Dawkins on “mild paedophilia”

RD

RDRichard Dawkins has – again – demonstrated that he doesn’t know or doesn’t care about public relations. As I’ve argued before, the fact that you might be speaking the truth isn’t always the only relevant thing. Messages can get lost in their delivery, and in the perceptions of their audience – and we can therefore have a debate about the efficacy of a message that is, to some extent, separate from its truth-value.

The outrage on this occasion is his reference to “mild paedophilia” in an interview for The Times (paywalled), that was written up on Religion News Service and then (to my mind, at least) mischaracterised on Pharyngula (commenters, this is not a blog on which to rant about PZ, please – I think he’s being uncharitable in his interpretation of Dawkins, but Dawkins nevertheless said something very ill-advised and insensitive). [EDIT: here's the full text, from the RDFS site.]

First, an important clarification: what Dawkins reports is not paedophilia, but child abuse. Paedophilia does not necessarily entail any physical contact, but simply the attraction – and many paedophiles hate the fact that they have this attraction at all. We all make it more difficult for them to get help through demonising paedophiles as child abusers.

Second, this is not a new story. At least, the fact that Dawkins was abused is not a new story. He’s referred to it in interviews, as well as in The God Delusion. His comment that “it is at least possible for psychological abuse of children to outclass physical abuse” has previously been the subject of willful misinterpretation by the physicist Peter Higgs, and others.

In this new interview, Dawkins repeats his claim that he doesn’t think he has suffered lasting harm, and suggests that neither would his peers have. That’s a problem already, of course, in that while he’s free to speak for himself, it’s rather risky – not to mention grossly insensitive, and likely harmful to some who do feel harmed – to assert that other victims of child abuse haven’t suffered harm. Then he says:

I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today.

This is the key passage, in which Dawkins again says something which is arguably true, yet an utterly stupid – and pointless – thing to say. To my mind, what he’s trying to say is:

  • That child abusers were living in a culture and time where the wrongness of their actions wasn’t as obvious to them as it would be now.
  • That the victims of child abuse were living in a culture and time where the wrongness of what was being done to them wasn’t as obvious to them as it would be now.
  • Our understanding of what actors did and felt within a particular historical time and context must be informed by the norms applicable at the time.

The fact that child abuse (and racism, and sexism, etc.) were always wrong is a separate issue to how people felt about those things, and their awareness of the wrongfulness of those things. And, how people felt about things (in fact, how they perceive things today) will obviously have an effect on whether people feel harmed, abused or whatever the case might be. That’s all that Dawkins seems to be saying. And the fact that it will appear to be an insensitive thing to say doesn’t make him wrong on those facts. What makes him wrong is arguably that it’s an excessively, and unproductively, insensitive thing to say.

So it’s not fair, or accurate, to say (as PZ Myers does), that he “can think of some lasting harm [to Dawkins]: [Dawkins] seems to have developed a callous indifference to the sexual abuse of children”. Not at all – this is a completely needless, and unfair, swipe at Dawkins, in that it asserts that he’s persistently, and currently, indifferent to the sexual abuse of children in general.

As discussed above, Dawkins thinks that some abuse, at a particular time, was not regarded as seriously (regardless of its actual seriousness) as it would be today. These are very different claims, and PZ Myers is simply picking the most uncharitable interpretation possible in order to discredit Dawkins.

Later in the post, PZ Myers says

We do not excuse harm to others because some prior barbaric age was indifferent to that harm. Furthermore, the excuse doesn’t even work: are we supposed to believe that a child-fondling teacher would have been permissible in the 1950s? Seriously? Was that ever socially acceptable? And even if it was, in some weird version of British history, it does not excuse it. It means British schools were vile nests of child abuse, just like Catholic churches.

Again, to call it an “excuse” creates the impression that Dawkins condones child abuse. And the use of the word “permissible” implies a binary state, where either all teachers are going around abusing children, then sharing tales over tea, or one where all abusers are caught and punished to the full extent of the law. It was never permissible, not even in the 1950s. Yet, it’s still possible that people didn’t report it as often, or follow up on it as often, or perceive it in the same ways then, as they do now.

This doesn’t alter the fact that it was wrong then, as it’s wrong now. It doesn’t “excuse” it, as per Myers’ words above. All that it does is explain that people might respond to it differently then than they do now.

  • http://evidenceandreason.wordpress.com/ Jason Bosch

    I still follow PZ Myers’ blog but I have found it less relatable as time has gone by. He seems to take a position and then go all the way to the extreme without worrying about any of the grey areas that may pop up along the way.

    I’m not sure this was that much of a public relations issue, though maybe I just haven’t heard all the fallout. Looking at it, I understand what he meant and he does clarify what he was saying. If he’d posted something like that on Twitter, I’m sure it would’ve come out a lot worse.

    • Tjaart Blignaut

      I never liked PZs style. He is extremely childish and now he has a horde of people who block and ban dissenting opinions and push a dangerous them-or-us point of view together with calling everyone who disagrees with them rapists or rape apologists. Their belligerence is only second to their moral certitude. I make a point not to visit there any more because rationality has left that place.

  • Jerry

    Thanks very much for your summing up of the issues arising from Dawkins’ piece in the Times. I wonder if the interviewer selected quoted to make the most of the paedophilia angle? It beggars belief that Dawkins would have intended to devote such a large proportion of the interview to that subject.

  • Jed Richards

    I’m all for stating the arguable truth. Our society is far too easily offended and outraged, often with little or zero rationality to backup their stance. Dawkins’ output is consistently compassionate, rational and uncompromising, and the more exposure we have to this type of viewpoint the better IMO. If you erode everything down to a PR-friendly soundbite you end up saying nothing and ultimately social progress is retarded. I don’t understand your motives for calling him out on this.

    • http://www.synapses.co.za/ Jacques Rousseau

      And I don’t understand how you can possibly think I’m calling him out. This piece defends Dawkins against a misrepresentation, while arguing that he could express himself in a way that makes his point more obvious to some.

      • Jed Richards

        You seem to be calling him out for a certain degree of naivety in his tone and word choices to the extent that it invites unreasonable/unhelpful criticism. Is that not the case?

        • http://www.synapses.co.za/ Jacques Rousseau

          “Calling him out” means something more significant than simply criticising an element of his speech, in my view. The real issue here is that Dawkins is presenting a nuance, where people want something binary. If you support that basic idea, then you might understand that I’m doing the same, in another context? I support the argument, but think it could be expressed better.

          • Jed Richards

            “Calling out” is functionally equivalent to “criticising” in my view, I don’t perceive any particular differences in severity, but that’s just semantics I guess. My basic position is that nobody, including Dawkins, should dumb down their views in order to pander towards an audience demanding simplistic or binary representations of complex issues. Progress is achieved by raising up the quality of discourse not by stooping to the lowest common denominator. This is the original point I was making, and as far as I can see we disagree on it, no? I understand that you’re both supporting Dawkins’ views and criticising his method of delivery simultaneously – of course I support your supporting, its the criticising bit I’m trying to criticise :)

            • http://www.synapses.co.za/ Jacques Rousseau

              Yep, we disagree. I don’t call taking the political/rhetorical effects of language into account “stooping to the lowest common denominator” – I call it sensible strategy.

            • Jed Richards

              Yes, it is a question of strategy. And I’d our say our objectives were similar. Thank you for your time.

  • Luther10

    Could an argument be made that the stigma that society puts on the victim and the perp are factors in the long term affects of the abuse?

    Now that these sort crimes are more in the public mind the victims are treated diffrently. They are considered damage by default and treated that way.

  • http://www.google.com/ jazz142857

    Myers has no concern for accuracy. He’s all about his preconceived procrustean bed.

  • v_3

    I was lucky enough to read “The God Delusion” before it became famous so could judge it free from the hype. (I vary between atheism, agnosticism and insouciance)

    Once I got over my initial disappointment (Dawkins began it in the style of his friend Douglas Adams but did not keep this up), I felt that much of his antagonism to the Church was not simple atheism, intellectually derived, but bittterness towards the bullying he had received as a child at the hands of the nuns or brothers.

    I am sure that this is at an unconscious level, so for Dawkins to say that he was not harmed lastingly is perhaps lacking insight.

    Nevertheless, I am a fan of his scientific works.