It is my custom before sleeping to read a novel. I turn off the events of the day and start my journey into the world of imagination. Last night, I was reading Madame Bovary when my wife told me about the latest turn in the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case. I was surprised, but left it to the morning to find out what happened. The New York Times report made it clear, the person who had every right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by the courts, appears to be really innocent, a victim, not a criminal.

The implications for French and global politics and culture are significant. I worry that France, which desperately needs a serious political alternative, may be deprived of a capable public servant as President because of a false accusation and prosecution. I also worry that very serious problems concerning the relationship between public and private, the intimate and the open, sex and politics, may now go unexamined because the case is being closed, when serious deliberate consideration is what is needed now more than ever, there and here.

Daniel Dayan and I have been discussing the case as it unfolds. A few minutes ago, I received an email from him, continuing our discussion. We will actually make this discussion a part of our “Media and News in a Time of Crisis” seminar at the Democracy and Diversity Institute in Wroclaw, Poland, later this month.

He wrote:

“Just a little note to set up our discussions to come: I may have told you that I was talking with a friend on a bench in Central Park, one Saturday morning, around 11 AM just when the Strauss-Kahn episode was going on, 10 blocks south. Uncannily, I was telling my friend that Strauss-Kahn was likely to win the elections unless he was the victim of some trap. I did not realize the trap I was anticipating was functioning already while my friend and I were having our conversation.

Later, back in Paris, in a one hour debate on French TV, I kept arguing that DSK was to be considered innocent until proved guilty, and that the French journalists with whom I was debating had no reason to claim ‘they should have denounced him earlier.’ In fact, had they denounced him earlier, they would simply have been guilty of libel. There was no proof the Sofitel episode was a rape. There was no proof there were other rapes. As to being a seducer, this is not a crime.

Fortunately, the various authors of this mess damaged the life of someone who can afford good lawyers. DSK should sue the police officers who, after inflicting unnecessary humiliation, kept illegally leaking damaging information to the press. DSK should sue the press for not respecting the rule of the “presumption of innocence.” DSK should sue the Sofitel hotel management for their crucial responsibility in the whole matter. (I have been to Sofitel once or twice but do not intend to ever return, unless, of course, the alternative is sleeping in the street.)

Of course the story is not finished. After presenting ‘Ophelia’ as an innocent victim (ACT I). I anticipate the press will go all the way in exonerating DSK.  What we are witnessing now is the beginning of ACT II. But then, I also anticipate an Act III, in which DSK will turn out to be guilty again. In this ACT III, he’ll be guilty, but not of a rape. He’ll just be guilty of ‘being’ rather than ‘doing,’ of being himself; of being male, white and rich…   All this has wonderful commercial possibilities, of course. It allows selling the same story three times ….”

Daniel always was skeptical about the case against DSK. He thought a conspiracy was likely, which surprised me, as a person who is committed as a matter of principle to be the last one to recognize a conspiracy. But it turns out, he may be right. Getting to the bottom of this may or may not be possible.

Nonetheless, I agree with him that there is going to be a third act. Yet, I am not sure what will be written, who will do the writing and how the script will be performed. Will Strauss-Kahn really be prosecuted as a rich, white man, as Dayan fears? Or will the needed public examination of the problematic divide between public and private be buried in France, just when it seemed that this issue was receiving real attention, as I fear?

The debate about general principled problems has to be separated from the particular case. If Strauss-Kahn is innocent, as he now appears likely to be, he should be free to get on with his life and should be free to serve his country. But that still leaves much unaddressed: sex and politics, the distinction between seduction and aggression, and the standing of the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

We can imagine how this will develop. I’ll sleep on it.

As I reported last week, Daniel Dayan and I had a nice lunch in Paris on the terrace of a little restaurant at the Palais Royal. He ate blood sausage. My wife, Naomi, and I had couscous with chicken. I followed Daniel’s recommendation and ordered mine with olives, a dish that was his grandmother’s specialty back in Morocco. We discussed what proved to be the theme of last week, looking at North Africa and the Middle East from the point of view of Europe. But of course, we couldn’t and didn’t ignore the Dominique Strauss-Kahn scandal, then raging in Paris. The following evening, he extended his side of the conversation in a crisp essay, which we posted on Monday. Here I continue my side of the conversation.

My first response came in the form of an email I wrote him upon receiving his piece:

I don’t agree with you on all points, centered on two issues: the way the distinction between private and public moves (the most general issue), and how the presumption of innocence necessarily varies from one institutional sphere to the next, from the judiciary to the police to the press, for example. Consider the case of a child molester and how the presumption is enacted or not by different people placed differently in the society. This is an empirical and normative issue. More soon. Again it was great seeing you and great receiving the post.

In the case of a child molester, the police look for a suspect and attempt to confirm guilt, while in court there must be a presumption of innocence. Before, during and after a trial, the press and the general public judges, independently of formal legalities, and explores whether they think justice is done by the police and the courts, sometimes in a sensational way. The spheres of public activity and the press are different from the professional activities of the police and the courts. And quite clearly, when the issue is child molestation, the public and the press are predisposed, often without regard to the solidity of the evidence, to believe the police, given the nature of the crime and the revulsion it elicits. They presume guilt.

Nonetheless with other sorts of offenses, ones concerning political or moral position, this often is not the case. In the U.S., Democrats probably presume Republican rascals are guilty, while Republicans presume the guilt of Democratic rascals. Partisanship colors perception, no doubt and this sort of partisan perception certainly was going on in the DSK affair.

Dayan worries, understandably, that the spectacle of guilt and dislodging of the powerful may overwhelm justice. He takes this to be the point of the philosopher and former minister Luc Ferry’s media performance, during which he denounced the press’ failure to report an unnamed former minister’s pedophilia in Morocco at an unspecified time. So outrageous was the performance that Dayan speculates it must have been “a demonstration by a philosopher of the way the media routinely takes short-cuts and obstructs the process of justice.”

Dayan believes that the French media have been perniciously operating, presuming guilt instead of innocence in the DSK affair. Further, he believes that the critical self-reflection in the French media about their failure to report Strauss-Kahn’s past transgressions overlooks the necessity of drawing a strong distinction between public and private matters. This is where my dear friend and I have a fundamental theoretical disagreement.

To use the theory of Eviatar Zerubavel, while Dayan believes that there needs to be a clear and strong distinction between public and private concerns, I believe the distinction is fuzzy and that it’s good that it is. However, we agree that the distinction between public and private has to be drawn. Thus Daniel (WikiLeaks and the Politics of Gestures and Political Leadership and Hostile Visibility) and I (WikiLeaks Front Stage/Back Stage) fundamentally agree that WikiLeaks’ general release of secret diplomatic exchanges potentially undermined diplomacy, which is one of the fundamental alternatives to war in international relations. It is not the specific revelations that concern me. It is the general principle that openness is more desirable than secrecy. Sometimes secrets are necessary in order to get on with proper private and public concerns, e.g. both love and the alternatives to war. When some things are shown, they disappear. As Hannah Arendt explored in The Human Condition, when love is openly and publicly displayed, it is no longer intimate, no longer love.

But surely, this disappearance is not always a loss. Public inspection makes it clear when romance, seduction, and eroticism end and sexual aggression and even rape begin. Now in France people are reporting they knew or at least suspected, for a long time, with considerable evidence, that Strauss-Kahn was not a womanizer but a sexual predator. Media attention to such matters would have made that clear. Reporting on such matters may have been indiscreet. But in this case indiscretion would have been a public virtue. The sexual peccadilloes of public figures shouldn’t matter, until they should, and the media clumsily should work with this. More on this next week, with reflections on the foolishness of Anthony Weiner.

A final note on the Week in Review: In the past months I have used the Week in Review to show how the various posts at DC during the week relate and highlight an important public issue or theoretical point. I will continue to occasionally make such posts. But I will also use the platform, as I did today, to engage a specific post, or to address an issue that occurred in the past week that we have not addressed here. That said, in the posts this week, we saw how the elections in Peru show how institutionalized democracy matters. Memorial tattoos show how marked skins beyond the workings of official institutions preserve memory for and of those involved in war, and as Alissa’s moving reply to the post demonstrates, they can also inspire the reflections of those beyond the immediately involved. Of course, this depends on the mediation of the photographer, Mary Beth Heffernan, and the report and reflections of the sociologist, Michael Corey. What we do to make the world a bit more tolerable for a small circle can have large effects beyond our circle, as Vince Carducci’s review of Grace Lee Boggs’ latest book reveals. For more on that theme take a look at the video of Immanuel Wallerstein and Grace Lee Boggs in conversation at the 2010 US Social Forum embedded in the post.