“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
Two weeks ago, I read Claire Fox’s 2018 book “‘I STILL Find That Offensive!’”, and although I priorly expected to agree with a lot of what she said (I discovered her book via a TEDxTalk she held with Jess Butcher at London Business School), I ended up learning even more than I thought I would. I of course did not necessarily agree with everything she wrote, but her overall standpoint and opinions were particularly refreshing, especially in a climate where daring to swim against the tide is neither encouraged nor rewarded. As announced by the title of this article, the topic is here going to be liberal hypocrisy. Although some might consider this union of words an oxymoron, we have for a few years been witnesses to a serious change in mentality from the side of Liberals. In parallel with the polarization of political opinions, a great part of liberal advocates have shown a gradually more aggressive approach to their philosophy. The main aspects of this issue I’d like to cover here are the notions of cancel-culture, the increase in self-victimization, and the overall threat to freedom of speech. Let’s analyze this issue together and figure out how we can resolve it.
First of all, I’d like to start by stating that I am neither a Democrat nor a Conservative. This is an important note as many nowadays tend to assume that if we criticize one thing, it means we’re siding with the opposite. Frankly speaking, I agree with the core ideology of Liberalism. What I don’t agree with is the way it is practiced and represented nowadays. I believe it actually defeats the original purpose of Liberalism. Liberalism is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as “an attitude of respecting and allowing many different types of beliefs or behaviour”. Sounds great, doesn’t it? I like the idea. Nevertheless, as Claire Fox brilliantly explained it in her book, this is not what we’re witnessing at the moment. What we’re witnessing is people punishing their neighbor for making mistakes or for the mere fact of expressing an opinion which doesn’t fit the current doxa, without even analyzing the nature of the act or the opinion itself. For example, Fox shares the story of Vanity Von Glow, a drag queen played by Thom Glow, who was banned from multiple venues in London for appearing at the ‘Day for Freedom’ in May 2018, a free-speech rally organized by Tommy Robinson, former head of the English Defence League. Andrew Doyle, columnist for Sp!ked, an online politics-focused British magazine, explains in his June 2018 “Vanity Von Glow: the left eats its own” that “Because of the link to Robinson, the event was inaccurately branded a ‘far-right rally’ by many in the mainstream media. Von Glow took the view that free speech is not a partisan issue and made the courageous decision to perform”. The backlash was extreme and the consequences for Glow were very harsh. The latter in fact explained to Sky News that the issue with the far left is that they don’t just go for name-calling anymore. “Their party trick at the moment is to go for your source of income. At the moment they’ve been making sure that my shows are cancelled. They want to see me unemployed, possibly they want to see me homeless. It’s quite an aggressive tactic”, Glow stated after the start of her boycott. For a movement whose mantras tend to revolve around notions such as diversity, inclusivity, safety, freedom and acceptance, it seems as the complete opposite is put in application.
The issues with cancel-culture are diverse. First, it threatens freedom of speech. Indeed, by cancelling anyone who speaks against the commonly praised narrative, we’re not only harming actual people (their ability and right to be employed, their right to be heard, their right to live a normal life without being bullied), but we’re also harming our own right to express ourselves and hold opinions. Freedom of speech (as discussed in my July 2021 article “What happened to freedom of speech?”) is like the Yin Yang symbol where opposite forces collide while at the same time complementing each other. Freedom of speech isn’t this magic fairyland where peace and love resides. Freedom of speech is a sea of thousand currents, all going in their respective directions, some pushing others and helping them grow into powerful waves, other clashing against each other in loud roars. Freedom of speech was never meant to be a slick-surfaced sea, smooth as oil and static like concrete. Freedom of speech has always been made of good and bad ideas, held by good and bad people. This is the cost of freedom. Freedom has a price, but very few of us seem to be willing to accept it. Maybe the appropriate question we should ask ourselves is whether we prefer being free and having to face occasional bumps on the road, or whether we’d rather have a flat and challengeless life but be captive.
The second issue I see with cancel-culture is that it pushes people away from daring to ask questions and educate themselves. The more we focus on blindly punishing people, the more we’re discouraging people to interact with each other, challenge each other’s’ views and learn from each other. How can that solve the problem? Silence has never been a solution to counter any form of problem, whether personal or societal.
Thirdly, nobody’s perfect. We see a lot of people pointing fingers at each other for saying the wrong thing, using the wrong word, doing the wrong deed, while forgetting that we ourselves are imperfect creatures. We’re so keen to dig dirt on our neighbor’s past that we often forget how crummy our own backyard is. Although everyone is well within their rights to emit judgements and express their thoughts and emotions in regards to someone’s actions, we need to keep in mind what the end-goal is. What do we want to achieve? Make the person grow? Or make the person pay? Furthermore, who are we to make someone pay? Are we some sorts of flawless demi-gods? Last time I checked, we all breathe the same air, bleed the same color, and above all, we all make mistakes. All. This however does not mean we should happily welcome bad behavior for the mere reason of being imperfect. In fact, we should work towards being the best version of ourselves. This also means taking into consideration that people should be allowed to explain themselves on their own deeds before being thrown to the wolves.
In a second time, I’d like to talk about victimization, or more precisely, self-victimization. While a lot us do suffer from discrimination because of our race, our gender, our religion, our sexuality, or any other aspect relative to intersectionality, we cannot expect to combat bigotry and oppression by solely showing the depth of our scars. This encourages tit-for-tat behaviors and only makes us drift away from the initial goal. Likewise, labelling ourselves as victims is extremely damaging to our own sense of self-esteem and can cause us to wallow in our own suffering, often missing the actual point and focusing too much on our own standpoints and not everyone else’s. I for instance am a mixed-raced woman. I am aware that my identity, in our Western society, can result in experiencing different treatments than if I were to be a White man for example. However, I cannot obsess over how certain facets of my identity hold a potential to occasionally set me back. What I can do is encourage debate and conversation with people who seem to be in societally more advantageous positions than myself. I cannot only bathe in my own victimhood, for this will neither solve my problems nor will it help the people who pertain to the same demographics as me.
Lastly, I believe it is urgent to address the threats our freedom of speech faces. While many who identify as Liberals envision a world without bigotry and discrimination, a world with minimum threats and plenty of safety-nets, a world where no one ever says the “wrong thing”, we seem to lose sight of the fact that not only are we diminishing our own freedoms, but we’re also raising younger generations into individuals unable to deal with threats and negative encounters. No one can grow in an overly safe space. No one can create healthy defense mechanisms without in the first place facing challenges. If we remove threats, challenges, we remove our ability to defend ourselves. Although a lot of nasty things are said under the label of freedom of speech, those things are a part of what freedom stands for. Instead of banning people, banning things, banning ideas, banning opinions, we rather should encourage conversations between the people it concerns, and above all understand the difference between words and actions. We need to encourage thorough analysis before quickly emitted judgements.
In his 2015 book “Trigger Warning: Is the Fear of Being Offensive Killing Free Speech?”, British journalist and author Mick Hume uses as example the case of Charlie Hebdo, and how their use of freedom of speech drove them to death. But is it really their use of freedom of speech which drove them to death, or is it rather the fear of offense and intolerance towards freedom of speech which killed them? Some say it’s not us who make enemies, but rather enemies who make themselves. This is an interesting topic and gives enough food for thought on our concept of freedom of speech at the dawn of a so-called modern 21st century.
Similarly, Claire Fox explains that attacks on free-speech also includes language manipulation. The use of words or expressions such as “conspiracy theory” or “fake news” are in fact oftentimes used to discredit individuals whose narratives don’t follow the doxa. Although farfetched narratives and harebrained stories proliferate on social networks like Facebook and Instagram, the aforementioned expressions are also often handed to people with very plausible and interesting stories to tell, and above all whose voices deserve to be heard. But, because some of those ideas go against the interests of certain groups, they’re easily and rapidly silenced by the mere use of labels like “conspiracy-theorist”. It is in fact quite ironical how the very people who argue the extent of harm that words can cause, are the same people who are quick to resort to name-calling and casting out their own neighbor. Andrew Doyle was maybe right in stating that “the left eats its own”.
Where do we go from there? Ultimately, nowhere. Nowhere, if we decide to remain how we currently are and to not change one thing about ourselves. We’re going nowhere. So maybe next time we feel tempted to finger-point, should we rather think “this could be me”. This could be you. Yes, you. Wouldn’t you want your side of the story to be heard?
Sources
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/liberalism
https://www.spiked-online.com/2018/06/06/vanity-von-glow-the-left-eats-its-own/
Claire Fox, “’I STILL Find That Offensive!’” (2008).
Mick Humes, “Trigger Warning: Is the Fear of Being Offensive Killing Free Speech?” (2015).
Aude Calloch 