| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Essay is in revision. Comments are welcome. | >
> | Ready for Review. Comments are welcome. | | | | |
<
< | Protecting and Promoting Dissent and Free Expression: an Evolutionary Perspective | >
> | Protecting and Promoting the Right to Differ: an Evolutionary Perspective and the Continuing Rightfulness of Barnette | | | -- By ThomasHou? - 01 Dec 2011 | | | | |
<
< | Why do we have the First Amendment? To have free expression. Why do we have free expression? Thomas I. Emerson grouped the reasons into four: 1) assuring individual self-fulfillment, a cornerstone of Western philosophical thought; 2) attaining truth and knowledge through debate and a "marketplace of ideas"; 3) providing for universal participation in decision making; and 4) achieving an adaptable yet stable community. I believe the last one is more important than ever in the information age. The basic premise is: free expression allows for the development and sharing of new ideas - which often comes through a form of dissent - while suppression shutters those new ideas in favor of old ideas and stultification. A society needs new ideas and flexibility to adjust to changing circumstances and to achieve social progress. | >
> | Justice Jackson's opinion in Barnette, which prohibited a state from compelling students to salute and pledge to the American flag, maintains its place in American lore not just through its eloquent words but also through its evocation of fundamental ideas. No idea is perhaps more fundamental than the First Amendment. | | | | |
<
< | Evolution theory provides a useful analogy. In nature, individual organisms, even those that live in "societies" like man does, live in a changing and unpredictable environment. Within a species or genus, individuals possess different traits that produce various advantages or disadvantages according to natural conditions. That variation allows a species to survive and prosper - those with favorable traits survive and pass them along to the next generation. For humans in societies, the same theory should hold true. The world is changing, faster than ever, and is unpredictable. Beyond our physical differences, it is our intellectual differences that distinguish ourselves and our societies. Unlike natural traits, intellectual traits and ideas can be self-developed and expressed, so long as society tolerates them. Having intellectual diversity and promoting it allows society to develop new ideas and question old ideas. This process prevents social conformity and stagnation, and allows a society to adapt to and thrive in a changing world. | >
> | Why do we have the First Amendment? To have free expression. Why do we have free expression? Thomas I. Emerson grouped the reasons into four: 1) assuring individual self-fulfillment, a cornerstone of Western philosophical thought; 2) attaining truth and knowledge through debate and a "marketplace of ideas"; 3) providing for universal participation in decision making; and 4) achieving an adaptable yet stable community. Although Barnette hints at all four, I believe the last one is most prominent in Barnette and is more important than ever today. The basic premise is: free expression allows for the development and sharing of new ideas - which often comes through the right to differ at the core of free expression - while suppression shutters those new ideas in favor of old ideas and stultification. A society needs new ideas and flexibility to adjust to changing circumstances and to achieve social progress. | | | | |
<
< | Conventional wisdom says sociocultural evolution is Lamarckian, i.e. through acquired inheritance of culture from generation to generation. While I do not dispute the overall Lamarckian theory, I think cultural evolution at the individual level, and the agency from individual to social, is Darwinian. After all, all culture must start from individuals and they individually and as a group practice and carry on culture from time to time. At that individual level, creativity is essential and one's contributions shape a society's culture. Bob Dylan's expression through his songs heralded the culture of the 60s and the protest era. Galileo's expression of his scientific discoveries ushered in acceptance of the heliocentric theory and a new scientific culture. Both occurred through acts of self-expression and in dissent within cultures of social conformity. We in retrospect, looking at these examples and others from history, appreciate the importance of individual free expression to a culture of social progress. | >
> | Evolution theory supports this premise. In nature, individual organisms, even those that live in "societies" like man's, live in a changing and unpredictable environment. Within a species or genus, individuals possess different traits that produce various advantages or disadvantages according to natural conditions. That variation allows a species to survive and prosper - those with favorable traits survive and pass them along to the next generation. For humans in societies, the same theory should hold true. The world is changing, faster than ever, and is unpredictable. Beyond our physical differences, it is our intellectual differences that distinguish ourselves and our societies. Unlike natural traits, intellectual traits and ideas can be self-developed and expressed, so long as society tolerates them. Having intellectual diversity and promoting it allows society to develop new ideas and question old ideas. This process prevents social conformity and stagnation, and allows a society to adapt to and thrive in a changing world. | | | | |
<
< | This theory holds true more than ever today. Free expression drives innovation. Developing new ideas and ways of communicating them to the public is vital. We have more tools. But we still need to do it. And on the world wide web, we need to protect not only those with new ideas, but also those who receive and can benefit from the new ideas. They can share and experiment with new ideas, and challenge old ideas. This is a "democratic culture," which Jack Balkin describes as a place where ordinary citizens can participate in digital creativity and not just be passive observers or consumers. Our free expression culture must be maintained and strengthened to achieve that end. | >
> | Conventional wisdom says sociocultural evolution is Lamarckian, i.e. through acquired inheritance of culture from one generation to the next. While I do not dispute its overall Lamarckian character, I think cultural evolution at the individual level, and the level from the individual to society, is Darwinian. After all, all culture originate from individuals and they individually and as a group practice and transmit culture through time. At that individual level, creativity is essential and individuals shape a society's culture. Bob Dylan's expression through his songs heralded the culture of the 60s and the protest era. Galileo's expression of his scientific discoveries ushered in acceptance of the heliocentric theory and a new scientific culture. Both acted upon their right to differ within cultures of social conformity. | | | | |
<
< | Another perspective | >
> | Barnette was a clash between the individual right to differ and the collective interest in national unity. In rejecting the latter, Justice Jackson relied much on Darwinian ideas of sociocultural evolution. He reached into history to show how social conformity ultimately fails and only deadens societies, such as the Romans driving out Christianity and the Inquisition driving out Jews. He then rejected that free expression could be submitted to majority rule at the ballot box; such proposition would undercut the individual focus of the First Amendment's protections. Finally, he implicitly espoused the Darwinian theory about the source of intellectual diversity: those with abnormal attitudes, those espousing beliefs contrary to the social order, i.e. those who differ, are the exceptional minds that drive intellectual and social progress. The right to differ and free expression at the individual level affect society at the collective level. State orthodoxy and compelled speech are unconstitutional because they would stamp out the vital right to differ implicit in the First Amendment.
This theory holds true today. Free expression drives innovation. Developing new ideas and ways of communicating them to the public is vital. We have more tools with the Internet. But we still need to act. On the world wide web, we need to protect not only those with new ideas, but also those who receive and can benefit from the new ideas. They can share and experiment with new ideas, and challenge old ideas. We must build a "democratic culture," which Jack Balkin describes as a place where ordinary citizens can participate in digital creativity and not just be passive observers or consumers. To achieve that, we continue to need free expression and the right to differ - the right to challenge old attitudes and propose new ones. Barnette 's principles, ancient as they may seem, remain fresh. |
|