I love this piece. It's a fantastic lens by which to evaluate free and not-so-free expression.
I wonder if you have analyzed the role of TABOOS in society, specifically speech taboos?
For context, I am a "free speech absolutist", especially when it comes to state control and influence. I also loathe cancel culture and self-censorship, which I think have caused untold harm in the world. However, I do think there is a critical role in Western liberal democracies for upholding 'universal moral taboos' against 'overt, hateful bigotry' with SOCIAL consequences. The key example I point to here is the KKK. To defeat them, it was critical to make their hatred so taboo and socially/professionally/economically costly that it deterred many from joining and most from publicly aligning to their ideology.
I am writing about this topic exclusively on my Holding the Line Substack (elevin11.substack.com) as I believe the erosion of these taboos that we're currently seeing, with overt hateful bigotry, dehumanization, and the endorsement of violence spreading often with impunity, which all but guarantees that this hate will continue to normalize, and spiral into violence and anarchy. I have laid out principles, and frameworks for assessing potentially harmful speech, that I believe can be followed in a somewhat objective, consensus-led way to mitigate this from succumbing to the excesses of cancel culture.
Antoine, very interesting article. I've read The Spiral of Silence, Private Truths, Public Lies, and have Pinker's new book on my to-read list. I've also read Public Opinion by Walter Lippmann, Glenn Loury's 1994 essay on self-censorship in public discourse, and The Constitution of Knowledge by Jonathan Rauch. I'm wondering, are there any other books you'd recommend on the social psychology, behavioral economics, game theory, etc of public discourse and public opinion? (I plan on giving your article a read as well.)
As a long-time lay student of the evolutionary perspective on human social behavior, this article very much resonates with me! One thing I’ve also noticed over the years is that although intelligent people can understand the evolutionary logic that is so very explanatory, it really doesn’t seem to animate them very much. People tend to live on the mental plane of their sincere beliefs and narratives. As Iris Berent says, “In other words, our blindness to human nature is rooted in human nature itself.” (The Blind Storyteller: How We Reason About Human Nature, by Iris Berent.)
And, of course, there is a deep conundrum in the idea that to preserve liberal principles we must “fight against deep features of human psychology.” The notion of intervening to improve the human race is the very thing that motivates the intolerance of progressive academics. One might hope that eventually we could develop an evidence-based public policy, but it appears that in the meantime we must argue from enlightenment first principles to preserve individual freedoms.
I have been very interested lately in learning about the rise of polarisation in modern culture and perhaps the less discussed left-right commonalities, so thank you for adding some more to the picture here. I would be interested to hear your perspective on some of the many polarised debates in education circles (education being more my area of focus at the moment), particularly in regards to political issues being discussed in primary schools, for example. Many thanks again
I love this piece. It's a fantastic lens by which to evaluate free and not-so-free expression.
I wonder if you have analyzed the role of TABOOS in society, specifically speech taboos?
For context, I am a "free speech absolutist", especially when it comes to state control and influence. I also loathe cancel culture and self-censorship, which I think have caused untold harm in the world. However, I do think there is a critical role in Western liberal democracies for upholding 'universal moral taboos' against 'overt, hateful bigotry' with SOCIAL consequences. The key example I point to here is the KKK. To defeat them, it was critical to make their hatred so taboo and socially/professionally/economically costly that it deterred many from joining and most from publicly aligning to their ideology.
I am writing about this topic exclusively on my Holding the Line Substack (elevin11.substack.com) as I believe the erosion of these taboos that we're currently seeing, with overt hateful bigotry, dehumanization, and the endorsement of violence spreading often with impunity, which all but guarantees that this hate will continue to normalize, and spiral into violence and anarchy. I have laid out principles, and frameworks for assessing potentially harmful speech, that I believe can be followed in a somewhat objective, consensus-led way to mitigate this from succumbing to the excesses of cancel culture.
I welcome your thoughts and feedback on this!
Antoine, very interesting article. I've read The Spiral of Silence, Private Truths, Public Lies, and have Pinker's new book on my to-read list. I've also read Public Opinion by Walter Lippmann, Glenn Loury's 1994 essay on self-censorship in public discourse, and The Constitution of Knowledge by Jonathan Rauch. I'm wondering, are there any other books you'd recommend on the social psychology, behavioral economics, game theory, etc of public discourse and public opinion? (I plan on giving your article a read as well.)
Check out the academic paper behind the blog post, it's full of references - those I could find at least :)
As a long-time lay student of the evolutionary perspective on human social behavior, this article very much resonates with me! One thing I’ve also noticed over the years is that although intelligent people can understand the evolutionary logic that is so very explanatory, it really doesn’t seem to animate them very much. People tend to live on the mental plane of their sincere beliefs and narratives. As Iris Berent says, “In other words, our blindness to human nature is rooted in human nature itself.” (The Blind Storyteller: How We Reason About Human Nature, by Iris Berent.)
And, of course, there is a deep conundrum in the idea that to preserve liberal principles we must “fight against deep features of human psychology.” The notion of intervening to improve the human race is the very thing that motivates the intolerance of progressive academics. One might hope that eventually we could develop an evidence-based public policy, but it appears that in the meantime we must argue from enlightenment first principles to preserve individual freedoms.
I have been very interested lately in learning about the rise of polarisation in modern culture and perhaps the less discussed left-right commonalities, so thank you for adding some more to the picture here. I would be interested to hear your perspective on some of the many polarised debates in education circles (education being more my area of focus at the moment), particularly in regards to political issues being discussed in primary schools, for example. Many thanks again