In regards to allegations surrounding Bill Cosby, something is fundamentally wrong if the only positions valued are ones that advocate on behalf of the accusers. It now seems taboo to suggest Bill Cosby might be innocent. Responses to such suggestions have included personal attacks, character assassinations, charges of sexism, and declared assumptions that thinkers are hooked to Bill Cosby’s celebrity contributions. Frankly, I find such attempts at psychologically decoding discourse participants to reflective of a hostility towards critical interrogations, opinion diversity, and argumentative logic where facts should be weighted alongside gut-feelings.
What seems dominant is a paradigm of bandwagon activism that valorizes emotions. Seas of emotions have gathered, not to discover facts and motives, but to share moods, trade anger, and declare resentment to opposition and critical questions. This development is reminiscent of McCarthyism: if you are not with us, you are against us—your views make you dangerous and you should be eliminated with whatever means necessary.
Such McCarthyist crusaders forgot that communism was merely trying to find a sociology of advancement as violent religion, capitalism, and plutocratic structures continue to do. Exploring theoretical questions of political and governmental structures was necessary. Nevertheless, politicians overlooked that necessity and branded a whole ideology and its practitioners as political violence. However, the reality ignored the fact that the political violence was largely Russia’s and America’s, both of whom wanted to colonize the globe. To this day, not enough people are admitting that branches of Marxist ideology enabled the rise of civil rights, queer, nationalist, anti-imperialist, and feminist movements. One need not champion the diverse tenets of Marxist, which is indeed imbued with major flaws, to accept its contribution to ideological developments. Today, what the average person will tell you of Marxism is simple: it wants to control people.
So much for knowledge!
In the same way, this sort of McCarthyist paradigm is resolving the controversy involving Bill Cosby. Persons who avoid the emotional-driven bandwagon are vilified by others acting as psychiatrists. This medical set seeks not to address questions, but to decode personalities of persons contributing to discourse. So, since psychological decoding is in process, I too will mimic its operation and share a view:
As I see it, many people who resent opinion diversity and logical argumentation acquire a sense of moral pride with their emotion-activism. Wrapped up in historical guilt—men raped women and made them fearfully silent victims—many of these people think and speak without clarity. With a load upon their brains—guilt—they seek to unburden themselves. For many of them, it isn’t about justice. It’s about them: their guilt; their inner antagonisms; their need to feel inducted into some effort or viewpoint seems just.
I guess, “just” because its ways are loud and angry—just mob justice.
Whether or not Bill Cosby is guilty, it is clear he has become a victim of a culture resolving its guilt. If I’m wrong, why is it inappropriate for anyone to argue that we should remember Bill might be innocent? Without a court decision, why have TV networks pulled the plug on Bill’s productions? I’m not saying they shouldn’t have; I’m just highlighting my point that cultural guilt is giving the women a media platform while it denies it to Bill, though the evidence haven’t been analyzed.
The expertise of our media has been the courthouse. With the little controlled evidences it produces to keep us talking, to keep its profit, to recruit our anger, and to harness our guilt, it has been able to make us (myself included) jurors and medical professionals.
So let me continue my psychiatrict analysis of society—trying to release its guilt, our culture rehearses the manifestos of gender violence as a precursor to presenting the accusers’ viewpoint. That precursor forces an audience to expect the women to produce nothing more than their accusations. But what about the view of the other side? Are these women operating with secret motives? is a reasonable question. Why are their testimonies so shaky? Why do they appear uncertain of what they remember?
Laden with the weight of history’s guilt that gives cultural spokespersons moods that decapitate argumentative capabilities, they hastily argue that such questions are dangerous. The claim, therefore, is that such questions could never produce any sort of evidence that sheds light on the issue at hand. Such questions, they argue attack victims. But who are the victims, we might ask. The victims are the women, their statements make clear, the victimizer is Bill Cosby.
Where is the evidence? we then ask.
Many women have come forward, they reply, Women in the past were afraid to come forward.
That is the evidence.
That there is a closure on and hostility toward evidence gathering, how could we ignore the role of culture’s burden to resolve history’s guilt and emotions as dominating the cultural psyche? Indeed, there is a place for emotion in every facet of argumentation. In the Bill Cosby context, it should certainly be relevant. My contention, however, is that there is something worrying when emotions and gut-feelings are situated as the ultimate and most critically needed to resolve questions of guilt and innocence.