Last night in my course on the sociology of Erving Goffman, we discussed the release of classified documents by WikiLeaks.  The students generally agreed with me that the publication was inappropriate and politically problematic.  I think actually only one person dissented from the consensus.  Given the general political orientation of the students and faculty of the New School, this was surprising.  We are far to the left of the general public opinion, to the left, in fact, of the political center of the American academic community.  Our first position is to be critical of the powers that be.

Why not disclose the inner workings of the global super power?  Why not “out” American and foreign diplomats for their hypocrisy?  We did indeed learn a lot about the world as it is through the WikiLeak disclosures.  On the one hand, Netanyahu apparently is actually for a two state solution, and on the other Arab governments are just as warlike in their approach to Iran as Israel.   China is not as steadfast in its support of North Korea and not as opposed to a unified Korea through an extension of South Korean sovereignty as is usually assumed.  And the Obama administration has been tough minded in coordinating international sanctions against Iran, as it has been unsteady with a series of awkward failures in closing Guantanamo Prison.

And, of course, The New York Times, yesterday justified publication, mostly in the name of the public’s right to know about the foibles of its government, and also noted today how the leaks reveal the wisdom and diplomatic success of the Obama administration.

Most of the opposition to the release is very specific.  It will hurt the prospects of peace in the Middle East.  It shows our hand to enemies, as it embarrasses friends.  But my concern, shared with my students is that as it undermines diplomacy, it increases the prospects for diplomacy’s alternatives.

In fact, given the social theorist we have been studying, Goffman, it actually is not that unexpected that my students and I share a concern about the latest from WikiLeaks.  Goffman studied social interaction.  He analyzed how people present themselves in everyday life, and the ritual practices that surround their presentations. He investigated the framing of action, which makes social understanding possible, and he investigates Forms of Talk , the book we were discussing last night.  Most crucially in understanding why we object to the leaks, he shows how all successful group interaction has a front and a back stage.  One is no more true than the other, nor does the presence of a backstage reveal the lie of the front stage.  In fact, the contamination of the front by the back can destroy successful interaction.  This is true of the performances that occur in a family and between families, among groups of individuals, at school, at work, and indeed in international diplomacy.   The contamination of the front by the back can lead to a breakdown in interaction.  Think of our relation with our friends and opponents, on the international stage but also down the block.  In order for successful interaction to occur, people have to share some things, hide others.

We did not proceed to have a political discussion about this last night.  After all, it was a class with its front and back stages and not a political event.  We saw the problem of staging as it illuminated a pressing topic of the day, but we actually didn’t declare and explain our political positions.  There were suggestions, but not careful exploration and debate.  I try to avoid that in my classes as a matter of principle.  I just had a sense of where people stood, perhaps they can reply to this post to fully explain their political positions.

But at DC, I can be more forthright.  I believe WikiLeaks’ disclosures present a clear and present danger to world peace.  I make this bold assertion not because of any particular piece of information that may be particularly damaging, though such information surely has been released.  But because the disclosures as a whole undermine the process of diplomacy as a form of interaction, when diplomacy is what stands between us and war and is a key tool to end foolish wars.  As I indicated in an earlier post, I am becoming more and more convinced that military solutions to the problems of the day are impractical, not likely to yield the desired results.  By  weakening diplomacy, war becomes the default option.  On good peacenik grounds, I am concerned.

I have been thinking about the ubiquity of paranoid politics, as I wonder whether the Israeli – Palestinian peace process has any chance for success, and as I read the news from Israel concerning a bill that would require non -Jewish immigrants to take an oath of allegiance to “Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.”

If we aren’t paying close attention, this amendment may seem to be no big deal.  After all, hasn’t Israel all along been the Jewish homeland and a democratic state?  But a loyalty oath that commits to the official formulation of Israel as a Jewish state is clearly directed at the rights and citizenship status of Israeli citizens of Palestinian origins.  Although they are twenty per cent of the population, they are being asked to demonstrate their loyalty, publicly confirming their second class status facing this symbolic act and a variety of other oaths of allegiance.

There is a sense that they are being assumed to be guilty until proven innocent, and they have to demonstrate their innocence repeatedly.  Many Israelis and friends of Israel, elected officials, including those inside the ruling coalition, are deeply worried.

The same politicians who came up with this oath have additional proposals,  as Gideon Levy, a columnist for the Israeli liberal newspaper Haaretz, puts it “a loyalty law for Knesset members; a loyalty law for film production; a loyalty law for non-profits; putting the Palestinian catastrophe, the Nakba, beyond the scope of the law; a ban on calls for a boycott; and a bill for the revocation of citizenship.”

Some might suggest that Levy is a left wing critic who exaggerates.  But Eli Yishai, the Interior Minister, has apparently been working to show that Levy’s worst fears are a reality, bringing paranoid politics to its logical extension, proposing to strip Israelis of citizenship for disloyalty.  “’Declarations are not enough in fact against incidents such as [MKs] Azmi Bishara and Hanin Zoabi,’ Yishai said in reference to two Israeli Arab lawmakers, one who is suspected of having contacts with enemy states and the other who took part in a Gaza-bound aid flotilla. “Anyone who betrays the state will lose his citizenship.”  (link)

Yishai defines his opponents as enemies, including legitimately elected members of the the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, and the prospects for the continuation of democracy dims.

Levy identifies the looming threat: “Remember this day. It’s the day Israel changes its character. As a result, it can also change its name to the Jewish Republic of Israel, like the Islamic Republic of Iran…From now on, we will be living in a new, officially approved, ethnocratic, theocratic, nationalistic and racist country… ”

Even paranoids have enemies.  Israel, to be sure, is threatened by its neighbors and there is ambiguity and ambivalence in the attitudes of Palestinians with Israeli citizenship.  But the paranoid style of politics leads threatening problems to define political identity, and makes it next to impossible to deal with complex political challenges, insisting on resolute clarity and steadfastness, where openness to ambiguity and flexibility are the only ways to a democratic and just outcome.

The breakdown of the talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis over settlements is an immediate looming crisis for the Obama administration.  It is soberly explained in the American press that Prime Minister Netanyahu cannot be as flexible as the American administration would like because if he is, his coalition will collapse.  But it is that coalition, which includes political extremists, some call them Fascists, that is probably the largest obstacle for peace.  Think of the people carrying the craziest signs at Tea Party Demonstrations and at the town hall meetings last summer, imagine them included in a governing coalition, with their leader (Avigdor Liberman) as the Foreign Minister.  This is the most significant threat to the peace talks, indeed the threat to Israeli and Palestinian democracy and dignity.