Free speech is to me one of the most important and essential human rights in a modern, open, prosperous and democratic society. The freedom and ability to effectively share facts, feelings, opinions and ideas is at the base of my European heritage, a defining characteristic of my culture.
Set in stone in international law and many countries’ constitution, freedom of speech requires to be as minimally regulated as possible, as an open discourse on culturally controversial or difficult subjects is the basis of progress and wellbeing. This is true at national, community and personal levels.
I am an extrovert, I love socialising, I have a natural predisposition to connect with others through the use of language and feel fascinated by the science of communication.
Effective and consistent communication is the mainstay of long lasting relationships. There is (almost) nothing I can’t share with loved ones and close friends. I know people have different models of the world, perceptions and understanding of reality. As a healthy and mature individual, there is no conversation, debate or opinion too unusual, fringe or triggering for me.
What is perceived as moral or even true is very much culturally determined and continuously evolving. The fringe of today is the mainstream of tomorrow. Many initially fringe or minority ideas have historically brought change and progress to society, when and if they were allowed to emerge as a discourse or narrative.
There is such a thing as verbal violence obviously, but it’s very difficult to have a clear cut, explicit, objective and consistently applicable definition of it. Personally, the only true and strictly unmoving boundary I have against violence is of a physical nature.
This means that, as much as I think physical violence needs to be prevented and regulated, no form of verbal violence can ever be equated to physical violence. Hurting my feelings might feel unpleasant but it is not like hurting my body, trespassing my physical boundaries. With the exception of libel or slander, the protection of children from pornographic content, most speech could be left to culture to “regulate” and not the law or the force of authority, as it currently is in many democratic countries where there is constitutional protection of freedom of speech. Am I being perceived as inappropriate and out of context? You can let me know or choose to not like me, that’s OK.
This is a very important point I feel the need to reinforce. I am grounded enough to be able to read or hear anything, even things that are deemed offensive or in poor taste, as words are sounds or writings and do not inherently injure me or anyone. A sad, offended or disgusted reaction of my nervous system is temporary and small change in comparison to the value an open and free society brings to my life.
I sometimes hear we should prevent people’s feelings from being hurt. This is a minefield as some people are very sensitive to negative emotions, what used to be called “neuroticism”. Should we prevent all people’s feelings from being hurt? What is a simple conversation about a mundane subject could be seen as triggering by a highly sensitive or very traumatised person and thus would make them sad or upset.
This is exactly what I think is wrong with political correctness. The encouragement of an increasingly sensitive, touchy attitude of people towards expressions that appear normal and benign today and suddenly are made to be perceived as offensive.
What’s more is that political correctness is used as a weapon for the limitation of free speech and even the prohibition of inquiry into taboo subjects. Often PC can be seen as a form of oppression disguised as a morally elated, righteous thing to do. Am I being too direct according to your standards and you shut me up, or abruptly leave my company? Well, that might hurt my feelings too. If the curbing of violence is a worthy goal, passive aggression is uniquely insidious and destructive and also a form of violence.
You can’t say this, can’t say that. Language through the PC lens becomes such a minefield, and a continuously elvolving one as such, that you need a PhD in philology just to express a simple idea. And what about positive body language, humour and good intentions?
Having a Coca Cola lawyer or PR manager talking of inclusivity in a cajoling and honeyd PC language makes me puke (the graphic, slightly abrupt description of my reaction is intended). Anything coming from the biggest plastic polluter on earth, a big contributor to obesity and disease, the company behind the modern fat version of Santa Klaus and the skinny, happy model advertising, stinks of hypocrisy. And a lot of moral posturing is not always, but often, behind this PC form of individual restriction of free speech.
Institutionalised, new attempts to limit the ability to communicate need always to be seen with scepticism and, I believe, this is the natural and healthy way to perceive any legislation promoting censorship and suppression of the free sharing of ideas. This is often done in the name of protecting people from misinformation, but is frequently a way to create and re-inforce a conditioned and controlled message or narrative that invariably appeals to corporate interests and powerful pressure groups.
Culture is there to put boundaries on expression and to decide what is appropriate or not to say, and in what context, and that’s OK. The right of “not being appropriate”, to belong to a minority view, is subjective and an individual right. Many young and independently minded people love to question the status quo, even being outrightly rebellious with parents, teachers, priests and authority figures. Pushing the boundaries, asserting your individuality through different forms of expression is a healthy and much needed exploration of authenticity and independence. It is good at an individual and society level.
Prohibiting free expression in the name of moralistic or other pretence should be left to parents’ education, free of legal or normative boundaries, not absolute in nature. Expression or communication includes body language, glares and attitudes, a certain energy people emit. Should we regulate that too?
History and contemporary times alike are full of authoritarian tyranny where free speech is heavily suppressed. Court jesters, fools and jokers were members of the household of a nobleman or a monarch employed to entertain guests during the mediaeval and Renaissance eras. Humour, poetry and art have been historically, and currently, used to depict a difficult truth, mock the culturally protected elite, bring controversies to the fore.
Science fiction, one of my favourite genres, is in my opinion a great form of speaking the culturally unspeakable. Not dissimilarly to comedy, sci-fi can be used to criticise and warn over a specific current landscape or reality without incurring political or cultural backlash. Like fiction, comedy is only allegorically real and only some of the times. Heard of George Carlin? Watch Rowan Arkinson’s views on free speech.
Both in high school and university in the 1990s Italy, debate was widely practised. I remember spending hours talking about philosophy with fellow students and friends, politics and social issues of all sorts. We would passionately debate the subject, hear the other side, enjoy the conversation and stay friends afterwards. Like any muscle needs exercise to flourish, so the ability to articulate thoughts and opinions needs to be practised. This is what limitation to free speech often does, curbing debate, making honest conversation not appropriate or PC.
Parroting the news headline of your favourite newspapers, adopting a slogan like, largely manufactured and standardised view of the world is fine of course, and what most people limit themselves to. It can be seen as superficial, lazy, a simplistic view on reality, highly conditioned and ultimately unsophisticated.
A desire for deeper truth brings questions and the seeking of answers in books and enlightened media we are so lucky to have at our disposal, in this confusing but relatively free world. I love reading and I believe a mixture of literary education, direct observation and personal experience, alongside debate makes and refines the view of the world I adopt as an individual. A thirst for seeking nuance and higher perspectives on what’s presented as true or real, brings a constantly evolving look on myself and the world.
As much as I dislike passive aggressive behaviour, something I easily associate with the cancel culture and the politically correct, I personally value feedback and like to be part of a group of people who appreciate me for my way of thinking and way of being. This implies developing a sensitivity for the cultural context I operate in, and of course awareness around the feelings and emotions of people around me. Aware of the culture I inhabit, a self chosen moderation to my expression is obviously practised on a daily basis.
An open heart means adopting a way of communicating with others which is kind and loving as well as honest and direct. Soft skills around expression in public, in a family context and around friends will bring more harmony, cooperation and ultimately love. As much as I like having the right to dress as I like, speak as I like, write what I like and behave as I see fit, I choose softness and self-restraint when talking to my family, friends and strangers, taking into consideration the differences in models of the world and belief systems they might adopt.
Similarly, I am careful to choose the right place and moment to make a controversial statement or express an opinion. The better I become at filtering the way I communicate, in harmony with culture and context, the more successful I might become. At the same time, I wish this fundamental and democratic right of free speech to never be more than currently regulated or limited by any government, public institution or official authority.
Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something, someone once said. I like to express myself in this blog for many reasons and principally because, as Flaubert was quoted to say, “the art of writing is the art of discovering what you believe.”
Putting opinions, ideas, plans and dreams into words help me learn and develop as an individual. It gives me strength and focus, flow and pleasure. Do you disagree with what I write or say? You are welcome to have your own differing opinions, your view on what’s right or wrong, your unique perspective on our shared reality. I’d love to hear what you think, with an open mind and an open heart.