Fascinating post! Great contextualization of "student violence." I just wrote about the long-term decline in the English murder rate yesterday in a post on Renaissance revenge tragedy, but came to almost the opposite conclusion: that the theater really was enmeshed with certain kinds of violent behavior. It's not that books cause violence (or anything else, mostly) in any simple sense, but that they're a component of culture and in that sense part of the history of behavior or action. Dueling is a good example because it's highly codified and that codification is disseminated in part through literature. I bet if you looked at depositions in some of those Oxford cases, you'd find quite a few cases where homicides were provoked by highly cliched insults or stylized questions of honor. (But probably not, as you point out, by the curriculum itself!)
Great question. Unfortunately the crime statistics are too messy to get much granularity, and the Civil War and Protectorate era are especially murky because of issues with continuous record keeping. It's reasonably clear that homicide begins to go down around the middle of the 17th century and reaches early 16th century rates by the early 18th century. The reasons seem to be some combination of easing population pressure, an improving economy, growth of the state, and cultural shifts. I'd be shocked if the theater on its own made a difference in national crime statistics--I just don't think it's on that scale--but not at all surprised if revenge tragedy not only reflected what was going on, but also provided a way of framing and approaching interpersonal action, including violence, that had an impact on the behavior of those most closely connected with it. One of many questions that requires prosopography!
Because Israel markets itself as a Western-style democracy and the settler colonial label, though too simplistic, is not wholly inaccurate. It’s natural for students to support what they see as a just struggle against oppression. I doubt anti-Afrikaner sentiment played a big role in anti-Apartheid protests, why can’t the same be assumed here?
The Kurdish cause also seems quite just: they were our allies in the fight against ISIS, we certainly had the power, if we wanted, to give them a state. Instead we withdrew, leaving them high and dry, just like we did to the Hmong after Vietnam. But nobody cared. Why this struggle for self-determination and not that one?
As for anti-Afrikaner sentiment--the reason you know that didn't play a role is that there's no such thing as anti-Afrikaner sentiment. Antisemitism on the other hand is very real. We know it's a frightening and powerful force in the world at large, and that it serves as an explicit motivation for several large political movements. In that context, antisemitism does seem to provide some explanation for why students care so much more about the Palestinians than about the Kurds
For me, there are two actions that have really turned me against the pro-Palestine protestors. First, and most obviously, was the jubilation, or at best silence, when Hamas committed some of the most disgusting acts of war witnessed in modern times. Those purporting to be anti war should have supported Israel at that point, not protested against it. And second, Jews in the US have been subject to nonstop hostility since the invasion. Again, this should have met with condemnation from the protestors who weren't anti semitic. But again, nothing. These two issues should have repelled all the protestors who are protesting for peace generally, or are anti Israel but not anti Jewish. It's hard to conclude that those still out there protesting aren't anti Semitic.
I'm not goiing to post any followups here. A substack on Great Books isn't the place to debate Palestine. And for what it's worth, I'm neither Jewish nor Muslim, politically centrist, so no skin in this game either. Just looking for some sanity in today's world.
I can’t argue that it plays no role, but I also think it has been used by the pro-Israel camp to ignore legitimate criticism. I agree that the concerns of the campus left are too parochial and I don’t actually share the sentiment that the actions of Israel is especially egregious. But I think most people taking part are doing it because it’s the radical cause du jour, not because of special feelings towards any of the parties involved.
This issue has indeed revealed that respect for the right to freedom of speech is as conditional on the right as it is on the left. However, I don’t it is accurate to simply ascribe to Ivy League students a typical Christian and Muslim antipathy towards Jews. In the broader perspective, the American government has not used its leverage to halt settlements in the West Bank or to move towards a viable two state solution. Realistically, what can the US government to do convince China to treat the Uyghurs better? The direct link to Columbia may be tenuous, but these students are all aspiring to be part of the ruling class and I think there is some genuine outrage at that class’s more-or-less unconditional support for Israel, even though the motivating event for this renewed focus was an unconscionable attack.
But why should the US treat Israel differently than it does any of its other allies? Generally speaking the US is pretty hands-off when it comes to the domestic / human rights situation of its allies. We haven't asked for democratic reforms in Saudi Arabia. We haven't asked Pakistan to improve its treatment of women. We haven't asked Turkey to stop oppressing the Kurds. Why is Israel held to a different standard?
You’re almost undoubtedly familiar with this, but in case not, you might appreciate that this book opens with an account of the drastic reformation (some might say gutting) of Columbia’s “Contemporary Civilization”—their Great Books curriculum—that occurred just prior to the more famous events of 1968: https://archive.org/details/upagainstivywall00avor/page/3/mode/1up.
Can't believe I forgot Columbia was the center of the Great Books movement!!!!! What's funny is as far as I know, Columbia to this day has a common core program that's essentially a Great Books program. So they might've guillotined it in 1968, but at some point the head grew back!
Yeah, looks like CC is alive and well--although not quite so dead white dude centric as it was in 1968 (or in 1945, when my father was there): http://www.college.columbia.edu/core-curriculum/classes/contemporary-civilization. Some day when I have more time and am less angry I'd love to follow the full history of what happened. For now you can find me among my Great Books with Phil Ochs's "I'm Going to Say It Now" blasting.
Oh yay! I am glad you are back to posting! Interestingly enough, I have only seen one article (behind a paywall of course) about what's happening at Columbia. And I appreciate your footnote!
Fascinating post! Great contextualization of "student violence." I just wrote about the long-term decline in the English murder rate yesterday in a post on Renaissance revenge tragedy, but came to almost the opposite conclusion: that the theater really was enmeshed with certain kinds of violent behavior. It's not that books cause violence (or anything else, mostly) in any simple sense, but that they're a component of culture and in that sense part of the history of behavior or action. Dueling is a good example because it's highly codified and that codification is disseminated in part through literature. I bet if you looked at depositions in some of those Oxford cases, you'd find quite a few cases where homicides were provoked by highly cliched insults or stylized questions of honor. (But probably not, as you point out, by the curriculum itself!)
Sounds like a fascinating study! So did violence go down when the theater was banned by the Long Parliament?
Great question. Unfortunately the crime statistics are too messy to get much granularity, and the Civil War and Protectorate era are especially murky because of issues with continuous record keeping. It's reasonably clear that homicide begins to go down around the middle of the 17th century and reaches early 16th century rates by the early 18th century. The reasons seem to be some combination of easing population pressure, an improving economy, growth of the state, and cultural shifts. I'd be shocked if the theater on its own made a difference in national crime statistics--I just don't think it's on that scale--but not at all surprised if revenge tragedy not only reflected what was going on, but also provided a way of framing and approaching interpersonal action, including violence, that had an impact on the behavior of those most closely connected with it. One of many questions that requires prosopography!
Hamas v. The legitimate government of Israel.
Just because two people are fighting does not mean either of them are right.
Because Israel markets itself as a Western-style democracy and the settler colonial label, though too simplistic, is not wholly inaccurate. It’s natural for students to support what they see as a just struggle against oppression. I doubt anti-Afrikaner sentiment played a big role in anti-Apartheid protests, why can’t the same be assumed here?
The Kurdish cause also seems quite just: they were our allies in the fight against ISIS, we certainly had the power, if we wanted, to give them a state. Instead we withdrew, leaving them high and dry, just like we did to the Hmong after Vietnam. But nobody cared. Why this struggle for self-determination and not that one?
As for anti-Afrikaner sentiment--the reason you know that didn't play a role is that there's no such thing as anti-Afrikaner sentiment. Antisemitism on the other hand is very real. We know it's a frightening and powerful force in the world at large, and that it serves as an explicit motivation for several large political movements. In that context, antisemitism does seem to provide some explanation for why students care so much more about the Palestinians than about the Kurds
For me, there are two actions that have really turned me against the pro-Palestine protestors. First, and most obviously, was the jubilation, or at best silence, when Hamas committed some of the most disgusting acts of war witnessed in modern times. Those purporting to be anti war should have supported Israel at that point, not protested against it. And second, Jews in the US have been subject to nonstop hostility since the invasion. Again, this should have met with condemnation from the protestors who weren't anti semitic. But again, nothing. These two issues should have repelled all the protestors who are protesting for peace generally, or are anti Israel but not anti Jewish. It's hard to conclude that those still out there protesting aren't anti Semitic.
I'm not goiing to post any followups here. A substack on Great Books isn't the place to debate Palestine. And for what it's worth, I'm neither Jewish nor Muslim, politically centrist, so no skin in this game either. Just looking for some sanity in today's world.
I can’t argue that it plays no role, but I also think it has been used by the pro-Israel camp to ignore legitimate criticism. I agree that the concerns of the campus left are too parochial and I don’t actually share the sentiment that the actions of Israel is especially egregious. But I think most people taking part are doing it because it’s the radical cause du jour, not because of special feelings towards any of the parties involved.
This issue has indeed revealed that respect for the right to freedom of speech is as conditional on the right as it is on the left. However, I don’t it is accurate to simply ascribe to Ivy League students a typical Christian and Muslim antipathy towards Jews. In the broader perspective, the American government has not used its leverage to halt settlements in the West Bank or to move towards a viable two state solution. Realistically, what can the US government to do convince China to treat the Uyghurs better? The direct link to Columbia may be tenuous, but these students are all aspiring to be part of the ruling class and I think there is some genuine outrage at that class’s more-or-less unconditional support for Israel, even though the motivating event for this renewed focus was an unconscionable attack.
But why should the US treat Israel differently than it does any of its other allies? Generally speaking the US is pretty hands-off when it comes to the domestic / human rights situation of its allies. We haven't asked for democratic reforms in Saudi Arabia. We haven't asked Pakistan to improve its treatment of women. We haven't asked Turkey to stop oppressing the Kurds. Why is Israel held to a different standard?
You’re almost undoubtedly familiar with this, but in case not, you might appreciate that this book opens with an account of the drastic reformation (some might say gutting) of Columbia’s “Contemporary Civilization”—their Great Books curriculum—that occurred just prior to the more famous events of 1968: https://archive.org/details/upagainstivywall00avor/page/3/mode/1up.
Can't believe I forgot Columbia was the center of the Great Books movement!!!!! What's funny is as far as I know, Columbia to this day has a common core program that's essentially a Great Books program. So they might've guillotined it in 1968, but at some point the head grew back!
Yeah, looks like CC is alive and well--although not quite so dead white dude centric as it was in 1968 (or in 1945, when my father was there): http://www.college.columbia.edu/core-curriculum/classes/contemporary-civilization. Some day when I have more time and am less angry I'd love to follow the full history of what happened. For now you can find me among my Great Books with Phil Ochs's "I'm Going to Say It Now" blasting.
Oh yay! I am glad you are back to posting! Interestingly enough, I have only seen one article (behind a paywall of course) about what's happening at Columbia. And I appreciate your footnote!