There probably isn’t much to say that hasn’t already been said about Christopher Hitchens, who passed away late last year.

Undoubtedly abrasive at times, Hitchens self assurance was both a great asset and flaw, but he could not have made some of his more memorable claims without it. Calling Jerry Falwell a fraud and a charlatan isn’t in itself particularly noteworthy. To do it while his corpse was still warm, however, took bravado and a willingness to strategically pierce the social etiquette that so often provides cover for the cunning and exploitative.

It would be a mistake to say that Hitchens took on easy targets, as is a common criticism of the new atheists. The fact that he was willing to target Mother Teresa suggests that he viewed little as sacred, and his subsequent devotion to undermining the institution of religion suggests that the sacrosanct was always in danger when Hitchens was around.

To be honest, if God existed, and I were him, then I probably would have knocked off Hitchens as well. Although I would have done so before he wrote ‘god is not Great’, and began the process of systematically eviscerating so many religious apologists in various debates over the past 6 years. If you happen to be only a fraction as skeptical of institutionalized theism as he was, then his legacy of rhetoricisms are something to behold.

Christopher was a passionate supporter of free speech, both in theory and practice. Indeed, his defense of free speech seemed to lead him to criticize  religion, which he saw as being a prime instigator of the threats to it. His commitment to resisting censorship is demonstrated by how he dealt with those with whom he most vehemently disagreed – as all true commitment to to free speech must surely be.

Video material from Hitchens earlier years is inevitably more scarce than his recent public appearances – such is the ubiquity of youtube, and digital recordings of events generally. Recently, an interview was posted where Christopher is seen to be hosting, seemingly as a once off, a talk show on CNBC in 1991. It’s fascinating to see him as an interviewer; asking the questions rather than being asked. His subject matter is also surreal, as he calmly converses with a leading member of the ‘White Aryan Resistance’ (WAR), a white seperatist movement that celebrates the birth of Hitler, believes a Zionist occupied Government (ZOG), and the inherent superiority of white-skinned European descendants.

Part 2, Part 3

It’s unclear whether a figure from a group such as WAR would be given the dignity of a prime time televised interview on a major network these days – I suspect not. The imperatives of commercial networks not to alienate audiences are more imposing than ever. Despite the willingess for certain networks to court controversy, this usually takes the form of offensively banal and degrading reality TV shows, rather than the more unpredictable reactions to neo-nazi sentiments. These sorts of discussions may just be the wrong sort of controversy, which media executives would prefer not to deal with.

Hitchens, however, knew precisely how to deal with proponents of abhorrent ideologies. Rather than letting them fester under an excuse of censorship, the preferred course should be to expose them to the light of questioning, civilized debate, and public dismantling of their core arguments. Of course, we can’t spend all of our public discourse defending ourselves against the arguments of bigots, denialists and fundamentalists of any stripe. But periodically engaging with fringe groups that critique our most cherished assumptions can serve to ensure that we know where we stand, as well as undermine their ability to present themselves as victims of unfair marginalization.

Christopher has said that he became a journalist because he didn’t want to rely on the press for information. In subjecting himself to waterboarding in 2008, it was an affirmation of that view. Not content with the euphemization of the practice as ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’, Hitchens could tell us from first hand experience – that if anything constituted the practice of torture, then waterboarding certainly did. In demonstrating this, Hitchens laid bare the depravity of an administration that had found itself defying the Geneva conventions. Citizens in both in the US and abroad began to see the practice for what it was, and his unique form of journalism played no small part in shifting the consensus.

Politically, Hitchens could not be, nor would not let others, box him under any particular label. His contrarianism itself most stark when compared to the tribal nature of so much of todays political discourse. This is something the US media in particular struggled with, as seen in the popular narrative of Hitchens’ apparent shift from left to right, simply because he chose to differ on a single issue – the Iraq war. The reality was of course more complex, and it is fortunate that his prominence as an anti-theist surpassed his reputation as an advocate for war. More importantly, he embodied an independence of mind and interest that will be missed at a time when it’s becoming most needed.

Like this:

Be the first to like this.