Fintan O'Toole: #MeToo cannot win in a climate of fear

The departure of Ian Buruma as editor of the ‘New York Review of Books’ should worry everyone who values the freedom of the press

Ian Buruma: edited the ‘New York Review of Books’  with grace and intelligence, but  was wrong to publish the Ghomeshi piece. Photograph:  Simone Padovani/Awakening/Getty

Ian Buruma: edited the ‘New York Review of Books’ with grace and intelligence, but was wrong to publish the Ghomeshi piece. Photograph: Simone Padovani/Awakening/Getty

 

Last Thursday, the editor of the New York Review of Books, Ian Buruma, was effectively dismissed. Subscribers to the review, widely regarded as the most important journal of its kind in the Anglophone world, had not yet received the current issue. It contains an essay by Jian Ghomeshi called “Reflections from a Hashtag”.

Ghomeshi was himself dismissed in October 2014 from his job at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation after a young woman came forward with allegations about his abusive behaviour during sex. Other complainants then emerged: more than 20 women spoke of acts including biting, choking and slapping. In 2016, Ghomeshi was acquitted on criminal charges. He then avoided additional charges in another trial by signing a “peace bond” and issuing an apology to the victim.

Even before the essay appeared in print, word of it spread, presumably because of deep disquiet among staff at the NYRB. Ian Buruma then gave a very awkward interview to Isaac Chotiner at Slate magazine in which, among other things, he said of Ghomeshi that “The exact nature of his behaviour – how much consent was involved – I have no idea, nor is it really my concern.”

Journalists should always be in favour of publishing as much new information as possible

The interview probably did more damage than the original decision to publish the essay. As the volume of outrage mounted on social media platforms, the NYRB curtly announced Buruma’s departure. I do not know the precise circumstances of his exit, but it is clear that it was not in any real sense voluntary.

Masculinity

At this point, let me declare an interest. I have written for the NYRB for 20 years. Indeed, the next piece in the current issue after Ghomeshi’s radioactive apologia is my own essay on exotic expressions of masculinity in the 18th century. (This is actually relevant to the overall context: the issue has a number of pieces on masculinity under the rubric The Fall of Men, including a superbly subtle and thoughtful reflection on the contemporary crisis of maleness by the sociologist Arlie Russell Hochshild.) I also know and greatly admire Ian Buruma. He took on a very difficult task in succeeding the legendary Robert Silvers who edited or co-edited the NYRB for 43 years up to his death in 2017. Buruma rose to that formidable challenge with grace and intelligence.

Ian Buruma: It is unclear whether he resigned or was fired from The New York Review of Books. Photograph: Vincent Tullo/The New York Times
Ian Buruma: The experience of a sudden fall from grace, of going from fame to infamy, from paragon to pariah, is innately interesting. File photograph: Vincent Tullo/The New York Times

I think he was wrong to publish the Ghomeshi piece. Not in principle – journalists should always be in favour of publishing as much new information as possible. The experience of a sudden fall from grace, of going from fame to infamy, from paragon to pariah, is innately interesting. And the #MeToo movement, if it is to fulfil its great potential as a transformative moment, has to force men into honest evaluation of their own behaviour. Like it or not, that includes the honest self-evaluation of men who have been abusive to women.

The great insurgency against misogynistic abuse cannot achieve its full goals in an atmosphere of guilt by association

Unfortunately, the Ghomeshi essay is nothing like an honest self-evaluation. It is both narcissistic and evasive. Every second sentence begins with “I”, yet we get no real sense of a self that is not calculating effects, no coming to terms with what kind of person he has been. He blames his behaviour on his “self-involvement” yet remains deeply self-involved. So, if I were the editor who commissioned it, I would not have published it. And I would not then have given an interview disavowing any interest in “the exact nature of his behaviour”. Exactitude – truth, in other words – is exactly what we need at this moment and if Ghomeshi is unwilling or unable to supply it, I would have waited until he or someone else can.

Misjudgments

So in my view Buruma made two misjudgments: the publication and the interview. He was also very unlucky in his timing: when the great current drama of the US is the demand of women to be heard in relation to Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, feeling sorry for a man who lost his power through his own egregious sexual conduct is not a high priority. But even granting all of this, Buruma’s departure should be deeply worrying to anyone who believes that a basic condition of a free press – and therefore of democracy – is a presumption in favour of disclosure. No great paper was ever edited fearfully. Editors must be willing to take risks with unpopular material. Risks inevitably mean mistakes.

Jian Ghomeshi was dismissed in 2014 from his job at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation after a young woman came forward with allegations about his abusive behaviour during sex. Other complainants then emerged. File photograph: Getty Images

And, even beyond that, the great insurgency against misogynistic abuse cannot achieve its full goals in an atmosphere of guilt by association. The culture of misogyny is a culture of silencing. The revolt against it is a revolt into speech, a rebellion against the old injunction: You can’t say that. It is also an opening-up of a dark, unpleasant and uncertain terrain of distorted masculinity. A part of that opening must, sooner or later, be the confrontation by abusive men with their own darkest selves. If we place a cordon sanitaire around all that terrain and make editors too scared to plant a foot in it, the moment of truth is cut short.

The collective imperative is to navigate a way through straits that have not yet been fully charted and that are therefore treacherous. If all those who take wrong turnings are instantly thrown overboard, the whole ship will be sunk.

The Irish Times Logo
Commenting on The Irish Times has changed. To comment you must now be an Irish Times subscriber.
SUBSCRIBE
GO BACK
Error Image
The account details entered are not currently associated with an Irish Times subscription. Please subscribe to sign in to comment.
Comment Sign In

Forgot password?
The Irish Times Logo
Thank you
You should receive instructions for resetting your password. When you have reset your password, you can Sign In.
The Irish Times Logo
Please choose a screen name. This name will appear beside any comments you post. Your screen name should follow the standards set out in our community standards.
Screen Name Selection

Hello

Please choose a screen name. This name will appear beside any comments you post. Your screen name should follow the standards set out in our community standards.

The Irish Times Logo
Commenting on The Irish Times has changed. To comment you must now be an Irish Times subscriber.
SUBSCRIBE
Forgot Password
Please enter your email address so we can send you a link to reset your password.

Sign In

Your Comments
We reserve the right to remove any content at any time from this Community, including without limitation if it violates the Community Standards. We ask that you report content that you in good faith believe violates the above rules by clicking the Flag link next to the offending comment or by filling out this form. New comments are only accepted for 3 days from the date of publication.