“Individuals I like it's people I'm not so sure about” examinator ant
Huh? You say. “Isn't that an oxymoron?”
Not really, have you ever wondered why 'good people' ( otherwise peaceable individuals) do/commit such horrendous crimes as part of a group ?
I'm reasonably sure that everyone is at some level aware of such behavioural issues as.
Nuremberg Defence.
Interrogation and commanded torture experiment.
Prisoner and Guard experiment
Lynch mob syndrome
Copenhagen syndrome
or more prosaically why sensible youth go 'stupid' in a group.
While all the above are all different and as such are often explained by different conclusions. However, they do interestingly enough, share common more basic factor(s).
Essentially the above linking factor is that we are a social species and the consequences there of.
There is/has been some interesting research into the differences between the actions of individuals and those of people (group). (Perhaps Isaac Asimov SF writer and a top ten Biochemists, was into something with “Psychohistory “ in his famous Foundation series)
This is the basis of my questioning 'The right of Freedom of speech” as an absolute.
Karl Mannheim in 1936 said “Only in a quite limited sense does the individual create out of himself the mode of speech and of thoughts we attribute to him. He speaks the language of the group; he thinks in the manner in which his group thinks.”
Joshua Epstein ( 1999) amplified this with “When I'd had my coffee this morning and went upstairs to get dressed for work , I never considered being a nudist for the day..... when joining my colleagues for lunch I never consider eating my salad barehanded; without a thought, I use(d) a fork.”
Epstein's work has successfully linked physics theories and mass behaviour.
In essence we as a mass are driven/ bound by community mores. Which are statistically predictable.
On this basis alone Absolute Freedom of speech as a right is nonsense. Rather it is a subjective aspiration.
Notwithstanding, a lawyer may argue their case based on existing laws and precedents, case history etc. however, such arguments are subject to changes in the law which are, again, based on community mores. These community mores are subject to change by the mass.
On a practical level we tend not to think too hard about issues other than to blend our behaviour with that of the Mass/community/culture/religion we most identify with.
Consequently we are neither free or able to allow for absolute freedom of speech in a society. Clearly that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't strive as near as practicable to achieve FOS.
Any comments?
I knew you could do it!
ReplyDeleteCongratulations on this blog and on selecting such an interesting topic.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of what you've written and just want to add this small paragraph as something to think about:
"Somebody in France wanted to put Voltaire in jail. Somebody in Franco's Spain sent Lorca, their greatest poet, to death before a firing squad. Somebody in Germany under Hitler burned the books, drove Thomas Mann into exile, and led their Jewish scholars to the gas chamber. Somebody in Greece long ago gave Socrates hemlock to drink. Somebody in the USSR banned Solzhenitsyn and Pasternak. Somebody at Golgotha erected a cross and somebody drove the nails into the hands of Christ. Somebody spat on his garments. No one remembers their names."
(Milton Meltzer - "Four Who Locked Horns with the Censor.")
Indeed mon ami it would appear that someONE did all that you say, however, on closer examination all the above were, shall we say, was conceived and promulgated by a mass of someones. I would suggest that the "group think" was the catalyst.
ReplyDeleteTake a physical/chemical analogy of the following. Potassium Permagnomate was used to absorb moisture in shoe boxes and early electronics. Glycerol was used to sooth babies gums during teething. Both were benign used separately but together they give a violent, dangerous volatile result, which is relatively predictable if the correct ratios are observed. Fooling with this combination can be deadly.
Likewise communities of groups can be equally dangerous unless the constituents are measured in their intensity and use of power.
For that reason in specific I utterly refuse to be a long term member or support unreservedly any group.
That includes everything from School PTA, community action groups, political parties or churches.
As the opening statement implies and can be rephrased as "I don't dislike Christians as individuals but Churches is another matter."
Consider the evils that have been done in the name of Churches the Crusades were a good example, Conquering the Americas, Colonisation in general had a overt religious conversion element to a CHURCH or Churches.
The same can be said of political ideologies.
The over riding point in the article was that people think but People collectivensis (groups) don't.
This propensity for limited thought can be tracked and predicted at least by means of Statistically significances.
Before people get too cynical about stats.. keep in mind they under pin so much of our technical day to day life avionics, atomics,climate, electronics, medicine, psephology, science in general all have include uncertainties.
We as people tend to ignore that uncertainty (keep it in relative perspective)unless inspired by a self interested group think.
One of these areas of imprecision (uncertainty) most abused by group think is FoS.
Those in power try to suppress it but those who have self interest at heart over emphasise it as a "right". i.e. some thing that has precedence above all else.
"No man is an island," wrote the poet John Donne several centuries ago. He was acknowledging one of our most distinctive characteristics: the fact that we're social animals whose behaviour and personalities are shaped by groups to which we belong.
ReplyDeleteThroughout life, most of our daily activities are performed in the company of others. Whether our purpose is working, playing, raising a family, learning, worshiping, or simply relaxing, we usually pursue it in groups, even if the group is as small as two or three people. Our need for human contacts is not merely a practical one; it's a deep psychological need as well.
Therefore it stands to reason that our opinions are not formed in a vacuum. They are made in the context of existing cultural and personal preconceptions. Information and viewpoints get sifted through other people, particularly family, friends, workmates and so on. I shall write more later - on an experience that I had regarding freedom of speech. These are just a few random thoughts.
I was asked to respond to a spokesperson who on behalf of his group demanded that his list of "offending" books be removed from the library, and I also had to respond to their platform document that was published in a Melbourne newspaper.
ReplyDeleteTheir attempt at censorship was denied because they had chosen award-winning novels, of writers who were considered by experts to be the most challenging and influential for young adults, throughout the world. All of the writers on the list forced their young readers to think about the issues involved which in itself made them remarkable as writers, worth reading, not censoring.
Anyway, we stood by our decision not to remove the books. The heart of this issue was one's definition of education. This group obviosuly believed that education was designed to pass on from generation to generation a prescribed, accepted and very limited body of knowledge.
And that everyting else was taboo.
We on the other hand believed that the purpose of education was to teach young adults to be problem solvers, to gain new insights, and to determine their own positions. The group is entitled to their beliefs what they are not entitled to is to impose their beliefs on others.
We found their attempt at censorship not worthy of support.
Hmmmm I'm thinking (albeit slowly) Manjana
ReplyDeleteNicola,
ReplyDeleteWell done you.You're a clever and accomplished little borscht and Vegemite aren't you.
Even this example of the attempted censorship draws its origins from from "group" thought based on a group interpretation of a group (community) more.
I would make the point the tentative dictum that as tolerance, understanding, spiritualism, innovation, are unbounded But all are Limited as are the options within Groups,this simplification in commercial sense is(mis)called
standardisation in the name of "efficiency".
Having said that I think your implied question is "where do we draw the line?
If I had a simple answer for that I would indeed be worthy of the wisdom your politeness and affable nature occasionally overly generously bestows on me.
1.Observation is what we see/experience.
2.Objectivity is Recognising what we actually see or experience not what we THINK we see etc.
3. One without the other is just (group initiated) prejudice or illusion.
4. Knowledge is having having Observation and objectivity.
5.Cleverness is figuring out the links, between on the surface disparate, facts.
(1-5 can be good or evil)
Without all 5 one can't claim the last, (6)Wisdom.
6. Wisdom is knowing How and when to use them for the benefit of all.(only good)
I have the first 5 struggle with 6.
Corollary: Groups by reason of their restrictions are NEVER able to hold 6.
I claim 1
That was awesome!
ReplyDelete