I try not to repeat myself, so here is something I have not already said in so many words:
Individuality is not something we are born with; rather becoming an independent individual is something to be achieved through the most terrific effort. We may become “relatively autonomous” or “independent” only through serious engagement with others in the marketplace of ideas.
Otherwise, we are no more advanced than the “savages” or “barbarians” we claim to have transcended with “civilization.” Yet we find ourselves mired in a globalized world where many other peoples remain tribal or under the thumb of various forms of dictatorship. Or we may believe that “multiculturalism” is not covertly racist.
Since I have been posting about the [phony liberal] origins of “political correctness” I got into a debate with one Facebook friend who thinks I don’t understand the critical theorists of the Frankfurt School. One of their number, Herbert Marcuse, wrote controversially about “repressive tolerance.” All hell broke loose when this little volume was published, for he banished anticommunist speech. But what was rarely understood at the time seems obvious to me right now. Marcuse rightly complained that the constituted authorities determine the terms of debate (as in identity politics). He was largely correct: that we lose when the enemy controls language. Perhaps the need for close reading and the study of institutional discourses makes some conservatives, even “constitutionalists” very nervous. Perhaps Marcuse’s critique is why some rightists have slammed “cultural Marxism” and/or post-structuralism for inventing PC. In their heart of hearts, free speech and close readings are anathema and lead to frightening differences with beloved family members, parents, and other authority figures.
PC notion of national unity
They are wrong. It was our libertarian forebears, enabled by Bibles written in English, who celebrated the “priesthood of all believers”: i.e., those who could read texts for themselves and then compare their own understandings of texts with the interpretations of their “betters” (the priestly class) who wished to monopolize what those sacred texts actually said (for the benefit of autocrats).
This notion: that ordinary people had the right to challenge “authoritative” readings with their own interpretations led to what we now call “the marketplace of ideas.” Part of those readings entailed the study of “officials” of every type: religious or secular, government bureaucrats and union bosses alike, even parents, spouses, sisters and brothers. Such studies can lead to alienation and anxiety.
The United States of America, “conceived in liberty” remains unique and frazzled. “E pluribus unum” does not mean that the search for truth is called off for purposes of national or “racial” or other forms of “family” solidarity. The agreement to disagree is the very foundation of national unity in this city on a hill. Long may this keystone element of the social contract prevail.
https://clarespark.com/2012/07/04/index-to-fourth-of-july-blogs/ (Prior blogs that address the unfinished revolutions of our time.)
The Clare Spark Blog 
[…] https://clarespark.com/2013/07/04/independence-and-the-marketplace-of-ideas/ […]
Pingback by Blogs on the integral ‘nation’ | YDS: The Clare Spark Blog — July 12, 2013 @ 4:35 pm |
“The agreement to disagree is the very foundation of national unity in this city on a hill. Long may this keystone element of the social contract prevail.”
Amen. The First Amendment was not written to protect the rights and ideas of those with whom the majority agree.
Comment by Bob Ennis — July 6, 2013 @ 3:19 pm |
In my experience (70 years), “agree to disagree” has proven to be divisive rather than unitizing. Respecting the opinions of others while continuing the debate is a much more utilitarian effort. Unanimity is a fool’s game but reasoned unity (as in progress) is a “process” often attained amongst open, introspective, laterally think minds. Common genetics, common physical and sociological growth, common life experience (personal view of reality), and common wisdom development are not common. We are all uniquely special in one to many tangible and intangible ways. Coming together to achieve a common goal is laudable. Coming together to persuade and compromise is not an honorable or positive endeavor. Six short, final thoughts: (1) Never let your subjectivity overshadow your objectivity. (2) Hold no one in judgement of your beliefs but yourself. (3) Truth is a dynamic, relative, seldom axiomatic process. (4) Never agree to disagree; fix your attention on the national goal; work toward achieving that goal through discourse; national unity and the Republic of Something is at stake. (5) Civilization is destined to be a zero-sum creation only if the citizens, not the elected officials, allow it. (6) With every liberty comes personal responsibility.
Comment by Jordan — July 25, 2013 @ 4:04 pm |
This blog for July 4 was mostly directed against the regnant radical subjectivism. Jordan’s comment is so abstract that it is hard for me to respond, or even disagree. “Personal responsibility” is only meaningful with a full awareness of one’s personal past and how concrete institutions attempt to create consensus where there is none.
Comment by clarelspark — July 25, 2013 @ 4:12 pm
[…] one of this sequence (https://clarespark.com/2013/06/23/the-origins-of-political-correctness/ and https://clarespark.com/2013/07/04/independence-and-the-marketplace-of-ideas/.) I tried to correct the widespread impression on the Right that “cultural Marxism” was […]
Pingback by The origins of “political correctness” (2) | YDS: The Clare Spark Blog — July 4, 2013 @ 11:28 pm |
[…] such critical theorists as Herbert Marcuse complained about “repressive tolerance” (see https://clarespark.com/2013/07/04/independence-and-the-marketplace-of-ideas/), while others in his clique blamed mass culture for the rise of Hitler, their German Idealist […]
Pingback by Turning points in the ascent/decline of the West | YDS: The Clare Spark Blog — July 4, 2013 @ 11:00 pm |