Benjamin Hourigan

Today, dogpossum posted what is, so far, the most antagonistic comment related to my site that I’ve yet received. Her blog doesn’t have permalinks, so you’ll just have to search for 17 March 2005. Currently, though, it’s at or near the top of the blog.

I don’t mind antagonism. In fact, I know that just by putting forward my opinions on some issues, I’m going to bait people. Possibly everyone. My post on Australia Day baits jingoists: but being mostly acquainted with people of the university set, I don’t expect many jingoists to be reading. My post on arts funding has attracted a lot of comments, most disagreeing with me forcefully. I knew it would bait those kind of responses. That’s not why I write things like that, though: I hope I do so because I have good reasons for my views, and I want to express them, to open up debate. So they have. I enjoy this. So, I hope, do you, my readers and correspondents, most of whom (and possibly all) are of the university set. “University set” isn’t meant to be an insult, by the way: I’m a member of the same cultural milieu, and though it irritates me some times, I still feel at home in it.

Dogpossum’s post seems to be a fairly visceral reaction to my politics, and except where she points out that I don’t know much about Australian cinema (touché), it’s not a good example of a contribution to debate. It shows a common tendency of writers who identify with a leftist politics, and who imagine those who disagree with them are all contemptible rightists. Its response to me is almost entirely to attack my person: to call me a “fool” and an “imbecile,” to ridicule my recording, in my resumé, of my intelligence percentile, determined by a psychologist-administered test, and to “mock” my “turn of phrase”. It objects to my politics without specifying grounds for objection, and without even identifying what my politics are.

For the record, I’ve met dogpossum at least once in RL, where our disagreements were not apparent, and where I found her very likeable. I enjoyed meeting her.

Dogpossum, you owe yourself better than to be so uncivil in writing. I don’t expect you to disagree any less forcefully: but if you can’t say anything nice about my person, you maintain your honour better by not saying anything at all.

Dogpossum’s personal attacks are symptomatic of a tendency that I’ve noticed in my interactions with Cultural Studies academics generally, particularly where political matters are involved. There’s a set of people and beliefs that they assume everyone agrees or disagrees with (i.e. we are all ‘left’; capitalism is immoral; everyone who disagrees with you is a right-wing bastard, especially people who criticise identity politics or French pseudo-philosophy; logic is a tool of oppression; and so on). If you challenge one of these, you get hammered with personal attacks. For an example of what I’m talking about, have a look at the threads resulting from my recent intervention on the CSAA email forum. (Note that the thread goes on into subsequent weeks). Here it’s not me who’s the subject of the attacks (in the main), but rather so-called “right wing jocks” who dare (often very unskillfully) to criticise Cultural Studies. The sad thing is that Cultural Studies practitioners attack these people personally when they could have targeted the gaping holes in their opponents’ arguments, which end up going unmentioned.

I believe this kind of behaviour (and it seems to come from multiple sides) is extremely damaging to the intellectual climate wherever it occurs. Intellectuals should be debating each other’s ideas, not calling each other fools and imbeciles. We can leave that to those who don’t know any better.

Dogpossum, I believe you do know better.

In a comment on dogpossum’s post, I’ve invited her to discuss her objections with me. I hope she’ll take up my invitation, hopefully here, because of the lack of permalinks on her site. I would expect our words to make for interesting reading.

With legislation to ban compulsory student unionism currently before parliament, student groups are protesting on the streets, on posters stuck around campus, and to the press to keep union membership compulsory. Even Vice Chancellors are expressing concerns.

I find it staggering that people would protest against their own freedom of association. Okay, if you appreciate the services and representation the union offers you, join it and pay the fee. But give yourself an out if you decide it’s not for you, and let other people decide for themselves whether they join and pay or not.

Admittedly, students can already choose not to join (for the record, I chose to be a member of what remains of Melbourne’s student union, and of UMPA. But they have to pay the fee whether they join or not. I would skip out on membership of the union if I wasn’t paying already.

The main arguments against voluntary student unionism (VSU) seem to be these:

1. it is an example of the Howard government’s union-busting mentality
2. it will rob students of a body that represents them
3. it will result in less services being provided to students

I’m not going to argue with the first one. I think that the Howard government’s antagonism towards unions is appalling. Workers and their employers (or universities and their customers) should be entitled to fight their battles, in whatever groupings they choose, without goverment interference.

Whether or not student unions really represent their students is debatable. There will always be those who dissent from the opinion of their representatives, whether they voted for them or not, and those dissenting people are not represented. Voter turnouts at student elections are, to the best of my knowledge, typically poor. That’s fine: those who want to have a say can have it. Student representation is a good thing, but…

...there’s no way to justify forcing people to join an association in order to secure that representation. For me this is an absolutely clear-cut issue. If student unionists do not wish to let students choose whether or not to join their association and pay the associated fees, then they are against freedom and therefore in the wrong. (Note that as far as I am aware it is voluntary to join the association, but you have to pay the fee even if you don’t join). If student unionists wish to remain a voice in student politics after this reform (and it will go through), they will have to convince students that it is in their interests not only to join the union, student association or guild, but also to voluntarily pay the portion of their amentities and services fee (the whole amount of which is currently around $400 a year at Melbourne, some of which goes to the University itself). I have to say it: I don’t think they’ll have many takers. They might be able to claw some of their membership back if they lower the fee. Price competitiveness is one of the great things that can come from forcing organisations to respond to market pressures.

So, too, I expect both union services, and the private businesses that will appear on campuses to fill the space created by shrinking unions, will have to compete on price and quality of service to secure the patronage of students. Students will be likely end up being better serviced as a result.

I think the Howard government has been appallingly repressive throughout its time in office. Its treatment of refugees is especially atrocious, as is its attempt to mislead people into thinking there were WMD in Iraq (especially when there was a good reason for war: removing Saddam Hussein, a tyrant, from power). But it seems about to strike a blow against the forces of coercion. And that goes to show how sometimes people you think are awful can do good things nonetheless.