My preparations for Monday’s lecture are now complete, with
24” x 36” show-and-tell sheets on which – gasp – little equations are
displayed. [This is where I lose my
burgeoning audience.] I thought,
therefore, that I would take a few moments to comment on the White House scandal
involving Chief of Staff John Kelly’s second in command and right hand man Rob
Porter. Porter is a tall, handsome upper
class guy, a graduate of Harvard, a Rhodes Scholar, a former aide to Senator
Orrin Hatch, a Mormon, the current lover of White House Chief of Communications
Hope Hicks and, it turns out, a serial wife beater. [You can’t make this stuff up.] I do not care about Porter, who has now
joined the lengthening trail of White House staff who have quit or been fired. What interests me is Kelly, and more
particularly the talking head commentary on Kelly, which strikes me as
exhibiting an important misunderstanding.
Kelly initially responded to the public revelation that
Porter’s two former wives had both accused him of serious physical and
emotional abuse by defending Porter as a man of honor and integrity. He stuck to this praise even after a photo
was released showing a really ugly black eye that Porter had given one of his
wives. Kelly only backed off a tad after
the public outcry became politically embarrassing, at which point he released a
statement condemning spousal abuse.
Beetling around, the TV commentariat quickly surfaced a clip
in which Kelly was heard musing sadly last Fall that when he was growing up, “Women were sacred and looked upon with great
honor.” This was taken to be in conflict
with his defense of Porter, and so the talking heads wondered whether working
in the White House had caused Kelly to lose his way.
Such comments, I suggest, reveal a deep and actually rather
important misunderstanding of the way many men think and feel about women. There is in fact no contradiction at all
between Kelly’s extolling of women as sacred and his embrace of a serial wife
beater. For reasons that I explored at
length in my videotaped lectures on the thought of Sigmund Freud and will therefore
not repeat here, little boys and girls handle their ambivalent erotic feelings
about their mothers and fathers by a process of splitting. They separate off the love from the hate and split
the image of the parent in two, feeling the love toward the positive image of
the parent and the hatred toward the negative image, thus allowing them to
preserve both feelings intact and uncompromised. If you want familiar examples of this very
common psychodynamic process, look at fairy tales: the sainted [but dead] mother whom the little
girl reveres and the wicked stepmother whom the same little girl hates; the
safely dead father of Jack and the hated ogre who lives at the top of the beanstalk
and can be killed with impunity, enabling Jack to live happily with his mother.
Men who put women on pedestals and worship them as sacred
are quite likely at the same time to view other women as whores who need to be
beaten up. The very same wife who is
revered in public, sincerely so, may in private when the man gets angry become
the object, also sincerely, of his hatred and violence.
I do not think for a moment that Kelly has been changed by
his White House stint. Nor do I think he
is a hypocrite. My guess is that he
really thinks he reveres women as saints and equally really believes that a
fine man like Rob Porter must have good reason to beat his wives.
I would suggest to Hope Hicks that she think twice about her
choice of lovers.
Haven't been following the story closely. That said, there's another possible explanation, it seems to me. Kelly is a former Marine general, if I'm not mistaken. The military's culture encourages loyalty to subordinates (and superiors), esp. those who are perceived to have performed their duties well. Porter was apparently valuable to Kelly in Porter's role at the White House and Kelly's instinct was to circle the wagons and defend him.
ReplyDeleteThis doesn't require the supposition that Kelly thinks Porter "must have a good reason" to abuse his wives, nor does it require invoking Freud. Rather the assumptions are, first, Kelly highly valued Porter's job performance, and second, Kelly doesn't fully understand how serious allegations of spousal abuse are. One can fall into this latter category and still think women should be revered, etc. It's plausible enough that "Men who put women on pedestals and worship them as sacred are quite likely at the same time to view other women as whores who need to be beaten up," but I don't think this necessarily connects to the Freudian position on 'splitting', nor is it clear that this characterizes Kelly's views accurately (the 'pedestal' part may, but not the 'beating' part).
Of course the military's culture also has had sexist elements. It's quite possible that Kelly's view of women is stuck in, say, the 1950s. But that's not the same as saying, or guessing, that Kelly "really believes that ... Rob Porter must have good reason to beat his wives." That guess or supposition puts things in a way that I'm not sure any of the available evidence supports.
re Marx: 15 mins. into lecture 2, I paused to track down "forms things according to the laws of beauty" and read online the surrounding passages on estranged labor in the Ec. and Phil. Manuscripts. I hadn't remembered that this reads almost like a stream of consciousness -- not that the sentences aren't connected, but it's somewhat repetitive, and fairly clear assertions are interspersed w the rather opaque (imo) refs to 'species being', etc. It's understandable, just on the basis of these passages, why Marx never intended this to be published -- which is not to say, of course, that it shouldn't have been. And there are few or no concrete examples -- just when the reader wants one, he's off on another abstract formulation. It certainly didn't want to make me revisit it at any length.
ReplyDeletecorrection:
ReplyDeleteIt certainly didn't make me want to revisit it [etc]
We all tend to be blind when someone we think highly of is accused of a serious crime.
ReplyDeleteAbout 10 years ago a priest who had been a very courageous leader in the human rights movement against the dictatorship in Chile was accused of sexually abusing teenagers, and I (and others) even signed a petition claiming that he was obviously innocent and it was all a rightwing plot to discredit a noble human rights activist.
Well, he was guilty. It's obvious that someone can be a courageous activist for human rights during a dictatorship and commit sexual abuse. But that's hard to see if you
participated along with that person in the human rights movement and looked up to him. That does not mean that those who signed the petition believe that sexual abuse is ever justified of course.
Can this psychology have the same impact on instructional philosophy? College professors overshadow the nefarious parts of Plato's ancient Greek cultural beliefs by focusing on Plato's rather eloquent philosophical brillance.
ReplyDelete@ Michael Llenos
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure exactly which parts of Plato's "cultural beliefs" you're referring to, but, speaking as a non-philosopher (and non-professor), I'm inclined not to blame Plato for cultural beliefs that were accepted by virtually every member of his class and society. If there was no opposition to slavery in ancient Athens, then I doubt there's much point in faulting Plato for accepting the institution of slavery without question.
This changes, at least as far as I'm concerned, once one moves forward in time. It's quite reasonable to charge Jefferson, for example, with hypocrisy or inconsistency for being both a slaveholder and the author of the line "all men are created equal and are endowed ... with certain unalienable rights." The context is different -- for one thing, there was opposition to slavery in the 18th cent. while there wasn't, afaik, in ancient Athens. And Plato, afaik, never claimed that all persons are created equal.
It's fine to dislike and criticize Plato's elitism, or his views on the arts, or on justice, or the family, or the character of the ideal polity, or etc., but to hold "ancient Greek cultural beliefs" against Plato seems to me rather pointless. YMMV.
LFC
ReplyDeletePlato was pro pedophilia to some extant in some of his writings. Plato was definitely a homosexual, but to be a lover of young boys was something I believe he may be guilty of. I believe in ancient Greece or modern times, children and teenagers should be protected from sexual predators at all times. To me just to mention pedophilia in any sort of tolerable terms is a sick disgrace. I may be an anachronism for those times, but pedophilia is an abomination, and people who commit pedophilia should be fed alive and bleeding to sharks.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMichael Llenos,
ReplyDeleteI agree with what LFC says above: that you cannot judge people as guilty of crimes which were not considered crimes by anyone else in their day.
For a good portrayal of how the Greeks saw sex with young boys, see the second volume of Foucault's The History of Sexuality. The title is the Use of Pleasures or something like that.
By the way, the Greeks did not generally practice pedophilia, which is generally defined as sex with children before the age of puberty. They did practice sex with adolescents who had passed the age of puberty. They had a special, rather complex code about that, which Foucault describes at length in the book I mentioned above. A courting procedure was involved and thus, there had to be consent on the part of the young man.
I'm not going to defend Greek sexuality, but I'm not going to condemn it either.
LFC
ReplyDeletePedophilia should not be ignored for the beauty of Plato's language! Pedophilia is an abomination. They should keep the Euthypro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Laws, and Republic (and the two books on Atlantis) and burn the rest. Or like Justinian did in 529 B.C., shut the whole thing down.
I meant 529 A.D.
ReplyDeleteS. Wallerstein,
ReplyDeleteThe British people didn't feel selling opium to the Chinese people, for the prosperity of trading, was a bad thing either.
The British East India Co. today are looked back as monsters.
Michael Llenos,
ReplyDeleteI don't know anything about the British East India Co., so I'll not debate you about that.
The ancient Greeks had a lower age of sexual consent than we do. Young teenage girls married, and young teenage boys (over the age of puberty) were courted by older males.
That doesn't make them monsters or heroes in my book, just people with different sexual customs.
By the way, unlike the ancient Hebrews, they didn't stone homosexuals to death.
But, as I said, I'm not going to defend the Greeks nor will I condemn them. The statute of limitations on their "crimes" ran out many years ago.
Good night. I'm signing off.
I move that we keep the Theaetetus....
ReplyDeleteI've read this exchange quickly. S. Wallerstein is right.
ReplyDeleteTwo short additional comments. First, the correct definition of "pedophilia" is an involuntary sexual attraction to individuals who have not yet reached puberty. The word does not refer to behavior but to a disposition (some people who have the disposition act on it, thereby committing a crime, and others don't act on it). Second, like s. wallerstein I have no interest in passing judgment on ancient Greek sexual practices, but I don't think *any* of Plato's works should be "burned" (M. Llenos's word). And I don't intend to comment further on this.
In one of Professor Leiter's polls last year, Plato was voted to be the second greatest Western philosopher (Aristotle came first):
ReplyDeletehttp://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2017/04/the-most-important-western-philosophers-of-all-time.html
For the record. Children and teenagers should not be having sex with others. And they especially should not be having sex with adults. That's for the record.
ReplyDeleteBut there's nothing wrong with teenagers having sex with other teenagers if they consent to it.
ReplyDeleteThat's for the record.
ReplyDeleteWell, thank goodness we've cleared that all up.
By the way...
ReplyDeleteAlthough very late in posting this: if I've blamed the ancient Greeks for anything done to the Jewish people, during the period when the Maccabees took place, I do not blame the ancient Athenians. I do not want the Goddess, herself, angry at me for disrespecting her city, or its ancient people loyal to her.