If I am not free to speak my mind, that is one thing (and not a good thing).
But if I am not free to point to an objective standard, if my belief in words like “fact” or “truth” are questioned, now I have become unacceptable for saying some things are “fictions,” some things are “false,” and I am not safe. Now when I question a top-down mandate or authoritarian decisions which are based on one point of view, others denounced out-of-hand, I am not safe. What is more damning is when leaders can say one thing one day, another thing on another day, and those given the responsibility to question and report leave that role to me because they are silent, I am not safe.
When my field of inquiry ignores then dismisses another point of view after which authorities attack their work eliminating their voice, and I stand up for them, I am not safe. When creators who create content whose position runs contrary to the cultural narrative of the day, their videos taken down, their words no longer accepted, and I point this out, I am not safe. The slow slide toward dictatorship that some warn about which is then pooh-poohed by the intelligentsia because checkers of facts declare it so, and I point out the hypocrisy of choosing some facts but not all facts, I am not safe. When autocrats demean the very people they have sworn to protect, and I point out the psychology of refusal after the population is demeaned, I am not safe. When a person of color is egregiously attacked by both untruths and physical violence – but the individual does not subscribe to mainstream accepted views – that attack attracts little attention in the mainstream news outlets, and I point this out, I am not safe.
The assaults on freedom of speech (or the active suppression of speech) depend not just on freedom “from” censorship but freedom “to” ground truth-telling in certainty.
Read historical accounts of the people who lived through dictatorships. Each story revolves around Hannah Arendt’s thesis in The Origins of Totalitarianism. Hannah Arendt, who understood discrimination as a Jew and was critic of Hitler and Stalin during and after WWII, wrote,
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.”
The seeds of Arendt’s thinking have fully blossomed in every area of culture, in every discipline in the academe. Some would want us to accept a created reality where we just do what we’re told by “the blue-pill” fiction-sellers, fact-checkers, and law-givers. But there are others who take “the red pill” and are welcomed “to the desert of the real.” There will come a day when even writing these words will have me censured from the public square, a voice left to cry in the wilderness. I have been writing, speaking, and teaching on these themes for decades. And I have not been safe for a long time.
[Full disclosure, I have kept this stand-up of The Matrix since 1999 when the film came out. I believed then and now that the thesis of this movie is evergreen, that is, always applicable.]
There were many, many responses to my post. Thousands of views, comments, and shares on multiple platforms. My progressive friends contributed a number of negative responses. I have numbered some of them with my responses immediately following.
#1 I’m sorry you and so many others don’t feel safe. But I have to admit to feeling a bit lost in this post, and the replies. There’s a lot implied, but not a lot explained. I could be wrong, but it reads as vaccine-skeptical/Biden bashing. Is that what’s going on here? Weirder stilll, most commenters here have a pretty good notion of whatever your actually getting at… In any case, what are the sources of the alternate facts that we should be looking for? You cite professional fact checkers as bad. Who (on Earth) then do we trust? It sounds like we’re all supposed to be fact-checkers all the time, and distrust the popular conclusions, almost out of hand. As for Facebook, Amazon, etc., yes there are issues with all of them, no matter what political side one is on. But I would hope that most would agree that experts exist for a reason. I appreciate your intelligence and philosophical commitment, Mark… Just looking for clarification here.
My response to #1: Thanks for your thoughts. The word “feel” does not occur in the piece. My approach in this post had nothing to do with “feelings” and everything to do with speaking up (in my case, over four decades) to give an alternative view to what we do not hear, what we do not read, what we are not allowed to see. Every one of my statements has a surge of research behind it to suggest some are allowed to speak, others are silenced. There are many who are frustrated by who decides what we hear / see / read which is the essence of this post. When President Trump was in office there was a deluge of 24-7 reportage, repeated freely and vociferously by those opposed the president. During President Biden’s administration, NPR, WaPo, NYT reports sound much like Democratic talking points when the same outlets found all-bad, nothing-good in the last administration. There is not “bashing” going on here. To say that President Biden “demeaned” (my word) the American populace (“the unvaccinated” sounded like some zombie phrasing) is a very low bar. I literally sat slack-jawed in front of the news listening to the president “talk down” to those folks (the tweets out of the state department about the Taliban sounded as if we were neighbors borrowing a cup of sugar in comparison). I was shocked by his approach. I would not characterize my voice there as “bashing” in any way. And to the point, to practice my work at IUPUI, I am vaccinated to do my work on campus.
As for “fact checkers” there is a plethora of research that suggest those so-called have biases that color their own approaches. Even the co-founder of Wikipedia came out this summer to say that the site is skewed in its reportage. As a high school teacher and higher ed prof I have and continue to tell my students “Don’t believe what I tell you, go do your research.” [In fact, I just said that an hour ago in my class here!
] In another class on “Argumentative Writing” I encourage my students all the time to ask, “What am I NOT hearing?” The approach is nothing, if not an attempt to be evenhanded. Individuals and institutions are being shut down all the time. [I’m not sure of your views about PragerU, but that is one of many examples.] My concern in social media is the same as what I teach in my classes. Shutting down and shutting out free speech is an attack on the last of the bulwarks of a culture that treasures what is unusual in great swaths across the world. I think you know me well enough and have read enough of my writing, that I temper my words (as I have here). The comments you see from others mirrors their frustration. It takes real fortitude to speak against the current cultural narrative (pick an issue). Working in the public university is a navigation through unnavigable rapids at times. I just heard from more students last night that were shut down when they spoke up; even when they asked a question in class. Living with and speaking as a perennial preservatist (passing on the great ideas and ideals of the past) is a full time job. I went back to school here for another degree so that I could make a statement to those around: I respect (though I may not agree) your positions in class but wish to bring viewpoint diversity to a “secular” university (the reason I belong to Heterodox Academy).
There is much more to say (I’ve already written too much perhaps); but I hope that some of these comments shed some light on the points you brought forward and give some clarification about my purpose. I appreciate your perspectives and respect your point of view, though we may disagree. Again, I am always glad to hear from you
#2
Thanks for that; I really do appreciate the “don’t take my word for it” approach in education. But can you see how the initial post reads as coded? I disagree that you and the others are factually “unsafe” in your ascribed stances. That needs further explanation. I’m wonder what you are you worried about happening to you. What have I failed to consider?
As for the Trump vs. Biden example, I think that the weight of the nature of their respective coverage does in fact come down to media bias. But the question then is, why does the bias exist? (I think in this day and age we must ask that of ALL media outlets). Knowing many journalists and the general reasons why they and others have gotten into journalism (throughout contemporary history), much of it is ideally rooted in their care about individuals, about “the populace”. They see much systemic injustice, and want to call it out. Trump was (and is) such a terrible leader and toxic person that calling him out as a true liar and a fraud at every turn is, to me, warranted. If that’s the also case with Biden, so be it- but I don’t currently see it. (He’s being made out to be a “dictator” for pushing a progressive agenda that ought to improve a lot of lives. It will cost some of us, so I guess those folks are angry?) I’m not a 100% fan of the President, but I think he’s trying to do as much “big good” as he can while he can. But of course, agendas and party politics will and do factor in and muddy things… But I cannot for the life of me comprehend the appeal of someone like Trump. (My research bears that out). He stoked an attack on the U.S. Capitol, lest we forget. That alone makes him a shoo-in for Worst President Ever. I think it’s fair of the private owners of Twitter and whatnot to say “enough’s enough- no more domestic terrorist rhetoric on our platform”. In that case, it’s pretty clear cut. The slippery slope argument can then be applied, of course. But where can’t it? I know quite well you’re no “bad guy”, and goodness knows I’ve had plentyof friendly disagreement with friends, both when I was a political conservative, and now that I’m not any longer. (Is this like your class?
)
My response to #2: The issue of being “unsafe” – far from being coded – is one of being maligned, dismissed and eliminated from the cultural conversation. Consider, as one of many sites and instances that could be brought to the fore,
https://www.canceledpeople.org/ Stories abound of groups and persons whose free speech on platforms has been eliminated. As for journalists and journalism “calling out” systemic injustice, is itself, bias. Journalism (is supposed) to do research and report. “Calling out” should be “reporting the facts and letting the viewers decide.” None is immune from prejudice but it should be acknowledged at every turn, the very point here. The comparison of Trump-Biden has to do with coverage not behavior or policy (though we could well go down that rabbit hole as well). “Big good” is a statement I can hear being forwarded by those on the other side of the argument. Depending on what you view as “big good,” that is. [I suspect you and I would find ourselves in some disagreement there as well.] It would be good for Jack (Twitter) and Zuck (FB) to be evenhanded in their appropriation of the “terrorism” label. Their cultural-political views are well known. And – I’ll make this my final comment here – when Jen Psaki says that the WH is working with social media to identify and eliminate “misinformation” the ideas call to mind Orwell, Wells, Bradbury, and Huxley. Government working with a public company to eliminate opposing viewpoints? Much of what I write about in a political-cultural moment has to do with freedom. Thanks for the conversation Jim. Always a pleasure.
#3
I appreciate any reminder that true freedom of inquiry is hard to achieve in this world. We all see more clearly the threats to freedom from those we disagree with or dislike or fear. I’d feel better about this conversation if people would agree that we owe each other some shared goods: public health, safety, education, equal rights before the law, private happiness. To disagree with policies by Biden or Obama is one thing. To see them as dictators or socialists out to destroy our freedoms is another. Overall, my study of and living through history suggests that the greatest dangers to free thought and justice have been powerful wealthy people and corporations, large religious institutions, majority groups. In the past oh 100 years the Republican Party has tended to be more stifling of freedom than the Democratic Party, but too many powerful Democrats have been too fond of power and of the rich. As for facts and truth, yes I believe in them. I should read Arendt. Stalin was just as evil as Hitler. But Biden is nowhere near such a figure nor are most progressives in the US near to the Russian Communist Party or the Nazis.
I understand the slippery slope idea. But it’s too often used to reject change and create fear of new understandings of humanity and human rights.
My response to #3: Thanks Steve for your contribution again today. I remember distinctly over the last four years the kind of names labeling Trump and Conservatives: I agree with you that no one – no president, no party, no person – should be so demeaned by castigating their viewpoint. I would also agree that anyone fond of power and riches – no matter their political label – should be held to a standard we both believe in: “facts and truth.” And that is exactly Arendt’s point: totalitarianism begins when those concepts have become so blurred that a population knows “Pravda” isn’t really “Truth.” To this point, I thank you for referencing the “slippery slope.” It is important to care for the concept. “Rejecting change and creating fear” goes in all directions; we certainly saw such a response over the past four years, I would add. To shame any group or demean any individual for their ideas of change should be held to account. The problem, of course, is that we do not always see the “accounting” take place. Which brings me to agree with you again about “shared goods.” You and I have had this good conversation many times. As you know, I speak for and write constantly about “doing good.” Yes, we disagree about the origins of “good.” But what we have and can continue to agree upon, are the outcomes of “good.” So, again, I will say, I will always stand with you for the beneficence of all people – their “health, safety, equality, rights, education, and happiness.” Our approach to policy may differ, but our commitment to each other and the betterment of all is still our common goal. The pair that always brings me hope is the work and conversation of Robert P. George and Cornel West: a white conservative and a black progressive who have a deep love and respect for each other. [I have written about them extensively in the past:
https://warpandwoof.org/west/ ] “Accounting” should take place openly in the public sphere for the “good” of all people, no matter their particular beliefs or persuasions, which can only happen in a free society where all can be heard. Again, thank you Steve for your thoughtfulness. I am ever grateful for our camaraderie toward the “good.”
If I am not free to speak my mind, that is one thing (and not a good thing). But if I am not free to point to an objective standard, if my belief in words like “fact” or “truth” are questioned, now I have become unacceptable for saying some things are “fictions,” some things are “false,” and I am not safe. Now when I question a top-down mandate or authoritarian decisions which are based on one point of view, others denounced out-of-hand, I am not safe. What is more damning is when leaders can say one thing one day, another thing on another day, and those given the responsibility to question and report leave that role to me because they are silent, I am not safe.
When my field of inquiry ignores then dismisses another point of view after which authorities attack their work eliminating their voice, and I stand up for them, I am not safe. When creators who create content whose position runs contrary to the cultural narrative of the day, their videos taken down, their words no longer accepted, and I point this out, I am not safe. The slow slide toward dictatorship that some warn about which is then pooh-poohed by the intelligentsia because checkers of facts declare it so, and I point out the hypocrisy of choosing some facts but not all facts, I am not safe. When autocrats demean the very people they have sworn to protect, and I point out the psychology of refusal after the population is demeaned, I am not safe. When a person of color is egregiously attacked by both untruths and physical violence – but the individual does not subscribe to mainstream accepted views – that attack attracts little attention in the mainstream news outlets, and I point this out, I am not safe.
