Against intellectual disarmament

If one was to summarise the intellectual flavour of the first twenty years of this newest century in one word, it would be: ‘disarmament’. What one saw in the last two decades (at least theoretically speaking - my fully-fledged consciousness was not around for almost half of the period) was a final and definite surrender by the intellectual layers of the society of their authority, and ability to introduce discipline to social and individual life. By the awkward-sounding ‘intellectual layers’, I mean not the ‘upper classes’ but a much broader, generationally-determined group of ‘the older ones’.

‘The older ones’, having in their lives gradually learned of all the horrors human beings are capable of doing to others, having seen the abrupt end of most unjust societal segregation, and having lived through the period of complete liberation, have largely decided that the position that ‘the older ones’ traditionally occupied in any community should simply cease to exist. After all, ‘the older ones’ always got almost everything wrong - they killed, segregated, and imprisoned. After all, there is no shortage of wicked, seriously bad people corrupting the youth in history. After all, nobody likes ‘Peter Pan’s’ Aunt Millicent, or any other ‘uncool’ and stale conservative.

The ability to exercise power, and a sentiment for discipline and authority being all thrown up in the air, then, or rather left laid down in the corner, did not simply vanish there like a bad dream. The previous generations seemed to seriously believe that all these - power, and the abuse of it, and all other weapons, were merely mistakes of theirs and previous generations, mistakes which their children would (at last) not repeat. But, lo and behold, with heavy authoritarian-like artillery hidden somewhere under the bed, the new little messiahs, with no parental control (why, ‘control’ is such an ugly world) have with no hesitation crawled under the bed and out with all that their parents threw away with disgust in their disarmament.

Or, in other words: the liberal attitude as well as the conviction that the abuse of power was far away in the dark corners of history, and that power itself was what corrupted the past, the second half of the twentieth century has created a power-vacuum, later filled by those always most eager for power (‘the power to change the world’) - the youth.

It is not, therefore, at all surprising that recently the Student Union of the University of Oxford postulated for a removal of ‘hateful material’ from mandatory teaching.* The University has responded, unexpectedly however, with a firm statement which can be summed up successfully by just its first sentence: ‘Free speech is the lifeblood of a university.’

Yes, well, ‘no biggie’ as they say. Even if one does not agree with the postulate of the student body, these are a small minority of radicals, surely. And the university, well, as an establishment almost a thousand years old, did what was expected, made its case, and made it, so far, successfully. Right?

Well, no.

It is not, unfortunately, surprising that the SU has voted in favour of trigger warnings and limiting the reading list to only the ‘correct’ literature (28 for, 11 against, and 10 abstentions). I was not surprised, and nobody was. I doubt, however, that the same proportion of students, when asked privately, would have signed a declaration like that, if given one. Yet the students in the SU were elected by someone, and not really opposed in any substantive manner. As far as we all know, nobody consulted a broader sample of students about the issue. And yet we voted for these people. What I am getting at is that the victories of the more left-leaning students result not from their outnumbering the rest but from the rest giving up their power.

For the same reason, it is surprising and admirable that the University has taken such a strong stance against the attempt to nibble at the edifice of academia and, one could argue, the Western way of life, which is freedom of speech. A barely countable number of colleges in the United States have already surrendered to the voices of left-leaning student bodies, creating ‘safe spaces’, issuing ‘trigger warnings’, and even firing academics. So yes, it is ‘a biggie’ that Oxford has taken such a firm stance in defence of free speech. The establishment proved to still grasp the importance of its power.

But it is not at all obvious why one should defend freedom of speech, at least not as obvious as why one should fight against the ‘oppression’ that freedom can cause. The recognition that freedom is difficult is obvious. The strive of human beings to get rid of difficulties is obvious. In the same way, laziness is obvious, safety is obvious, comfort is obvious, obviousness is obvious. Indeed, if one’s starting point is that words can be genuinely ‘harmful’ and endanger the ‘safety’ of a person spoken to, and that any idea which puts a person in a critical light is the same as ‘hate’, it is merely a logical conclusion that (‘the dangerous’) freedom of speech should be restricted. It is not obvious why one should look beyond that. Beyond comfort, and beyond ‘safety’.

In the short term, to avoid discomfort is clearly preferable - again, obvious. What requires justification is then, why momentary discomfort is sometimes preferable, why, speaking more broadly, such things as discipline and growth, are important. Primarily, it requires a broader perspective. It requires not just a perspective of today, when one reads a book that one does not like or is even personally offended by some other person. It requires more than a day-long perspective, or even a whole week of that unpleasant experience, but the perspective of the rest of one’s life. In other words: If the price for an enriching experience, to be preserved for the rest of one’s life is a day of feeling very bad because of something someone said, is it worth it? I think it is.

The language which now floods the public discourse - the above mentioned ‘hate’, and ‘ensuring safety’, and creating ‘safe spaces’ is exactly the ‘language of short term’, the instant, poorly-reflected-upon impulse which, because it is an impulse wins with any attempt to provide a counter-argument. Because to think of a counter-argument you need more time. Because to think you need more time.

‘More time’ is a thousand years, for example, and that is precisely why the University of Oxford, still not dominated, like many other academic institutions, by the ‘instanthink’ of the left, was able to issue the response that it did. Because it is one of the examples of the so-resented ‘establishment’ which simply takes more into account than whether its students will feel bad when reading some book. It is an example of the establishment not giving up its intellectual power - because it is precisely when the establishment intellectually disarms, that the arms are taken up by people who have no idea how to use them.

Although this week’s example ​n'est pas très grave,​ academia (yes, perhaps even thousand-year-old universities) is eroding in its intellectual courage. No example will illustrate it better than a look at the state of college campuses in the US. And the people who do not waver in their defence of the principles of freedom, ‘the horrible, old-fashioned men, with their tweed and all’, will sadly not go with us into the future. The men of principles pass away quickly, and even quicker now when it is almost fashionable to dismiss them as horrible ‘white males’. The only hope, then, is in the Tories.

Well, not quite, not just the Tories.

The only hope is in those who, even though not yet old and cranky, know well the value of discipline and of going for what is more rewarding in the long-term. The hope is in those who approach the establishment critically but do not seek to revolutionise, or abolish it. The hope is in those clever enough to realise that even though we still face the monsters of the past, the recipe is not to jump into the abyss of the future. The hope, as always when a radical minority has started dictating the terms, is in those not afraid to speak up and remind us to be wise, and think. The hope is not in those who want disarmament, but in those who want responsible people to carry the weapons.

* All information about the Student Council’s proceedings in this matter come from Emily Charley’s reporting for the Oxford Student: ‘Remove “Hateful Material” From Mandatory Teaching, Says SU Council‘ - https://www.oxfordstudent.com/2020/05/01/remove-hateful-material-from-mandatory-teaching-says-su-council/ - (accessed 5 May 2020)

Stanislaw Szelag is a first year reading Theology and Religion at St. John’s College