This paper is an attempt at briefly examining
certain thoughts regarding plurality and liberalism.
The modern 21st Century post-industrial globalized world is increasingly and acceleratingly transforming into a community fighting the good fight for freedom of expression and the natural acceptability in society of opinion plurality on all issues. The conquests of this world view are presented under the liberalist banner. The ideology, the use and scope of which is limited to freedom of thought and expression for the purposes of this paper, encourages operation under a ‘laissez –faire’ style and argues, ardently, that an individual has a right to believe what they choose to believe and the absolute freedom to voice and express it. At first glance, it seems we have reached the social equilibrium, the optimum social attitude ensuring debate and hence discoursing, and guaranteeing freedom and liberty. And in theory, so it may be. However, its implications in terms of how it plays out must be problematized and viewed in the context of its actual social application in order to develop a complex understanding about the way it manifests itself and impacts communities.
A Professor of Political Science at LUMS claimed that modernity is the most narrow minded and exclusive ‘civilization’ in the history of man, in that it is absolutely unaccepting of ideas and civilizations that challenge its premises, need or positive valence. Liberalism, in a way, is quite similar, even if not as a structure, as a system comprising human agency. In other words, even if it may not have been manufactured to be such or intended to play out as such, it is observed in many cases that individuals associating with liberal ideas assume a moral high ground and monopolize ethicality while championing freedom. It is interesting, however, that in that endeavor, a simultaneous derogatory and hostile demeanor is on display towards those who remain unswayed by the winds of change. In certain less moderate scenarios, this assumption is cemented to the extent that non-liberal ideas are dismissed in strong words and holistically denied credibility. In certain even lesser moderate scenarios, actions are taken to block the propagation of non-liberal views and the champions of freedom refuse to except anything to the contrary as a worthwhile opinion deserving a thoughtful or considerate ear. The irony. Last year, a student in a top-tier Pakistani university was asked to leave the classroom and to un-enroll themselves from the course because they voiced an opinion that severely offended the teacher. The student had expressed a claim irreconcilable with the worldview of the instructor. They had argued that perhaps freedom of expression had its drawbacks. The irony.
The modern 21st Century post-industrial globalized world is increasingly and acceleratingly transforming into a community fighting the good fight for freedom of expression and the natural acceptability in society of opinion plurality on all issues. The conquests of this world view are presented under the liberalist banner. The ideology, the use and scope of which is limited to freedom of thought and expression for the purposes of this paper, encourages operation under a ‘laissez –faire’ style and argues, ardently, that an individual has a right to believe what they choose to believe and the absolute freedom to voice and express it. At first glance, it seems we have reached the social equilibrium, the optimum social attitude ensuring debate and hence discoursing, and guaranteeing freedom and liberty. And in theory, so it may be. However, its implications in terms of how it plays out must be problematized and viewed in the context of its actual social application in order to develop a complex understanding about the way it manifests itself and impacts communities.
A Professor of Political Science at LUMS claimed that modernity is the most narrow minded and exclusive ‘civilization’ in the history of man, in that it is absolutely unaccepting of ideas and civilizations that challenge its premises, need or positive valence. Liberalism, in a way, is quite similar, even if not as a structure, as a system comprising human agency. In other words, even if it may not have been manufactured to be such or intended to play out as such, it is observed in many cases that individuals associating with liberal ideas assume a moral high ground and monopolize ethicality while championing freedom. It is interesting, however, that in that endeavor, a simultaneous derogatory and hostile demeanor is on display towards those who remain unswayed by the winds of change. In certain less moderate scenarios, this assumption is cemented to the extent that non-liberal ideas are dismissed in strong words and holistically denied credibility. In certain even lesser moderate scenarios, actions are taken to block the propagation of non-liberal views and the champions of freedom refuse to except anything to the contrary as a worthwhile opinion deserving a thoughtful or considerate ear. The irony. Last year, a student in a top-tier Pakistani university was asked to leave the classroom and to un-enroll themselves from the course because they voiced an opinion that severely offended the teacher. The student had expressed a claim irreconcilable with the worldview of the instructor. They had argued that perhaps freedom of expression had its drawbacks. The irony.
What I am hoping to argue, is the importance, and
more than the importance, the absolutely essential need, of a global community
as complex as ours and a society as divided on so many issues as Pakistan, to
be tolerant. Tolerance does not mean the forgoing of critique or the absence of
dissent. It does not mean that we seize being the ‘right person’ and refuse to
call out the good in the good and the bad in the bad. But it does mean, that we
acknowledge the existence of perspectives other than our own, even in scenarios
where they may seem berserk and obscure, even perverted. Whether to allow the
right to a voice to all such opinions is a different discussion. What I am also
hoping to inspire is a recognition that extremes exist on either side of the
continuum and it is important to value that. It is important to value that when
we view somebody as a fundamentalist, from where the individual stands, we
appear to be the exact same thing, just in a different way.
What I am arguing here is the realization that there
are people who are different, and even where rights and wrongs do exist in
absolute terms in a space devoid of relativity and opinions, people don’t deserve
to be treated derogatorily due to their opinions, no matter how ardently we may
disagree with the opinions which they hold and
worldviews to which they subscribe. Individuals must be separated from their
actions and their opinions, not in a sense of accountability structures, but in
the way in which that results in their treatment from other social agents. Opinions
may be despised, ideologies academically torn apart, but their holders should
not be disrespected by us for ascribing to them. That is the essence of the
liberal ideology.
When a ‘liberal’
chastises an individual for their ‘conservative’ opinions, they seize being
liberal. When somebody says ‘Kill all those extremists living in the North,’ they
are themselves being extreme. When somebody analyses that a certain social sub
segment is very judgmental of others who choose to live differently and paints
the entire ‘other’ (out-group) population with the same brush, in essence that
is exactly what the person making this claim is doing: painting that particular
social group with one brush and judging the opinions of the ‘out-group’ with a broad
generalization.
Perspectives are important. Not all are correct. Not all deserve respect. But people are more than their perspectives. And not all people are correct. But all people deserve to be loved regardless of their opinions and perspectives. All people deserve respect.
No comments:
Post a Comment