22.11: Safeguards

It should go without saying that there are no foolproof ways to avoid the disastrous consequences of conformity and obedience. These have always been with us, and probably always will be. But it doesn’t follow that we should just shrug our shoulders and say, “That’s life.” If we can find ways to diminish these catastrophic consequences, that would be very good. There are many things that might help. Here we will consider several that involve reasoning and inquiry.

The Open Society and the Importance of Dissent

In the Ash studies, the study involving nurses and improper prescriptions, and Milgram’s studies of obedience, the most effective way of reducing conformity or obedience was to have at least one other person present who refused to go along. Often even one dissenter was enough to eliminate conformity or mindless obedience. This strongly suggests the importance of fostering an atmosphere in which dissent is possible. In a group, including an entire society, where open discussion is allowed, a variety of viewpoints can be aired, abuses by authorities can be exposed, and reasons for resisting them can receive a hearing.

A free and open society, one open to ideas and disagreements, makes critical reasoning much easier. In a society where open discussion is allowed, a variety of viewpoints can be aired. Without free expression, the scope of our thoughts will be limited; we will be exposed to fewer novel ideas, and our sense of the range of possibilities will be constricted.

Since no one has cornered the market on truth, we should beware of those who would set themselves up as censors to decide what the rest of us can say and hear. But one price of free and open discussion is having to hear things we may not like. This can be unpleasant, but it can still be a good thing. A view or position may be: (1) true, (2) false, or (3) some mixture of the two. In each case, we will be better off if a view we find offensive is allowed a hearing.

1. The view is true: If the view I dislike is true, it should be allowed a hearing. The truth doesn’t necessarily set us free, but it does put us in a better position to solve the problems that beset us. Actions and policies based on mistaken views are much less likely to succeed than those based on true views.
2. A mixture of truth and falsity: Complex views or positions usually contain some mixture of truth and falsity. In such cases, we can learn something from the part that is right, and we can strengthen our own views by seeing why parts of it are in error.
3. The view is false: What if the view I find offensive is false? It might even seem too dangerous for the masses to hear about it— they might be taken in or led to do things they shouldn’t. In addition to the problem of who is to decide which views should be banned (there will always be volunteers for this job), this assumes that most people are so bad at reasoning that they can’t be trusted to think about things for ourselves. The claim that others just aren’t smart enough to be exposed to certain ideas is both insulting (to them) and arrogant.

It can be valuable to think about views we don’t like. One of the best ways to truly understand our own beliefs is to see how they compare to the alternatives. In trying to meet the challenge of an alternative view, we must think seriously about what our own beliefs really mean, and why we hold them. This is healthy, because it is very easy for us to hold beliefs that we don’t really understand, mouthing slogans and repeating formulas without much comprehension (remember the illusion of explanatory depth). And if, after careful consideration, we can’t give good reasons why our views are better than the alternative, it might be time to modify them.

Appropriate context matters a great deal when we think about these issues. Politically complex and sensitive issues make a lot of sense to discuss on Sunday morning talk shows and at town board meetings, and should be encouraged. There isn’t anything wrong with shutting the door on a Jehovah’s Wittiness who has come to spread the good word when you’re just trying to make dinner, though, and your pediatrician doesn’t have to invite Jenny McCarthy to the office to spread conspiracy theories about vaccines. Allowing a free exchange of ideas does not require that we give over our lives to this pursuit in all cases and at all times.

With all of this, we need to be mindful of a distinction between allowing the free expression of ideas with allowing hate speech. We want to see a true exchange of ideas that allows for truth to come to the surface. This will mean we encounter views that we dislike, and that are wrong or harmful, but we have a chance to prevent the spread of those views by arguing against them. The concern with hate speech (racist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, etc.) is such speech fights against the goal of open discourse. First, people using speech of this kind are not looking to engage in the free exchange of ideas – they are looking to harm people. Critical thinking requires that we start from an understanding that we might be wrong, and a hope that discourse will reveal the answer. There is no opening for a true dialogue when what you are saying is that certain people who could be engaging with you in honest discourse don’t have equal worth (because then, there is no reason to listen to them).

Second, allowing this type of speech silences people in the group at which the speech is being directed. Charles Lawrence refers to hate speech as ‘fighting words,’ because the impact they have on the person being targeted is more akin to an assault than a conversation. There is very little that can be said in response to dehumanizing language, and so it is often silences its victims. The impact of this is that we lose access to the voices and views of people who are not male, cisgender, straight and white. Lastly, the hate speech itself cases harm. Free speech advocates like to focus on the benefits of an open discussion (and those benefits are outlined above), but there is no true distinction between words and actions. Speaking is an action. If the result of your speech is unjustified harm to another, then restricting your speech is on the table, in the same way that restricting your actions is warranted any time you cause unjustified harm through that action.

One final point to keep in mind is that the dominant culture influences the views that are even considered a part of an open discourse. It isn’t like all views have equal access to be heard. Newspapers, colleges, and other gatekeepers have a large influence on which voices get amplified and which don’t. The result is, some views understood as common place and others are seldom, if ever, heard. You have likely heard countless times throughout your life that law enforcement is very important, but few of you had heard of the police and prison abolition movements until the murder of George Floyd by the Minneapolis Police Department, even though these movements have been around longer than the authors of this text have been alive (and polling suggest most people still don’t know what the abolition means in these contexts). Many free speech defenders confuse an inclusion of more diverse views as them being silenced. Instead, we should see the inclusion of more female, people of color, trans and non-binary voices as a course correction – genuinely increasing the views and perspectives we encounter. Remember, if traditional views are correct, then they will withstand the criticism coming from the people who were formerly excluded from the public discourse.