Let's face it. The West has had a crisis on free speech and what has come to be known as 'cancel culture' for the better part of a decade now. There has also been a movement to actively support free speech and oppose cancel culture since at least 2015. So, after six years, where are we now? We've actually gone backwards! The state of free speech is objectively worse than six years ago, and cancel culture is stronger than ever! I think it's time to examine where we're going wrong, and change our strategy accordingly.
So what do you think the free speech movement is doing wrong?
Basically, the free speech movement has been very good at identifying that there is a crisis over free speech, but it has done nothing that effectively addresses the root cause. I think the free speech movement's response to the crisis can be broken down into essentially two camps: the first camp basically complains again and again about the lack of free speech in many areas of life, as if they hope that just by repeating their concerns, things will finally change. Don't get me wrong, this type of response has been very effective in raising awareness, putting free speech concerns into the headlines. But the evidence so far is that it is not effective at creating change.
The second camp's response is a bit more sophisticated. It actually examines the root cause of the rise of cancel culture, and concludes that it is ultimately rooted in the influence of certain academic theories, that fit into the broad umbrella of critical theory, particularly postmodern critical theory. Free speech activists in this camp then aim to raise awareness about these flawed theories, hoping to inspire a pushback against them. Again, don't get me wrong, I think this attempt to raise awareness is very important. But the evidence so far is that it is also not very effective at creating the change we want to see.
So what do you think would be a more effective way to combat cancel culture and restore free speech? And why would you think it would be more effective?
I think we really need to reckon with the root cause of cancel culture. Yes, it is ultimately inspired by those academic theories, but essays themselves don't get people silenced or fired. It is masses of people who cause those outcomes. In other words, the reason why we have cancel culture is because radical criticalism has a sizeable following, that it didn't have just ten years ago. Just complaining about the phenomenon of cancel culture, or even just raising awareness about the harmful effects of criticalism, is not going to change that. To defeat cancel culture and restore free speech, we need to sincerely understand why criticalism, i.e. critical theory based activism, has won over so many people, and seriously think about how we can undo that
Why do you think critical theory based activism has won over so many people? And what would we need to do to undo that?
I mean, if you look at criticalism's more recent followers, they are often young people who are into social justice. LGBT people are very over-represented, and the younger generations of non-white people are also increasingly represented. In general, it's people who are suffering in one way or another, or people who are sympathetic allies to these people. They feel like criticalism is the answer for the social change they want. Now, I believe they made the wrong choice, perhaps because they don't understand criticalism's real motivations and implications, but this is the reality we have to work with, and we have to win these people back to liberalism.
This is where elements of the free speech movement are basically kicking own goals all the time. They think they should ally with everyone who wants free speech for whatever reason, so they can get the biggest movement going. The fact that they aren't selective about which people they consider allies, means that people who are dismissive of racism, or actively homophobic, for example, are welcomed into the tent. This, in turn, means that the free speech movement is discredited in the eyes of those who want social change. I've heard it put this way: they don't entirely understand what critical race theory is, but it must be good, because some of the people opposing it are also actively dismissive of the idea that racism still exists in America and other Western countries. The logic is that critical race theory must be so good at combating racism that people who want to protect racist institutions are fearful of it. Of course this is all backwards and wrong, but it's what many people out there currently believe, and it's what drives support for criticalism, and hence the type of activism that we call cancel culture. To defeat cancel culture, these are the people we need to convince to change their minds. This is the tide we need to turn back.
Just briefly, what do you think it would take to turn back the tide, so to say?
I think we need a new commitment to the spirit, and not just the rules, of classical liberalism. You know, a society where every individual is indeed equal, and has equal opportunity in life. The reason why some people are now so skeptical of the goal of colorblindness, for example, is because certain politicians have used rules and policies that were supposedly colorblind to achieve non-colorblind outcomes in the past, in a bad faith move to pander to racism. The war on drugs, for example. Now, liberals shouldn't lose faith in trying to build a colorblind society. But this time, we need to demonstrate that we mean it for real. And if we mean it for real, we will listen to the lived experiences of people who feel that society isn't really colorblind enough, as it is. We don't dismiss their experiences and concerns with smart counter-arguments. If so many people have the same concerns, then there must be some truth to it, so we listen humbly, and we investigate sincerely. This way, we earn back the trust of people, that the goal of colorblindness is a sincere goal, and not just an excuse to stall reforms.
The other thing is, we need to be positive. Marcuse famously called his way of thinking 'negative thinking'. And that's what criticalism actually is. The only way you can beat negative thinking is with positive thinking.
