{"id":89047,"date":"2021-09-03T17:05:21","date_gmt":"2021-09-03T15:05:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/?p=89047"},"modified":"2021-09-09T08:07:03","modified_gmt":"2021-09-09T06:07:03","slug":"11-05-71","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/?p=89047","title":{"rendered":"THE NEW PURITANS"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>THE NEW PURITANS<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/h5>\n

Anne Applebaum Illustrations by Nicolas Ortega<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Social codes are changing, in many ways for the better. But for those whose behavior doesn\u2019t adapt fast enough to the new norms, judgment can be swift\u2014and merciless.<\/strong><\/span>
\n.<\/h4>\n

Guildhall Library & Art Gallery \/ Heritage Images \/ Getty<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

It was no great<\/span> distance, in those days, from the prison-door to the market-place. Measured by the prisoner\u2019s experience, however, it might be reckoned a journey of some length.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

So begins the tale of Hester Prynne, as recounted in Nathaniel Hawthorne\u2019s most famous novel, The Scarlet Letter.<\/i> As readers of this classic American text know, the story begins after Hester gives birth to a child out of wedlock and refuses to name the father. As a result, she is sentenced to be mocked by a jeering crowd, undergoing \u201can agony from every footstep of those that thronged to see her, as if her heart had been flung into the street for them all to spurn and trample upon.\u201d After that, she must wear a scarlet A<\/i>\u2014for adulterer\u2014pinned to her dress for the rest of her life. On the outskirts of Boston, she lives in exile. No one will socialize with her\u2014not even those who have quietly committed similar sins, among them the father of her child, the saintly village preacher. The scarlet letter has \u201cthe effect of a spell, taking her out of the ordinary relations with humanity, and enclosing her in a sphere by herself.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

We read that story with a certain self-satisfaction: Such an old-fashioned tale!<\/i> Even Hawthorne sneered at the Puritans, with their \u201csad-colored garments and grey steeple-crowned hats,\u201d their strict conformism, their narrow minds and their hypocrisy. And today we are not just hip and modern; we live in a land governed by the rule of law; we have procedures designed to prevent the meting-out of unfair punishment. Scarlet letters are a thing of the past.<\/span><\/p>\n

Except, of course, they aren\u2019t. Right here in America, right now, it is possible to meet people who have lost everything\u2014jobs, money, friends, colleagues\u2014after violating no laws, and sometimes no workplace rules either. Instead, they have broken (or are accused of having broken) social codes having to do with race, sex, personal behavior, or even acceptable humor, which may not have existed five years ago or maybe five months ago. Some have made egregious errors of judgment. Some have done nothing at all. It is not always easy to tell.<\/span><\/p>\n

Yet despite the disputed nature of these cases, it has become both easy and useful for some people to put them into larger narratives. Partisans, especially on the right, now toss around the phrase cancel culture<\/i> when they want to defend themselves from criticism, however legitimate. But dig into the story of anyone who has been a genuine victim of modern mob justice and you will often find not an obvious argument between \u201cwoke\u201d and \u201canti-woke\u201d perspectives but rather incidents that are interpreted, described, or remembered by different people in different ways, even leaving aside whatever political or intellectual issue might be at stake.<\/span><\/p>\n

There is a reason that the science reporter Donald McNeil, after being asked to resign from The New York Times<\/i>, needed 21,000 words, published<\/a> in<\/a> four<\/a> parts<\/a><\/strong><\/span>, to recount a series of conversations he had had with high-school students in Peru, during which he may or may not have said something racially offensive, depending on whose account you find most persuasive. There is a reason that Laura Kipnis, an academic at Northwestern, required an entire book, Unwanted Advances: Sexual Paranoia Comes to Campus<\/i><\/a>,<\/strong> <\/span>to recount the repercussions, including to herself, of two allegations of sexual harassment against one man at her university; after she referred to the case in an article about \u201csexual paranoia,\u201d<\/a> s<\/strong><\/span>tudents demanded that the university investigate her, too. A full explanation of the personal, professional, and political nuances in both cases needed a lot of space.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

There is a reason, too, that Hawthorne dedicated an entire novel to the complex motivations of Hester Prynne, her lover, and her husband. Nuance and ambiguity are essential to good fiction. They are also essential to the rule of law: We have courts, juries, judges, and witnesses precisely so that the state can learn whether a crime has been committed before it administers punishment. We have a presumption of innocence for the accused. We have a right to self-defense. We have a statute of limitations.<\/span><\/p>\n

By contrast, the modern online public sphere, a place of rapid conclusions, rigid ideological prisms, and arguments of 280 characters, favors neither nuance nor ambiguity. Yet the values of that online sphere have come to dominate many American cultural institutions: universities, newspapers, foundations, museums. Heeding public demands for rapid retribution, they sometimes impose the equivalent of lifetime scarlet letters on people who have not been accused of anything remotely resembling a crime. Instead of courts, they use secretive bureaucracies. Instead of hearing evidence and witnesses, they make judgments behind closed doors.<\/span><\/p>\n

I have been trying to understand these stories for a long time, both because I believe that the principle of due process underpins liberal democracy, and also because they remind me of other times and places. A decade ago, I wrote a book about the Sovietization of Central Europe<\/a><\/strong><\/span> in the 1940s, and found that much of the political conformism of the early Communist period was the result not of violence or direct state coercion, but rather of intense peer pressure. Even without a clear risk to their life, people felt obliged\u2014not just for the sake of their career but for their children, their friends, their spouse\u2014to repeat slogans that they didn\u2019t believe, or to perform acts of public obeisance to a political party they privately scorned. In 1948, the famous Polish composer Andrzej Panufnik sent what he later described as some \u201crubbish\u201d as his entry into a competition to write a \u201cSong of the United Party\u201d\u2014because he thought if he refused to submit anything, the whole Union of Polish Composers might lose funding. To his eternal humiliation, he won. Lily Hajd\u00fa-Gimes, a celebrated Hungarian psychoanalyst of that era, diagnosed the trauma of forced conformity in patients, as well as in herself. \u201cI play the game that is offered by the regime,\u201d she told friends, \u201cthough as soon as you accept that rule you are in a trap.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

But you don\u2019t even need Stalinism to create that kind of atmosphere<\/a>.<\/strong><\/span> During a trip to Turkey earlier this year, I met a writer who showed me his latest manuscript, kept in a desk drawer. His work wasn\u2019t illegal, exactly\u2014it was just unpublishable. Turkish newspapers, magazines, and publishing houses are subject to unpredictable prosecutions and drastic sentences for speech or writing that can be arbitrarily construed as insulting the president or the Turkish nation. Fear of those sanctions leads to self-censorship and silence.<\/span><\/p>\n

In America, of course, we don\u2019t have that kind of state coercion. There are currently no laws that shape what academics or journalists can say; there is no government censor, no ruling-party censor. But fear of the internet mob, the office mob, or the peer-group mob is producing some similar outcomes. How many American manuscripts now remain in desk drawers\u2014or unwritten altogether\u2014because their authors fear a similarly arbitrary judgment? How much intellectual life is now stifled because of fear of what a poorly worded comment would look like if taken out of context and spread on Twitter?<\/span><\/p>\n

To answer that question, I spoke with more than a dozen people who were either victims or close observers of sudden shifts in social codes in America. The purpose here is not to reinvestigate or relitigate any of their cases. Some of those I interviewed have behaved in ways that I, or readers of this article, may well consider ill-judged or immoral, even if they were not illegal. I am not here questioning all of the new social codes that have led to their dismissal or their effective isolation. Many of these social changes are clearly positive.<\/span><\/p>\n