Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by greg_talbot
Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought by Jonathan Rauch
3.0
“Cancellation is not criticism; cancellation is the absence of criticism. It is the replacement of criticism with a summary punishment”
The quote above is attributed to a recent Atlantic article (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/05/cancellation-unc-nikole-hannah-jones/618951/) regarding the denied tenure ship of Nikole Hannah-Jones. The denial’s reasons have not been released, but due to Hannah-Jones political work on the 1619 project, one has to consider if her politics misalignment to her university was the cause for the dismissal.
Authority and the scientific method seem to be the primary discussion points of Rauch’s work. Rauch makes the distinction between fact and opinion. Facts being replicable by persons, regardless of their identification with a marginalization or special interest group. Standing on the axiomatic principal of Popper’s falsifiability law, that science can only disprove, the implication is that science’s growth is largely from abandoning theory and perspectives that melt under scrutiny.
Bertrand Russell once wrote “order without authority” may well be the liberal science (p.57). Rauch attempts to couch arguments within the arguments of epistemology. Plato’s educational goal to inoculate the citizens with virtue and belief sounds reasonable. But with central authority comes the risk that continues into our time. Some beliefs may not be respected. Some may not even be allowed. Rauch’s work continues in the great liberal tradition of espousing an unshackled trust in freedom of speech and expression.
Examples of campus speaker cancellations, fatwas against apostates and continual distrust of freedom are from the 90s and early 2000’s, but the threat to freedom of speech from authorities is ever present. The political spectrum abounds with authorities who will not tolerate speech that insensitive, hurtful or biased. From totalitarian/despotic governments (Saudia Arabia, the People’s Republic of China) to the Marxist underpinnings of social theory (woke culture). Speaking harmfully is punishable. Social media’s value of rightness over truthfulness may be the most visible example of the liberal/humanitarian divide.
Judith Skhlar, a modern philosopher, states that what we value most is “not to harm”. And so with our societies growing connectedness, the everyday actions of all of us are increasingly under scrutiny. To build this better world, accepting that different perspectives...even unrespected perspectives is increasingly difficult, given political gridlock, historical injustice and outrage culture. The ever shaky balance between our ideals to build a better world and the acknowledgement of our human limitations is so naked before us. And yet, development of ourselves and others may require holding that difficult axiom, that all speech does not have to be valued, but should be tolerated.
The quote above is attributed to a recent Atlantic article (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/05/cancellation-unc-nikole-hannah-jones/618951/) regarding the denied tenure ship of Nikole Hannah-Jones. The denial’s reasons have not been released, but due to Hannah-Jones political work on the 1619 project, one has to consider if her politics misalignment to her university was the cause for the dismissal.
Authority and the scientific method seem to be the primary discussion points of Rauch’s work. Rauch makes the distinction between fact and opinion. Facts being replicable by persons, regardless of their identification with a marginalization or special interest group. Standing on the axiomatic principal of Popper’s falsifiability law, that science can only disprove, the implication is that science’s growth is largely from abandoning theory and perspectives that melt under scrutiny.
Bertrand Russell once wrote “order without authority” may well be the liberal science (p.57). Rauch attempts to couch arguments within the arguments of epistemology. Plato’s educational goal to inoculate the citizens with virtue and belief sounds reasonable. But with central authority comes the risk that continues into our time. Some beliefs may not be respected. Some may not even be allowed. Rauch’s work continues in the great liberal tradition of espousing an unshackled trust in freedom of speech and expression.
Examples of campus speaker cancellations, fatwas against apostates and continual distrust of freedom are from the 90s and early 2000’s, but the threat to freedom of speech from authorities is ever present. The political spectrum abounds with authorities who will not tolerate speech that insensitive, hurtful or biased. From totalitarian/despotic governments (Saudia Arabia, the People’s Republic of China) to the Marxist underpinnings of social theory (woke culture). Speaking harmfully is punishable. Social media’s value of rightness over truthfulness may be the most visible example of the liberal/humanitarian divide.
Judith Skhlar, a modern philosopher, states that what we value most is “not to harm”. And so with our societies growing connectedness, the everyday actions of all of us are increasingly under scrutiny. To build this better world, accepting that different perspectives...even unrespected perspectives is increasingly difficult, given political gridlock, historical injustice and outrage culture. The ever shaky balance between our ideals to build a better world and the acknowledgement of our human limitations is so naked before us. And yet, development of ourselves and others may require holding that difficult axiom, that all speech does not have to be valued, but should be tolerated.