free speech in a plural society

free speech in a plural society - free speech in a plural...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
free speech in a plural society eurozine conference of european cultural magazines , london, 27 october 2006 What should be the limits of free speech in a plural society? It is a question that has been asked with increasing urgency over the past few years. Ten years ago, when I last addressed a Eurozine conference, the question had a certain academic quality to it, the controversy over The Satanic Verses notwithstanding. The events of the past decade - from 9/11 to the riots in France, from the London and Madrid bombings to the fury over the publication of the Muhammed cartoons in Jyllands-Posten - have transformed the debate about multiculturalism and made it all too murderously real. They have also transformed liberal opinion. Twenty years ago most liberals defended Salman Rushdie's right to publish The Satanic Verses despite the offence it caused many Muslims. Today, many liberals argue that whatever may appear to be right in principle, in practice one must appease religious and cultural sensibilities because such sensibilities are so deeply felt. As Ian Jack, editor of Granta magazine has said of the pictorial depiction of Muhammed, one must weigh 'the individual's right to exhibit or publish one' with 'the immeasurable insult. .. that the exercise of such a right would cause'. And for liberals such as Jack, the avoidance of cultural pain is, in a multicultural society, more important than what they consider to be the abstract right to freedom of expression. Part of the problem with this whole debate is that both sides conflate two distinct notions of multiculturalism - multiculturalism as lived experience and multiculturalism as a political process. When most people say that multiculturalism is a good thing what they mean is the experience of living in a society that is less insular, less homogenous, more vibrant and cosmopolitan than before. In other words it's a case for cultural diversity, mass immigration, open borders and open minds. Those who advocate multiculturalism as a political process are, however, talking about something different. Multiculturalism, they argue, requires the public recognition and affirmation of cultural differences. We live in a world, so the argument runs, in which there are deep-seated conflicts between cultures embodying different values, many of which are incommensurate but all of which are valid in their own context. Social justice requires not just that individuals are treated as political equals, but also that their cultural beliefs are treated as equally valid, and indeed are institutionalised in the public sphere. As the American scholar Iris Young puts it 'groups cannot be socially equal unless their specific experience, culture and social contributions are publicly affirmed and recognised'. This conflation of lived experience and political process has proved highly invidious. On
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 5

free speech in a plural society - free speech in a plural...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online