Wednesday, February 20, 2019

Political Correctness, Freedom of Speech, and John Stuart Mill


Many people, especially but not only conservatives, complain that political correctness prevents them from saying what they want to say. Is that true? Often it is. Do liberals also feel pressured to withhold controversial opinions? Of course. And why should it matter?  

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects our freedom of the press, speech, and religion from government encroachment. Neither my state nor federal government can tell me what to say or not to say, what to believe or what not to believe. However, as John Stuart Mill pointed out in his 1859 masterpiece, On Liberty, the majority can use social pressures to oppress the minority. Mill explains it like this:

“Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own.”

In other words, Mill said that authoritarian governments often try to suppress opinions that they do not like. Once constitutional government restricted government and protected freedom of speech, however, popular opinion could still stifle people who wanted to say unpopular things.

Donald Trump complained about this exact issue when he gave his speech accepting the 2016 Republican nomination to be president: “I will present the facts plainly and honestly. We cannot afford to be politically correct any more.” What he meant is that liberals prevented the nation from talking about such issues as racial superiority, the threats from immigrants, and the dangers that refugees posed. He recognized, quite truly, that these issues troubled many conservatives and that they felt that political correctness, that is, the ethics of America’s majority, made it unacceptable to talk about such things. Liberals, of course, were offended that he would try to divide us on racial or religious lines.

Do liberals sometimes suffer from the same kind of restrictions? Certainly. I, for example, belong to a mainstream social gospel church that has a centuries-long tradition of defending the rights of people who are downtrodden, abused, or oppressed. When I joined the church, I repeated a vow to oppose oppression: “To accept the freedom and power God gives me to resist evil, injustice, and oppression.” My church’s non-binding teachings include strong support for the rights of immigrants and religious and ethnic minorities.

At the same time, my denomination includes and welcomes many conservative members and values diverse political opinions. I suspect that conservatives are the majority of my local congregation. Do I always feel comfortable in my own church when I affirm the rights of immigrants and minorities? No, I don’t (although I have done so anyway), for I fear that contrary opinions sometimes enrage conservatives and I would like to get along with them.

On the one hand, what conservatives call “political correctness” sounds much like good manners. A society that disintegrates into vicious personal attacks, as the United States is threatening to do, will get nothing done. I think that the civil rights era suppressed much hostile speech, and that is probably good. For example, I see no value at all in Mr. Trump’s bigoted and inaccurate attacks on Islam. On the other hand, do we not need to get our problems and disagreements out into the open? Yes, we probably do. Is it wrong for people to attack others just because their religion or ethnicity differs from ours? Yes, it is wrong. Such speech divides us for no good reason. Is it wrong for me to pass judgment on people with whom I disagree? Yes, it probably is, for the same reason. How do we strike the balance? For toleration and mutual love do not require us to accept evil. What if one group abuses its freedom of speech to oppress another group? Their liberty of speech gives them no right to take liberty from other people. I often fear that Mr. Trump's anti-immigrant, anti-refugee speeches are doing just that.

If we know right from wrong, we will oppose evil and encourage ethical speech and behavior. We certainly have a right, and often an obligation, to tell people when they are wrong and to give evidence that our own views are better, at the same that we are willing to hear evidence that we ourselves might sometimes be wrong.

If we side with Mill and the philosophy of liberty, we learn to tolerate other people’s opinions and to welcome free speech. If we side with Miss Manners, we express our views respectfully, showing the same courtesies to others that we expect them to show to us. From dialogue comes truth.

Image: By John Stuart Mill (author), John W. Parker and Son (publisher) - Archive.org, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=45342982

No comments:

Post a Comment