In this timely book written in characteristically lucid and entertaining prose, Cass Sunstein develops the underlying logic. His elegant argument also has an optimistic side. Where conformism is at work, courageous dissenters may prevent catastrophes by sowing doubts about the apparent conventional wisdom, or simply by implanting in cowed individuals the courage to air objections.
He writes of conformity, cascades, and group polarization as conceptual notions that illumine the fear, apathy, and indifference that beggar public discourse, leaving it for the advertisers, spinners, and multiple would-be Pericles of the modern age.
Lewis, Choice. Sunstein is implicitly raising a red flag about the deepening partisanship of American culture. Firstly, freedom of speech is necessary to establish the marketplace of ideas. This rationale holds that truth will emerge from the competition of ideas in a free and transparent public discourse. The rationale is traced to the works of John Milton, an English poet and scholar, and has also been developed by John Stuart Mill in his philosophical treatise.
The idea is that there will be competing ideas and opinions in any pluralistic society. The only way for truth to emerge is if society allows these ideas to compete with each other. Overtime, solid and research backed opinions will triumph over the ones which are shallow and superficial.
Secondly, free speech is essential for a functioning democracy. The link between freedom of speech and democracy is clear from the fact that freedom of speech exists in advanced democracies like United States, Britain, Australia etc. Though direction of causation is not clear, but one thing is true for sure that free speech and democracy cannot survive without each other.
In a real and true democracy, free speech is guaranteed across the political spectrum. All political parties and politicians should be able to express their views on anything and everything under the sun. If free speech is not allowed by the ruling government, citizens will not gain access to different points of view.
As a result, citizens will not have a complete picture and would not be able to form an informed opinion. The elections conducted in such an environment would be far from being fair. Moreover, ruling government can improve its own performance if it allows dissenting opinions to be expressed instead of crushing them. Sometimes vision gets a little blurred from the high echelons of power and criticism by the opponents and general public might lead to self-reflection and improvement.
Thirdly, if state does not allow dissent to be expressed, this will eventually lead to intolerance among the people. These alliances are usually made up of individuals rather than groups and based on informal links. Unions, as a home for activism, appear routinely. And dissent ranges across a spectrum from openly challenging injustice, to subversive dissent, operating within the system. Others dissent through self-reliance, and some within voluntary agencies who are caught in the headlights, trying to determine whether or not to be dissidents.
Interestingly though, dissent does not necessarily equal conflict — some express contrasting views through collaboration. In this alleged age of localism and big society, community development services act as a means to support local activism, with peer support, but they are not a home for political and social action itself.
If the slogan "power is never given This is better than the alternative, which would be an explosion that could destroy our democratic society. With that in mind, I take it as good news that dissent is busy and growing in all forms. James Derounian is principal lecturer in community development and local governance at the University of Gloucestershire.
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. Join the local government network for comment, analysis and the latest career opportunities.
0コメント