On (not) taking offence

What does it mean to be offended? This line of Norm’s set me wondering:

Most people are offended from time to time, either mildly or deeply, by some of what comes their way in speech, opinion, pictorial representation, film.

The thing is, I can’t remember when I have been offended.

Sure, countless things offend against my standards of decency, aesthetics or intellectual rigour. But the offences in this case are against the standards, not me. It’s a category error to believe I personally am offended.

I suspect Muslims are committing this error. Sure, the Danish cartoons offend against Islamic law. But there’s a difference between that and offending actual people.

Put it this way. We call criminals offenders. But their offence is against the laws. Their victims do not ordinarily say they have been offended by being burgled or attacked in the street.

Put it another way. Say you call me a stupid cunt. That’s offensive language – it offends against standards of decency. But I am not offended by this – though I might be surprised or puzzled.

Instead, I’d consider two possibilities. One is that I might actually be a stupid cunt, or at least have done something to warrant the epithet; this is quite consistent with your reaction being over-stated. I don’t feel offended by justified criticism.

The other possibility is that I’ve done nothing to warrant the description. In this case, you’re just being stupid and I can ignore you. I’m no more offended by the ranting of a cretin than I am if a pigeon shits on my head - it’s in the nature of idiots to say idiotic things.

The same is true if you insult the groups to which I belong. If you say all white men are racist and sexist, I’ll merely consider you mistaken in my individual case. No offence taken.

There are two distinctions to draw here.

First, distinguish between being offended and being threatened. If you call me a stupid cunt, it might be preparatory to hitting me. If so, I’d feel threatened, not offended.

Second, much offensive language is a justification for oppression or injustice; for example, the claim that “black men are stupider than whites” gains some of its offensiveness from providing a justification for racist employment policies. But again, the offence is against standards of justice (and truth), not individuals.

I suspect that some of Muslims anger at the cartoons stems from a belief that these considerations apply, rather from their being “offended.”

To me, then, the notion of being offended per se doesn’t make much sense. This raises several questions. Is this view the complacency of privilege; I’m a straight white Englishman? Or is it because I’m a radically disembodied subject whose views - unlike those of Muslims – are not constitutive of his identity? Or is it that I’m actually right, and claims to be personally "offended” are merely examples of the culture of victimhood?

I don’t know.

Comments

[Marcin]

I think it's fair to say that you are probably both privileged and radically disembodied.

For example, I am offended by people who say "First thing we do let's kill all lawyers", not realising that the joke is on them - it offends against all of my beliefs about how society should operate, and about how people should think about what they say, and the implications of taking it seriously.

Similarly, I once knew a chap - a musician - who was offended by another acquaintance who when drunk would like to pick up guitars and play the F chord repeatedly, tunelessly singing "This is F/This is my F-chord song (etc.)", because it is baseless parody of music and musicianship.

[Robert Schwartz]

my intial hypothesis is that they are all barking mad.

[david]

"Second, much offensive language is a justification for oppression or injustice; for example, the claim that “black men are stupider than whites” gains some of its offensiveness from providing a justification for racist employment policies. But again, the offence is against standards of justice (and truth), not individuals."

You can't possibly mean this. It doesn't make sense, unless you think that the standards of justice have no relationship to individuals.

[The Pedant-General]

In a civilised society, I think it is actually offensive "to take offence". In order to do this, you have to project bad motive onto the "offendee". Which is not a nice assumption to make.

I wrote about this when all the brouhaha about the Piglet ban and George Cross stuff blew up.

http://infinitivesunsplit.blogspot.com/2005/10/offensive-spirit.html

Toodle Pip!
PG

[Northerner In Southwark]

OK magazine offends me. Still I exercise my economic rights and boycott its purchase.