The ‘arguments’ of thugs
The hallmark of religious fanatics is not dogmatism, but their inability to accept that someone else has different preferences and opinions.
This op-ed for Kathimerini was published (in Greek) last Sunday. The newspaper selected it for its international edition. It was translated in English by the editors of Kathimerini. The original Greek text can be found here.
The hallmark of religious fanatics is not dogmatism, but their inability to accept that someone else has different preferences and opinions. They are haunted by the thought that there are people who do not agree with them and that these people are free to make different choices. Therefore, it is not enough for them not to read, not to listen to, not to see something “blasphemous” themselves; they consider it their duty to prevent others from doing so as well. They believe that they have an obligation – perhaps they even imagine that they have the right – to determine the limits of what is permissible.
When a far-right religious fanatic is outraged by works of art that he considers offensive to his religious feelings, he may, of course, not visit the exhibition and thus make sure he is not “offended.” But that is not enough for him – he does not want others to see them either. That is why we repeatedly have incidents of intolerance in Greece even in the 21st century: from Outlook 2003 (Greece’s biggest – up until then – contemporary art exhibition), and Art Athina 2007, to the Hytyrio (Foundry) Theater in 2012 and the National Theater of Northern Greece in 2017.
This kind of intolerant Christian version of the Taliban is incapable of making critical moral distinctions. Thus, he uses one of the most flimsy and immoral arguments: “I react violently because I was provoked!” This argument is of the same quality as the argument that rape is not the fault of rapists, but of victims, who “provoke” them with their clothes; domestic violence is not the fault of brutal husbands, but of women who “provoke” them by speaking out; homophobia is not the fault of narrow-minded people, but of homosexuals who “provoke,” simply because they exist. Entering into a discussion about the quality of specific works or the work of a specific artist at this particular point is similarly immoral, as it attempts to relativize the offense. It’s like he’s saying, “Hey, he asked for it,” or, “If the works aren’t to my liking, it doesn’t bother me that much if they get vandalized.”
This immoral argument ends in the “thug’s veto”: The rise of the far-right is due to “woke culture,” liberalism, tolerance, immigrants, social movements, “entitlement,” which “provoke” the average Greek and give him the right to react. So, with that logic, the religious-fundamentalist lawmaker from the nationalist Niki party who stormed into the National Gallery last week and smashed four artworks he found “offensive,” was not to blame for what happened, but the artist, the National Gallery, globalization etc, which do not leave people alone to live in the Middle Ages, but “provoke” them by reminding them that the world around them is constantly changing, while they themselves are fossils.
Visit the Kathimerini website to read the rest of the editorial.