Am I A Fascist Liberal?
Saturday, 12 May 2007
It seems a funny sort of question, but is it possible? It's long been said that the only things liberals can't tolerate is intolerance, and there is perhaps a grain fo truth in this. As a liberal, I hold two important beliefsa that inform the way I think about cultural pluralism. Firstly, I believe that the world is made of a huge number of diverse and unique cultures. Secondly, I believe that we cannot pressume the infallibility of our opinions, simply because they are our opinions. Mill bangs on alot about this, it forms the cornerstone of much of his work in On Liberty.
All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.These two beliefs together lead to the conclusion that all peoples should be free to pursue their own goals, realise their interests. But is there a point where belief in these ideas becomes an apparent certainty. Is there a danger that liberal views might become accepted as fact, and in a rather poetic twist, impose limitations on the freedoms of others, especially with the Western world increasingly embracing a more liberal position? What brought about this question was the banning of BNP leader Nick Griffin from Bath University, when staff who agreed to have him speak there became aware of such huge disapproval and plans for disruption that they feared the saftey of the students. First of all I will say I think the University itself probably made the right decision; if there was a genuine risk to students then obviously this had to be addressed before anything else. But what does it say about liberalism? As far as I can see it, anyone claiming to be a liberal should not seek to silence such views as Mr. Griffin's, so long as they do not incite violence (it's worth noting for the record that they previously have; he has been convicted for inciting racial hatred) If liberalism cannot continue to champion it's ideology of providing as much freedom of expression as possible, then it loses the dynamicism of its ideology, but more importantly, it has lost it's voice altogether. Certainly you can be a liberal and disagree with views, you can hold them to be unpalatable, or hold them to go against your own values. But to say that a view is wrong is extremely difficult; it demands a degree of certainty which seems to contradict the values of freedom of expression and the idea that our views are fallible. I am reminded of a discussion I had
once about the hijab, immediately after Jack Straw's comments, that the use of the hijab entailed a, "visible statement of separation and of difference". My intelocutor said that some countries might demand certain dresscodes for foreigners because of religious requirements. This being so they argued, we had a right to demand hijab was not worn, this after all is a democracy they noted. Unfortunately there was no sense of irony. So, with my mind unresolved about this paticular problem, I can only hope that by ensuring I try not to fetishise liberalism as some kind of pinnacle of human thought, I might preserve those very values which drew me to it.I leave you however with a cartoon which makes me a little more comfortable. Sure, I might be debating what actually it means to be liberal, but then I see this and realise that conservatives are just a fraction silly, comparing liberalism to communism. Surely not apt?!
Labels: philosophy, politics
posted by danny @ 11:14,
