Hi Guys! This week I will be talking about a different perspective then that of Mill's when it comes to politics, specifically free speech and democracy, and it would be that of Stanley Fish. Before we get into that, one very interesting trend that I have observed throughout my project, is that I often do not read a piece that is directly related to my topic, but instead I read something different, usually about civil liberties and politics, and then we create an analogy between that and my research question. The primary reason for this is because most philosophers directly relate knowledge and actionability, and that makes perfect sense. I mean, what's the point of knowing something if you can't do anything with that newly acquired knowledge, right? Instead, I am trying to steer away from that, to find more interesting and diverse theories on the subject, and Fish's theory will interest you.
As a refresher, Mill's theory when it came to free speech was that governments should allow all speech so long as nobody is harmed directly by that speech, which is almost everything. Fish, on the other hand, takes a more conservative approach, in that he believes speech should only be limited if it is incompatible with the structure of the specific society itself. For example, if hate speech limits the possible advancements of a democratic society, then it should be prohibited. Fish's asks the question "Is there anything gained or lost by prohibiting a certain form of speech?" Depending on the answer to that question, then speech will either be kept or prohibited. This is a much more practical approach, as it does not rely on broad philosophical conclusions, but rather what the society believes it needs at a specific point in time. For example, Fish believes that speech should be limited within environments such as the military, where the primary values are 'hierarchy' and 'authority'. So any form of speech that goes against authority and hierarchy should be removed according to Fish. Another example is that a teacher is limited to what they can say during a class or lecture, but those limits go away when in the comfortable environment of the home.
Now, if we were to create an analogy between Fish's ideas and my research question, then it is possible that the limits of what knowledge we can deem necessary changes with the underlying values of both the setting as well as the individual. This isn't necessarily true, but it is certainly an interesting theory to reflect upon.
Anyways, that is all for this week! Please comment on what you guys think or if you have any theories, go ahead and tell me about them! See you guys next week!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBy adding considerations like free speech and hate speech to your project, you are adding a new sense to the word "necessary" in your research question, "What types of knowledge are necessary?" The original sense of "necessary" was, I take it, "something we need to know." By adding free speech to your project, the word "necessary" comes to mean "something we need to allow." If this is intentional on your part and you don't think it broadens your topic too much, make sure you distinguish between the different senses of the word in your paper and presentation.
ReplyDeleteAnother consideration: Who gets to define "hate speech"? What if those in power, or those of a particular political persuasion, define the term in such a way as to include any dissent or disagreement with their ethical views or core ideology? (The SPLC has been accused of doing this very thing.) It seems like we need a robust and concise definition of this term to prevent its misuse.
Thank you Mr. Lambert! I agree and I will certainly have to make the distinction during my presentation. Hate speech is a broad term too, and the line between 'normal' speech and hate speech is often very blurred.
DeleteI have noticed Fish's perspective on speech in different environments in my life. Knowldege can definitely be more valid in some environments and situations than others. So Mill's theory would be more useful in small groups, as its easier to dictate what is directly harmful and Fish's in broader societies.
ReplyDeleteHi Ziba! Why would Mill's be useful in small groups? I believed he meant his theory to be on a societal level, but no society did that because it didn't seem practical.
DeleteCool. Learning about Fish's theory was interesting. What other circumstances would affect what information would be learned?
ReplyDeleteHi Aditya! Age is another factor that would do just this!
DeleteHey Liam. There seems to be an apparent difference in both philosophies. Is there any middle ground on the knowledge needed to be known.
ReplyDeleteHi Akash! Very good question! Unfortunately, I do not know one as of now, but I will certainly do some research into it.
DeleteHi Liam. I really love the in depth look on knowledge, along with Mill's work. I like how you related politics and knowledge to create a common ground.
ReplyDeleteThanks Cole!
DeleteHi Liam! I think your analysis of Fisher and Mills is really interesting. It's so fascinating to see how the validity and appropriateness of knowledge can really differ depending on what situation one is in.
ReplyDeleteThank you Nicole!
DeleteHey Liam! It was interesting to read about how different Fish's and Mill's theories are about free speech. Judging by the US's current political climate, to what extent do you think these theories work? Great post!
ReplyDeleteHi Urmi! The U.S. is one of the only countries to allow hate speech, whereas other countries, such as Canada, will prohibit certain forms of it. As to whether this works or not, I believe it does.
DeleteHi Liam! I think that Fish's theory is a lot more practical than Mill's. It allows speech to be limited based on the context, which is necessary in some scenarios. However, I was a bit confused on your analogy between Fish's theory and your question. Are you saying that the knowledge available to be learned should be limited based on the situation? What is an example of such a situation? Best of luck with the rest of your research!
ReplyDeleteHi Nicolas! A perfect example would be with a profession, as there is so much to be learned within a field, but only so much you need to know to perform your job correctly.
DeleteI can imagine that Fish's theory would be much more controversial than Mill's. With Fish's approach, I would imagine that those in power could structure what a society's values are, and as a result, limit the knowledge that is available to its' citizens or people. How do you think Fish would respond to this argument?
ReplyDeleteHi Ms. Conner! I think it would actually be the other way around. We do use Fish's approach more often within our own society and it seems to work well. Mill on the other hand is extremely liberal, a characteristic few governments have.
DeleteIt's cool to see differing views and your take on them. Seems like you relate more with Fish than Mill. Do you think there are any other factors to consider with Fish's ideas other than setting?
ReplyDeleteHi Luke! Yes there are other factors, such as age, as well as your profession.
DeleteIt's really cool to see your project progress like this. Overall, do you feel like your project has progressed the way you like it? Or has there been many unexpected problems along the way?
ReplyDeleteHi Adam! Overall, I think my project progressed in a way I hadn't even thought of. I have researched more directly into civil rights and politics than I did knowledge, and I wasn't aware that I would do that nor that I could do that.
Delete