So,
we can look analytically at the controversies swirling around Tara Reade's accusations of sexual harassment by Democratic former senator and vice-president on several levels: the exegetical or
textual level, the hermeneutic level, and the homiletic level.The exegetical, textual, or evidentiary level. On the exegetical level Reade's claims of sexual harassment and of Biden as the sexual harasser, go back to 1993 according to reputable sources. If one wants to challenge this data trail one has to show, for instance, that the interviews, the testimony of others, and the Larry King phone call were all actually produced in 2019 and 2010. Good luck with that. By the way, eight women have now accused Biden of sexual misconduct with them.
The hermeneutic or interpretive level. Here we can look at several
interpretive sub-levels or layers swirling around the Reade controversy.
Layer 1: Neoliberal Democrats, generally speaking, are circling the wagons around Biden and attacking Reade, sometimes in a classic demagogic ad hominem fashion.
Layer 2: Progressive Democrats tend to argue that Reade's claims need to be taken seriously and thus should be investigated seriously.
Layer 3: Trumpians assume Reade's claims are accurate and are using her claims as demagogic propagandistic talking points against Biden hoping to manipulate the listening masses and get the faithful to echo them in the process.
Layer 4: the legal level. Reade's claims have not yet resulted in a settlement or a court room trial so...
Obviously most of the discourse surrounding Reade's allegations are operating on this level and are avoiding and eliding the factual or exegetical level in part or entirely.
Layer 5: Academic discourse about the above discourses.
The homiletic level:
Here we can look at how some draw morals from the Reade tale. Some are using Reade's experience to preach about the dangers of Biden, Washington DC, or patriarchy in general. This level interacts with and interpenetrates with the other levels. It is quite clear, of course, that on the exegetical or factual level patriarchy and male political and economic power have led to large number of real sexual harassment cases. See Clinton; See Weinstein; See Epstein...There have also, factually speaking, been claims of sexual harassment that are more the product of revenge, anger, wanting celebrity, wanting money, etc. To adjudicate between real and falsified claims requires an attention to the evidence, the exegetical level. The exegetical level, however, is often overdetermined by and read through the hermeneutic level. Additionally we have to remember that it is sometimes the case that some of the wealthy and powerful have, historically speaking, bought off their victims. See Jackson.
Playing this typology out...
Exegesis: A 1993 newspaper report from San Luis Obispo notes Reade's claim of sexual harassment by Biden. Additionally, Reade's mother called into the Larry King show claiming her daughter had been sexually harassed while working for Biden. Finally, in the 1990s, two neighbours of Reade said she told them that she had been sexually harassed while working for Biden and her ex-husband stated that Reade said she had been harassed during her tenure with Biden in a court document. All of this is evidence. These are empirical facts.
Hermeneutics: When we move to the hermeneutic level or interpretive level, beliefs, beliefs impacted by culture and ideology, often, tragically for the facts, play an important and determining role in what we humans see and how we humans see it. In a perfect world beliefs would be grounded solely in the facts. We don't live in a perfect or rational world, however. Oftentimes, instead, ideologically driven beliefs rewrite the facts even, in many cases, eliding or eliminating them in the process. You see this happening a lot among the devotees of the Orange One. You also see it in the attempt by some demagogues in the Democratic Party to deny that Reade's claims go back to 1993, a clear (and pathetic) attempt by demagogic polemicists to diffuse an ideologically correct and fictional narrative on their true believers hoping they will repeat this fictitious narrative in the process and overlook the facts, in large part, because they imbibe this fictional narrative.
Conclusions: As I have said repeatedly, sometimes to no avail since the ideologically correct generally put their own words into other peoples mouths in a sometimes manichean fashion (you are either for Trump or agin him), none of this proves Biden's guilt. Biden denies Reade's claims just as Trump denies the claims of the legions of women who have accused him of sexual harassment. What the exegesis above does prove is that the Reade claims are not recent fabrications by Republican polemicists and apologists.
Moving beyond Reade's specific claims we do have to recognise several other facts that are relevant to Reade's sexual harassment claims and case. We must note, factually speaking, for instance, that more than eight women have accused Biden of sexual harassment. This alone should make those of us who are not apologists or polemicists, who are not demagogues, in other words, and who are simply trying to look at the facts first, wonder, first, about what all these accusations may tell us about Biden's behaviour. Second, we need to take note of the fact that the rich and powerful, who are often men, far too often engage in such behaviours because they are rich and powerful (Harvey Weinstein) and far too often are able to delay recognition of their predatory behaviour because they are rich and powerful. Finally, we need ask ourselves why demagogues and their fellow travellers in the press are focusing on Reade and not also on the eight other women who have accused Biden of too much touchy feely.
I had forgotten, by the way, that while in law school at Syracuse Biden had engaged in plagiarism and gotten caught. He explained his infraction by claiming that he was unfamiliar with the rules of attribution, which is pretty impressive for a guy who took a bachelor's degree from the University of Delaware (or perhaps it isn't). I guess Biden was still blissfully ignorant of the rules of attribution in 1987 when he borrowed from the speeches of British politician Neil Kinnock. All of this, of course, goes directly to questions about Biden's honesty and honourableness.
Layer 1: Neoliberal Democrats, generally speaking, are circling the wagons around Biden and attacking Reade, sometimes in a classic demagogic ad hominem fashion.
Layer 2: Progressive Democrats tend to argue that Reade's claims need to be taken seriously and thus should be investigated seriously.
Layer 3: Trumpians assume Reade's claims are accurate and are using her claims as demagogic propagandistic talking points against Biden hoping to manipulate the listening masses and get the faithful to echo them in the process.
Layer 4: the legal level. Reade's claims have not yet resulted in a settlement or a court room trial so...
Obviously most of the discourse surrounding Reade's allegations are operating on this level and are avoiding and eliding the factual or exegetical level in part or entirely.
Layer 5: Academic discourse about the above discourses.
The homiletic level:
Here we can look at how some draw morals from the Reade tale. Some are using Reade's experience to preach about the dangers of Biden, Washington DC, or patriarchy in general. This level interacts with and interpenetrates with the other levels. It is quite clear, of course, that on the exegetical or factual level patriarchy and male political and economic power have led to large number of real sexual harassment cases. See Clinton; See Weinstein; See Epstein...There have also, factually speaking, been claims of sexual harassment that are more the product of revenge, anger, wanting celebrity, wanting money, etc. To adjudicate between real and falsified claims requires an attention to the evidence, the exegetical level. The exegetical level, however, is often overdetermined by and read through the hermeneutic level. Additionally we have to remember that it is sometimes the case that some of the wealthy and powerful have, historically speaking, bought off their victims. See Jackson.
Playing this typology out...
Exegesis: A 1993 newspaper report from San Luis Obispo notes Reade's claim of sexual harassment by Biden. Additionally, Reade's mother called into the Larry King show claiming her daughter had been sexually harassed while working for Biden. Finally, in the 1990s, two neighbours of Reade said she told them that she had been sexually harassed while working for Biden and her ex-husband stated that Reade said she had been harassed during her tenure with Biden in a court document. All of this is evidence. These are empirical facts.
Hermeneutics: When we move to the hermeneutic level or interpretive level, beliefs, beliefs impacted by culture and ideology, often, tragically for the facts, play an important and determining role in what we humans see and how we humans see it. In a perfect world beliefs would be grounded solely in the facts. We don't live in a perfect or rational world, however. Oftentimes, instead, ideologically driven beliefs rewrite the facts even, in many cases, eliding or eliminating them in the process. You see this happening a lot among the devotees of the Orange One. You also see it in the attempt by some demagogues in the Democratic Party to deny that Reade's claims go back to 1993, a clear (and pathetic) attempt by demagogic polemicists to diffuse an ideologically correct and fictional narrative on their true believers hoping they will repeat this fictitious narrative in the process and overlook the facts, in large part, because they imbibe this fictional narrative.
Conclusions: As I have said repeatedly, sometimes to no avail since the ideologically correct generally put their own words into other peoples mouths in a sometimes manichean fashion (you are either for Trump or agin him), none of this proves Biden's guilt. Biden denies Reade's claims just as Trump denies the claims of the legions of women who have accused him of sexual harassment. What the exegesis above does prove is that the Reade claims are not recent fabrications by Republican polemicists and apologists.
Moving beyond Reade's specific claims we do have to recognise several other facts that are relevant to Reade's sexual harassment claims and case. We must note, factually speaking, for instance, that more than eight women have accused Biden of sexual harassment. This alone should make those of us who are not apologists or polemicists, who are not demagogues, in other words, and who are simply trying to look at the facts first, wonder, first, about what all these accusations may tell us about Biden's behaviour. Second, we need to take note of the fact that the rich and powerful, who are often men, far too often engage in such behaviours because they are rich and powerful (Harvey Weinstein) and far too often are able to delay recognition of their predatory behaviour because they are rich and powerful. Finally, we need ask ourselves why demagogues and their fellow travellers in the press are focusing on Reade and not also on the eight other women who have accused Biden of too much touchy feely.
I had forgotten, by the way, that while in law school at Syracuse Biden had engaged in plagiarism and gotten caught. He explained his infraction by claiming that he was unfamiliar with the rules of attribution, which is pretty impressive for a guy who took a bachelor's degree from the University of Delaware (or perhaps it isn't). I guess Biden was still blissfully ignorant of the rules of attribution in 1987 when he borrowed from the speeches of British politician Neil Kinnock. All of this, of course, goes directly to questions about Biden's honesty and honourableness.
No comments:
Post a Comment