tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082470.post3539869412224687813..comments2024-03-26T17:11:09.856+05:30Comments on The Middle Stage: Bauerlein on the New Critics, and Hughes on DickensChandrahashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07483080477755487202noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082470.post-69441807313210427792008-01-06T01:43:00.000+05:302008-01-06T01:43:00.000+05:30Hi Chandrahas, wish you a happy new year!Don't you...Hi Chandrahas, wish you a happy new year!<BR/><BR/>Don't you think that Waldron has treated the whole issue of free speech, abyss redemption and truth quite naively? The whole concept of abyss redemption seems to be predicated on what seems to me a naive assumption that at any given point of time, one <I>knows</I> what constitutes sin or falsity or an abyss. But does one really? <BR/><BR/>In 17th century Europe, when Galileo and Copernicus were championing the heliocentric model of the universe in opposition to the formidable might of the Church, most lay Europeans pretty much thought the Church had its facts right. So the equivalent debate in the 17th century would have been about curtailing or not curtailing Galileo's right of free speech. We now believe that Galileo was right (or at least more right than the Church) and so in actuality, if anyone, Galileo was indulging in abyss redemption.<BR/><BR/>My point is this: For most of the contentious issues of today, nobody really <I>knows</I> what <I>the truth</I> is (today) .. so how does one decide who's gazing at the abyss and how does one decide whose speech constitutes the abyss?<BR/><BR/>Next, this beautiful notion of the "free market place of ideas".. do we have a "free market place"? I think every market place has inherent power structures which bound the freedom of the marketplace. If the marketplace were indeed free, how come eugenics held sway in many western countries, received funding from Carnegie and Rockefeller foundations for years, before the end of World War II? <BR/><BR/>Every market place at any point of time has associated with it, a normative view and there are costs not to hate speech per se, but any speech which runs counter to the norm (in any direction) .. these days hate speech is of course counter normative in academic circles in UK and USA. So is any research which doubts global warming. So is any gender discrimination research in organizations. <BR/><BR/>My point: there is no such thing as a free marketplace of ideas. So an abyss could just be counter-normative speech .. not necessarily always <I>false</I>. I see no evidence which suggests that an abyss always consists of <I>falsehoods</I>.<BR/><BR/>Which is why I found Waldron's treatment of free speech and abyss redemption to be naive. <BR/><BR/>Lastly, Waldron mentions that his American friends believe free speech to be a fundamental value and right - globally. You rightly pointed out that a major part of our (Indian) national conversation revolves on issues of freedom of speech and expression. Sociocultural anthropology and psychology, both recent fields, have been pointing out for some time that all values (including equality, individual freedom, pursuit of happiness etc.) are specific to a few nations in west europe and north america and are <I> NOT globally espoused </I>. Before we Indians uncritically accept freedom of speech as a right (and our constitution already has), we must question if this freedom is in line with Indian cultural heritage. I am not taking any side here .. I am merely wondering aloud if freedom of speech ought to be as global a right as generally thought in the USA. <BR/><BR/>Forgive me this long comment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com