Les Green has an interesting post on responding to people who have done reprehensible things. Green frames his discussion in terms of Michael Jackson and Martin Heidegger. Both important cultural figures in their ways. The removal of either from the cultural history would be a real loss. Green recognizes that such people are important, and that removing their works to trash bin would be a genuine and perhaps serious loss. It is also important he thinks to conjoin their lives with the works because the lives may illuminate or alter how we view the works. Good so far. So much for the dead. If living, then, if I understand Green, we should appreciate the work but not the person, deny them our social support. "And we can always return to give the work its due when the worker, like Jackson and Heidegger, is no longer in any position to derive influence from the honour." We appreciate the work done now but reject the reprehensible conduct or beliefs -- because otherwise we accord them too much influence. (Set aside the obvious challenges of measured responses -- different kinds of conduct are wrong in different ways and degrees, and responses presumably correlate with those differences.).
Is that prescription or description? Surely it is not a surprise that Jackson was a pedophile. Equally, there was no secret about Heidegger's beliefs and actions. Prescription then. So is it that we modulate, tamp down, our appreciation of the work while they live? How is that done, I wonder. How does the work get to a position to be recognized after death if we are not already seeing it as important? Maybe we follow a kind of Ducasse model of fame (Lautreamont) -- leave it to someone to find the works after death and bring them to attention of others. That seems a poor model, and certainly not what Green was thinking of. Maybe instead what he was thinking about was social sanctions -- personal shunning. I can think well of the books and loathe the person, and loathing them work to mitigate their influence? So the ad hominem argument prevails.
Consider again the examples, and the context. It is about individuals, and the works attributed to the individuals. Heidegger's writing, Jackson's music, and so on. A suggested rule for humanities. Not teams, not the scientist who, although vile himself, leads a team to important work. Tamp down the influence of the team? Denigrate the work of the team? That seems unlikely. And unlikely that we think less of the accomplishment because of the character of the one leading. (Does it have to be a leader, or does the team's work get tainted by the supporting echelons?).
Things don't get better because the wrongdoer is dead. I think. Or, I think for those who believe these moral categories and think them real, I don't see how the dying changes how we react to the works. I do think that I think I need to think more about it.
Recent Comments