Week 7: Fish

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!