Read on Twitter
Last week I gave a qualified defense of canceling on democratic grounds. Today I want to say something about this thread by Teresa Bejan.
(Prof. Bejan is going to be a colleague for a while this next year, so, COVID permitting, we’ll be able to discuss this IRL.) 1/20 https://twitter.com/tmbejan/status/1283732314657300480
(Prof. Bejan is going to be a colleague for a while this next year, so, COVID permitting, we’ll be able to discuss this IRL.) 1/20 https://twitter.com/tmbejan/status/1283732314657300480
Bejan defends free speech in the sense of parrhesia — the fearless speech Foucault defended near the end of his life — against the censoriousness of the crowd.
I think her argument exemplifies certain features of liberal political thought that are worth highlighting. 2/20
I think her argument exemplifies certain features of liberal political thought that are worth highlighting. 2/20
Bejan fears "a society of 'yes'-men ruled by an overwhelming norm of conformity." She claims that, "historically, audiences (large audiences, especially) have not been very tolerant,” & worries about "extra-legal and informal" punishments, "economic and social sanctions." 3/20
In short, Bejan is worried about the individual vs. the crowd. This is a venerable liberal tradition.
In the cases Bejan focuses on, however, it is a fictitious conflict. 4/20
In the cases Bejan focuses on, however, it is a fictitious conflict. 4/20
The "individuals" in question - Bari Weiss & J.K. Rowling - are merely the names and faces of crowds that remain out of sight. These crowds are not more tolerant then the crowds criticizing Weiss & Rowling. They merely tolerate different things. 5/20
The crowd back of Rowling will not tolerate a trans woman calling herself a woman & expecting to be treated as one. They want to be able to call trans women men and to be socially supported in this. 6/20
The crowd behind Weiss won't tolerate advocacy of BDS or the cause of the Palestinian people. They want to be able to call BDS advocates bigots and antisemites and to be socially supported in this. 7/20
Weiss & Rowling, Bejan writes, are "reasonable to fear that they can no longer speak their minds *freely* or *frankly* without suffering abuse." Yes. They are reasonable to think they can’t say whatever they want without being verbally abused for it. 8/20
I don’t think that is at issue. What *is* at issue is whether what they want to say is true and worth saying, or whether it is rightly the object of scorn & derision. 9/20
What is at issue is not whether there should be norms of conformity or norms of spirited debate, but what should be up for debate and what should be taken as settled. 10/20
And the reason this is such a huge issue right now is not because the crowd has become more censorious, but because the bases and forms of social power are being broadly contested. 11/20
Workplace power relations are on the table right now. That is why Weiss has to worry about the opinion of her peers and underlings at the NYT, not just the opinion of her boss. 12/20
Gender power relations are on the table right now. That is why Rowling has to worry about the opinion of trans people and their allies, rather than being able to write them off as a despised and powerless outgroup. 13/20
To be clear, these conflicts can be ugly and messy. Rowling and Weiss, being women, have faced sexist abuse. Weiss, being Jewish, has faced antisemitic abuse. That is wrong. 14/20
But framing the present moment as a confrontation between courageous & frank individuals and abusive & intolerant crowds replicates a fundamental fiction of much liberal political thought: that individuals are, socially, *already* free and equal. 15/20
If we are already free and equal in society, then each individual only has to worry about the combination of others into crowds, mobs, gangs. 16/20
There might be moments of social peace when this liberal fiction seems reasonable, or contexts where acting as if we are free & equal helps to make us so. 17/20
I don't think this fiction helps us now, though. We really are going through a social crisis, a revolutionary moment, when multiple forms of economic & social power are facing collective confrontation. 18/20
Of course such a period of conflict will manifest in verbal tumults, where writers find themselves addressing suddenly hostile audiences, and what seemed common sense only yesterday meets howls of protest today. 19/20
That means the rules are changing and social power is in flux. And that means we should listen especially to the parrhesia of the *new* voices, the ones we didn't hear until now. 20/20
