Conocernos a nosotros
mismos, conocer nuestra mente, dice este profesor británico en el campo de la filosofía,
es lo que la muerte de los caricaturistas del periódico francés exige de cada
uno de nosotros. ¿Hay límites para lo que se considera ilimitado: la “libertad
de expresión”?
Los hay, pero
para saber cuáles son la persona que los exige de otros ha de conocerlos en sí
misma. Y de ahí que no todo puede ser ridiculizado, hecho sátira o motivo de burla.
El escritor nos hace considerar como un experimento mental la posibilidad de que las masas, manifestándose a favor de los seres humanos asesinados, confrontaran a un hombre solo, enarbolando una pancarta que les pudiera resultar ofensiva. ¿Actuarían ellos como los fieles defensores de la libertad de expresión que en ese instante creían serlo, o arremeterían contra ese ser humano, él solo exigiendo respeto a su derecho para expresarse, y acaso no lo harían en nombre de la libertad de expresión que decían defender?
El escritor nos hace considerar como un experimento mental la posibilidad de que las masas, manifestándose a favor de los seres humanos asesinados, confrontaran a un hombre solo, enarbolando una pancarta que les pudiera resultar ofensiva. ¿Actuarían ellos como los fieles defensores de la libertad de expresión que en ese instante creían serlo, o arremeterían contra ese ser humano, él solo exigiendo respeto a su derecho para expresarse, y acaso no lo harían en nombre de la libertad de expresión que decían defender?
Para ser
conscientes de tales contradicciones se hace necesario el autoconocimiento. El “conócete
a ti mismo” del viejo Sócrates.
Pero todos
sabemos que una cosa es obrar cuando uno está en posesión de uno mismo, y otra cosa
bien diferente cuando uno se siente
parte de una masa.
Sea que defienda o ataque la libertad de expresión, o cualquier otro tipo de libertad.
Sea que defienda o ataque la libertad de expresión, o cualquier otro tipo de libertad.
El antídoto para
no cometer excesos, y tomar decisiones correctas, es uno y solo uno, parece decirnos este sabio
profesor, y se llama reflexión filosófica
la cual se ha de llevar acabo solo, no en masa.
lmp
OoO
(*) The moral hysteria of Je
suis charlie
I read this on a blog yesterday; it
is a version of a claim that has been made over and over again in the
last couple of days, lionising Charlie Hebdo: “In its cartoons, Charlie
Hebdo did not discriminate. The magazine lampooned all and sundry in its
cartoons: racists, bigots, right-wing politicians, the uber-rich, Judaism,
Christianity, Islam, and more.” And what does ‘more’ include? More to the
point: what does it not include? Did they, for example, lampoon journalists
who, in the name of freedom of expression, mock Muslims and Jews regardless of
the consequences? Did they, in other words, ever satirize themselves?
Apparently Charlie Hebdo has announced it will produce a million copies of its
next issue. Will this issue ridicule the scenes of mourning and solemn
demonstrations on the grand boulevards of Paris, poking fun at people who
raised pens skyward and lit candles in the dark? And why not? Nothing is
sacred. Wouldn’t this be just the kind of outrageous act, defying convention
and challenging popular ideas of decency, that puts freedom of expression
to the test?
Here is a thought experiment: Suppose that
while the demonstrators stood solemnly at Place de la Republique the other
night, holding up their pens and wearing their “je suis charlie” badges, a man
stepped out in front brandishing a water pistol and wearing a badge that
said “je suis cherif” (the first name of one of the two brothers who gunned
down the Charlie Hebdo staff). Suppose he was carrying a placard with a cartoon
depicting the editor of the magazine lying in a pool of blood, saying, “Well
I’ll be a son of a gun!” or “You’ve really blown me away!” or some such
witticism. How would the crowd have reacted? Would they have laughed?
Would they have applauded this gesture as quintessentially French? Would they
have seen this lone individual as a hero, standing up for liberty and freedom
of speech? Or would they have been profoundly offended? And infuriated. And
then what? Perhaps many of them would have denounced the offender,
screaming imprecations at him. Some might have thrown their pens at him. One or
two individuals — two brothers perhaps — might have raced towards him and
(cheered on by the crowd) attacked him with their fists, smashing his head
against the ground. All in the name of freedom of expression. He would
have been lucky to get away with his life.
Masses of people have turned the victims of a
horrific assassination (which the staff of the magazine truly are) into heroes
of France and free speech. The point of the thought experiment is not to show
that such people are hypocrites. Rather, it is to suggest that they don’t
know their own minds. They see themselves as committed to the proposition that
there are no limits to freedom of expression: no subject so sensitive, no
symbol so sacrosanct, that it cannot be sent up, sneered at and parodied,
consequences be damned. They call this “courage” and they think it is the
defining difference between them and the killers – and not just the killers but
anyone who thinks there are limits to what can be said or printed. But they too
have their limits. They just don’t know it.
When people don’t know their own minds — but
think they do — they are liable to be swept away by self-righteous moral
passion; which is just what we don’t need as the storm clouds gather on the
European horizon.
About Brian Klug
Brian Klug is senior research fellow in philosophy
at St Benet's Hall, Oxford and member of the Faculty of Philosophy at Oxford
University. He is an honorary fellow in the Parkes Institute for the Study of
Jewish/non-Jewish Relations at the University of Southampton, associate editor
of Patterns of Prejudice and a co-founder of Independent Jewish Voices (UK).
http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/moral-hysteria-charlie#sthash.1WN8hU0f.dpuf
