Cases 3 & 4 : Books of Politics and Philosophy

Books of Politics and Philosophy

“To forbid us anything is to make us have a mind for it.” (Montaigne)

From the time of the pre-Socratic thinkers, philosophy and politics have been intimately related.  Indeed, it was Socrates’ thoughts on statecraft and religion (which to the Greeks were inseparable) that effectively led to his trial and condemnation for corrupting the morals of the youth of Athens.  In effect, by questioning the wisdom of Athenian democracy in his dialogues, Socrates philosophically bested the politicians of his day whose ideas have long since been forgotten while his have been studied by almost every generation of scholars since his enforced suicide.  The history of human thought is riddled with the efforts of censors to kill ideas or political notions that challenged the status quo.  This is because censorship has seemed a more expeditious method than actually engaging in debate to resolve issues.

The ancient Greeks, of course, were not the only ones to have dealt harshly with philosophers and political scientists who had the temerity to think outside of the bounds of established custom.  As previously noted, in Elizabeth I’s England, the punishment for slandering, reproaching or dishonouring the Queen’s Majesty was the removal of the right hand.  During the McCarthy era in the United States, expressing opinions sympathetic to the socialist cause hastened ostracism, job loss and even arrest.  This is not to say that there are not “bad” ideas or “corrupt” political philosophies.  One need only look at the history of the twentieth century to confirm that there have been both.  The problem in a democracy is that there can never be a clear, undisputed line of demarcation between “good” and “bad” ideas.  Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Hume, and Marx were political philosophers whose good ideas, when taken to extremes, have crossed the line into serious error.  As history demonstrates, however, it is naive to presume that flawed philosophical or political ideas can ever be completely suppressed.  Humans have constantly proven that, by forcing an idea or a movement underground, one almost certainly ensures that it will flourish. Worse yet, “as some advocates of censorship had learned to their dismay, censorship of the ‘bad’ establishes a principle that can also justify censorship of its critics.” 

Why philosophical and political censorship?  In the past the stronger members of society used such censorship to keep weaker members in their place.  Now, however, it is often the ordinary citizen who, feeling disenfranchised by liberalism for example, will attempt to use the power of censorship to realize his or her own political will.  The targets today are frequently public institutions such as university, school, and neighbourhood libraries which are “emblematic of what is wrong with the whole system” in society’s rush towards political correctness, for instance.  This course of action is understandably being met with resistance since “in a democracy, libraries must function so as to allow the individual freedom to choose his own courses of action, public and private.  The problem with censoring forces, both historically and in their most recent manifestations, has been that they threaten this basic freedom.”  Several philosophical and political questions emerge from the current situation.  If there is to be censorship, who should be the censor? What should be censored?  Who sets the standard for censorship?  In the final analysis, the greatest threat to thought in a democracy may not be the arbitrary actions of a few parliamentarians but the power of the majority to exclude what does not reflect their community’s values.