Fundamentalism
Rauch contends ..."A very dangerous principle is now being established as a social right: Thou shalt not hurt others with words. This principle is a menace - and not just to civil liberties. At bottom it threatens liberal inquiry - that is, science itself." In America, France, Austria and Australia and elsewhere, the notion of the inquisition is being resurrected to punish people who are perceived to hold opinons that are hurtful to others (see previous book review - Springtime for Snowflakes). This situation is a type of intellectual authoritarianism, once the province of the religious and the political right, that is being promulgated by the progressive political left. It is a new type of fundamentalism that is not about religion but it is a righteousness (see previous book review - The Righteous Mind) based on the premise that they hold the moral high ground and there is no possibility that their views might be wrong.
The enlightened few
What is being advanced is a type of society, similar to Plato's Republic, whereby the masses are governed by a humane and enlightened few. The founding principle of the Republic is an absolute devotion and submission of the individual to a utopia that is based on an intellectual authoritarianism. Plato believed that knowledge comes from wisdom and that governance should be exercised by those who are wise. This view holds that the enlightened few will govern the masses in a more humane and sensitive manner. The new progressive fundamentalists, likewise, see themselves as being the arbiters of pubic discourse and morality. In doing so they seek to criminalise open criticism and regulate thought. This situation is currently being played out in the public sphere: a rising form of authoritarianism in disguise and it is just as insidious as what Plato was proposing for ancient civilisation.
Meaning and knowledge
Here, questions are raised about meaning and knowledge. Can a chosen few have the knowledge and truth to make decisions for the rest of the population? This may, on the one hand, seem to make life easier because it would save us from having to make moral decisions and we could go about living without having to make too many difficult choices. Who will make the wise decisions? Who can we trust? Good men are liable to make mistakes and are sometimes unwilling to be open to criticism. This may sound rather sceptical but is it appropriate? "A society which has accepted skeptical principles will accept that sincere criticism is always legitimate." In other words, knowledge can only stand until it is debunked. Liberal science is not just for scientists it is a cultural process of inquiry that seeks to test ideas.
Reason and faith
Universities are the guardians of free thought and knowledge through criticism. Every one has different opinions about what constitutes prejudice. If universities endeavour to enforce what they perceive as 'correct opinions' they become bigoted and self-righteous. This then becomes a type of stubborn orthodoxy and another form of injustice. Can reason be the arbiter of knowledge? Reason itself relies on faith, in this case, faith in liberal science. This is why liberal science must be open to criticism and not dogma. Reasoning can be responsible or irresponsible but if diversity of ideas is not allowed then it follows that knowledge cannot be tested and verified. However, when free speech is perceived as being offensive it leads to fundamentalist principles and outrage. Rauch contends, "A no-offence society is a no-knowledge society."
Authoritarianism
"Whenever the believers in the Fundamentalist Principle get the upper hand, they strive restlessly and untiringly to suppress diversity of opinion, and they do so not simply out of cynicism or power lust, but, on the contrary, out of the purist and most principled of motives." The threat is that the fundamentalists embrace authoritarianism and in the name of fairness and compassion, are capable of committing atrocities (as the Marxist did during the last century).
Liberal scientific and democratic ideals
Liberal democratic ideals (see previous book review - Inventing the Individual) presuppose the right to offend in the pursuit of truth. In doing so it has a responsibility to allow criticism to check for the accuracy of knowledge. Offensive words are just words, they are not violence. What should be done to placate the feelings of those that are offended (see recent blog - The mess we are in)? Nothing at all! The history of science is full of criticism and hurt feelings. No one likes to have their cherished ideas debunked. If this were not so then our society would make little progress. Rauch makes it very clear with this statement, "The inquisition failed to keep Copernicanism down. All it did was slow the progress of knowledge and kill people."
Other links of interest:
Professor's legal victory for free speech: The Australian
