Should “the ignorant” be denied access to audiences?

John Stuart Mill

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 “Taking Back Philosophy: A Multicultural Manifesto,” has published a 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 here and 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 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.

Advertisements


Categories: Epistemology, Social & Political Philosophy

74 replies

  1. Massimo,

    Yeah, I couldn’t agree more. The problem with most metaphors is failing to keep in mind their limitations. Thanks for answering my questions and the good conversation!

    Liked by 1 person

  2. This metaphor seems particularly broken:

    If you want to make people behave more ethically, there are two ways you can go. You can change the elephant, which takes a long time and is hard to do. Or, to borrow an idea from the book Switch, by Chip Heath and Dan Heath,54 you can change the path that the elephant and rider find themselves traveling on. You can make minorand inexpensive tweaks to the environment, which can produce big increases in ethical behavior.

    But if the people making the inexpensive tweaks to the environment are also on elephants then they need to make minor and inexpensive tweaks to their own elephants’ environments in order to guide their own elephants to make minor and inexpensive tweaks to the environments of others, which would of course involve a third set of elephant riders and so ad infinitum.

    But what he seems to have in mind is that those making the minor and inexpensive tweaks to the environment are unencumbered by having to guide an elephant to do this.

    Ditching the metaphor and bringing this back to “Switch” and behavioural (nudge) economics, there is the built in assumption that you and I are irrational, but the people doing the “nudging” in order to guide us into being good little econs are perfectly rational.

    Or that if we need to be nudged into ethical behaviour we are incapable of determining ethical behaviour for ourselves but those who will nudge our elephants in that direction have the required rationality and free will to determine not only what is ethical, but what is ethical for all of us.

    It is “philosopher kings” on steroids, as Haidt himself appears to realise with his ‘Glaucon’ reference.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Massimo, you say that “our goal should be to engage the slow system any time we want to make a good decision, and that we should arrive at our decisions while training our ability to reason well and take evidence into account”

    Indeed, but I would go further and say that, if possible, we ought to train our fast system to make better decisions, so we can be less reliant on switching to the slow system. The Stoics say our impressions are not under our control, but perhaps we have some control over the machinery that produces them?

    Liked by 1 person

  4. gridaphobe: “I guess my question to Mill would be, for how long are committed to rehashing the same arguments?” I understand (and concur in) your frustration with this problem, but I think one aspect of the problem is that discourse has become so polarized that one has the impression that there are only two sides to any argument. One thinks of such pseudo-revolutionary mottoes as “Those who are not with us are against us,” and “In a revolution, there are no innocent bystanders.” Examples are abundant in the comments section for any political article in the Times or Post, and thankfully scarce on this blog, which provides evidence of the wide range of opinion existing among thoughtful people.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. “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?”
    It’s not a question of suppressing it – Conway has other outlets for her babble. But outright , open, dishonest propaganda cannot be “questioned.” When allowed a wide audience it is given ground that becomes, for its faithful, unquestionable.

    I sympathize with the sentiments expressed here, but the nature of contemporary media has changed the playing field. If the mainstream media really drew a hardline around Trump’s lies and bluster, he would have no media for these but his tweets and Fox. That, unfortunately, would be enough. So the real balance here is between shutting down a probable gangster and authoritarian, thus riling his base beyond communication, and underscoring his lies, his conspiracy theories, his undercutting the rule of law, if only as a record.

    And for that record,Joe Scarborough is a conscientious conservative, who only left the Republican party because of its acquiescence with Trump’s dedicated assault on American Values.

    Ann Coulter – a notorious and open propagandist? I would not grieve if she had no audience allowed.

    This is not the America you first came to, Massimo. This is not the America I was raised in which. despite all the craziness of the Sixties, worked because the acceptable political discourse was well understood by most politicians and the electorate. Trump is overseeing, again with the acquiescence of the Republican Party, the greatest change in American politics, legal and political systems, and political discourse since the Civil War. Most are failing to realize this, and that too adds to the magnitude of the consequences.

    One other point, remarking Joe Scarborough BTW: This is the first time in American politics when the former spokespersons of one Party have openly advocated voting for the opposite Party (eg., Republicans George Will, Michael Steele), in order to put a check on the monster in the White House. We saw some of this on the state level back in the Sixties – when there were such creatures as “liberal Republicans.” But never on the National level. That in itself should tell us how desperate the situation really is.

    So, again, while I am sympathetic with the general point here, the real politics of the moment requires I consider – even demand – a line that is both possibly as hard as Van Norden suggests, albeit with greater nuance and political savvy.

    But personally, I would be just as happy as no Trumpoid were given any access to the mainstream media to disseminate their lies, false narratives, and apologetic. All news is shaded, all commentary driven by perspective. But hidden agendas and propaganda are beyond the pale. They have Fox, and radio talk-shows, and that broadcasting company that now requires. local station to reiterate corporate political decisions (I don’t jave that name as I write.)

    They have their own media, don’t you get it? The ‘mainstream media’ doesn’t matter to them anyway. The fight now is beyond classical liberal principles and argumentation. I don’t like it. But denying that is like walking into a snowstorm in a swimsuit.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. gridaphobe,

    I would go further and say that, if possible, we ought to train our fast system to make better decisions, so we can be less reliant on switching to the slow system. The Stoics say our impressions are not under our control, but perhaps we have some control over the machinery that produces them?

    Indeed. One of the goals of Stoic training is to make certain sort of judgments automatic. It works in the same way as cognitive behavioral therapy: the cognitive step (slow deliberation) comes first, but behavior modification ensues once we automatize the desired judgment. Think of it as like learning to drive a car: initially you need to pay attention to every detail, but a good driver is one who has made a lot of those decisions automatic.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. ej,

    They have their own media, don’t you get it? The ‘mainstream media’ doesn’t matter to them anyway.

    I disagree, it matters to them because they realize that a lot of people in the US are still capable of questioning what they are doing.

    ’s not a question of suppressing it – Conway has other outlets for her babble. But outright , open, dishonest propaganda cannot be “questioned.”

    It actually can, and should be. It’s not going to be questioned precisely if we shut out these people from mainstream media. Then the only outlets they will have at their disposal are propaganda ones. Scarborough needs to do his job, question Conway openly, directly, and forcefully. Even using sense of humor, if need be. Public ridicule, especially when coming from someone on your same political side, is very effective.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. ej, Massimo,

    I really do have to take extreme askance with the idea of Trump as being somehow out of synch with what has been going on. Remember Karl Rove’s quote to some reporter about how they, the spinmasters, create the reality and the reporters write it? Trump gets blamed on the Russians, but everyone totally forgets how we were, back in the 90’s, trying to run the Russians through the disaster capitalism wringer, with Yeltsin and the oligarchs. The Saudis bragged about putting 25 million into Hillary’s campaign and that was no problem with the media, but I don’t recall most of those flying jets into the World Trade Center being Russian.

    Both the Tea Party and the Occupy movement were under Obama, when he gave the banks a trillion dollars and let them continue screwing home owners. At least under Bush 1, some of the saving and loan people went to jail. Though, in hindsight, it was probably the big banks clearing out the competition.

    It does seem to those of us who try to dig into the news and not just look at it with a fresh and open mind every day, that most Americans, left and right, are extremely clueless. Trump is like the puss pocket actually popping open and now people are somehow shocked that some bankruptcy scam artist/media creation is running things. I don’t want to hurt any feelings, or disturb anyone, but it is going to get much worse. The credit cards are maxed out and the predatory lenders are going to be squeezing your every move. Those smiley people on the tv were lying to you.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Riffing on WTC:

    “To ‘see both sides’ of a problem is the surest way to prevent its complete solution. Because there are always more than two sides.”

    ― Idries Shah, Reflections

    And, that’s my take.

    The immigration issue? Obama tried family separations himself. He backed off quickly. Nonetheless.

    The immigrants from Central America? Both major political parties have intervened repeatedly in Central American nations’ governments. The most recent was the 2009 coup in Honduras, backed by a non-Republican president and non-Republican secretary of state who ran for president in 2016.

    So, some Democratic decrying of some parts of Trump actions suffers from selective memory.

    And good luck getting either major party to think differently on Palestine. The Trump embassy move? Many Dems support it, but wouldn’t push it themselves.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. On EJ, is part of what you’re getting at the “difficulty of conversion”? Tis true. High level of motivated reasoning among Trump true believers. If we get into a real trade war, it will be “interesting” too see how deep that motivated reasoning really runs. (I’m personally not totally opposed to the general idea of tackling some issues, but Trump is in no way interested in truly “fair trade” that takes into account less developed nations’ environmental and labor standards. Remember those toothless side agreements to NAFTA? That said, he is right on China … and the issue behind that. The WTO two-tiered standard of developed/non-developed is too simplistic. The solution isn’t booting China into “developed” but making a third category for it and a select other number of nations where they lose some, but not all, of the favors of truly non-developed nations.)

    Like

  11. Let me point out, belatedly, that Lakoff’s most politically explicit book is called “Don’t think of an elephant”

    Like

  12. Socratic,

    “To ‘see both sides’ of a problem is the surest way to prevent its complete solution. Because there are always more than two sides.”

    To risk using a metaphor, between black and white, light and dark are not only shades of grey, but all the colors of the spectrum. Reducing it to black and white can never cover the nuance, but don’t totality ignore binaries, just because they don’t solve everything.

    Like

  13. Oh, happy Fourth to fellow Americans who do NOT:
    Enjoy the freedom from want and fear of national health care.
    Enjoy the freedom of guaranteed paid vacation days, while working more than most OECD nations’ citizens who do have such guarantees.
    Enjoy, if secularists, freedom of religion as freedom from religion.

    Liked by 1 person

%d bloggers like this: