Podcast Summary
The historical context of free speech: Isegoria and Paresia: Understanding the historical Greek notions of isegoria and paresia can provide a richer perspective on free speech, emphasizing the importance of both participation and civility in the context of democracy
The concept of free speech is not as simple as it may seem. While many agree that it's important, determining what free speech means and where the boundaries should be drawn can be complex. Theresa Bejean, a political theorist at the University of Oxford, highlights the historical context and different Greek notions of free speech, isegoria and paresia, which can help clarify the confusion. Isegoria refers to the right to participate in public debate, while paresia means the license to say what one pleases. Understanding these distinctions can lead to a richer and more nuanced perspective on free speech. Bejean also emphasizes the importance of civility in the context of free speech, not just in polite terms, but in the sense of an obligation to listen to others. Overall, this discussion encourages us to think deeply about the meaning and implications of free speech in the context of democracy. It's not enough to just say that it's good; we need to be clear on what we mean and be able to defend our perspective on this complex and contentious issue.
Understanding Free Speech Beyond Politics: Free speech goes beyond personal beliefs, it's essential for democratic governance, recognizing historical significance, and ensuring all voices are heard. Civil libertarians advocate for individual rights, considering power dynamics.
The importance of free speech goes beyond political affiliations. Theresa Beidon emphasizes the need to listen and consider different perspectives, despite the politicized nature of the free speech debate in today's world. She encourages us to view these principles with a long-term perspective, recognizing their historical significance and their connection to democracy. Free speech is not just an individual right, but also a matter of ensuring that all voices are heard in democratic governance. Furthermore, civil libertarians, who advocate for individual rights to free speech, are not indifferent to power dynamics but rather sensitive to them and concerned about the power of voice and the potential consequences of granting arbitrary power to people in positions of authority to decide who speaks and who doesn't.
Ancient Greek Concepts of Free Speech: Parrhesia and Isagoria: Understanding the historical distinctions between Parrhesia and Isagoria in ancient Greek democracy can bring clarity to modern debates on free speech, promoting informed and nuanced discourse.
The concept of democracy and free speech has evolved throughout history, with a focus on allowing the people to have a voice in an equal manner. However, the human mind may not be naturally programmed to apply this value universally, leading to debates over who should or should not have a voice. In ancient Greek democracy, there were two distinct concepts of free speech: Parrhesia, which means speaking freely without fear or favor, and Isagoria, the equal right of citizens to address the public assembly. Over time, these distinctions have been lost in translation, leading to confusion in modern debates about free speech. Understanding these historical distinctions can help clarify contemporary discussions and promote more informed and nuanced discourse.
Ancient Greek Concepts Parisia and Isegoria: Free Speech vs. Equal Speaking Opportunities: Both Parisia and Isegoria are essential for fostering a healthy and inclusive public discourse. Parisia grants individuals the freedom to speak freely, while Isegoria ensures equal speaking opportunities in democratic institutions. Balancing these rights is crucial in maintaining a tolerant society that doesn't tolerate intolerance.
Parisia and Isegoria, two ancient Greek concepts, represent different aspects of free speech. Parisia refers to the license granted to individuals to speak freely and frankly, even if it may be offensive or insulting. Isegoria, on the other hand, is a political right that ensures equal speaking opportunities in democratic institutions. While modern interpretations of Parisia have focused on individual rights to free speech, it's essential to consider Isegoria's role in maintaining a system of equal speakers and protecting against harm. The debate over hate speech illustrates this tension, with some advocating for individual free speech rights and others prioritizing the protection of dignity and equal standing for marginalized groups. It's crucial to recognize that a tolerant society doesn't tolerate the intolerant and that both Parisia and Isegoria play essential roles in fostering a healthy and inclusive public discourse.
Balancing Free Speech and Democratic Values: Militant democracy limits certain freedoms to protect democratic values, but debates around free speech center on the concern of silencing certain viewpoints. Well-defined deliberative forums can provide a space for everyone to be heard, but there's a risk of suppressing dissenting voices.
The concept of militant democracy suggests limiting certain freedoms, such as the right to organize as an anti-democratic party, to protect democratic values. This idea can be traced back to theories like repressive tolerance, which advocates suppressing the enemies of tolerance. However, the line between acceptable and unacceptable speech is a complex issue, and debates around free speech often center on the concern that certain viewpoints are being silenced. Some argue that everyone should have an equal right to be heard, but this may not be feasible on a large scale. Instead, well-defined deliberative forums can provide a space for everyone to be heard. However, there is a risk that limiting hateful or denigrating views could lead to the empowerment of those in power to suppress dissenting voices. Ultimately, the challenge is to balance the principles of free speech and equality with the need to protect democratic values.
Maintaining free speech principles amid conflicting establishments: Historically, upholding free speech principles is crucial for civil disagreements, even amid conflicting establishments. Resist polarization and sectarian impulses.
While the concern of unequal access to platforms for free speech is valid, it should not overshadow the importance of upholding the principle of free speech itself. Historically, those advocating for censorship and suppression are often part of the establishment, and in today's cultural moment, there are conflicting establishments vying for power. However, it's essential to maintain principles like free speech to conduct disagreements, especially in the face of conflicting establishments. In the UK and the US, there are attempts to impose "free speech" from the government, which is not desirable for those who value civil liberties. It's crucial to understand and respect the feeling of righteous indignation on all sides while resisting the polarization of every question into a right or wrong side. Ultimately, the historical perspective can help us identify and resist the sectarian impulse and cultivate virtues that allow us to resist the pull towards polarization.
Respecting individual conscience and autonomy of thought: Valuing individual thought and expression, emphasizing the importance of individual conscience in a society that respects it.
The justification for free speech lies in respecting individual conscience and the autonomy of thought, rather than just the exchange of reasons. This perspective emphasizes the importance of the individual's capacity to make up their own minds, regardless of their identity or background. It also acknowledges that speech is about more than just reasoning, it's about emotion, enthusiasm, and the power of the word itself. This view, which can be traced back to older religious and philosophical arguments, values the importance of individual thought and expression in a society that respects and values individual conscience.
Historical context shaping free speech in US vs Europe: Europe focused on reasoned speech, excluding certain types, while US prioritized protecting right to spread ideas, including offensive ones. American exceptionalism rooted in civility and tolerance from Roger Williams' Protestant evangelicalism.
The historical development of free speech principles in the United States and Europe led to significantly different approaches to the issue. In Europe, the focus was on reasoned speech, leading to exclusion of certain types of speech. In contrast, in the United States, the focus was on protecting the right to spread ideas, including those considered nonsensical or offensive. This historical context helps explain the greater tolerance for diverse speech in the U.S. compared to other liberal democracies. For instance, Roger Williams, a key figure in American history, advocated for civility and tolerance, allowing for the coexistence of differing beliefs. This brand of Protestant evangelicalism, with its emphasis on civility and tolerance, is historically significant in shaping American exceptionalism when it comes to freedom of speech.
Engaging with Opponents in a Civil Society: Civility is a commitment to engage and work towards a more just society, even in the absence of respect, allowing us to navigate disagreements and free speech debates in a tolerant society.
Civility is a distinct virtue from politeness or decorum, and it is particularly relevant to disagreements within a civil society. Civility is a minimal conformity to culturally contingent norms of respectful behavior, even in the absence of respect. It allows us to engage with our opponents and continue to share a life together, rather than viewing them as obstacles to a just society. Civility comes from the Latin word "civilitas," meaning political society or civil society. It is not reducible to other virtues and is essential for tolerant societies to navigate disagreements and free speech debates. Mere civility can convey disrespect or contempt, but it is still a commitment to engage and work towards a more just society. The importance of civility lies in its ability to facilitate engagement and cooperation despite disagreements and the absence of respect.
Understanding the Complexity of Civility: Civility is not a one-size-fits-all concept, and it's essential to recognize different interpretations, fostering inclusivity and tolerance for productive dialogue.
The concept of civility can be misunderstood and misused. While some view civility as a means to engage in respectful dialogue despite disagreements, others use it as a tool to silence or exclude those with opposing views. This dynamic, according to the speaker, stems from a Hobbesian view of human nature that assumes people are inherently uncivil or barbaric, leading to the drawing of lines and exiling those considered beyond the pale. However, it's essential to recognize that civility is not a one-size-fits-all concept and that different interpretations exist. The speaker advocates for a form of civility that fosters inclusivity and tolerance, allowing for productive dialogue and engagement with those who may hold differing perspectives. Ultimately, it's crucial to be aware of the potential power dynamics at play when invoking the concept of civility and to strive for a more nuanced understanding of its various meanings and applications.
The ambiguity of civility and acceptable speech in digital spaces: Understanding that civility is a local standard and accepting the variation in acceptable speech across cultures and contexts is crucial for fostering a tolerant and civil society in the digital age.
The concept of civility and who is worth engaging with can be subjective and biased. While civility demands tolerance, we also need the freedom to associate with those we choose. The ambiguous nature of social media platforms, which function as both public spheres and private companies, adds to the confusion about what constitutes acceptable speech in different contexts. Moreover, the transnational reach of these platforms can lead to clashes between competing codes of civility, contributing to a perceived crisis of civility. It's essential to recognize that civility is a local standard and that the limitations of acceptable speech vary across cultures and contexts. Ultimately, becoming aware of the distinction between engaging with others and denying their rights is crucial for fostering a tolerant and civil society.
Universities should promote Isagoria, not deplatform speakers: Universities should encourage open dialogue and avoid deplatforming speakers to protect students' free speech rights, focusing on specific policies and judgments for each event.
Universities should generally avoid deplatforming speakers, not because of the speaker's free speech rights, but because it infringes on the free speech rights of students who want to listen and engage with differing viewpoints. Universities should aspire to be sites of Isagoria, where everyone has a voice and feels able to be heard. While there are cases where certain speakers should not be invited, universities have a role in guiding student associations in extending invitations responsibly. The focus should be on the specific policies and prudential judgments surrounding each event, rather than turning these cases into hard and fast conflicts over principle. The growing cultural problem on American campuses may not lie in students inviting controversial speakers, but in university administrators being pressured into rescinding invitations to give commencement addresses or receive honorary doctorates.
Engaging with opposing views for personal growth and effective communication: Listening to diverse perspectives strengthens arguments and broadens understanding, essential for democratic societies and effective communication.
Engaging with opposing views, as John Stuart Mill advocated, is crucial for personal growth and effective communication. Mill believed that listening to contrary opinions strengthening one's own argument, and the importance of this perspective should not be overlooked. However, there is also value in seeking out diverse perspectives to broaden one's understanding, especially when one may not have a clear stance on an issue. Furthermore, the impulse to persuade and build coalitions is essential in democratic societies, and it's important to recognize that winning elections is a primary goal, rather than striving for purity. In essence, engaging with diverse perspectives, both to strengthen one's own views and to persuade others, is a key component of effective communication and a just society.
The Puritan drive for moral purity and its societal implications: The Puritan pursuit of moral purity led to societal tolerance in Rhode Island but also hindered progress and entrenched the status quo. Understanding historical perspectives on tolerance and established churches provides insights into contemporary debates.
The drive for moral purity, as seen in the Puritan movement, can have both benefits and disadvantages. While it can lead to successful political leadership and societal tolerance, it can also hinder progress and entrench the status quo. A notable example is the case of Rhode Island, which was the most tolerant society in the world during early modern times due to its lack of an established church. However, this perspective was not shared by all, and the differences between figures like Roger Williams and John Locke in their views on tolerance and established churches are significant. Furthermore, the Quakers, who advocated for egalitarianism, saw the shift towards using the plural second person pronoun "you" as a demand for elevated status and a form of idolatry. Understanding these historical distinctions can provide valuable insights into contemporary debates over free speech, civility, and equality.
Quakers' use of singular pronouns and controversy in 17th century vs contemporary gender neutral pronouns: The Quakers' use of singular pronouns in the 17th century was seen as a form of 'leveling down' for equality, contrasting with contemporary gender neutral pronouns which are seen as a claim for distinction. Equality involves both leveling up and down, and historical and cultural perspectives are crucial when examining contentious issues.
The use of singular pronouns by the Quakers in the 17th century was a source of controversy due to its perceived contemptuous tone towards others. This contrasts with contemporary activism for gender neutral pronouns, which is seen as a claim for distinction rather than equality. The Quakers' stance on equality can be understood as a form of "leveling down," treating everyone as commoners rather than aristocrats. However, it's important to note that egalitarian politics involve both leveling up and leveling down, and cultural differences play a role in shaping our understanding of equality. Ultimately, the speaker argues that equality may be less important normatively than we think in contemporary politics, and it's crucial to consider historical and cultural perspectives when examining contentious issues.
The Meaning of Equality: Pragmatic or Inherent?: Hobbes believed equality is a practical belief for social stability, while others see it as inherent. Contemporary debates revolve around balancing free speech and respect for others' dignity.
The concept of equality has been a subject of philosophical debate for centuries, with different thinkers proposing various interpretations. Some, like Hobbes, view equality as a pragmatic belief for creating a stable society, while others, like Kant, believe it's grounded in the inherent dignity of all individuals. The speaker's perspective leans towards the Hobbesian view that human beings are not inherently equal, but the pressing question is what a society that treats people as equals should look like. However, this perspective would be strongly objected to by those who believe that the justification for treating people as equals must be grounded in their inherent equality. The historical context of the belief in natural equality is also important to consider, as it was a commonplace belief for millennia but only began to have social and political consequences in the 17th century. In the contemporary debate over cancel culture, the balance between free speech and respect for others' rights and dignity continues to be a contentious issue.
Intolerance towards certain views and people in society: Intolerance towards certain views and people is a problem, limiting healthy debate and silencing voices, particularly for marginalized groups, but protecting free speech is crucial for upholding Parisian ideals.
While concerns about cancel culture may seem overblown when it comes to figures like J.K. Rowling, there is a deeper cultural problem of intolerance towards certain views and people. This intolerance is not new but has been building for some time. Some argue that society should be defined as tolerant if everyone accepts and includes everyone else. However, this perspective cannot fly as it doesn't allow for healthy debate and disagreement. The pushback against Rowling and the Harper's letter revealed conflicting responses, including denying the existence of cancel culture, arguing it doesn't infringe freedom of speech, and even celebrating its potential silencing effect. These views cannot coexist. The concern is not just for those with power and privilege but for those without, who see the consequences of speaking out against societal norms. This issue is particularly relevant for young people, who are already sensitive to what others think of them. The chilling effect of this culture is evident in the unwillingness to express unpopular opinions, even in safe spaces. Ultimately, the priority in a tolerant society should be to protect Parisian ideals, not just for the content of what is being said but for the voices of those who have been historically marginalized. The claim that certain speech denies the existence of marginalized groups should be taken seriously, but it should not overshadow the importance of upholding free speech.
Free speech vs. Cancel Culture: Balancing Responsibility and Expression: Balancing free speech and cancel culture requires remembering individual responsibility, recognizing diverse perspectives, and engaging in civil discourse.
Free speech and the right to express one's opinions are fundamental aspects of a democratic society. However, the responsibility of how those opinions are expressed and received falls on individuals. J.K. Rowling's controversial statements have sparked intense debates about cancel culture and free speech, with many feeling hurt and frustrated by her words. While some trans women are justified in their reactions, it's essential to remember that not all trans women share the same views. The reification of identities is politically necessary but shouldn't be the end goal. Civility and engaging in democratic disagreements are challenging, and the burdens of dealing with unpleasant, uncivil, or even hateful speech are unequally distributed. The answer lies in the cultural institutions, associational freedom, and developing the virtues to engage in civil discourse. The business of toleration is not pretty, but it's necessary. It's important to remember that being on a side doesn't mean we stop questioning and reconsidering our positions.
Navigating Career Growth and Change with Theresa Beijon: Embrace change, be adaptable, build strong relationships, prioritize mental health, and learn new skills for personal and professional growth.
Key takeaway from this conversation with Theresa Beijon is the importance of embracing change and being adaptable in today's rapidly evolving world. Theresa shared her experiences of pivoting her career multiple times, from being a software engineer to a product manager, and eventually starting her own company. She emphasized that being open to new opportunities and willing to learn new skills are essential for personal and professional growth. Moreover, Theresa highlighted the significance of building strong relationships and networking in one's career. She encouraged listeners to engage with their colleagues and peers, and to seek out mentors and role models. By building a supportive network, individuals can gain valuable insights, learn from others' experiences, and open doors to new opportunities. Another key takeaway from the conversation was the importance of prioritizing mental health and self-care. Theresa shared her personal struggles with anxiety and burnout and offered practical tips for managing stress and staying focused. She emphasized the importance of setting boundaries, practicing mindfulness, and seeking out professional help when needed. Overall, Theresa's insights offer valuable guidance for anyone looking to navigate their career and personal growth in today's complex world. By staying adaptable, building strong relationships, and prioritizing self-care, individuals can thrive in the face of change and uncertainty.
