As promised, a short foray into Bertrand Russell.
Reason explained here. Basically: I needed something quick to read, and this was featured on one of my go-to websites for reading material. And the topic – “Free Thought and Official Propaganda” – is certainly still quite pertinent.
Which it was!
Of course, Russell is coming at the question from his agnostic-anti-religious perspective, the assumption that religion=repression, and in a time (1922) in which, yes, it would be nationalistic and religious forces that were limiting speech. But his basic points still stand:
Speech is primarily limited via legal prohibitions and economic penalties – in other words, if you speak unacceptable thoughts, you’ll suffer.
He also digs into what he calls propaganda, and makes points about education and marketing which are still pertinent. A few excerpts, and yes, remember the context if you go over and take in the whole thing: 1922, thoughts from a professional doubter:
Our system of education turns young people out of the schools able to read, but for the most part unable to weigh evidence or to form an independent opinion. They are then assailed, throughout the rest 32of their lives, by statements designed to make them believe all sorts of absurd propositions….
We are faced with the paradoxical fact that education has become one of the chief obstacles to intelligence and freedom of thought. This is due primarily to the fact that the State claims a monopoly; but that is by no means the sole cause….
The objection to propaganda is not only its appeal to unreason, but still more the unfair advantage which it gives to the rich and powerful….
In America, which is the most advanced country industrially, and to a lesser extent in other countries which are approximating to the American condition, it is necessary for the average citizen, if he wishes to make a living, to avoid incurring the hostility of certain big men. And these big men have an outlook—religious, moral, and political—with which they expect their employees to agree, at least outwardly….
Speaking some truth there, still applicable.
And then…
….then we get to his big windup and his final pitch, and the last sentence of the speech, which honestly made me laugh way too loud here at midnight. I bold and headline for, er, emphasis:
But for us it [free speech and thought] is a matter of life and death. Upon its issue depends the question whether our grandchildren are to live in a happier world, or are to exterminate each other by scientific methods….
(wait for it)
….leaving perhaps to negroes and Papuans the future destinies of mankind.
Curtain. Applause!
I mean, of course, most intellectuals of the time were racist eugenicists – progressives included, and perhaps even most of all.
But it’s still amazing to encounter this blatant, casual, brutal bigotry, not just as a part of, but as the climax, the clincher in a ringing ode to free thought and reasoned discourse as opposed to the ignoble, blighted, darkness of “belief” that had held humanity back from real progress for millennia.
Of course, what’s essential to remember is that during this era, racism, bigotry and eugenics were considered “scientific” and “rational.”
One might say, in fact, that for these big brains dedicated to reason…. the science was settled.
And now, a couple more thoughts. What does this mean? That Russell should be cancelled for racism and never read again? Well, some would say Russell should be cancelled anyway, and never read again for other reasons. Be that as it may, the question persists: what do we do about the mix of terrible and good, of false and true, we find in history and writing from the past?
Accept it. Critique it. Analyze it. Lay out contradictions and explore harmful consequences.
Basically, do what intelligent and wisdom-seeking human beings have always done.
And then, when you’ve had enough of figures from the past, consider your own ideas, convictions and consequent actions – and apply all of these criteria to your own thoughts and words.
And sit with that, in humility.
In short, take on the attitude that Russell (yes) pithily presents in this same speech, slipping conveniently into my point here about the very normal mix of strong and weak, truth and falsehood in human discourse. The context is a response to William James, the great American philosopher of religion, but I think the basic sentiment is sound, and applicable in an era in which so many of us are treating the views of others through a lens of assertion rather than honest, humble inquiry:
What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out….