In this third instalment
of our collaboration, we move on to consider more specifically how libertarians
should respond to some illiberal tendencies in the cultures of the liberal
democracies. The discussion focuses particularly on university culture.
Before moving into
that discussion, however, it is appropriate to outline some points from earlier
editions of our collaboration to help readers to see where we are coming from.
First instalment
In raising the
question of whether libertarians should be attempting to influence culture, Winton
mentioned that he is reconsidering his objections to J. S. Mill’s
view that the sanctions imposed by “prevailing opinion and feeling” were akin
to tyranny. He suggested that the only reason he could think of why libertarians
should not be attempting to influence culture was the difficulty they would
have in agreeing on the kinds of cultural change they would like to promote.
In his response, Chris discussed the changes in the libertarian movement
that had occurred since he first encountered it in the late 1970s. He noted
that “thin libertarians”, who argued that freedom does not require anything
more than robust defence of the nonaggression principle, had ended up endorsing
paleoconservative values opposed to a cosmopolitan social framework. He suggested
that although that approach is fundamentally opposed to liberal values, it is
an acknowledgement that some kind of cultural matrix is necessary to nourish
the freedom project.
Chris summed up his
response to the question by suggesting that libertarians should be focused on exploring
the role of culture in shaping political and social outcomes.
One of the points raised in comments on our first instalment is
that there is a difference between saying libertarianism qua political
philosophy should attempt to change culture and saying that a libertarian
concerned in advancing libertarianism should attempt to change culture. One commentator suggested that libertarians
should “work as individuals, and in concert with others, to build
a freedom-friendly culture of moral and virtuous people who strive to create a
good life, to flourish, and to be happy.”
Second instalment
Winton opened the discussion by raising the question
of whether Enlightenment humanist values are still broadly supported by public
opinion. He observed that support for reason and reality seemed to have diminished with increasing
disrespect for truth in narratives of conservative populists as well as radical
progressives who are seeking political power. He noted his support for attempts
to understand power relations in society.
Chris explained his Tri-level Model of Power Relations,
which was first derived from his reconstruction of Ayn Rand’s analyses of
social problems in Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical. The Tri-level Model
illustrates the importance of paying attention to interactions between
personal, cultural, and structural factors (political and economic structures,
institutions and processes). An exclusive focus on any one of these levels of
analysis overlooks the importance of factors associated with other levels in determining
the ability of individuals to flourish. Individual flourishing is affected by cultural
and structural factors as well as by the individual’s values and habits.
Chris’s contribution highlighted the potential for personal
ethical and psycho-epistemological practices to affect the dominant cultural
institutions. It also highlighted the potential for cultural practices to
undermine (or reinforce) the humanism and cosmopolitanism that supports
personal flourishing and liberty.
Winton
Bates’s views on university culture
The sources of illiberal
tendencies in universities differ from those that concerned J. S. Mill when he
wrote the sentence quoted in the epigraph at the beginning of this article. Mill
suggested that “dogmatic religion, dogmatic morality, and dogmatic philosophy” needed
to “be rooted out” of the universities. Mill’s main target seems to have been
the Church of England.
A modern libertarian
who is concerned about illiberal tendencies in universities is likely to have in
mind different sources of dogmatism – for example, action by students and staff
to silence voices that are opposed to prevailing campus orthodoxies. The common
element is interference with the free exchange of ideas that is indispensable
to the search for truth.
The context in which
Mill was writing about universities is relevant to the broader question of what
attitude libertarians should adopt toward illiberal tendencies in culture. Mill
was concerned that growth in the power of public opinion would cause “the
individual” to become lost in the crowd. He hoped that the universities would
be able to foster “great minds” who would have a positive impact on public
opinion.
There is arguably
more reason for libertarians to be concerned about illiberal tendencies in educational
organisations than in social media and other economic and social activities that
influence public opinion. When a social media firm interferes with freedom of
expression, self-correcting forces are likely to be activated eventually as people
perceive themselves to be adversely affected and shift their support to competing
social media firms. Similarly, self-correcting forces are likely to be
activated if a community group subjects a media firm to a boycott, if members
of other community groups consider such action to be unfair.
Self-correcting
mechanisms seem to be more muted in educational organisations. When their
actions prevent invited speakers from being heard, students rarely face
consequences that might deter such behaviour in the future. Students who have
been seeking to silence opposing voices on campuses in recent months are
following in the footsteps of students who adopted similar tactics with equal
passion a few decades ago. Whether or not they intend it, their dogmatism in insisting
that opposing voices should not be heard is placing at risk the culture of free
exchange of ideas that should characterize university education.
Libertarians are not
alone in having reasons to support the free exchange of ideas in universities.
Anyone who has an interest in the search for truth has reason to support free
exchange of ideas.
However, there are at
least three good reasons why libertarians should be taking a leading role in
seeking to restore the culture of universities as bastions for the free
exchange of ideas.
First, the personal
values held by many libertarians emphasize the importance of behaving with
integrity towards other people. That entails recognizing links between
individual flourishing and freedom of expression. Individuals are more likely
to flourish academically if the free exchange of ideas and search for truth is
emphasized in the prevailing cultures of universities.
Second, it is doubtful
whether the legal order can continue to protect free speech if freedom of
expression is severely restricted within universities, whether by government or
by the activities of university authorities, staff, and students. A legal order
protecting free speech depends ultimately on public opinion that values free
speech, which, in turn, requires intellectual support.
Third, if staff and
students do not take action to restore the culture of universities, it is
likely that governments will intervene. Some libertarians might consider government
intervention to be appropriate in that context, but it could provide a precept
for government intervention that limits the autonomy of universities and poses
a threat to freedom of speech.
Chris
Matthew Sciabarra comments:
In asking “Should
Libertarians be Attempting to Influence Culture?”, this dialogue has focused
important attention on the role of culture in affecting social change.
In our last
instalment detailing my Tri-Level Model of Power Relations, I highlighted Level
2, which brings to the foreground of our analysis the role of cultural
traditions, institutions, and practices in helping to sustain the existing
social system. I wrote:
How does culture perpetuate existing social
conditions? This is achieved through linguistic, educational, and ideological
means, among others. Distortions in language—through the use of anti-concepts, for example—will
tend to undermine rational discourse, while serving the needs of the powerful.
Certain educational institutions and pedagogical practices will tend to
undermine autonomy, perpetuate conformity, inculcate obedience to authority,
and subvert the development of critical thinking. Stultifying, rigid,
intolerant, racist, sexist, or tribalist ideologies or belief systems
(including dogmatic religious beliefs) will tend to foster exclusionary
“thinking within a square.” Such cultural practices can undermine those
humanist, cosmopolitan characteristics consistent with the development of human
freedom and personal flourishing.
On Level 2, then, the role of educational institutions
and pedagogical practices is of paramount importance. It must be remembered
that this is a dialectical framework of analysis—one that preserves the larger
context within which such institutions and practices are situated. Hence, it is
important to consider not only how political and economic structures tend to perpetuate
a certain constellation of such institutions and practices—but also its
reciprocal implication: how a certain constellation of educational institutions
and pedagogical practices tends to perpetuate the political and economic order.
It is beyond the
scope of this brief exchange to examine the nature of these interactions.
Suffice it to say, as Winton points out, there are illiberal tendencies in
university life that have quelled the free spirit of discussion, silencing
voices of dissent and shoring up campus orthodoxies. But this attack on dissent
also has the effect of bolstering larger social, political, and economic orthodoxies.
There are virtually
no educational institutions that are free of political strictures, guidelines,
or subsidies of one sort or another. This isn’t an issue of “public” versus
“private” universities. The line between the ‘public’ and the ‘private’ has all
but disappeared and the power of the purse has had an unmistakable impact on
the ways in which universities function. In these instances, the
“self-correcting forces” that Winton ascribes to social media often give way to
imposed “corrections” from the top-down. The culture
war between left-wing “woke warriors” and right-wing
“anti-woke crusaders” has resulted in an explosive political battlefield in
which state actors attempt to impose changes to educational practices, whether
through restrictions on the curriculum or the hiring and firing of university
personnel. As Winton points out, this is precisely the kind of government
intervention that must ultimately undermine free expression.
Sadly, even with its self-correcting forces, not even social media is immune to this kind of political gamesmanship, given evidence of government interference in the dissemination of information and the use of certain platforms for the promotion of ideas that are antithetical to liberal, cosmopolitan values. While libertarians should indeed be taking a leading role in nourishing the free exchange of ideas in university life, we should also be vigilant in exposing and opposing those ideas at war with human freedom and personal flourishing. Preserving and extending a liberal cultural atmosphere that allows for vigorous intellectual engagement is therefore the surest way to make transparent the illiberal ideas among us.
