistinctionsoutoftheway,immediatelyassimilatesgenocidetotheHolocaustandthusblastsawayanyonewhowouldusethataccursedwordofanything thatmighthavehappenedinthisblessedland.And,sincehomogenisationofone'sopponentsisstandardfareinthesedebates,oftenpeoplewhohaveneverusedtheconceptinrelationtolocaleventshavebeendismissedbyextension,asitwere.Iftheysuggestshamefulthingshappenedinourpast,theymustbesayinggenocide,thereforeHolocaust,thereforetohellwiththem.   DISCUSSIONSABOUTREAL andfalseanalogiesaregoodwaysofdoingwhat falsedichotomiesaresooftenusedtodo:topolarise,andthereforesimplify,intellectualandmoraloptions.Targetingextremestoavoiddealingwithunexceptionalbutcomplexmixturesofgoodmotivesandbad,goodconsequencesandtragicones,ordinarypeopleinextraordinarycircumstances,ispartoftheeliminationofcomplexitysocharacteristicofthesedebatesandofourtime. Excessivesimplificationisoftenjustaproblemofintelligence,inmoralmattersattimesofinnocence,atothersofManichaeanzealotry.Butitisarhetoricalresource,too.Forifchoicescanbesufficientlyreduced–preferablyinSchmittianfashiontoone:oursversustheirs–allyouneed,toleavetheformerstanding,istoknockoverthelatter.Andsoourdebateshavegone. Often,thissortofpolarisationtakestheformofManichaeanmyth-making,with debatesoverourpastpresentedasahighlyscriptedManichaeandrama,withitstwocharacters,negativeimagesofeachother,lockedinbattle.Thedramaisheightenedbycertainrulesofthegenre:eachcharacterisportrayedinstarkcontrast:black-white,noshadesofgrey.Theymustbemutuallyexclusive:nopartlythis,partlythat,willdo.Theymustexhaustthefield:nootherpossibilities,nothingelse,nothingmore,andtheymustbepolaropposites.In Fabrication,theprotagonistsareablackmyth–Holocaust,genocide–generatedbyagangof"orthodox"historianswhoapparentlyallspeakwithonevoiceinmaligningournationalcharacter,versusa"whitemyth",akathetruth–aquesttocivilisebroughtdownbyitsputativebeneficiaries–whichyouhavetobeaherolikeWindschuttleorP.P.McGuinnesstovoice.IfnotA,thenB.Endofstory. Thereareotherwaysofdoingthis.Onewayistorejectthissortofcaricaturedsetofpolarisationsandfacecommonandoftentragiccomplexities,wheregoodandevilcometogether,eveninvolveeachother,whereharmcanbedoneevenbypeoplewhodon'tmeanto(thoughharmswerealsodonebypeoplewhodidmeanto),wherethesituationisgoodforsomeandbadforothers,andgoodforsomebecausebadforothers,allatthesametime.Instead,acommonployofreactionaryrhetoricistofabricate–onlyinordertodenigrate–aparanoidconstructionofthe"enemy",andofferitsmirrorimageasasubstitute. AfocusonprohibitedanalogiesandfalsedichotomiesoftenfollowsthemodeloftheIrishquestion,asdescribedbytheauthorsof 1066andAllThat (Methuen1931)[v]. TheyexplainedthatGladstone,"spenthisdecliningyearstryingtoguesstheanswertotheIrishQuestion;unfortunately,wheneverhewasgettingwarm,theIrishsecretlychangedtheQuestion".Andso,manyAustralianshaveworriedwhethersomethingworryingmighthavehappenedinthenation'spast–indeedatitsstate-and-nationbuildingcore–somethingwithwhichwemightfeelsomemoralconnection,shame,somesortofresponsibilityeven.Thatisalargequestion,towhichmanyevents,predicamentsandcircumstances,arerelevant.Iftheconversationcanberedirected,particularlyifaquestionablepartcanberepresentedasthewhole,thenonecaneasilyforgetwhythediscussionbegan,leavingthequestions,whichhavecausedmanyofusanxiety,unansweredandunattended. ArecentexampleoftheIrishquestioninoperationisawarmreviewofWindschuttle's Fabrication byNeilMcInneswhoexplainsthatthough,incolonialencounters,"murderswerenotuncommon,usuallyasrevengeforlivestockrustlingorcropburning...theyarenotthethemeofthestoryofsettlement".[vi] Theyarenot,becauseevenwithoutthem,Aboriginalpopulationswouldhavebeendecimated,mainlybyintroduceddiseases.Butitisinterestingtoask,whatwoulditmeantosaytheywere"thethemeofthestoryofsettlement"?EventosuggestthattheywerethecentralreasonforthedecimationofAboriginalpopulationsmakesnosense,atleastwherethesepopulationswerelarge.TaketheAustraliandebate.Windschuttle,afterall,takesgreatestumbrageattheestimatesof20,000Aborigineskilledbetween1788andthelate1920s,suggestedindependentlybyHenryReynoldsandRichardBroome.Hebelievesthefigurewasfarless.ButevenifwestaywiththeallegedlygrossexaggerationsofReynoldsandBroome,wehaveanestimateof20,000killedoverabout130yearsor,onaverage,about150peryear.Thatbeingonlyafractionofthedropinpopulation,itcan'tevenbegintorateas"thetheme"ofit.Butbynowthediscussionhasbeenhijacked.Whatbeganasacomplexandmultifacetedtragedy,whichinvolvedwholesaledispossessionoflandand,infairlyshortorder,destroyedawholewayoflifeandcontinuedinmyriadwayswithcatastrophiceffects,isreducedtothequestionwhethertheprimarycauseofdropsinAboriginalpopulationswasmurder.Whocanrememberwhatwestartedwith? Interestingly,havingdrivenoutcomplexityintheseways,thispolarisingstrategyallowsabitofitback,inarhetoricallydisarmedform.Thus,havingconcentratedone'sfireonthepossibilityofgenocide,onecanthenadmitinarhetoricallyminorkeythat–tobesure,noonewoulddeny,itgoeswithoutsayingetc–someunfortunatethingsactuallyhappened.Almosteveryreactionaryrhetoriciandoesthissomewaythroughtheirpolemics(thoughrarelyatthestartofthem,butonlywhenthedamagehasbeendone).ThissortofconcessionworksaccordingtothesemanticlogiconceidentifiedbyErnestGellner,whenheobservedthat"theEnglishexpression‘tobesure'belongstotheinterestingclassofphraseslike‘Iwouldbethelasttosuggest',whichmeantheoppositeofwhattheyseemtomean".Moresimply,thissortofconcession,comingasitalwaysdoesaftertheheadkickinghasbeendone,justworkstoestablishone'scredentialsasaregularguy.Bythetimetheconcessioncomes,itiscalculatedtodonoharminthemaingame,dwarfedasitmustbebytherhetoricaldemolitionofmuchlargerfry.     THEREAREOTHERFORMS ofreactionaryrhetoricthaticouldmention, butthegeneralideaisplain.Therhetoricofreactionisadeviceintendednottofurthertheflowofaconversationofcitizens,buttodamituporredirectitintounthreateningchannels.Whereitisthecharacteristicmodeofintervention,itshould,Ibelieve,beexposedandcriticised. And,yet,Ibeganbyprofessingsympathywiththemotivationtoreacttoattacksonthingstowhichoneisunderstandably,andoftenrightly,attached.ItisthatmotivationthatfuelstherhetoricI'vebeendescribingor,perhapsmoreaccurately,ensuresthatwhateverthemotivesofperpetratorsofreactionaryrhetoric,itdoesn'talwaysfallondeafears.PerhapsnothingwillopentheearsoreyesoftherhetoriciansIhavementionedandperhapsnotallwholistentothemarepersuadableeither.Nevertheless,Itakeittobearegulativeidealofconversation,asdistinctfromwarsofwords,thatthepossibilityofdialogueispresumed.Whatisneeded,then,forrealengagement inconversation? Oneanswercanbestatedinsimple,evenbanal,terms:aconversationnecessarilyhasmorethanoneparty,anditisapeculiarityoftheparticipants'engagement,asdistinctfromamonologue,aharangue,atirade,ashoutingmatch,thattheytreateachotherwithrespect.Whatmightthatinvolve,particularlywhenpassionsarehighandmoralenergiescharged?Idon'thaveclearanswerstothis,norhaveIalwaysbehavedconsistentlywithsuchanswersasIdohave.ButIwouldatleastinsistonthis:thereisarhetoricofcritiquethatcaneasilyprovoketherhetoricofreaction,asamirrordoesareflection.Ithasnothingbettertobesaidforitthanitsopposite.Itrelentlesslymoralisesaboutwhattheotherwithequaldeterminationseekstosanitise,exaggerateswhattheotherisdeterminedtominimise,demoniseswhattheothersanctifies,closesoffexactlythecomplexitiesthattheotheralsodenies,butforoppositeends.[vii] Andanyoneconcernedtostimulatetheconversationofcitizenshas,Ibelieve,aresponsibilitytoavoidthatsortofrhetoric.    [i] KeithWindschuttle, TheFabricationofAboriginalHistory.Vol1:VanDiemen'sLand1803-1847,Sydney:MacleayPress,2002;RobertManne,ed., Whitewash.OnKeithWindschuttle'sFabricationofAboriginalHistory, BlackInc.,Melbourned,2003. [ii] JanGross, Neighbors.TheDestructionoftheJewishCommunityinJedwabne,Poland, PrincetonUniversityPress,Princeton,NJ,2001. [iii] "InDenial.TheStolenGenerationsandtheRight", QuarterlyEssay,Issue1,2001,102. [iv] IowethispointtodiscussionswithRobertvanKriekenwho,happierthanmetousethe"g"word,hastaughtmethatnotusingitdoesnotsolvetheproblemormakeitgoaway. [v] Moreprecisely, 1066andAllThat:amemorablehistoryofEngland/comprisingallthepartsyoucanrememberincludingonehundredandthreegoodthings,fivebadkings,andtwogenuinedates,byW.C.SellarandR.J.Yeatman.Illus.byJ.Reynolds,10thedition,Methuen,London,1931. [vi] "RequiemforaGenocide", (Summer2004)76 TheNationalInterest, 177. [vii] Eg,"Marxism,Communism,andNarcissism",(1990)15 LawandSocialInquiry 709-32. Getthelatestessay,memoir,reportage,fiction,poetryandmore. SubscribetoGriffithRevieworpurchasesingleeditionshere. YouMayAlsoLike Transforminglandscapes Asystemthatcannotdeliverthewellbeingofpeopleandnatureisindeeptrouble.Itinvitesideasandactionsthataretransformative. JamesGustavSpeth,TheBridgeattheEndoftheWorld:Capitalism,theEnvironmentandCrossingfromCrisistoSustainability[i]   INANARTICLEinTheLondonReviewofBooksfromSeptember2017,...Readmore YouMayAlsoLike Climatechange,scienceandcountry ITWOULDBEhardtohearalouderwarningbellthanthe2018specialreportfromtheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange(IPCC)ontheimpactsofglobalwarmingof1.5degreesabovepre-industriallevels.Thereportdeliversthestarkmessagethatglobalwarmingislikelytoreach1.5degreesbyaround2030ifemissions...Readmore YouMayAlsoLike Theplanetisalive IWANTTOtakeyouonajourneyfromtheplanettotheparish,fromtheglobaltothelocal,fromtheEarthinspacetotheearthbeneathourfeet,fromthelonelyglowingspeckofdustattheedgeofthegalaxytothesoilthatwekneeluponandsiftthroughour...Readmore YouMayAlsoLike Howtodrawatree DEPENDINGONYOURdefinitions,thisparticularessayhastakenthreemonthstowriteandthebookofessaysthatit’sapartofhastaken –again,dependingonyourdefinitions –fiveyears.Saplingsgrowfarmorequicklythanmymanuscripthas.Theproductiontimelineofyouraveragephysicalbookiseasilylongenoughforan...Readmore SubscribetoeNews Stayuptodatewiththelatest,news,articlesandspecialoffersfromGriffithReview. ContactPopUp–Content OfficeAddress GriffithReview Buildings02, SouthBank,Campus–GriffithUniversity GreyStreet,SouthBank4101Australia MailingAddress GriffithReview SouthBankCampus,GriffithUniversity POBox3370,SouthBrisbane4101,Australia Contact Email:[email protected] Phone:+61737353071 Fax:+6173735327 MediaEnquiries CinnamonWatsonPublicity Email: [email protected] Phone:+61432219643