The Death of Free Speech: Dangers of Tribalism
- Shivendra Nair
- Jun 2, 2020
- 6 min read
Free speech is valued as a fundamental human right insofar as its political dimension is concerned. This definition of free speech is what I consider to be the most accurate and important when dealing with concerns over free speech. Therefore, petty concerns such as censorship of profanity and vulgarity are of little bearing to the type of free speech in consideration. The "political dimension" of free speech refers to the ability of the individual to express a wide variety of viewpoints, political thoughts, values, etc within a social framework that allows for polarizing viewpoints to be contemplated with equal weight. This ability is 'political' precisely because said viewpoints tend to be polarizing, and thus it falls to the political dimension to measure and balance these viewpoints to the mutual benefit of all parties involved. Accordingly, it becomes evident as to why free speech is considered the 'lifeblood' of a democracy. It is simultaneously the vehicle by which individuals can participate in the politics of their society and acts as a check against excessive government/institutional power. It is both the genesis and safeguard of a true democratic state. However, crucially, free speech presupposes the ability of the individual to think independently and freely. It becomes futile if the individual has the right to freedom of speech if the individual cannot exercise freedom of thought as this effectively means that any speech by that individual will be subject to the same restraints on his/her thoughts. It is through this unconscious world of thought that I seek to prove the grandiose claim that we as a society have killed free speech.
Firstly, there is an obvious knife in the back of free speech that is easily discernable and has been commented upon by many, namely the issue of political correctness. Whilst political correctness does not mandate the use of specific terms or phrases in the legal context, it utilizes a largely overlooked and misunderstood instrument to inflict a similar effect; culture. Political correctness developed a specific vocabulary for itself and marginalized all those who failed to employ it. This has the effect of creating a value system that rewards those who are politically correct and punishes those who are not. This cultural system is tantamount to a moral system to the extent that it regulates the behavior of the individual. Deferring to this system in effect reduces the words and phrases one can employ, thus already acting as a hindrance to free speech. However, in a perhaps even more sinister manner, the value system of political correctness more so than its restriction on vocabulary drives the knife further into the back of free speech. This is because the more an individual engages with political correctness, the more his/her psyche attunes itself to its value system, thus effectively reducing that individual's capacity to think outside of the system. Therefore, the repression of speech occurs on two levels. 'Basic' repression is political correctness itself mandating the use of certain words and phrases that hinder free speech. Secondly, 'value' repression occurs when continued 'basic' repression causes an internalization of political correctness as a system and thus reduces the capacity of the individual to acknowledge any other system of value. This evidently imposes a one-dimensional means of thinking upon the individual, which limits the individual's ability to exercise free speech as his/her thought process is already prejudiced towards favoring a particular value system. As will be more thoroughly discussed below, such a prejudice often has the effect of creating a polarity between supporters of the system and dissenters. For example, the debate on political correctness has largely devolved into tribalism between Liberals and Conservatives, demonstrating the mindless deference to ideology that can deprive individuals of free thought as such systems foster groupthink rather than individuality.
Secondly, ideological systems themselves possess an intrinsically oppressive quality. The current situation in the US with respect to the Minneapolis riots perfectly demonstrates the fine line between the manifestation of free thought and the madness of groupthink. Rather than this situation being the exception, it has sadly become the norm whenever social change or a defense of the status quo is desired. This is further evidenced by the continued violence in Hong Kong against China's proposed 'National Security Law'. One reason to explain this deprivation of a 'conscious subjectivity' (an ideal state whereby the individual is able to think completely freely without ideological tethers) can be found in Hannah Arendt's 1958 book The Human Condition in which she views modern political action as nothing more than the production of artifices. In other words, the modern state as given birth by Hobbes, is more focused on producing legislation, action plans, and regulations to ensure the smooth functioning of society. Politics effectively transitioned away from a free and open discourse of the people, by the people, for the people, and towards a factory-like machine churning out resolutions to govern society. This has a dual impact. Firstly, it facilitates the fragmentation of the body politic into interest groups rather than individuals. It stands to reason that in a society whose political system is geared towards output rather than input, individuality will inevitably be subordinated to group ideology as this is more efficient for output. Individual subjectivity in input will merely restrain effective output because of the length of time necessary to evaluate such various inputs. Secondly, it has the effect of depriving individuals of their 'conscious subjectivity', in effect making individuals nothing more than homogenous factory workers. If you doubt the facticity of my claims you need only look at the current state of the US. A country heralded as the 'land of the free' has one of the most polarizing political systems to date. The emphasis upon output in lieu of discourse and the intrinsic value of political input has not only diminished said value of political input (thereby effectively reducing the weight of free speech) but has also created the conditions for the development of totalizing political structures that focus on two versions of output. The Democrats and Republicans have fragmented American politics and their respective members are unable to think outside of these structures. To the Democrats, anything the Republicans do is bad and vice versa. This pattern has extended to media institutions as well, resulting in all-out turf wars that not only rape free thought but serve to subordinate individuals and group them into opposing categories of one-dimensionality.
In essence, the fact that our political structures no longer value individual input has meant that groupthink is encouraged. Indeed a shallow reading of my view on political correctness will undoubtedly bring some to the conclusion that I'm a conservative because the individual is unable to evaluate my position independent of a repressive politico-cultural bias. This line of thinking that I'm tempted to name 'tribal think', provides the subject with the illusion of free thought. Just as a Republican believes he is acting freely when he defends market liberalism and just as a Democrat believes he is acting freely when he defends the welfare state, they are both simply engaging in 'tribal think' as the underlying, dogmatic values perpetuated by their respective parties unconsciously influence their speech and prevent an understanding of alternative viewpoints and perspectives. Political correctness is the first step towards a socio-cultural adaptation of this otherwise common motif in the political dimension and is particularly dangerous because it extends political ideology to the realm of language. Orwell sufficiently explores the power of language in 1984 and particularly, the dangers of the politicization of language to free thought and to a free society. Ultimately, I do not seek to condemn culture or ideological systems outright, I merely seek to criticize our dependence upon the same when forming our beliefs and crystallizing our Superego. Culture, values, ideologies. They should all act as guides, not ends-in-themselves. They should not be accepted at face value. The duty of the citizen is to exercise free thought to navigate the murky waters of culture rather than having the raft of 'tribal think' carry one along the 'right path'. But as I have said, as long as our political systems value output more than they do input, group ideologies will flourish and critical thought will be impossible or even if possible, will be so marginal as to not effect meaningful change capable of delivering society out of its 'tribal repression'. Alas dear reader 'Free Speech is Dead', killed by the single-minded man of the tribe hunting to preserve his ways.
Comentarii