116 | Teresa Bejan on Free Speech, Civility, and Toleration
Sep 28, 2020
01:43:50
auto_awesome Snipd AI
Teresa Bejan, political theorist, discusses free speech, civility, and toleration. They explore the complexities of civility and its dark side, the politicization of free speech, the distinction between Parisia and Isogaria, hate speech, the paradox of tolerance, Roger Williams' legacy of tolerance, de-platforming speakers at universities, seeking opposing views, and the cancel culture debate.
Read more
AI Summary
AI Chapters
Episode notes
auto_awesome
Podcast summary created with Snipd AI
Quick takeaways
C ivility in democratic discourse requires engaging with opponents despite the absence of respect or agreement.
Civility should not be used to suppress opposing views, but to foster productive dialogue and respect for diverse perspectives.
Society requires a commitment to tolerance even when individuals choose not to engage with particular people or ideas.
Balancing free speech and the right to exist is a complex challenge in an egalitarian politics.
Deep dives
Civility as a Minimal Conformity to Respectful Behavior
Civility is often misperceived as politeness or decorum, but it actually goes beyond that. It is a virtue that is particularly relevant to disagreements. Mere civility is a minimal conformity to culturally contingent norms of respectful behavior. It is a way of engaging with opponents and continuing to live with them, even if respect or agreement is absent. Civility allows for the engagement with others whose views we may find insulting or disagreeable, and it promotes inclusivity and tolerance in a pluralistic democracy.
Civility as Engagement in the Absence of Respect
Civility does not necessitate genuine respect or agreement with opposing views. It is the willingness and commitment to continue engaging with opponents despite the lack of respect. Rather than shutting down debate or excluding others based on incivility, civility allows for the sharing of a life together even when different opinions are at play. It is a virtue that encourages people to work towards justice and the improvement of society, while acknowledging that disagreements are inevitable.
The Abuse of Civility as a Silencing Tool
Civility is often misused as a silencing tool to shut down debates or discussions. Accusing someone of incivility is a way of placing them beyond the pale, excluding them from the community of respectable conversationalists. Similarly, being uncivil towards someone can dismiss them as unworthy of engagement. However, this abuse of civility goes against the essence of civility, which is to continue engaging even when respectful behavior is absent. Civility should not be used to suppress opposing views, but to foster productive dialogue and respect for diverse perspectives.
Navigating Civility and Selective Engagement
Civility does not imply that everyone is equally worth engaging with in every context. While individuals may choose whom to engage with in specific associations or forums, it is crucial to separate these voluntary choices from broader societal debates about civility. Society requires a commitment to tolerance even when individuals choose not to engage with particular people or ideas. Civility requires accepting that others may be uncivil while still upholding their rights to free speech and participation in the democratic process.
The importance of treating everyone as equals
In this podcast episode, the host and guest explore the concept of equality and its implications in a tolerant society. They discuss the historical context of the belief in natural equality and how it became influential in 17th-century politics. They also delve into the difference between leveling up and leveling down versions of equality, highlighting the need for both in an egalitarian politics. The conversation touches on the challenges of balancing free speech and the right to exist, using examples like J.K. Rowling's controversial statements about transgender individuals. Overall, the episode prompts a reflection on the complex nature of equality, the role of cultural institutions, and the importance of engaged dialogue in a diverse society.
The tensions between cancel culture and free speech
Another topic explored in this podcast episode is the ongoing debate surrounding cancel culture and free speech. While acknowledging that concerns about cancel culture may sometimes be overblown, the speakers recognize a cultural problem of intolerance towards divergent views. They discuss the power dynamics at play, particularly in cases like J.K. Rowling's controversial remarks, where a person in a position of privilege faces criticism. They also acknowledge the cultural shift towards redefining tolerance as acceptance, and the potential chilling effect it can have on open dialogue. The episode emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between intellectual disagreement and denial of existence, and encourages reflection on the burdens and responsibilities that come with maintaining a tolerant society.
Navigating the challenges of civility in democratic discourse
The podcast episode also delves into the complexities of civility in democratic discourse. The speakers highlight the need for engaged and respectful conversations, even when facing disagreeable or hateful speech. They recognize that the burden of tolerating such speech falls unequally on marginalized groups, but emphasize that this recognition should not undermine the importance of free speech. The episode emphasizes the value of cultural institutions, associational freedom, and a culture that encourages the development of virtues for both speaking and listening. It emphasizes that the business of toleration is not always pretty, but it is a necessary aspect of maintaining a diverse and free society.
How can, and should, we talk to each other, especially to people with whom we disagree? “Free speech” is rightfully entrenched as an important value in liberal democratic societies, but implementing it consistently and fairly is a tricky business. Political theorist Teresa Bejan comes to this question from a philosophical and historical perspective, managing to relate broad principles to modern hot-button issues. We talk about the importance of tolerating disreputable beliefs, the senses in which speech acts can be harmful, and how “civility” places demands on listeners as well as speakers.
Teresa Bejan received an M.Phil. in Political Thought and Intellectual History from Cambridge and a Ph.D. in Political Science from Yale. She is currently Associate Professor of Political Theory and Fellow of Oriel College at the University of Oxford. Among her awards are the American Political Science Association’s Leo Strauss Award for the best dissertation in political philosophy and the inaugural Early Career Prize for the greatest overall contribution to research and teaching in political thought from the Britain & Ireland Association for Political Thought. Her book Mere Civility: Disagreement and the Limits of Toleration considers political speech through the lens of early modern debates about religious liberty.
