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.
A big defeat for those of us who do not believe conspiracy theories 😉
Yes, Felipe. But although I always say that I am the last one to recognize a conspiracy, I also think it is important to clarify. There are conspiracies. It is important to recognize them once you have eliminated all other reasonable explanations for the matter in question, and conspiracies along with other explanations need to be supported by evidence and not merely conjecture. DSK’s case, in this regard at least, is not closed.
Yes, Jeff. And to amplify, “conspiracy” is today a synonym for foolishness, a stamp to dismiss people; sometimes for good reasons, as some people believe that Bush sent a missile to the pentagon on 9.11 and that NASA is hiding secret UFO technology. But this blurs real aspects of history and politics: Lincoln was assassinated by conspirators; Fujimori and company sat together to figure out how to get fraudulently reelected, etc. In general, I suggest that it is wrong to dismiss –in principle and as a matter of course– the possibility that a group of people may have sat together to frame others, or to commit political fraud, to damage the reputation of their opponents, to distort and hide information from the public (the tobacco industry comes to mind). I am not saying that this is a central aspect of politics. I am saying that political scientists, historians, journalists, voters may legitimately consider such possibility sometimes.
I agree Rafael. I start with skepticism. But if there is evidence of conspiracy, I proceed accordingly. I worry that people explain too much with little through conspiracy theories, but of course know sometimes they exist and are quite consequential. A variation on the theme that even paranoids have enemies.
Whoa! Unless I am missing something, and missing quite a lot, I don’t see a need to rush to proclaim that DSK is “really innocence” in Jeff’s phrase. It seems at this point (based on current reportage) he will not be found guilty, and in that sense he will be innocent in the eyes of the law. True enough. But where is the conspiracy? His semen has been found on the clothing of this hotel maid. Are we suggesting that in her sly way, she forced DSK to ejaculate against his will. Do we find it plausible that the oral sex was her idea? (Not to mention his past instances of similar behavior). Do we believe that her handlers just happened to know just when DSK would naked in the shower? As the case is now presented, it appears that the accuser is no naif. And perhaps it tells us that if you are a con artist, you are fair game for a more powerful con artist. Perhaps they belong together forever in one of Jean-Paul Sartre’s cells in No Exit. But remember it is not only saints who get raped.
Perhaps DSK will not be found guilty – and so he will be innocent. But to suggest that DSK is a victim, well it makes me gag.
As far as what happened in Sofitel hotel room, I go with Socrates. “I know that I don’t know.” But the dark shadow of a doubt surrounding the case makes it clear to me that DSK is not likely to be found guilty. I suspect Gary and I agree to that. But it should also be understood Strauss Kahn has been a victim of an accusation that has not been truthful. It appears that he may be innocent. I wouldn’t go as far as Dayan in asserting a conspiracy. Yet, the contention does not seem to be as outrageous now as it did when he first raised the issue in our personal conversations. Skeptical though I am, it is quite possible. But, yes, it is also possible that a perjurer also is a rape victim.
I think that, in the case of DSK, one should not rush to the opposite end of the pendulum swing and declare him innocent in the Sofitel episode. A lot has come out (especially in France) since his arrest that portrays him as a man who engages in risky behavior to add to his female conquests and who also is quite capable of using his position to extract sexual favors from those who are beneath him in organizational hierarchies or social position. Granted, the credibility of his accuser has been exploded, and in a trial where the outcome depends on one person’s word against another’s he will not be convicted. But there does appear to be significant forensic evidence, including vaginal bruising, to raise doubts about DSK’s story of consensual sex. It will be interesting to see whether he can be quickly rehabilitated on the French political scene. My own suspicion is that the collapse of the legal case against him is a disaster for the French Socialist Party, which will not have trouble uniting behind a presidential candidate because of DSK’s long shadow.
Sorry, I see a mistake in my comment. I meant to say that the Socialists will have trouble uniting behind a candidate.
As far as the socialist party goes, the loss of DSK as a viable candidate put the party in disarray. If DSK came back and entered the race again, it couldn’t hurt. But there is probably not enough time. The continuing doubt about the case would exclude him as a viable candidate in the US. I am not sure about France.
Jeffrey, The socialists are already in a muddle over how to handle DSK’s possible return, with two of the leading candidates, Francois Hollande and Segolene Royal, agreeing that party electoral deadlines can be postponed for his sake. In the meantime (according to Le Monde today), some of the party members closest to DSK are accusing the French firm that owns Sofitel of being somehow involved in the incident (and it does appear that someone high up in the company informed Sarkozy of the arrest an hour after it took place). This suggests to me that there will be a push to rehabilitate DSK as quickly as possible. But surely other socialists, to say nothing of voters in general, will see DSK as having been gravely damaged by the revelations about his sexual predation and luxurious lifestyle. It will be interesting to see if this new turn of events can be digested quickly by the Socialist Party.
Richard, muddle is an understatement and it was clear with the arrest of DSK. He was the sound leader of a weakened Party and was lost. The Party then was torn between those who defended him no matter what, and those who actually addressed the implications of the case and what it said about the nature of public power and private life in France. That a Party of the left was attacking those who were critically discussing the arrogance of power and sexism indicated a deep problem. Your informed reply indicates that they do not now present a significant alternative to Sarkosy. But a NY Times piece today suggests that he could ride a wave of anti American sentiment and prevail. I don’t know which is correct.
What I do think that this is a case in which the general and difficult problem concerning the relationship between public and private needs to be considered. This is where academic theoretical concerns, such as the ones Dayan and I have been discussing, become pressing politically ones. The fact that there are socialists looking into a possible conspiracy between Sofitel and Sarkosy may be rational because there is actually a conspiracy, but I think it is a actually a worrying sign that they are burying their heads in the sand, revealing the dangers of conspiracy theory.