Habs vs Feminism

Recently I saw a comment on facebook (see left) that I found troubling. The comment, still there at the time of writing over four hours since its original posting, reads "Why are all these feminists such freaks[?] :s" and is posted in response to a video that can be found here. What I find troubling is that this comes from a Habs Boy, a supposedly intelligent individual in the process of having his excellence nurtured. The comment, however, displays (at best) an ignorance of Feminism and a worrying ease at labelling all Feminists as freaks based on a video of one and at worst an active sexist attitude and dismissing of a (probably still misunderstood) Feminism movement. Granted the video goes over the top (to make a point, of course) and, if I am honest, I don't really find the analogy beyond the bit about salt at the start particularly amusing, which I imagine (despite the seriousness of the point she is making) was her intention. Anyway, that's all irrelevant because she, and other Feminists, are not freaks, regardless of whether the video goes over the top or is/is not funny. Of course that seems quite an obvious point. Trivial almost. And, indeed, it should be. The problem, however, is that it isn't. Not amongst a troubling number of people you encounter on social media and in real life but, more worryingly, it is also not the case, in my opinion, amongst many at Habs.

As part of my Introduction to Politics course, we had a lecture on Feminism, which (don't tell my lecturer this), I think was the only good lecture in the entire module. It more than made up for the mish-mash of Monty Python, jumping around and awful jokes that characterised the rest of his lectures. Clearly enthusiastic about the topic and passionate about the content of the lecture, it was a superb introduction to Feminism. At the beginning of the lecture he asked who would consider themselves as a Feminist and a very small number of students (not including myself) put their hands up. I had never thought about it, if I am honest. I never considered myself sexist, but I certainly did not want to associate myself with the much more radical notion of Feminism that I assumed was just 'Feminism'. By the end of the lecture, however, I was completely turned and ashamed of my prior ignorance of what Feminism was and my attitude towards it. The lecturer ended with the following sentence: "I don't believe that my daughter's life chances should be any different from my son's life chances because she is a girl, but because they are likely to be, that is why I am a Feminist." I am paraphrasing slightly, but I think it sums it up brilliantly but, more importantly for someone like me who was ignorant about Feminism and what it was, simply.

Why? Because I don't, for a minute, think that many would disagree with that sentence. When faced with the question of whether a sister, for example, should have different life chances just because she is a woman, I am fairly confident the vast vast majority of Habs Boys (including our "all feminists are freaks" friend) would think this a ridiculous question to ask. Of course our sisters' life chances should not be affected by their being a woman we would proclaim, unaware that we had just proclaimed to be Feminists. There are many strands, many different Feminist ideologies and many methods of achieving that goal, but that is the basic goal. The problem, however, is that many would then follow that with a, "But, they're women so, you know. Not as clever." or "They lack banter," or "But they'll end up in the kitchen, so why does it matter?" If reading that, as a Habs Boy, makes you uncomfortable then good - do something about it; if your instinct is to try and argue that it is not the case or deny the seriousness of it, I am afraid you are in denial. Whether or not we actually believed those things to be true, the ease at which we were able to say them and laugh them off was, when I look back at it now, shocking. As I have already said, I am ashamed of that, past, version of me. Habs Boys come to see a level of sexist "banter" as entirely acceptable, unaware of the fact that sexist jokes aren't just jokes, they have a knack of describing real situations that real woman face every day.

It is that comment that demonstrates this attitude towards Feminism: the ignorance of what it really is and the dismissing of those that are Feminists and the severity of the sexism that women face, which is, of course, in itself, sexist. The ease at which a Habs Boys can label 'all' Feminists as freaks based on a video arguing that a girl is never asking for it when it comes for rape, unfortunately, does not surprise me. I would hope the comment is aimed at the over the top nature of the video rather than the point she is making, but the belief that somehow making the point, in any manner, renders you a freak is troubling. Any prejudice, including sexism, is based on ignorance, an issue that needs addressing at Habs. If I had a chance to go back to Habs and lead an Open Day tour, I would inform parents that the biggest problem at Habs is the ignorance of Feminism and the levels of sexism (jokes or not) that are deemed acceptable.

Sometimes I feel disingenuous when I describe myself as a Feminist given events in my past, opinions I used to hold and arguments I have had (a discussion over Twitter with William Thong, who won't mind a mention and the opportunity to remind me what I was like, about an advert a particular haunting memory), almost as if they preclude me from being a Feminist now. I am glad for the lecture I had and the change in my beliefs. There is no shame in admitting you were wrong. There will forever be disagreements within Feminism and what it entails - the Page 3 debate (I can't decide if I agree with the 'me' that wrote that blog!) at Warwick a good example of this, perhaps, but at its bare bones, it is a very simple idea. I can only hope that one day the boy in question will stumble across something that will make him self-identify as someone who believes in, "...the radical notion that women are human beings," which is how Cheris Kramarae described Feminism, and not think of himself as a freak.

Update 1 16/06/14

Since posting this I have received far more of a response than I expected. I think what has happened is I have struck a few nerves and offended a few sensibilities - 'of course I am not sexist' has been repeated on the comments to my blog. To clarify, Habs is an example I used simply because I went there. It is not to say Habs is the only place this is a problem, nor an attack on the character of all current or former Habs Boys (many of whom I would still consider friends). It is simply an example.

In  any event, I do not, for a minute, doubt the sincerity of these 'I am not a sexist/I am a feminist' statements. If you read above, you will note above that I state Habs Boys would agree that a women's life chances should not be affected by her being a women - in other words, Habs Boys, in the main, would be Feminists on my definition. But then, I would have agreed and I, like many, did not act in a way to back up that agreement.

The issue is two-fold:

1. An ignorance of what Feminism really is

Whether this manifests because of an association of Feminism with solely more radical Feminism or merely a refusal to engage with Feminism, consciously or subconsciously.

2. A sexist culture

This is the crux of the issue. When I was at Habs I would never have considered myself sexist and had I come across a blog like this, I would have responded in exactly the same way as every Habs Boy who has posted on my blog has. In the least patronising way possible, I understand - no one wants to be labelled a sexist. However, we have to come to terms with it. There are countless examples - some highlighted in response to my blog - of Habs Boys making comments that were horrifically inappropriate and that cannot just be dismissed as a harmless joke. Of course, as was highlighted, a sense of humour is important but suggesting that the Habs Boys - banter = Habs Girls is just one example of a sexist "joke" that is not acceptable but was deemed acceptable. These sort of jokes perpetuate already strong stereotypes that are held amongst boys at all boys' schools like Habs that girls lack a sense of humour. When the head boy makes this joke, it legitimises the very real problem of dismissing cries of sexism as a girl's inability to take a joke. "Of course that was okay, it is just a joke, I'm not sexist - I don't actually believe that women all belong in the kitchen in chains to prevent their leaving." You know what, the last bit of that is invariably true, Habs Boys don't, I would argue, believe those things. However, in telling the joke and dismissing any offence caused as 'just an inability to take the banter' there is a subconscious sexism, a subconscious belief that if girls 'had banter' (if they were more like men), they would have laughed and not been offended. Undoubtedly sexist comments are rebranded as jokes, laughed at and approved of and culture where sexism is tacitly accepted as perfectly fine develops.

The problem is not unique to Habs, of course it is not. But there is an undoubted culture at the school where sexism is viewed as not an issue or ignored, leaving the boys all too ready to dismiss cries of sexism as misunderstandings and poor banter - as I once did, and as many currently and will continue to do.

Update 2 16/06/14

There are another two issues that need addressing after further comments on this post.

1. The example used

My choice of example as a springboard for this post has been criticised, both for misunderstanding the initial comment made and because the comment itself is not a bad example. I have two issues with this. Firstly it conveniently ignores the point of the article and attacks a premise that has no real bearing on the conclusion. Feminism and sexism remains an issue regardless of whether I understand that example properly or not and, indeed, I could have used a different example from my time at Habs. Second, I think the comment is quite a good reflection of the problem, if by no means the worse. The video is of a women making a serious point about rape and the response is that all these feminists are freaks. What an absurd response! I don't think the women makes her point in an especially amazing way, but it is a perfectly legitimate method of making a incredibly serious point. Attacking her character skirts around the real issue of rape and attempted justification - a serious one - and is just wrong for she is no eccentric.

2. I ignore a real issue of militant Feminism

Rejection of rape justification is not militant Feminism. Getting passionate in your speech against rape justification is not militant feminism. Rejection of rape justification is about as basic as you can get when it comes to Feminism, there is nothing militant about it. To suggest that somehow the initial comment was lamenting the plight of Feminism corrupted by its militant strands is remarkably offensive and avoiding the issue at hand. If militant Feminism was indeed the target, a video of a regular Feminist making a bog-standard point should not have been the one commented on. I, of course, dispute this was the target in the first place.*

It is hugely ironic that on a post and resulting thread about sexism at Habs that includes more than the one example I used initially, the anti-sexists and Feminists of Habs take issue not with the content of the blog, but the initial example I used. Apparently the real problem for many is not sexism but my example. Telling.

*Update 3 16/06/14: It should be noted that one of the comments this is in direct response to has since been clarified and I had misunderstood its intention. I am glad to have said comment in a message as now that I understand it fully, I can properly appreciate it. I leave these paragraphs here only in response to other comments that have been made without such clarification and as a general point about the mainstream nature of the video labelled as 'freaky'. As I point out, I do accept that the example I used is a small one and grant it may have been meant differently to how I took it (though such carelessness in commenting is also part of the issue). It is by no means the worst example (therein lies the problem) but its use, I feel, is still justified and demonstrative of the problem, whilst also being current and the initial motivation for the blog post.

Dream or nightmare? Take your pick

I've just finished watching my Mum and Dad on 'Building Dream Homes'. If ever there was a 20 minute snapshot into what both of them are like, especially my Dad, this was it. There are many David Levy-isms - repeatedly saying 'no' until the other person shuts up; suggesting that he won't wait more than 5 days for something to occur because, "We can get man to the moon and back," in that space of time; and his personal favourite, "Can I speak to a supervisor, or someone who knows what they are talking about," for example. I have a new favourite, featured on this programme: "You have a very strange understanding of the word 'today'." Also featured is my Dad trying and, at first, failing to open our new doors; a cup of coffee being made and my parents at work in their opticians (David Paul Opticians, Berkhamsted, where I ran a half marathon. Just saying). If that isn't good entertainment, I don't know what it is. It also gives you a small idea of what I deal with whenever I am home and my Dad is on the phone to a company and the birth of 'The David Levy Drinking Game'.

The programme is about the new extension my Dad decided to project manage, quickly deciding that if you want something done well, you may as well do it yourself. What began as a small repair to a wall that was the victim of subsidence turned into a complete renovation of the kitchen and living room, with my Mum regularly driving my Dad mad throughout the Autumn. For those of you that haven't watched the programme, you can do so here http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b046shfb/building-dream-homes-episode-6 - believe me it is worth it, if only for the scene where my Dad attempts a golf shot. Those glass doors that now sit at the back of my house were not easy to source at all and, indeed, there was a moment when my Mum just said, "No. I don't want it anymore. Just don't bother." The only problem was, half the back of the house was missing at this point and not bothering was not really an option. Just a small insight into the project that wasn't given on the programme.

If anyone needs a project manager who comes with plenty of sarcasm, a working definition of the word 'today', ridiculous shoes and a son that sounds just like him, then my Dad is currently not really doing very much. Watch the programme and give us a call!

So, you both agree that 'hummus' is good?

One of my favourite Bruno moments is when he goes to the Middle East to try and solve the Israel-Palestine conflict and manages to get agreement that hummus is good. For your amusement, the clip can be found here. The relevance, albeit tenuous, is the news that Hamas and Fatah have reconciled and are forming a unity government. Personally, I'm not sure how you can have peace talks with an entity that is now backed by an organisation that opposes them - ignoring the added complication of that organisation being a terrorist organisation sworn to Israel's destruction. I am also confused as to how Abbas can claim any commitment to peace if he is seeking unity deals with such organisations.

There are some positives:

1. If (a huge huge huge if) Hamas commits to peace talks and Israel's right to exist, there may actually be some viability in the peace accords. 

For ages I have thought the peace process was a complete sham - Abbas had absolutely no authority to negotiate on behalf of the Gazans. (He barely has any authority to negotiate on behalf of the West Bank Palestinians considering he is 4 years beyond his term, but let's ignore that.) Considering any peace deal presumably included Gaza as Palestinian territory, this was hugely problematic. Assuming a return to peace talks (a huge assumption, of course), this is no longer a problem and makes a peace deal that little bit more viable.

2. Elections

Fresh elections, long overdue, can only be a good thing.

3. A government including Hamas need not be 'Hamas' inspired. 

In other words, the new government could decide to not oppose peace talks and to not be committed to Israel's destruction. It's unlikely but it is possible. A new Palestinian government controlling Gaza and the West Bank could extend security co-operation existing in the West Bank to Gaza, which could prevent future terrorist attacks. Or it would, at least, be a start. If the status quo remains, if Hamas remains sworn to Israel's destruction and terrorist activity out of Gaza continues then Abbas has made his intentions perfectly clear. It is true that you don't make peace with your friends, but with your enemies, but Fatah were enemies enough for Israel. In short, If Hamas remains Hamas within a new unified Palestinian government, I fail to see how peace can be negotiated.

Israel is correct to halt peace negotiations with any Hamas backed government - for the time being. Only time will tell what the make-up and ideology of a new elected, unified, Palestinian government would be. Netanyahu and myself fear that Abbas' cuddling up to Hamas only means it will be more extreme than it currently is, which ends the peace process. Crucially, it need not be so. If nothing else, however, this reconciliation may just confirm what many Israelis have argued since the split - Hamas and Fatah are two sides of the same coin. And that is not a positive. Not for peace, not for Israel, not for the Palestinians.

The Guardian: Wrong about everything, all the time

Sometimes you read something that has you shaking your head in disbelief. Very often that 'something' is in The Guardian, my newspaper of choice for anti-Zionism, pro-Hamas and terrorist propaganda and general anti-Semitism. Because, you know, I like having my views challenged. A piece in response to the ADL's report on anti-Semitism (here) is no different, unsurprisingly. My favourite thing about the piece is that it describes anti-Semitism as a serious issue...The Guardian, ever masters of irony.

The end of the second paragraph is so laughable, I almost didn't carry on reading. It states that "common sense" (The Guardian invoking common sense - more of that irony) would have almost anyone in the world answer affirmatively to the question of whether another ethnic group thinks more highly of themselves. Seriously? I don't happen to think any ethnic group thinks more highly of themselves. This question, however, confirms that many subscribe to the view that us Jews view ourselves as the chosen people and thus as superior to others. "Oh those Jews, thinking they are better than us." Try saying that sentence without it sounding like you harbour resentment for that fact and/or for Jews. 

The next paragraph is horrifically misleading. It suggests that the question, "Do the Jews have too much power in the business world," was only asked in the Palestinian territories where the answer was bound to be yes. The question itself is quite simple, "Do you subscribe to the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that Jews rule the (business) world." Answering yes, regardless of location, is anti-Semitism. That The Guardian think there is discussion on this point is worrying. What, however, is much more disturbing is the strong implication that this question was not asked in other regions. I randomly clicked and discovered that 51% of French respondents and 57% of Polish respondents also subscribe to the view that Jews have too much power in the business world. Let's grant The Guardian's claim that Palestinians could not be expected to answer anything but yes (ignoring that the Middle East and Northern Africa region where anti-Semitism is the highest is made of, shock horror, more than just the Palestinians), and ask whether the French could also not be expected to answer anything but yes? The answer, of course, is 'don't be so ridiculous'. The Guardian would have you believe that only the Palestinians were asked this "leading question". 

The next paragraph is the worst of the lot. Believing that Jews talk about the Holocaust too much and, as implied, use it to justify the existence of Israel is, in my opinion, anti-Semitic. The latter is certainly anti-Semitic by any normal definition of the term. Secondly, The Guardian is justifying such anti-Semitism. It is apparently understandable why Palestinians believe the Jews talk too much about the Holocaust (bear in mind, again, that 62% of Poles, for example, also believe the same). Anti-semitism, therefore, is understandable. We can argue for centuries about the plight of Palestinians in Gaza, and indeed it seems we are destined to do so, but to suggest that Palestinians have any justification for their belief that Jews talk about the Holocaust too much, i.e., their anti-Semitism, is a horrible horrible claim.*

At the initial time of writing, The Guardian piece included a paragraph on a question regarding loyalty to Israel, which has since been deleted for not being in line with "editorial standards". Interestingly, justification of anti-Semitism obviously is...(A CIFWatch piece on this article contains this paragraph in full and can be found here.) 

Anti-Semitism amongst all, not least Palestinians, appears to be an inconvenient truth as far as The Guardian is concerned.

*This paragraph has been edited in light of comments from a friend.

Miliband and Zionism

I've never been the biggest Ed Miliband fan, though that's probably mainly because after exams last year Warwick Labour assigned me the title of 'Fed Miliband' or the Milibands' older, fatter brother. The Ed Miliband comparisons have been frequent since. However, whether or not I look like the man has finally become utterly irrelevant - I, at least, have the strength of will to stand up for my beliefs and opinions. For better or worse, I am not afraid to post a controversial blog, to defend Israel's right to exist on twitter and call myself a Zionist. Ed Miliband, it seems, does not share such strength - as my friend Jordan highlights eloquently here.

I, however, would go one further. I would argue that Miliband's refusal to self-define as a Zionist is all the more reason to ensure this man never leads our country. This has absolutely nothing to do with believing in Israel's right to exist or being pro-Israel (though I would also argue believing in Israel's destruction would also be reason for non-election!) No, this is to do with integrity, strength of character and the ability to stand up for one's beliefs. Miliband lacks all three in alarming measure. There is no denying that for Miliband to do so would have political consequences because of the stigma attached to the word (as Jordan highlights) but that is all the more reason to be ashamed of Miliband for not coming out and defending his views unequivocally. To be scared of defending your views and the implications of them renders holding them worthless and hollow. 

Ed Miliband is a Zionist. That members of his party and the public would not accept that is no reflection on Miliband. It is a reflection on the ignorance and anti-Semitism that exists in across all three major parties and in Britain. However, that anti-Semitism will continue to exist for as long as our leaders are scared to stand up to it, more concerned with political capital and their political careers than standing up for what is right. This is another example of a spineless politician whose views are not worth the paper they are written on. It would have taken real strength of character and conviction in what one believes for Miliband to have said he was a Zionist. That he lacks that demonstrates why he is unfit to lead this country, just like the majority of politicians we are 'blessed' with. 

Unfortunately, we live in a world where it is the fools and idiots who are so full of confidence. George Galloway is a perfect example of this. The man is anti-Semitic, generally odious and a poor excuse for a human being but he is never afraid to stand up for his beliefs. He never shies away from defending what he believes in and regardless of that belief, that is to be admired. The pro-Israel camp could do with someone of his charisma arguing for our cause. That that is undeniably true demonstrates all that is wrong with British Politics today. Unfortunately, we have the Ed Milibands of this world on our side - the cowards who are afraid to stand up for their causes. Frankly, he may as well be an anti-Zionist. His refusal to self-identify as one suggests that the belief in Jewish self-determination is somehow something to be ashamed of. Or at least something he is ashamed of. I don't want him on my side if that's what he thinks. I certainly don't want him living in Number 10 with such a cowardly attitude. 

I am a Zionist and proud. Come on Ed, overcome that politician instinct so ingrained within you. Stand up for your beliefs, no matter how controversial they may be. Otherwise you're just another weak, spineless politician not fit to run a bath, let alone a country. 

Israel Apartheid Week: Rethink

Every so often you read something that makes you shake your head in disbelief and wonder if it is really worth your time to even engage with the material. Today was one of those days. A friend pointed in me in the direction of an article written in Warwick's student newspaper, The Boar, on Israel Apartheid Week. The piece, worth reading only to give this response some context, can be found here. Frankly, I should have stopped reading when gender segregation in universities was described as, “...sometimes questionable.” No, ma’am, it is not just sometimes questionable, it is always wrong. Anyway.

Let’s ignore the debate about Israeli policy, we’ll be here until the cows come home for Kosher slaughter. Rather, let’s focus on some horrific comments in the article that simply must be challenged:

• Israeli Apartheid week is about raising awareness of apartheid in Israel.

Perhaps this is worth a read: http://www.adl.org/assets/pdf/israel-international/Israeli-Apartheid-Week-Year-by-Year-Report.pdf

IAW is an attempt to associate Israeli policy towards the Palestinians with the Apartheid policies in South Africa, a comparison not only insulting to Israel (and wrong) but also to those South Africans who suffered under Apartheid. Anti-Israel campaigners would do well to avoid such inaccurate, harmful and insulting comparisons. 

•  “...We should concentrate on more ‘pressing’ or ‘worthy’ issues such as civil war in Syria, or gay rights in Russia” 

The reason Israeli Apartheid week is wrong has absolutely nothing to do with the Syrian Civil War or Russia’s gay rights record (though, the writer should make a better attempt at not belittling either). The fact that pro-Palestinian (read anti-Israel) activists have no concern for the Palestinians at the mercy of Assad because Israel is not to be blamed (unless you subscribe to one of the many Zionist conspiracy theories that suggest Assad is actually an Israeli proxy) is really neither here nor there. Though it is something that perhaps can be considered…

• Mandela supported the Palestinian plight

So what?! Mandela was an avid supporter of peace, freedom, self-determination and, wait for it, Israel. It is clear what the writer is trying to do here. Mandela is a man who is respected across the world so if he supports the Palestinian plight, then we must all support the Palestinian plight. I call ad hominem. Hitler loved dogs, ergo we should all hate dogs? I don’t think so! Besides, the writer conveniently ignores that Mandela believed that Israel deserved and needed security and had the right to exist as a Jewish state, something many speakers at Israeli Apartheid week fundamentally disagree with. 

• IAW is important because Ariel Sharon was painted as a hero in Western media

Consider it this way:

1. Ariel Sharon was painted as a hero
2. We must paint Israel as an Apartheid state

Yep, makes perfect sense.

• "To critique the politics of the state of Israel is not anti-Semitism – indeed, many Jewish organisations such as Jews for Justice for Palestinians also oppose Israel“

The first point is, of course, correct. It is interesting, however, how her proof of this is that there are Jews who oppose Israel. So? Jews can be anti-Semitic. And besides, no one ever denied that it is possible to critique the policies of the State of Israel without being an anti-Semite. It just seems that the majority attending IAW are unaware of this - read the report above. I need only note one example - the number of Nazi comparisons made by supporters at rallies during IAW. Critiquing the policies of the State of Israel is one thing, in fact, it is encouraged in a democracy like Israel. What is, and will always be, unacceptable and downright anti-Semitism whether the writer likes it or not, is any comparison between Hitler’s Nazi regime and Israel. The fact is IAW makes no efforts to distance itself from such comparisons. 

• "I abhor the politics of Saudi Arabia – does that make me an Islamophobe?”

Well no. Saudi Arabia is an Arab state, not a Muslim state. There is nothing else really to say about this point, other than the lazy flippancy in which it is made is very telling. 

(Note, the US state department designates Saudi Arabia as an Islamic state; Wikipedia as an Arab state.)

• "We must not ignore Palestinian blood because the news has deemed Syrian blood more worthy of attention”

I find this the most troubling point in the entire article. I am not sure where the writer has been the past few years (probably on an anti-Israel rally in a country with freedom of speech) but this is an absurd statement. We do not need to get into the ins and outs of news outlets and whether they focus to much attention on Israel or count the UN resolutions on Israel compared to those on Syria. Instead, let’s ask the following question: “Has a body of a child or family murdered in Syria ever gained international recognition and outrage as a photo of the aftermath of a supposed Israeli attack?” Unfortunately, the answer is yes. More than once. We live in a world where we are sheltered from those murdered in Syria until someone can con us into thinking they were murdered by Israel.

Perhaps I can suggest an addition to the writer’s list at the end. We can support the Palestinian cause, we can oppose Putin’s homophobia, we can deplore Assad’s slaughter and we can oppose anti-Semitism and the poison, lies and hate that is Israeli Apartheid Week. And damn it, we should.

Sorry, I can't remember

A woman is in court, accused of murder. The most fundamental question the jury is asked is: “Did she do it?” This question opens up a can of worms much more full than we usually imagine. Let’s call the accused Sarah. When we ask whether Sarah committed the crime, what we mean is did Sarah commit the crime or was it John or Emma or Luke. However, we ignore a question just as fundamental: is the Sarah in court is the same Sarah as the past Sarah who we suspect of the crime. In general, we ignore the question of what makes Person A the same person today as yesterday or tomorrow. This is the question of personal identity. John Locke’s account of personal identity, born out of his desire to understand what someone can be held legally and morally responsible for, is assessed in this post.

Locke’s account begins, as most great Philosophical works do, with a distinction. Locke distinguishes between sameness of substance, man (or woman) and person, with the former not our concern. According to Locke, a man is nothing more than a certain animal, so the physical body that we have. Sameness of man, therefore, is just sameness of physical body. However, this is not what Locke takes personal identity to consist in. Locke defines a ‘person’ as, “…a thinking intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing in different times and places.” He goes on to state that sameness of person consists in sameness of consciousness, which we take to mean memory.

This is referred to as an account of psychological continuity, because there is a continuing of the psychological features of the person – that is their memory, their beliefs, their personality. For Locke, memory is what is most important. So if a person X, can remember doing an action Y, then person X was the person who performed that action. This what Locke refers to as: remembering from the inside. We have special access to our memory of past events, because we were that very same person that did them.

There are two cases which bring out Locke’s thought. One is a case that Locke himself considered: the prince and the pauper. If the consciousness or mind of a prince is put into the body of a pauper, and the pauper can remember being the prince, then we could say that the pauper is the prince! A modern day example is a case where two men (Brown and Robinson) are in a car crash and Brown’s body but not brain survives, but Robinson’s brain but not body survives, so Robinson’s brain is transplanted into Brown’s body. Locke would say that this new creation is the same man as Brown, but the same person as Robinson, if they can remember being Robinson, which we would suggest, because they share a brain, that the person would.

What this post has attempted to establish is what it means to be the same person throughout time. Why does this matter? Simply put because we reward and punish people for actions we say they committed. When we punish Sarah for murder, we are saying that the Sarah in court was the same Sarah as the one who plunged the knife into the victim’s neck. Locke’s theory of personal identity gives us a basis for coming to this conclusion. Sarah can be said to be the same person that committed the crime because it can be proven that Sarah remembers committing that crime. More on this later.

Let’s return to a case previously discussed, the prince and the pauper. Locke’s theory forces us to conclude that because the pauper can remember the prince’s past life, the pauper is the prince. From this is follows that the pauper’s body would be responsible for all of the prince’s actions prior to the transfer of consciousness and not responsible for the any of the pauper’s prior actions. Where we see the pauper’s body, the Law must see the prince’s actions - according to Locke. The question to be asked is “who” exactly are we punishing if the pauper’s body is put in prison. It seems fairly intuitive that, after the transfer of the prince’s memories, thoughts etc, it would still be the prince - despite the physical change.

Another case to be considered is that of children and the mentally impaired. Locke’s definition of “person” (thinking, intelligent etc) would render children and the mentally impaired not (at least full) persons. Oddly enough, the Law does exactly the same. We hold children and mentally impaired humans much less responsible, often to the extent where they are not held accountable at all, for their actions in virtue of the fact they are children or mentally impaired. Locke’s theory gives us a reason why we do this: children and the mentally impaired are, in the legal sense, not persons and therefore we do not hold them responsible in the same way.

In a legal sense, therefore, Locke’s theory seems to have a lot going for it. However, in a crucial way it falls down. Let’s return to Sarah and a statement made above: “Sarah can be said to be the same person that committed the crime because it can be proven that Sarah remembers committing that crime.” This leads to two fundamental issues:

1. Believe it or not, it is virtually impossible to prove what someone remembers and what someone doesn’t remember
2. To forget something would necessarily be a defence in a court of Law. 

The first one is quite simple. Only Sarah truly knows what Sarah remembers. Suppose Sarah claims to not remember murdering her physics teacher - do we believe her? In most cases we are likely to dismiss Sarah’s claim but Locke would force us to consider it more closely. If Sarah cannot remember committing the crime, she is not the same person that committed the crime. It seems uncontroversial to argue that we do not punish criminals for actions that literally another person committed. It becomes vital to prove whether Sarah remembers committing the crime, yet this is impossible to do.

The second one is just false. Sarah stands up and claims to have been under the influence of alcohol when she murdered the victim and therefore cannot remember doing it. Let’s suppose it can be proven that she did not remember it. Locke’s theory now forces us to believe that a different person committed the crime. Again, it seems uncontroversial to argue that we do not punish criminals for actions that literally another person committed. Do we acquit Sarah? Taking Locke at his word would force us to do so. Intuitively this seems wrong, Sarah is surely guilty of something, even if it is on diminished responsibility - and, indeed, the Legal system tends to agree. We assume that people remain that person even throughout lapses in memory - and hence we can punish them (or reward them) for actions they cannot remember committing. Sorry Sarah, it seems your appeal to Locke’s theory of Personal Identity won’t work.

There are limitations to Locke’s theory. He may help us answer questions of personhood when we consider princes and paupers or why children are not held accountable, but his theory is, at least in part, not compatible with our modern legal system. Can’t remember doing something? Tough luck!