[1]Footnotes to Plato is creating essays and podcasts on general
philosophy & practical Stoicism | Patreon:
People who ended up voting for Donald Trump were famously
characterized by Hillary Clinton as the "basket of deplorables." And
I must admit that I wonder in stupor at the foolishness of US
politics, the recent Italian elections, Brexit, or the re-election
of Turkish strongman Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Not to mention what seem
to be genuinely adoring crowds in Vladimir Putin's Russia.
How is any of this possible? It's always a complex combination of
factors, of course, ranging from people's socio-economic situation
to their ideological or religious commitments, to deficient
education, to the pure and simple human herd instinct that so
annoyed Nietzsche. But surely one thing that contributes to the
current insane state of affairs is the reach that pernicious
ideologues have in the modern era, a reach made far more efficient
by the existence of the internet and social media. And by the fact
that these people are often offered platforms to address audiences
by institutions such as universities, newspapers, television
stations and the like.
My colleague Bryan Van Norden, a professor of philosophy at Wuhan
University, as well as the author of "[2]Taking Back Philosophy: A
Multicultural Manifesto," has published a [3]thought provoking op-ed
about institutional platforms in the New York Times. It is well
worth considering in some detail, as I see where Bryan is coming
from, but I consider his proposed path dangerous, and his argument
self-contradictory.
He begins with a couple of examples. Ultra right-wing commentator
Ann Coulter recently appeared on Fox News to say that the crying
migrant children separated from their parents by the Trump
administration were child actors. Van Norden comments: "Does this
groundless claim deserve as much airtime as, for example, a
historically informed argument from Ta-Nehisi Coates that structural
racism makes the American dream possible?" University of Toronto
psychologist, and darling of the alt-right, Jordan Peterson talked
about how difficult it is to control "crazy women" and the fact that
men naturally can muster respect only for people whom they can
threat with violence. Bryan's comments: "Does this adolescent
opinion deserve as much of an audience as the nuanced thoughts of
Kate Manne, a professor of philosophy at Cornell University, about
the role of 'himpathy' in supporting misogyny?"
The classical liberal response to these questions is that Ann
Coulter and Jordan Peterson ought to be accorded freedom of speech,
on grounds famously laid out by John Stuart Mill in his On Liberty,
published in 1859. The argument is based on the following
considerations: (i) you may think opinion X is clearly wrong, but
history is littered with people, even majorities, who were sure that
something was wrong when it turned out that it wasn't (say, that
gays should have a right to marry); (ii) if X is indeed wrong, then
we learn something from people who defend it, because we need to
make clear to ourselves why a given notion is, in fact, wrong
(otherwise, we reject it out of prejudice, not knowledge or
understanding); (iii) truth is not an all or nothing matter, so we
may learn even from partially or largely wrong opinions; (iv) if an
opinion offends you, that's not sufficient reason to suppress it;
and (v) who, exactly, ought to be in charge of limiting the
expression of unpopular or "offensive" opinions?
Van Norden calls the above line of reasoning "specious," adding that
it is rooted in "a naïve conception of rationality that [Mill]
inherited from Enlightenment thinkers like René Descartes."
[Technically, Descartes influenced the Enlightenment, but was not an
Enlightenment thinker, since he lived from 1596 to 1650, and the
European Enlightenment was an 18th century thing.]
Bryan argues that "If you do have faith in a universal method of
reasoning that everyone accepts, then the Millian defense of
absolute free speech is sound," but he very clearly states that
there is no such thing as universal reason, so we should reject
Mill's argument. I think that Van Norden's statement is ambiguous
and that what he argues in the remainder of the NYT op-ed flatly
contradicts his opening statement.
He writes: "I wish it were self-evident to everyone that we should
not discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation,
but the current vice president of the United States does not agree.
I wish everyone agreed that it is irrational to deny the evidence
that there was a mass shooting in Sandy Hook, but a syndicated radio
talk show host can make a career out of arguing for the contrary."
But the fact that Mike Pence does not agree with a given notion does
not mean that the notion in question is not self-evident, it may
simply be that Pence denies self-evident truths, either because he
is too ignorant to see them, or because of bigotry, or political
expediency. Similarly, a nutcase radio talk show host, syndicated or
not, may deny empirical evidence all he wants, but that doesn't mean
that his denial is reasonable. At all.
Bryan understands why Mill, and Alexis de Tocqueville, made their
argument. Mill was a strong proponent of women's rights and an
opponent of slavery, and he knew too well that many people found
such topics offensive, resulting in what he famously termed a
tyranny of the majority.
But, argues Van Norden, we are in a very different situation from
19th century England and America. We are witnessing the worsening of
a scenario already described by the philosopher Herbert Marcuse back
in 1965, when he wrote: "In endlessly dragging debates over the
media, the stupid opinion is treated with the same respect as the
intelligent one, the misinformed may talk as long as the informed,
and propaganda rides along with education, truth with falsehood."
This is quite obviously true, of course (or is it?). Only a foolish
society would give "equal time" to the discussion of evolutionary
theory and creation "science," or to a climate researcher and a
so-called "skeptic" of global warming, or a medical researcher and
Jenny McCarthy. But setting aside that a lot of other cases,
especially political opinions (as distinct from scientific theories)
are not quite so easy to settle, what is the alternative? Mill
wasn't naive about how difficult it is for most people to wade
through public controversies. He just thought that freedom of speech
was the least of possible evils.
Marcuse famously advocated the outright suppression of right-wing
perspectives, a position that, thankfully, Bryan does not endorse.
Instead, he makes an intriguing proposal: to distinguish between
free speech and just access: "access to the general public, granted
by institutions like television networks, newspapers, magazines, and
university lectures, is a finite resource. Justice requires that,
like any finite good, institutional access should be apportioned
based on merit and on what benefits the community as a whole."
But that comes perilously close to begging the question against
Mill: on what criteria should we apportion the merit of different
opinions? How do we figure out what is just? How do we measure the
benefit of an opinion for the community as a whole? Recall that Van
Norden has denies that there is such thing as universal reason. It
follows that all such judgments are bound to be arbitrary, and
therefore simply to reflect the will of the people who happen to be
wielding power by virtue of controlling the limited resources Bryan
is referring to. This may not be quite a tyranny of the majority,
but it is still a tyranny (of the elite, perhaps?).
Let's take a look at some of the specific examples Van Norden brings
up. In 2004 one Nathaniel Abraham was fired by the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institute because he admitted to his employer that he
did not believe in evolution. Correctly, Bryan asserts that Abraham
has a right to his wacky opinion, but that Woods Hole has a right to
fire him on the grounds that he holds such opinion. But this has
nothing to do with freedom of speech or institutional access: Woods
Hole is a preeminent research laboratory that carries out a lot of
work on evolution, so Abraham had simply admitted to his
incompetence at working there. It would be like NASA firing a
flat-earth believer. Or a hospital a doctor who did not "believe" in
vaccines.
The next example is more pertinent, but far less clear: Van Norden
claims that a number of universities, including Columbia and NYU,
should not have invited Charles Murray, the co-author of The Bell
Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life to speak on
their campuses. Why? Because Murray's notions are junk science. That
is true, I think (for a variety of reasons, including those
explained [4]here and [5]here), but there are two additional factors
to consider. First off, "universities" don't invite anyone; often it
is specific faculty or student associations that do. And to bar
invited speakers in either case amounts to an infringement of
academic freedom or students' rights. Second, I am of the opinion
that a significant chunk of what goes on in a number of legitimate
university departments is either questionable or downright junk (no,
I will not mention names). But, again, I don't get to decide which
is which. I do get, however, to argue - in perfectly Millian fashion
- in favor or against certain programs, positions, claims, and so
forth.
Bryan's third example is the recent firing by ABC of their
television star, Roseanne Barr, because of her racist public
remarks. But that's yet another situation altogether. Barr did not
make her remarks on television, and she was fired from ABC because
the network was (rightly, I think) embarrassed by her behavior, and
feared a public backlash. Of course, had the episode happened, say,
in the 1950s, ABC would have likely not moved a finger about it. I
assume it is a rationally objective fact that we have made (some)
improvements in our thinking about race and gender since then, but
of course Van Norden cannot claim so, because he does not believe in
universal reason.
Bryan mentions recent research in social psychology showing that if
a falsehood is repeated, even when it is in order to debunk it,
people are more likely to believe it. This is both true (maybe,
since there is a replication crisis ongoing in that field) and
worrisome, but is it - as Van Norden claims - reason to cheer
MSNBC's "Morning Joe" decision never again to invite Kellyanne
Conway because of her bizarre notion of "alternative facts"? I don't
know. It is very unfortunate that someone like Conway is currently a
high profile government official, but isn't a journalist supposed to
challenge that sort of notion, rather than suppress it? Besides, by
way of similar actions MSNBC has now gathered the reputation
(deservedly or not) of the left's Fox, which makes their decision
about Conway come across to many as naked partisanship. Is this
really helpful to public discourse? I'm not so sure.
Bryan says that "right to free speech is not the right to an
audience," and he is correct. But in philosophy we make a
distinction between [6]negative and positive rights. You may have,
say, the negative right of being allowed to leave the country
whenever you wish. But if things are such that you could never
muster the means to actually leave, you do not have a corresponding
positive right, and negative rights by themselves are largely
useless. To pick a more concrete example, in the US (for now) women
have a right to abortion. But such right is meaningless if local
state legislatures make it so difficult for abortion clinics to
practice that for all effective purposes a woman in Texas or Alabama
has to drive hundreds of miles, or even go out of state, to get an
abortion. Ironically, it is a typical tactic of the right that
whenever they cannot eliminate a negative right (like abortion,
again, for now) they go after its positive counterpart, thus making
it difficult or impossible for people to enjoy that right. The same
goes for speech: if I have a "right" to it, but I am then
systematically denied audiences by a small number of gatekeepers, I
might as well shout in the void. And, again, who gets to make such
decisions, and on what grounds, given that there is no universal
reason?
Van Norden concludes his op-ed by stating: "These views [that he
criticizes] are specious, and those who espouse them are, at best,
ignorant, at worst, sophists," calling people who hold those views
"invincibly ignorant and intellectual hucksters." It sounds to me
like Bryan thinks he has good reasons to think that these people's
opinions are, in fact, wrong. I agree with his assessment. And so
should any reasonable person, because reason isn't a matter of your
personal opinion - across time and cultures. There are standards of
evidence and argument that have been worked out over the past two
and a half millennia of philosophy and science, way before the
European Enlightenment came about. On my part, I prefer by far a
society where we do our utmost so that more and more people are
familiar with such standards and apply them properly, rather than
one in which whoever happens to be in charge is going to decide
which resources to apportion to whom. Call me an old fashioned
Millian, in that sense.
(Via Massimo Pigliucci)
Also on:
[7]Twitter
__________________________________________________________________
My original entry is here: [8]Should "the ignorant" be denied access to
audiences?. It posted Wed, 07 Nov 2018 14:30:04 +0000.
Filed under: philosophy, politics,
References
1.
https://www.patreon.com/PlatoFootnotes/posts?is_public=true
2.
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/taking-back-philosophy-bryan-w-van-norden/1128615799?ean=9780231184373
3.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/opinion/free-speech-just-access.html
4.
https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/heritability-a-handy-guide-to-what-it-means-what-it-doesnt-mean-and-that-giant-meta-analysis-of-twin-studies/
5.
https://philpapers.org/rec/BARHR
6.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
7.
https://twitter.com/prjorgensen/status/1060178642716778496
8.
https://www.prjorgensen.com/?p=2220
