I’m struggling through a copy of Ted Honderich’s latest book at the moment, with a view to reviewing it for Democratiya. Readers of Engage will not be surprised to know that I think it’s full of philosophical errors, in addition to being politically pretty vile. Most of the ones that were there in After the Terror, (reviewed here) are repeated, but, fortunately for maintaining the jaded reader’s interest, there are a few new and surprising ones thrown in.

But there’s something else strange about Honderich’s method, which is worth bringing out in advance of the full critique. He seems continually to get saved by his editors from claims of Jewish collective guilt. I itemised how this seemed to happen in After the Terror, when this sentence:

‘Having been the principal victims of racism in history, some Jews now seem to have learned from their abusers’ (p.29).

was changed, perhaps, after the first edition, by the addition of the ‘some.’ Honderich’s original view was that Jews in general, Jews collectively, learned from their abusers.

Then, in the draft version for Humanity, Terrorism, Terrorist War we get (p.124)

'That is not all you should do, of course. You should take every rational step against neo-Zionism. You should speak against the violation of a people. You should not be quiet because you are Jewish. You have a special obligation because you are Jewish. All of us should take part in all forms of boycott against retail stores and other businesses dealing with neo-Zionist Israel, divestment, civil disobedience, non-cooperation, not voting, picketing, ostracism, naming, symbolic public acts, strikes and whatever else is rational against neo-Zionism. We should rise above convention, see the need for a new disrespect, especially disrespect for a compliant political class. We should do what the New England Henry David Thoreau did in the 19th Century, and not pay taxes to such a government as goes along with neo-Zionism, with Sabra and Shatila.'

This is the version I accessed on Honderich’s site earlier this year. But in the editing process, and on his site now, the fifth sentence here got cut, as did the reference to Sabra and Shatila. (There are a couple of additions. He recommends Michael ‘let’s have some fun with anti-semitism’ Neumann. No surprises there). Once again, Honderich’s first view was that: ‘You have a special obligation because you are Jewish.’ Jews have a special obligation, presumably because of their special identification with ‘Neo-Zionism.’ Jews, collectively, have this special position. I was worried about the sentence for lots of reasons – one of which was that it was followed by a call for ostracism. Who should that ostracism be directed at? Perhaps those who fail to live up to their special obligation. It’s worth noting that a ‘special obligation’ has a specific and concrete meaning in philosophy: it’s not a vapid phrase.

But now the sentence has gone. The book is still woeful, but the editing process seems, again, to have saved Honderich from making some of his most unpleasant claims. When the editors get to work on Honderich’s prose, they rescue him from some of his essentialist claims about Jews - that they are collectively guilty, specially obligated, and learning from their abusers. The editors leave in place some really lousy philosophy. They also leave Honderich to fire off writs against anyone who suggests his work is tainted by anti-Semitism. But, looking at Honderich’s first, unedited, thoughts, it’s easy to see why those worries are there.

Jon Pike