Category Archives: Rationalism

For more than 20 years, writer and broadcaster Jon Ronson has been exploring the darker and odder corners of contemporary society. His latest podcast series, Things Fell Apart, goes back three or four decades to find the origin stories for our current vicious culture wars in the words of some of the key protagonists: a film-maker who kick-started the modern anti-abortion movement; the radio host who ignited a moral panic about satanic child abuse; a transgender women thrown out of a feminist music festival. We spoke ahead of his trip to Dublin to present a live version of the podcast.

What is a culture war?

The best definition I read was the battle for dominance over conflicting values. It tends to stay away from economic matters. The first two great culture wars of the modern era were about diversity of thought in school textbooks and about abortion . . . Whats so interesting about the latter is how the Christian right were manipulated into being anti-abortion. After Roe v Wade, it was only the Roman Catholics who were protesting quite quietly and peacefully outside clinics. The Christian right were ambivalent, pro-choice even. And this weird father and son, through a very odd set of circumstances, manipulated Christian evangelists into being anti-abortion. Its such a fascinating and unexpected story.

Arguments over abortion are something were familiar with in Ireland. You can draw a direct political line from the original Roe v Wade decision to what happened with our own Eighth Amendment. But the stories you describe are all American. Are the culture wars essentially American?

There were a few British stories I could have done. But it struck me that, when Christian evangelists were prodded into becoming warriors in the early 1970s in America, and from that came the rise of Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority, the escalation of conflict on both sides that followed on from that all took place in America. Those were the pebbles thrown into the pond and thats what I was looking for. The ripples were what then happened in Europe and everywhere else, but the pebbles did seem to be American stories.

Jon Ronson: Is there something inherent about the way that we live on the internet that is doing something to our brains thats very new and destructive?

The way America inhabits our consciousness now is of a different order from what it was 30 or 40 years ago. I was always drawn to America. Ive always been drawn to mystery. I went to Broadmoor for [his book] The Psychopath Test, to what used to be called the Broadmoor Asylum for the Criminally Insane this is in England, of course and I turned to a nurse and I said, God, I feel so lucky to be in Broadmoor. The nurse looked at me like I was nuts and said, Well, weve got some spare beds if you like. Thats how I feel when I go to America. But also, of course, we do live in their world. We live in the world that Trump created, we live in the world that the tech utopians created, the libertarians, the culture warriors.

And theres a sense that their present is our future.

Well, they often say it starts in California, moves to the east coast and then moves to Europe.

One of the most moving and positive of the stories that you tell involves Tammy Faye Bakker. It has a happy ending, which many of the others dont, and it comes across as a cri de cur for empathy.

Tammy Faye Bakker was a televangelist who was kind of troubled. She had anxiety issues. She had a drug dependency. The other televangelists would mock and ridicule her and so shed put a load of make-up on as a suit of armour and then theyd tell her she looked like a French whore. So shed put on even more make-up. She was spiralling. Her peer group were very homophobic. Jerry Falwell convinced Ronald Reagan to not say the word Aids in public for four years. But because they were bullying and mocking Tammy and she felt so alone, she found herself identifying more with the objects of their scorn. And so, one day in 1985, on her little TV show, Tammys House Party, which was an afternoon chat show for Christian housewives, she invited a gay pastor with full-blown Aids onto the show. What happened next was . . . I called the episode A Miracle, because it was nothing short of a miracle.

I did find my eyes were getting a little moist by the end.

Me too. I would get emails from people saying, I was driving up the M6 and I had to pull over because I was crying so hard.

That story centres on a TV evangelist. Another one is about a a film-maker. Theres one about an actor, another that starts off with a talk radio host. One happens at a music festival and theres another one about an online comedian. So, when we talk about the culture wars, is that because everything thats fought out now in the public sphere has blurred into or is indistinguishable from entertainment?

I never noticed that connection between the different protagonists of the show until you just said it and youre absolutely right. Yeah, theres a dysfunctional relationship between these different power bodies. When it comes to social media and the mainstream media, it was so interesting, when Twitter started, your namesake, Graham Linehan, was the person who got me into Twitter. He said this was 2008 Youve got to join Twitter, its the place where no one fights.

Thats Graham banned by Twitter Linehan.

Yes. But back in 2008, we couldnt have imagined what would happen. I think the mainstream media first thought, Oh, well just ignore it and it will go away. And then it didnt go away, so then the mainstream thought, Well control it. Well do these articles on who are the 10 best tweeters in the media. That was the snake coming into the Garden of Eden, because suddenly it became performative. And then, when when social media completely outsmarted and beat the mainstream media, the mainstream became like the nerdy kid in the school playground, sucking up to the school bully. As journalists were supposed to be fearless, but when we saw people getting torn apart on social media, we shut up. We didnt say anything, because we were scared. Which is the opposite of the bravery journalists are supposed to display.

Although a lot of your stories begin before the internet.

Yes.

I have a theory, which is that the digital age actually began in the 1970s and the 1980s with the invention of cable and satellite TV, and thats the point where you get this collision between the 60s social revolution and a counter-revolutionary backlash, with this media revolution also happening.

And that thing I was just talking about before, about how the mainstream media was sucking up to the new media, that was also happening in the 70s and the 80s with the satanic panic. Christian radio stations were doing these stories about how people were getting kidnapped and made to take part in satanic ceremonies and how satanists had taken over day-care centres. All this nonsense. But it didnt stay on Christian radio. CNN started doing shows about it. So once again the mainstream media saw something brewing that was full of conflict and dizziness and destabilisation and lunacy and thought, Oh, we can use that.

The satanic panic episode is fascinating, because it doesnt map easily to the binary of the culture wars that we have now. You talk to a teacher who was falsely accused and wrongly convicted of the most terrible abuse of children, none of which had happened.

The thing that I found most interesting about that is the people who piled in on this woman in the early 80s, Kelly Michaels, they werent rural right-wing Christians from a southern state who you might imagine would believe in these crazy satanic ideas. These were progressives. This was an upmarket part of New Jersey, a nice part of town. Theyre the ones who believed it, just like quite often on social media when somebody gets piled in on for something they didnt do, the instigators are progressives. They could be well-educated, they can be wealthy. It just shows that no one is immune to irrational thoughts that lead us into ruining peoples lives.

I do wonder whos winning the culture wars.

Well, Id say the ultimate winners are the tech billionaires, these libertarian utopians. Whoever wins or loses the actual war itself, they win whatever happens.

And who are the losers?

To be honest, right now Id say that the left are doing worse than the right. The left had an excellent run with #MeToo and Black Lives Matter and the new diversity in the culture. Im very glad, by the way, to have lived through that period. I love the fact that movies now arent just white people . . . But you see with the backlash of Joe Rogan, Elon Musk and Jordan Peterson, the pendulum has swung in the other direction, people have sort of been manipulated and propagandised. They now all see the left as these awful people who just want to ruin your life if you say something slightly wrong. And everybody has to be gender-fluid and all these sorts of clichs. But I think theyve been manipulated into being more fearful and more angry than they should be. I would say that the Rogans and the Musks are now winning.

There can sometimes be a lazy equivalence drawn between both sides, but the anti-rationalism and anti-enlightenment position of the far right is also visible on the extremes of the progressive left.

Obviously you always have to be careful about both-sidesing things because of the possibility of false equivalence, but also, both-sidesing something has become so unfashionable because people do it for bad reasons that those of us who actually think its kind of an interesting thing to do, we have to tread carefully. But yeah, I agree with what you just said. The other thing is that the average age of a QAnon devotee is like 40 to 60, so theyre the ones who are going to start the civil war, then at least theyre all pretty old.

Most western societies are getting old. Old people banging angrily on their computers is essentially whats driving our politics.

Yeah, exactly. Luckily at least theyre not going to take to the streets quite as much if theyre 60, so thats one bit of good news.

Youre unlikely to have 70-year-old brownshirts.

Right, exactly. So, I personally think that all this talk about impending civil war is overblown, but I do think theres a danger of making it happen. My next story, in fact, Im working on now is about this topic.

Racism is obviously a hotter topic in America than it is here but its a hot topic everywhere.

Yes.

You talked to Robin di Angelo, an extremely controversial figure in the US. Shes at the centre of this argument over what the right call critical race theory (CRT), although the left says CRT is something else entirely. Essentially its addressing concepts such as implicit bias, inherent structural racism and white privilege. You interviewed her and I thought it was interesting you seemed sympathetic to some of what she had to say and less so to other parts.

It was no mean feat to make a big series about the culture wars and not elicit much controversy, but the one thing I got criticised for was that people thought I was a little bit too soft on Robin di Angelo. And I think the reason why is because all the things you just said implicit bias, systemic racism those things really do exist. To say that they dont is blinding yourself to the possibility of learning more about how the world works and also of making things a little bit better. Thats why I agree with her about that stuff. What I disagree with is. . . well, two things, actually. Firstly I think she would want people to be ashamed and to learn from that shame. Im not sure I agree with wanting people to have such negative emotions. The other thing, going back to the civil war question, is that when she talks about implicit bias, unconscious racism, I think those are really good points. [But] when people talk about how the radical right in America are driven by racism and racism is their main agenda, I think history and evidence shows thats not true, actually.

A rally against critical race theory being taught in schools in Leesburg, Virginia. Photograph: Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images

Is this all a superimposition of ideas which are rooted in very specific parts of American history and an attempt to universalise them in an almost quasi-religious way? This sense of guilt, that everyone or every white person has original sin. That does have a quasi-religious element to it.

I agree. If youre born with white privilege, thats it, theres nothing you can do because you just have to try and make amends. That feels pretty religious to me.

And the other part, which you mention in your interview, is that if you define everybody by their race and by the guilt which they bear, youre inviting an intensified sense of identity and opposition based on racial identity from the very people youre trying to convert.

I think thats true. I mean ultimately identity politics just turns people away from each other. Its not a place where I want to be. I want to be in a place where everybody treats each other with curiosity and empathy and humanity and compassion. Identity politics is all about tribalism, withdrawing from each other, grievance. Saying all of that, I feel Ive learned a lot from the left these past four or five years. #Metoo and Black Lives Matter, all of those things, have taught me a lot. You can see the positives but also identify the fact that theres some real negatives.

Theres a line in the introduction to the podcast: During these last few years, Jon has watched friends get caught up in the online culture wars to such a degree that theyve lost everything, their careers, their wellbeing.

Ive sat here and just watched it unfold on social media. People losing everything. Successful writers get too involved in a particular culture war and the next thing they know theyve lost their family, theyve lost their reputation, theyve lost their livelihood. I dont know, are they the canaries in the coalmine? Are we all going to go that way? Is there something inherent about the way that we live on the internet that is doing something to our brains thats very new and destructive? That was the question and then I thought: how will I tell that story? The answer I came up with is Im going to go back to the beginning and tell origin stories to see how we got this way, how we ended up here.

Jon Ronson brings Things Fell Apart to Liberty Hall Theatre, Dublin on June 10th. singularartists.ie

He will be at the Festival of Writing & Ideas, Borris House, Carlow, on June 11th and 12th. festivalofwritingandideas.com

This is an edited transcript of an episode of the Irish Times Inside Politics podcast. Listen to the full conversation at irishtimes.com/podcasts

Read the original post:

Jon Ronson: In 2008 Graham Linehan told me 'Join Twitter, the place where no one fights' - The Irish Times

Looking back on the Middle Ages, who are the most important people of this era? Here is a list of men and women that were influential in medieval times and who forged an enduring legacy. They include leaders, scholars, writers and warriors.

To create this list, we have deliberately chosen to have five people from each century between the sixth and fifteenth this ensures that we are not just choosing people from later periods, but gives a more balanced look at the whole of the Middle Ages. Here are our fifty entries (which actually covers 52 people) for the most important individuals from the medieval world.

Clovis I King of the Franks (c.466 511)

As the Western Roman Empire crumbled in the fifth century, new powers would emerge in Europe. A Frankish leader named Clovis would be one of the most important figures in this era, first uniting his people, then conquering neighbours to create a state that spread over much of France, the Low Countries, and western Germany.

Clovis was not only the founder of the Merovingian Dynasty, which would rule for another 250 years, but he also converted (along with his people) to Roman Catholicism, which helped to establish that form of Christianity in Western Europe. As Katherine Scherman observed, Clovis was a consummately successful king, the author of Frankish supremacy and a founder of modern France.

Boethius Roman official and philosopher (c. 477 524)

A Roman politician and official, Boethius had made a name for himself as a writer. However, it would be his final work that would make him famous he would be unjustly imprisoned by Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths, and while awaiting his execution, Boethius would write The Consolation of Philosophy, a text on the philosophy of faith and reason. It would become the most important work in philosophy during the Middle Ages, and continues to be widely read around the world. Among his words is:

Balance out the good things and the bad that have happened in your life and you will have to acknowledge that you are still way ahead. You are unhappy because you have lost those things in which you took pleasure? But you can also take comfort in the likelihood that what is now making you miserable will also pass away.

Benedict of Nursia Italian monk (480 548)

When people think of the Middle Ages, monks and nuns often come to the top of mind. Christian monastic institutions were important and powerful places in both Europe and the Middle East, centres of learning and religion. Benedict of Nursia was a key person in the rise of monasteries, for he wrote the Rule of Saint Benedict in 516. This text offered a guide and rules on how monasteries should be run and how those who took monastic vows should live. Widely used, even today, it would help Benedict be regarded as the Patron Saint of Europe.

Justinian I Byzantine emperor (482 565)

The Byzantine emperor from 527 to 565, Justinians reign would mark a revival of the Byzantine Empire. Militarily, the Byzantine armies would see conquests in the Middle East, North Africa and Italy, expanding the empire significantly. Just as importantly, his government did a major rewrite of Roman law codes, and much of this has endured in the civil law of many countries today. Meanwhile Constantinople, the Byzantine capital, with the impressive church of Hagia Sophia, would become one of the most important cities of the medieval world.

Justinians rule had its supporters and detractors, including the contemporary writer Procopius, who presented us with two versions of the emperor. In one work he praises the emperor for taking over the State when it was harassed by disorder, has not only made it greater in extent, but also much more illustrious, but in another calls Justinian out for being deceitful, devious, false, hypocritical, two-faced, cruel, skilled in dissembling his thought, never moved to tears by either joy or pain, though he could summon them artfully at will when the occasion demanded, a liar always, not only offhand, but in writing, and when he swore sacred oaths to his subjects in their very hearing.

Khosrow I Sassanid emperor (c.512 579)

The challenge of the growing Byzantine Empire would be met by Khosrow I, the Sasanian King of Kings of Iran from 531 to 579. Under his reign, the Sassanids pushed the Byzantines back, and this empire would grow to dominate the Middle East. Khosrow, considered to be a Philosopher King, helped to make Iran a cultural and economic power, and even though the Sassanids would fall in the following century, their legacy would carry on into the Islamic world.

Pope Gregory I (c.540 604)

One of only three popes to be nicknamed The Great, Gregorius Anicius was selected for the Papacy in 590 and would drastically reform and improve its administration. He is remembered for the missionizing activities carried out in parts of Europe to convert peoples to Christianity, and for refocusing the Churchs charitable efforts. Gregory I is now considered one of the most important figures in Papal history.

Shtoku Taishi Japanese prince (574 622)

Although he never became emperor, this prince is often considered to be the founder of the Japanese nation. Serving as de facto ruler of the country between 593 and 622, Shtoku was instrumental in creating a centralized government for Japan, bringing in the religion of Buddhism, and establishing connections with China. It is from him that Japan would be called the Land of the Rising Sun.

Muhammad Islamic religious figure (570 632)

Perhaps the most important person on this list, Muhammad ibn Abdullah was the founder of the religion of Islam. According to this faith, he was a divinely-inspired prophet who received revelations from God that are recorded in the Quran. Muhammad would form a community around the cities of Mecca and Medina in the Arabian Peninsula, and begin converting the Arabic people. The Islamic religion grew throughout the Middle Ages, becoming one of the key cultural and religious institutions of the era.

Taizong Chinese emperor (599-649)

Li Shimin was one of the co-founders of the Tang Dynasty in China and, after the death of his father, would become its emperor from 626 to 649. Taking on the name Taizong, he would build up an empire over much of East Asia and usher in a golden age for Chinese history.

Today he remains an exemplar of a wise ruler and administrator. Reflecting on his own reign, Taizong said:

Ive learned the principles of good governance and put them into practice. Our country was going downhill, but it is now in good shape. Foreign barbarians used to invade China, but they are now our vassals. Im very lucky, for Ive done better than many rulers in history. I want to make sure that my rule has a good beginning and a good ending.

Ali Islamic caliph (600 661)

Al ibn Ab lib, the son-in-law and companion to Muhammad, who was an important figure in the religion of Islam, but also the catalyst for a major rift in the Muslim community. After Muhammads death in 632, many believed that Ali should have succeeded him, but ultimately he would not become Caliph until the year 656. However, his reign would be marked by power struggles and civil war, and would end with his assassination. The political disagreements over his claim to leadership of the Islamic faith would eventually create the Sunni and Shia factions, the two largest branches of the religion.

Wu Zetian Chinese empress (624-705)

For about fifty years, Wu Zetian was the most important person in China, first as the empress consort, then as empress dowager to two of her sons, and finally becoming the only woman in Chinese history to officially rule as Empress from 690 to 705. Her rule was marked by both increasing prosperity within China and military victories abroad, but also by growing corruption and a brutal secret police regime.

In the words of historian Ann Paludan, Wu Zetian was an extraordinary woman, attractive, exceptionally gifted, politically astute and an excellent judge of men. With single-minded determination, she overcame the opposition of the Confucian establishment through her own efforts, unique among palace women by not using her own family.

Bede English monk (672 735)

Often called The Venerable Bede, this monk lived in northern England, and developed a reputation as one of the leading scholars of his time. He wrote dozens of works on a range of subjects, including theology, science and music. His use of the Anno Domini system of dating the years would prove influential towards it being adopted throughout Europe and then the wider world. Bedes most famous work is Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (An Ecclesiastical History of the English People) it is the most important source of English history in the early Middle Ages, and is widely studied and praised by modern historians.

Xuanzong Chinese emperor (685 762)

Beginning his 44-year reign in 712, this emperor at first put an end to state corruption and brought in better administration. He founded the Imperial Academy of Letters, writes Ann Paludan, and the atmosphere at court an harmonious blend of Confucian rationalism, Daoist individualism and an openness to new ideas attracted scholars, painters, poets, and musicians. There was even a remarkable engineering feat in 724 the Pu Jin Bridge was built to cross the Yellow River.

However, the reign of the Xuanzong would be viewed as the beginning of the decline of the Tang Dynasty, first with the defeat at the Battle of Talas, and then the An Lushan Rebellion, which lasted from 755 to 763. Xuanzong would retire as emperor in 756.

Li Bai (701-62) and Du Fu (712-70) Chinese poets

The Tang Dynasty is often considered one of the high points in Chinese civilization, with the country flourishing economically and culturally. It is not surprising that several of the most important people on this list came from this period, including Li Bai and Du Fu.

About a thousand poems Li Bai wrote have survived to the present day, such as Quiet Night Thoughts:

Before my bed theres a pool of lightI wonder if its frost on the groundLooking up, I find the moon brightThen bowing my head, I drown in homesickness

With Du Fu, nearly 1500 of his poems still exist. He was deeply affected by the An Lushan Rebellion, even being taken prisoner at one point, and his writings reflected this, including Facing Snow:

After the battle, many new ghosts cry,The solitary old man worries and grieves.Ragged clouds are low amid the dusk,Snow dances quickly in the whirling wind.The ladles cast aside, the cup not green,The stove still looks as if a fiery red.To many places, communications are broken,I sit, but cannot read my books for grief.

The reason we place these two men together is because of the deep friendship they shared with each other, first meeting in the year 744. They would write to each other for the rest of their lives, including poems such as this joke by Li Bai:

I ran into Du Fu by a Rice Grain Mountain,In a bamboo hat with the sun at high noon.Hasnt he got awfully thin since our parting?It must be the struggle of writing his poems.

Al-Mansur Abbasid caliph (c.714 775)

The founder of Baghdad, and considered at least the co-founder of the Abbasid Dynasty, Abu Jafar Abdallah ibn Muhammad al-Mansur first played a key role in the toppling of the Ummayads. When his brother Saffah died in 754, al-Mansur became the second Abbasid caliph and would be instrumental in establishing the power of the dynasty.

Harun al-Rashid, Abbasid caliph (786809)

If the first few Abbasid caliphs established this dynasty, it was Harun al-Rashid who made it famous. Reigning from 786 to 809, this caliph had mixed results militarily but has been credited with making Baghdad a centre of culture and learning. Harun was a major figure in the establishment of Bayt al-ikmah (House of Wisdom) as a library and educational centre that attracted leading scholars. Furthermore, he promoted much music and poetry, and develop a reputation that would even lead to him becoming a key character in the One Thousand and One Nights.

Harun al-Rashid also made diplomatic alliances with the Tang Dynasty in China and the Carolingians in Western Europe. As one chronicler concluded, so great were the splendour and riches of his reign, such was its prosperity, that this period has been called the Honeymoon.

Charlemagne Carolingian emperor (742-814)

After becoming King of the Franks, Charles would spend the next 46 years building a state that stretched across much of western and central Europe. His power would rise until he would be crowned Holy Roman Emperor in the year 800.

The Carolingian Empire founded by Charlemange would dominate Europe for most of the ninth century, and the institutions they created or revived would endure for centuries afterward. Moreover, this era would see a Renaissance in learning and culture, as Charlemanges court would become a home for scholars and artists.

Charles the Great, or Charlemagne, is remembered as one of the most important people in European history, even being called the Father of Europe. Historian Janet L. Nelson describes him as a man who was by any standards extraordinary: a many-sided character whose sixty-five years of life and doings were driven by unremitting physical energy and intellectual curiosity.

Kkai Japanese monk (774 835)

Called The Grand Master, Kkai is a major figure in the development of Buddhism in Japan. In 804, he would travel to China to study the religion. Returning to Japan two years later, he found the Shingon school of Buddhism, which soon found support among the countrys elite. Several important temples were built by him, including a complex at Mount Kya, which today is a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Al-Jahiz Arabic writer (776 869)

Nicknamed The Bug-Eyed, he spent over fifty years in Baghdad working as a writer and scholar, penning at least 140 works. Al-Jahizs interests range from animals to eloquence, racial identity to humour, and even whether it was better to be right or left-handed.

Arb al-Mamnya Arabic singer and poet (797 890)

This is the person who would be the least known to the modern world, yet was probably the most famous person in the world when she lived. You could call Arb the diva of the Middle Ages, as she was a singer, poet, composer, calligrapher, chess player and socialite. Sold into slavery at the age of 10, music would be the career that would bring to the courts of the Abbasid elite. Anecdotes of her life and many relationships eight rulers were among her lovers reveal a woman with sharp wit and keen intelligence.

To you treachery is a virtue you have many faces and ten tongues.Im surprised my heart still clings to you in spite of what you put me through.

Arb would not only survive the fractious conflicts within the Abbasid court, but became fabulously wealthy and long-lived. In the words of one admirer:

She is the sun and the other women are starsIf she appears, they set and become invisible.

Abu Bakr al-Razi Iranian physician (c.865 c.925)

Known in the Western world as Rhazes, he is considered a hugely important figure in the history of medicine. Serving as the head of hospitals in Baghdad and Rey, al-Razi would write over two hundred works related to the field, and was known for his work in experimental medicine, the use of pharmacies, pediatrics, obstetrics and ophthalmology. He was also an important writer on medical ethics, and is known for this statement:

The doctors aim is to do good, even to our enemies, so much more to our friends, and my profession forbids us to do harm to our kindred, as it is instituted for the benefit and welfare of the human race, and God imposed on physicians the oath not to compose mortiferous remedies.

Al-Razi is also known for works in alchemy, metaphysics and philosophy.

Rollo Norse warrior (d. between 928-933)

This Viking leader would make a deal with the King of France in the year 911 he and his followers would convert to Christianity and protect the kingdom from other Norse raiders. In return, Rollo would be given lands in northern France, in what is today known as Normandy. Rollo and his descendants, the Normans, would become major players in European history for the new couple of centuries, as they would fight and conquer places such as England, southern Italy and other parts of the Mediterranean.

Abd al-Rahman III Iberian caliph (890-961)

Partway through his nearly 50-year reign, Abd al-Rahman III would create the Caliphate of Crdoba, which ruled over much of Iberia and parts of North Africa. During his reign, the city of Crdoba would become one of the largest cities in the world, with an estimated population of 400,000, and its prosperity led it to become a centre of learning and culture. Meanwhile,

For all of his achievements, al-Rahman has an interesting view of his own life and reign. He wrote:

I have now reigned above fifty years in victory or peace; beloved by my subjects, dreaded by my enemies, and respected by my allies. Riches and honours, power and pleasure, have waited on my call, nor does any earthly blessing appear to have been wanting to my felicity. In this situation, I have diligently numbered the days of pure and genuine happiness which have fallen to my lot: they amount to Fourteen. O man! place not thy confidence in this present world!

Otto I Holy Roman Emperor (912 973)

Otto the Great gained his nickname for his impressive military achievements as well as his ability to forge the disparate German states into one kingdom. He is noted also for his victory at the Battle of Lechfeld in 955, which stopped the Magyars advance into Europe, and for his conquests of parts of Italy. Ottos dynasty would last until the early eleventh century, and their patronage of the arts and sciences would be deemed a renaissance.

Taizu Chinese emperor (937-76)

Zhao Kuangyin was a military commander during a period when China had been split into competing dynasties and kingdoms, but he led a coup detat against his own ruler and became the first emperor of the Song Dynasty. Taking the imperial name Taizu, his own reign (960-976) would see most of China reunified again as well as rapid improvements in government and academics. The Song Dynasty would last for more than 300 years.

Ferdowsi Persian writer (940 1019/1025)

Abul-Qsem Ferdowsi Tusi is the author of Shahnameh (Book of Kings), the epic poem that tells the mythical and historical past of Iran. The massive poem, about 50,000 couplets in length, took about 33 years to complete and has become one of the important literary works in history, a national epic not just in Iran, but throughout central Asia.

Ibn Sina Persian scholar (980-1037)

Also known as Avicenna, he worked as a physician in parts of Central Asia and Iran, eventually becoming a court physician to the powerful Buyid Dynasty. He would write over 450 works, of which about 240 have survived, that cover a wide range of topics including philosophy, physics and psychology. Ibn Sina is most famous for The Canon of Medicine, completed in 1025, which would be the most influential work on the subject for at least 500 years.

Rajendra Chola I Indian emperor (c.971 1044)

Even before he succeeded his father as the ruler of the Chola Empire in 1014, Rajendra had an impressive military career, helping to expand the state across southern India. More major victories followed during his reign, including an impressive naval campaign that crossed the Bay of Bengal to target states in present-day Malaysia and Indonesia.

The reigns of Rajendra and his father Rajaraja are considered the high point of the Chola Dynasty, which lasted until the year 1279. Merchants from this empire came to dominate trade over the Indian Ocean, while Rajendra established a new capital at Gangaikonda Cholapuram.

Gregory VII Pope (1073-1085)

Hildebrand of Sovana, the son of a blacksmith, entered church service and by the late 1040s was working as an official within the Papacy. He would rise to the top of the Catholic Church, serving as Pope from 1073 to his death in 1085.

As Pope Gregory VII, he is remembered for his efforts to reform the Papacy and the Church, including promoting the idea of papal authority over secular rulers. This would lead to the Investiture Controversy between him and the Holy Roman Emperor, leading to the famous Walk to Canossa incident. Gregorys efforts at promoting the Papacy would be the start of an era where Popes had great influence over European politics for the rest of the Middle Ages.

William I King of England and Duke of Normandy (c. 1027-1087)

Becoming the Duke of Normandy as a young boy in 1035, it seemed that he would not have a long reign. However, William endured and asserted control of his territory. However, he is even better known for his invasion of England in 1066, where he defeated King Harold Godwinson at the Battle of Hastings, and took the English throne. Now known as William the Conqueror, he established a powerful state that controlled both sides of the English Channel.

Peter Abelard French scholar (1079-1142) and Hlose dArgenteuil French abbess (c.1100 1163)

Peter Abelard was already a well-known scholar in France when he became the tutor to a Parisian woman named Hlose in 1116. These two intellectuals soon developed a passionate romance, which included a secret marriage and the birth of a child. However, their affair ended in tragedy with Abelard being castrated, the couple separated and having to live the rest of their lives in monasteries. Peter and Hlose continued to write to each other, and their relationship is the most remembered love story from the Middle Ages.

Li Qingzhao Chinese poet (1084-1156)

Although only about a hundred of her poems have survived, Li Qingzhao is considered one of the greatest poets in Chinese history. She wrote about topics including loneliness, having to become a refugee, losing her husband, and happier topics, like the poem Joy of Wine:

I remember in Hsi TingAll the many timesWe got lost in the sunset,Happy with wine,And could not find our way back.When the evening came,Exhausted with pleasure,We turned our boat.By mistake we found ourselves even deeperIn the clusters of lotus blossoms,And startled the gulls and egretsFrom the sand bars.They crowded into the airAnd hastily flapped awayTo the opposite shore.

Hildegard of Bingen German abbess (c.1098 1179)

Mystic, writer, abbess Hildegard was a powerful personality within the Catholic Church during the twelfth century. Through her letter writing and correspondence with many church and political figures, she became very influential. Hildegard was a prolific writer, penning books on medicine, philosophy, music and even plays. Today, she remains a widely-read spiritual figure.

Minamoto no Yoshitsune Japanese warrior (c.1159 1189)

One of the most famous samurai warriors in the history of Japan, Yoshitsune was a successful military commander in the 1180s. With The Tale of the Heike and other works, his legend and popularity grew, to the point where Yoshitsune has become a leading example of Japanese martial culture.

Saladin Ayyubid sultan (c.1137-1193)

Yusuf ibn Ayyub ibn Shadi, better known as Saladin, was the founder of the Ayyubid dynasty that ruled over Egypt and Syria. His victories against the Crusader States have earned him much fame in both Western and Middle Eastern history as one of the most persons of the Crusades era.

Maimonides Jewish scholar (11381204)

Moses ben Maimon, better known as Maimonides, is the leading Jewish figure of the Middle Ages. Living in Morocco and then Egypt, his most important job was as the personal physician to Saladin. While he wrote on a wide range of topics, his most famous dealing with Jewish theology and law, as well as philosophy including The Guide for the Perplexed.

Original post:

The 50 Most Important People of the Middle Ages - Medievalists.net

The election campaign is under way in Australia, barbs are being exchanged, candidates denigrated and abused, and promises many of which are just fantastic in the literal sense of the word are being made. The Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, who is the leader of the Liberal party, is being challenged by the Labor leader, Anthony Albanese. Although Morrison has the edge over Albanese as preferred prime minister, neither is much loved. The leaders are unlikely to be a decisive issue in the election.

What is the deeper mood of the country? That needs to be put into its historical context. Ever since the mid-1970s, Australians have expected political parties to be economically responsible. The public are smart enough to know that its one thing to make promises to spend money on all manner of popular causes, but that it must be paid for somehow. This mindset has served Australia extraordinarily well. It has enjoyed more than a quarter of a century of continuous economic growth, thanks to open markets, free trade and relatively light regulatory regimes. These policies have often been referred to in Australia as economic rationalism.

The pandemic led to an end of this rationalism. Suddenly, it became very popular for the government to impose restrictions on freedom of movement and activity, to close the national border with the rest of the world and for state governments to shut down the borders between the states. To compensate for this Stalinist-style closure of society, the government borrowed and printed unprecedented amounts of money and farmed it out to employees, businesses, and anybody else who said they needed help.

For many, this seemed a reasonable response to a pandemic. Covid spread only slowly in Australia and the level of fatalities was relatively low. The public didnt seem to care how much money was spent as long as they received the compensation they felt they deserved. This has affected the mindset of the country. No one much cares any more about the size of the budget deficit or public debt. What is more, old-fashioned liberal ideas like freedom and taking responsibility for ones own actions have been jettisoned. The state now knows best.

In the short-term, this is a problem for conservative politics. The governing Liberal/National parties in Australia like the Conservative party in the UK have been the champions of individual freedom. But this is out of fashion, which plays into the hands of the opposition Labor party. It believes in collective action and the state taking responsibility for individual wellbeing.

Scott Morrison could make a strong case for his time in office. Australias economy is growing faster than almost every other in the G20, its unemployment rate is at a historic low of 4 per cent and the government has reduced its large budget deficit. A strong economy should be a winner for an incumbent government. But Labor wants to spend more money and the public seem keen on this as an idea. Nobody wants to ask where the money might come from. Inflation hasnt helped matters.

All that money pumped into the Australian economy and the world economy, of course has been the fundamental cause of renewed inflationary pressures. No government is prepared to admit that its excessive spending and the quantitative easing by central banks over the past two years have caused inflation, and the current Australian government is no exception.

The Ukraine war has added to these pressures, although the case could also be made that Morrisons government was prepared to take on autocratic regimes long before it became fashionable to do so in Europe. While Germany was hungrily importing gas from Russia, Australia was fighting off sanctions imposed by the communist regime in China, negotiating new security arrangements with other democracies in the Indo-Pacific region and making deals to transfer advanced military technology with the UK and the US.

More recently, Chinas leaders have persuaded Australias near neighbour the Solomon Islands to conclude a security agreement. This has inevitably led to debate over whether Australias government should have stopped the agreement by pouring more aid into the Solomon Islands. But it is hard for a liberal democracy like Australia to offer the kind of aid China gives to politicians. Still, Australias firm stand against China is strongly supported by the Australian public and it should help the incumbent Liberal/National party government.

A more divisive issue is climate change, which has now destroyed the premierships of four Australian prime ministers. Although Australia has reduced its CO2 emissions by around 20 per cent since 2005 a much better record than Canada, New Zealand and many EU countries there is still a sense that Australia could be doing more. It is a narrative which has taken hold and despite the incumbent government committing to net zero by 2050, a commitment matched by the opposition, the richest suburbs of Australia think the government isnt taking the issue seriously. They are threatening to vote for Labor or left-leaning independents, who may take a few seats which were once considered safe for the Liberal party.

All in all, it will be extremely hard for the incumbent Liberal/National parties government to win, despite its record. Labor is firm favourite to take power. Which just goes to show that no matter how effectively the government governs, its hard to get re-elected if the mood of the country is against it.

Alexander Downer joins Cindy Yu on SpectatorTV

Read more here:

New Aussie rules: Conservative values have fallen out of fashion - The Spectator

The Essex Serpent Apple TV+The British Academy Television Awards (BBC One) | iPlayerFergal Keane: Living With PTSD (BBC Two) | iPlayerClark Netflix

There comes a time in every actors life when he must unbutton his period drama shirt and smoulder as if his life depends on it. In Apple TV+s new six-parter The Essex Serpent, based on the historical novel by Sarah Perry, adapted by Anna Symon, directed by Clio Barnard, this duty falls to Tom Hiddleston, but he rather fluffs it.

Hiddleston plays a late-19th-century pastor trying to soothe marsh-dwelling locals who believe they are being menaced by a giant mythical sea serpent (think the Loch Ness monster, but with Godzillas temper). Claire Danes plays English widow and naturalist Cora, who, freed of her abusive husband, takes her autistic child and socialist servant (Hayley Squires) to investigate the creature. Once in Essex spoiler alert! Cora is drawn into an anguished love triangle with Hiddlestons man of the cloth and his ailing wife (Clmence Posy).

In 1988, Ken Russells Lair of the White Worm wove a similar tale in the spirit of mythic campery. By contrast, The Essex Serpent is ambitiously gothic, coiling itself around a series of personal, mystical and ideological standoffs: principle versus emotion, faith versus rationalism, superstition versus science. Cora emerges as a proto-feminist with startling tangerine-hued hair (reminiscent of Cate Blanchetts Elizabeth I) and wonderfully dramatic clothes that echo the atmospheric Essex wetlands. These are conveyed in a series of misty aerial shots featuring cawing gulls and slabs of sodden mud. A recurring criticism of period drama is how prissy and vanilla it can be, sanitising rather than illuminating past eras, but visually this is in the red in tooth and claw zone: nature with its entrails out.

Sadly, the serpent keeps getting forgotten, when surely the idea of it the threat, the metaphor should be omnipresent. There is also the problem of chemistry, as in: Danes and Hiddleston dont have any. While Danes is suitably impassioned, Hiddleston clearly didnt get the sexy-religious-dude memo and somehow manages to be simultaneously stiff and soggy. Together, they exude the erotic heat of a bed bath administered with a lukewarm flannel. Its made worse because Frank Dillane, as Coras doctorly admirer, is brilliantly witty and naughty how come he receives a Victorian-era friend-zoning in favour of the drippy pastor? Im all for the way The Essex Serpent basks in gothic allure, but it could have been wilder.

Of all the serious issues raised by Will Smith slapping Chris Rock at the Oscars, among the more minor is that awards ceremonies have been lent a certain frisson. Tuning into BBC Ones post-pandemic British Academy Television Awards at the Royal Festival Hall, hosted by Richard Ayoade, I wondered who might kick off: does brutality lurk untamed behind Olivia Colmans red-carpet smile?

Of course nothing happened. The reliably acid Ayoade briefly referred to the slap, while giving the starry audience less a mauling, more a teasingly non-specific pawing, like a cat toying with a roomful of overdressed celebrity mice: No one works harder than us. Apart from people in other professions.

This years categories were so absurdly strong, it was possible to fume as Cline Buckens missed out on best supporting actress for Showtrial and then cheer as Cathy Tyson won it for Help. Similarly, it was only right that Time won best miniseries, and an absolute outrage that the other contenders Landscapers, Stephen, Its a Sin didnt.

Shock of the night was that Its a Sin won zilch, despite a plethora of nominations (it did win the big award best director at Baftas Television Craft awards in April). Along the way, Channel 4 and the BBC were showered with podium love, and quite right too. These are, after all, perilous times for broadcasting: Nadine Dorries is in charge, a woman who probably thinks dramatic licence is something she should be charging pensioners for.

In the BBC Two documentary Fergal Keane: Living With PTSD, the much-garlanded Irish war correspondent a 30-year veteran of conflict zones including Northern Ireland, South Africa and Rwanda examines how reporters can return unharmed, but only on the outside.

Keane went public some time ago about his PTSD (he was diagnosed in 2008), and the documentary opens with him reporting from Ukraine, then withdrawing, saying he wouldnt be able to cope. From there, he is all brutal honesty as he examines the ego and addiction of war reporting, alongside the idealism and the relentless havoc PTSD wreaks on mental health. Keane suffered nightmares about being trapped beneath bodies, used alcohol to medicate, and turned into a paranoid nightmare his family were forced to tiptoe around. Its shite, he says simply.

Keane brings in other voices, including the therapist who helped him and a former Rwandan child refugee, now living in Paris, whose escape in the back of a truck Keane reported. Towards the end of this fascinating, candid documentary, Keane says matter-of-factly: Its not finished the story of me and PTSD. Indeed, hes shown returning to Ukraine; away from the frontline to report on the refugee crisis, but still, there he is. You wonder if this is his way of forging a PTSD compromise with himself.

If youre yearning for something different, watch Clark on Netflix. Swedish-made, in six parts, it stars Bill Skarsgrd as Clark Olofsson, Swedens favourite gangster and charismatic super-seducer, whose myrad real-life criminal escapades include the Norrmalmstorg bank robbery that inspired the psychological term Stockholm syndrome.

Olofssons life story is bizarre enough: if hes not smuggling drugs in oranges from Beirut, hes seducing the ladies or barking his catchphrase at officialdom: Go shit yourself! Instead of calming all this down, director Jonas kerlund ramps everything up with a frenetic pace, surrealist graphics and gonzo humour. Skarsgrd is superb, playing Olofsson with crazed screwball energy. Im halfway through, and its becoming a little tiring: Ill be needing paracetamol and a nap soon. Still, for those who can hack it, Clark is that rarest of TV phenomena: something that feels genuinely original.

Glow UpBBC ThreeThe brilliant makeup competition returns for a third series, judged by Val Garland and Dominic Skinner. Its not just about smoky eyes. The makeup artists tackle everything from drag to TikTok to screen prosthetics. Inventive and absorbing, BBC Three also has an Irish version.

TehranApple TV+This is the second outing for the tense Israeli global espionage undercover spy thriller, starring Niv Sultan. Glenn Close joins the cast for this series, and considering her thrillingly predatory form throughout Damages, you feel anything could happen.

Commando: Britains Ocean WarriorsBBC TwoA new four-part series follows intensive commando training as Royal Marine recruits endure gruelling ordeals to win themselves a much-coveted green beret. Prepare to be shocked at how young they look: the most junior recruit is 17.

Link:

The week in TV: The Essex Serpent; the Baftas; Fergal Keane: Living With PTSD; Clark - The Guardian

The X-Files has its fair share of great monologues, and those that close Jose Chungs From Outer Space and Max are among the most beloved. The former is a wry narration of how the residents of Klass County went on with their lives following a close encounterthis ranges from starting a cult to becoming an eco warrior. The latter is Agent Scullys heartfelt musings on her birthday present from Agent Mulder (an Apollo 11 commemorative keychain). It might seem like they have little in common. These episodes are almost at opposite ends of The X-Files genre spectrum, after all. However, they are connected by their significant use of the word alone.

In their use of this word, these two monologues appear to contain opposing arguments about the truth of life on earth. The eponymous Chung argues for the innate loneliness of mankind: in our own separate ways on this planet, we are all alone. Meanwhile, in Max Scully reflects on the strength of interpersonal connections, because no one gets there alone (wherever there might be). Im curiouswhy do Agent Scully and Jose Chung believe what they are saying? And should the audience believe it too?

Then there are those who care not about extraterrestrials, searching for meaning in other human beings. Rare or lucky are those who find it. For although we may not be alone in the universe, in our own separate ways on this planet, we are allalone.

Jose Chung, Jose Chungs From Outer Space

Jose Chungs From Outer Space is similar to other Season 3 classics like Pusher and Wetwired; in these cases the victims become isolated from everyone around them, because no one else seems to be experiencing the same reality as them. The plot of Jose Chung necessitates loneliness, because each character has their own version of events that they struggle to make the others believe; the audience might be reminded of the way that Mulder continually fails to make Scully see the world from his perspective. In this context, Chungs pessimistic words seem reasonable. Although Mulder and Scully might search for meaning in other human beings he proposes they will most likely fail.

though weve travelled far together, this last distance must necessarily be travelled alone.

Agent Scully, Memento Mori

That phrasesearching for meaning in other human beingsleads me to think of the MSR, but also of a major overarching theme in The X-Files, which is about searching for people who are lost, and about how the dead continue to affect the living. In other words, grief. Like the events of Jose Chung, grief is often a shared experience that is simultaneously incredibly isolating. During the cancer arc of Season 4, Mulder and Scully experience anticipatory grief. In the opening monologue of Memento Mori we see Scully standing alone, and though most of her words are about Mulder and her gratitude for their partnership, it conveys the overwhelming loneliness of knowing she is going to die. To go a step further, death itself might be the ultimate loneliness. How can you share death? From Mulders perspective, when he cries at Scullys bedside in Redux II she is asleep and doesnt know he is there. This is another example of an internal experience that, short of a psychic connection, cannot be experienced collaboratively. These things considered, it would be easy to believe that we really are all alone.

What can be imagined can be achieved that you must dare to dream, but that theres no substitute for perseverance and hard work, and teamwork, because no one gets there alone.

Agent Scully, Max

In The X-Files, the fact that we are not alone in the universe seems to have exclusively been a problem for humanity. However in Scullys speech at the end of Max, she vouches for the value of collaboration, and the way that people can bring out the best in each other. This is a far more optimistic take than the one Jose Chung had. It is appealing because it might make us hopeful for our own lives, but also because it reflects positively on our heroes that their mission is not hopeless.

These two scenes present to the audience contrasting versions of Agent Mulder. Alone in bed, watching a Big Foot tape withenthusiasm, the Mulder in Jose Chungs From Outer Space is a loser and borderline pervert. In Chungs voiceover he is described as a ticking time bomb of insanity; I would contest Chungs use of the word insanity, however he has not entirely missed the mark by insinuating that Mulders obsession with the truth would endanger his psychological well-being. At the beginning of Season 10 we learn that Mulders depression has isolated him from Scully. In Amor Fati severe trauma on his brain literally forces him to live in a world inside his own head. Jose Chung has correctly observed that Mulders quest into the unknown is a miserable one. It can be lonely, because the thing he seeks (whether he knows it or not) is not an objective external reality that he can share with Scully, but his personal satisfaction and peace. When he goes to meet Samanthas spirit at the end of Closure, thus achieving this goal, he goes alone. Given that Jose Chung is a self-satirising comedy this overly negative version of Mulder is fitting.

Conversely, Tempus Fugit/Max suggests that Mulder has an innate capacity for love and friendship. The two-parter introduces us to a Mulder who is trying his best to make his friend happy on her birthday. Their smiles should be a testament to Chungs short-sightedness. And while Jose Chung ends with Harold Lamb walking off alone, Max ends with Mulder and Scully walking away together. On the other hand, it is important to note that the speech in Max comes from Scullys perspective. In the Tempus Fugit/Max two-parter, Mulder is alone in his theories, surrounded by non-believers, and alone in his grief for Max. I would suggest that Mulders loneliness doesnt come from something embedded in his psyche, as Chung implies, but from the people around him and their inability or refusal to understand him.

When Scully says no one gets there alone what is the there she is referring to? The moon? The Platonic ideal of Justice? The Screen Actors Guild Awards? Gillian Anderson included part of this monologue in her acceptance speech when she won the Screen Actors Guild award for Best Female Actor in a Television Drama Series (this is something that our creator, Chris Carter, has written, in something that Im supposed to perform tomorrow and obviously Im not prepared). She goes on to thank, among others, David Duchovny, and the X-Files crew. Like Scully, she is acknowledging herself as part of a team.

But you saved me! As difficult and as frustrating as its been sometimes, your goddamned strict rationalism and science have saved me a thousand times over! Youve kept me honest youve made me a whole person.

Agent Mulder, Fight the Future

Mulder and Scully are the ultimate team, each others perfect collaborator. In a practical sense, Mulder needs Scullys scientific knowledge to solve cases, and Scully needs Mulder to keep her mind open. But arguably the point of this perfect collaboration is that it goes beyond their practical need for each other; the famous hallway scene of Fight the Future touches on this very thing. Scully has been pushed to the point that she wants to leave the X-Files, and is suggesting that Mulder could and should go on without her. You dont need me, she says [] Ive just held you back. When Mulder contests this, telling Scully that she has made (him) a whole person, I dont think this is about practicality. It is read by fans as a confession of love. I believe that the there that Scully means to get to isnt outer space but something more personal.

The surrounding context of Harold Lamb and Chrissy Giorgio implies that Chungs words are about unrequited love. This matches the pervert/loner Mulder and the work-oriented Scully that Chung depicts. At this point in the canon, the MSR is barely burgeoning, and far from consummated. Nonetheless, Mulder and Scullys relationship in all its formstheir platonic collaboration, if you willis the strongest argument for why Chung is wrong. Still, I dont think that there is love, not exactly.

The keychain makes a return in Season 8s aptly named AloneScully re-gifts it to Doggett, symbolising how his partnership has been necessary both professionally and emotionally: after this past year and everything that weve been through [] I wouldnt be here without you. I think that there is just tomorrow, and its not just that no one gets there alone but no one has to get there alone. We need only look at the journey of this keychain to see why we might disagree with Chung. Maybe in a solipsistic sense we are alone, but that doesnt mean that love and friendship dont exist. And even though it might be fruitless, we still strive to make connections with other people, because we couldnt get through life without them.

It is not unusual for The X-Files to reconcile opposing viewpoints. The famous slogans trust no one and I want to believe appear conflicting. Mulder and Scully themselves are reason and faith in harmony. The show can make us believe that both the scientific and supernatural explanations are true. However, it was wrong of me to present these two speeches as containing mutually exclusive arguments. Its true to an extent that everyone lives inside their own internal worlds, processing emotions like grief, and memories of inexplicable alien encounters, alonethis is an idea that The X-Files returns to frequently. Its also true that people like Mulder and Harold Lamb remain misunderstood by those around them. But I dont think this means that collaboration is hopeless. How can it be? The X-Files would fall apart if it was. It is precisely because life on Earth is so lonely that collaboration is so valuable.

Read the rest here:

These Iconic Scenes From The X-Files Ask if We Are Alone in the Universe - 25YearsLaterSite.com

There are many factors in a free society which conspire to make the public sphere an unseemly terrain. Citizen sovereignty increases the stakes of public persuasion by distributing voting power so broadly that personal persuasion alone cannot suffice to keep elected officials in office. Consumer sovereignty leaves political media constrained by the tastes of audiences, who display a remarkably consistent preference to have their politics provided as a genre of sports coverage. Both together create opportunities for individuals seeking either office or audience to do so by adversarial means.

A free media is a rancorous media. Some have deluded themselves that it might be otherwise, believing that the bland mid-century mass media might be, or become again, the norm. But even in the era of the big three networks, there were audiences for New York Post-style political bloodsport. Nostalgia for that bygone media environment forgets much of its rancor. Either way, that time is gone, an anomaly in media history rather than something we might aspire to again, given current technological realities.

The topic of our rancorous public sphere is itself the subject of a great deal of rancor. Central in this particular drama is the specific, recurrent debate over free speech in America, through the lens of what is called cancel culture. This one follows the cyclical rituals of political media more strictly than most; the same concerns are raised in the same way by more or less the same actors or outlets, prompting the same responses issued in the same way in previous outbreaks of hostility, also largely by the same actors and outlets. The matter fizzles for a time, until it is predictably reignited by some new media event or simply some new opinion article which breaks the fragile ceasefire.

Why so much rancor over rancor? Its not just a matter of tone or civility, or of unpleasant rudeness. Its not just the frustration of the criticized. Nor is it simply a matter of selectively supporting some speech over othersof believing in the freedom to say you are wrong but not the freedom to say shut your mouth. None of this gets at the heart of the matter.

For years one side has claimed that certain incidents were infringements of freedom of speech, of association, or even of rule of law. These incidents were less shut your mouth and more fire this person immediately, or, further, join me in calling for this person to be fired. They involve using speech to call for social sanctions, the manner of which can take many forms. A business can be boycotted, an employeerather than facing terminationmay be subject to an embarrassing internal investigation, or reprimand, or on the harsher end, demoted or transferred to a position with fewer prospects for career growth. Publishers can retract articles or papers, or terminate book deals. Brands can terminate sponsorship deals and advertisers can withdraw their buys. Invitations to events can be rescinded or never sent in the first place. Friendships can end. The very mechanisms which sustain and fulfill us in commercial and civil society, and indeed in private life, are also the very mechanisms that can be used to influence our actionsor simply to hurt us.

This of course is to cast it all in a negative light, but the entire problem is that its not possible to characterize these things as illiberal or immoral or even undesirable in general terms. Ending an abusive relationship isnt immoral. Ending a friendship with someone who unpleasantly dominates all conversations with QAnon conspiracy theories is not illiberal. Firing an employee who pressures their direct reports to donate to particular political causes or campaigns is not undesirable. One side calls the demand for and delivering of social sanctions illiberal, or infringements of the liberty of the sanctioned, while others respond by pointing out, correctly, that freedom of speech, of association, and of contract, are all that has been exercised by the sanctioners in these cases.

There is no coherent formulation of rights which renders any of these illiberal. But there are coherent characterizations of the social system as a whole which can.

Jacob Levy describes John Stuart Mills vision of the liberal order as follows:

The idea that persons are free and equal does not categorically distinguish between state and non-state denials of freedom and equality. The moral interests protected by liberal freedom and equality must be defended against associations and groups as well as against the state: for example, racial discrimination by private employers and schools and in private housing markets can maintain a racial caste system, and the extension of civil rights norms into the private sphere has been a major liberal triumph. Liberty, no less than equality, demands protection against non-state actors.[1]

Levy refers to this as the theory of congruence, the idea that every aspect of liberal democracy must share the character of a proper liberal state. Ernest Gellner, in his discussion of civil society, also focused on the overall character of the system. He expressed dissatisfaction with the traditional definition of civil society as that set of diverse non-governmental institutions which is strong enough to counterbalance the state and, while not preventing the state from fulfilling its role of keeper of the peace and arbitrator between major interests, can nevertheless prevent it from dominating and atomizing the rest of society. Many examples from history which fit that definition imposed a most demanding culture, one which modern man would find intolerably stifling.[2]

He suggested that the civil society that we liberal democrats really desire and really have is modular, allowing the forging of links which are effective even though they are flexible, specific, instrumental.

Modular man is capable of combining into effective associations and institutions, without these being total, many-stranded, underwritten by ritual and made stable through being linked to a whole inside set of relationships, all of these being tied in with each other and so immobilized. He can combine into specific-purpose, ad hoc, limited association, without binding himself by some blood ritual. He can leave an association when he comes to disagree with its policy, without being open to an accusation of treason. (. . .)Yet these highly specific, unsanctified, instrumental, revocable links or bonds are effective! The associations of modular man can be effective without being rigid![3]

But this character is a sociological development that cannot simply be constructed to spec. And the congruence theory, on its own, is anyway unworkable, as Levy himself immediately notes:

[I]t does not make sense for the liberal state to tell churches that they must respect the religious freedom of their current and ongoing members in the sense that they must treat any or all religious beliefs as compatible with membership, the way that the liberal state must treat any or all religious beliefs as compatible with citizenship. (. . .) A church that is unable to insist on adherence to its own religious tenets as a condition of membership is unable to be a church. (. . .)When the church calls the police to evict dissenters as trespassers, the state is not infringing on religious liberty; it is respecting the rights of the church qua property owner and thereby the associational freedom of the churchs members.[4]

For simple logical reasons a liberal democracy cannot be congruent through and through, because to make it so would be an incongruence itself: to force churches to allow freedom of worship of any kind from its members and on its premises would be to effectively abolish freedom of worship and association at all, in practice.

The congruence theory is a reduction of the type of liberalism which Levy calls rationalism: the attempt to impose liberalism from a powerful center. Its opposite is pluralism, which Levy reduces to the pure liberal theory of freedom of association.

The pure theory holds that, what individual persons are free to do singly, they ought to be free to do in association with one another; and rights that they are free to waive, they ought to be free to waive as against groups of which they are members. (. . .)[P]ersons should be free to form any associations or institutions that they wish, to structure and govern them however they wish, and to live according to the rules and norms that the associations generate. Their freedom to create associations and institutions means that the associations and institutions then take on a moral and legal existence of their own, which in effect means that associations ought to have complete freedom to govern themselves by whatever procedures and rules they wish, and to admit or refuse whomever they wish.[5]

But this, too, is not satisfactory.

A world of pure freedom of association (. . .) could be a world in which one generations persons all give or bequeath their land to their associations, leaving no physical space outside the control of one or another group for their successors. That means that the succeeding generations might have, literally, no place to go if they wish to exit the groups into which they are born, no resources of space in which they could assemble their own dissident, hybrid, or rival associations.[6]

From a pure theory perspective, there is nothing wrong with firing someone for their political views or their religion. There is nothing wrong with a coworker, or even an outsider, calling for someone to be fired, or demoted, or publicly reprimanded. There is nothing wrong with a churchs leadership announcing before their congregation that they are investigating statements madeon any topic, in any settingby one of the congregants. Outside of the realm of theory, things can, and have, gone much further than this:

In the early twentieth century, the Ford Motor Company established a Sociological Department, dedicated to inspecting employees homes unannounced, to ensure that they were leading orderly lives. Workers were eligible for Fords famous $5 daily wage only if they kept their homes clean, ate diets deemed healthy, abstained from drinking, used the bathtub appropriately, did not take in boarders, avoided spending too much on foreign relatives, and were assimilated to American cultural norms.[7]

The pure theory does not suffer from logical defects the way that congruence does, but instead suffers from all too easily producing an utterly illiberal system. For their part, the early liberals were not especially interested in pure logical consistency. Though they valued property rights very highly, they outlawed primogeniture and entail, the traditional English approach to inheritance.

A free, democratic, commercial society was thought of as more than simply a state that respected rights of various kinds. It was a society of a particular kind, one characterized by mobility, the rise and fall of elites based on achievement, and a certain fluidity. (. . .)[T]here is an important liberal argument against entail that is concerned (. . .)with the stagnating effect on society of a system that prevents the division, sale, and circulation of land.[8]

Neither congruence nor the pure theory of free association provide a formula by which we can arrive at a truly liberal democratic system. Indeed, no such formula is possible. Instead, the organization of society is largely left to how people persuade one another and are persuaded to associate, transact, [and] contract[.] The dynamism that is unleashed by liberty must then be checked by cautious liberals keeping the character of the overall system, as it develops and changes, in view. If it becomes too rigid, too stifling, too incongruent with the ideal of liberal democracy, we ought to consider what can be done to make it more accommodating, more flexible, and more modular. A completely congruent system is impossible, but piecemeal reforms towards congruence are essential.

This tense balance between pluralism and rationalism requires constant adjustment and readjustment. The process never ends, and some of the rationalist interventions may be quite historically contingent indeed. Will Wilkinson captures the spirit of this when he writes:

[T]here is no reason to think that it is possible or desirable to assign one and only [one] jurisdictional level to each type of public good or domain of regulation. Sometimes a good is best provided at a lower level, but providing it involves solving a collective action the lower-level jurisdiction cant handle without a higher-level assist. Similarly, regulation at any level can be captured by special interests. Sometimes the best solution is to shift or share regulatory authority to/with a level of government that has not been captured.

Sometimes what seems like a good liberal idea in theory has, in practice, been exploited for illiberal ends. Rationalist interventions can be strategic, of course, implemented with a view to fostering a liberal democratic character over the long run. But they can also be quite tactical, as Wilkinson suggests.

From the perspective of Levys pure theory, America has the most expansive free speech regime in the world. Elsewhere, rationalist interventions are enacted in order to create greater congruence in the exercise of speech and association. Hate speech laws, and banning certain types of illiberal or anti-democratic political parties, are the most typical examples. Though many who begin from the pure logic of rights consider these illiberal, Levys framework suggests we should not, at least in the abstract. They are clearly aimed at reducing social inequality and avoiding the takeover of the political system by totalitarians; in other words, they are rationalist attempts to keep the character of the system congruent with liberal values.

Now, I do not think that real world regimes that implement hate speech regulations in particular have a very good track record applying them in good faith or in a way that does more good than harm. In France, for example, they punished the comedian Dieudonne Mbala Mbala for making a joke about the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo, but had never punished, well, Charlie Hebdo in the years before the attack for its many jokes aimed at minorities. And while I think theres merit to the Germans banning neo-Nazi parties, in general I think it is ill-advised to allow the parties in power to choose which of their potential rivals to take out of the running.

As Levy pointed out, it would be illiberal in the extreme to force a church to allow believers and nonbelievers alike to attend and speak as freely as they desire. To attempt to enforce bonds of friendship or personal closeness would be totalitarian, plain and simple. But regulating employment relations in order to make them more congruent is perfectly justifiable. And of course, much of the energy of cancel culture debates center on the threat of having your employment terminated because of something you have said or something you believe.

Here in America, we have protected classes against whom it is illegal for employers to discriminate. In Europe they extend protections of this kind to religion or belief, political or any other opinion, among others. Unlike America, they also do not have at-will employment, meaning that the employer has the burden of showing cause for termination, and it is illegal for religion or belief, political or any other opinion to be that cause. Fords paternalistic scheme is straightforwardly illegal in the European model.

The European approach to employment and belief-based discrimination could go a long way towards addressing worries over the politicization of the workplace. Of course, it would not go all the way, as nothing, in a free society, can. And if one is criticized or insulted by, and in front of, ones coworkers in a way that one finds humiliating, especially if this is a regular occurrence, it can become psychologically difficult to stick with the job, even if your employer cannot fire you. Some speech of this kind could be construed as harassment, or creating a hostile work environment, and might therefore be legally actionable. But theres a very high threshold of speech that could create psychological harms that would fall below what was legally actionable, or below what was certain enough to be legally actionable to consider engaging our expensive legal system.

Another concern of the cancel culture debate is that there has been a chilling effect, that fewer viewpoints can be expressed publicly than before. But here I believe pluralism has actually done its work. As Jamelle Bouie has noted, when Alexis de Tocqueville came to America in the 1830s, he found its public sphere profoundly conformist. The reason? Unlike the mixed constitutions of the old world, which provide multiple potential social perches from which to speak, Americas unmixed republic produced an intellectual monoculture:

There is no religious or political theory that cannot be preached freely in the constitutional states of Europe and that does not penetrate the others; for there is no country in Europe so subject to one single power that he who wants to speak the truth does not find support capable of assuring him against the consequences of his independence. If he has the misfortune to live under an absolute government, he often has the people for him; if he inhabits a free country, he can take shelter behind the royal authority if need be. The aristocratic fraction of the society sustains him in democratic regions, and the democracy in the others. But in the heart of a democracy organized as that of the United States, one encounters only one single power, a single element of force and success, and nothing outside it.[9]

Today, however, the combination of partisan polarization of media funding and audiences, on the one hand, crowdfunding platforms such as Patreon and Substack, on the other, and the enormous long tail of content, have all conspired to create more perspectives represented and accessible in public than ever before in history. Beyond these there is also access to the ideas expressed in the past, and also ideas being expressed today in other countries in which different political conditions currently apply.

The problem is not getting more points of view into the public sphere, for that has never been accomplished more effectively than it is today. I do not think that the now quite consistent findings that people feel less free to speak their minds can be dismissed, but I dont think the end result has been a monoculture in the public sphere, because it does not take a large number of people in relative terms to produce an enormous array of views accessible to the public. I do think it suggests a problem with our current communicative environment that so many people feel on guard about what they can say.

I believe it is more likely that there were stricter boundaries around what one could say fifty or sixty years ago without serious social repercussions, but if many fewer people felt those boundaries as constraining, that is worth noting. And its worth thinking about what might be done to lower the overall pressure perceived by the typical person. I do think that an important part of what pushes this pressure up are the very articles, produced at an industrial scale, sounding the alarm about a speech crisis. This is exactly the sort of effect that has led some, such as myself, to question whether the coverage has been proportional to the problem. But I am not suggesting that disproportionate coverage is the sole or main explanation for the survey results, by any means.

Levys rationalism is chiefly focused on how strong central states can intervene to create a more liberal society. I do not think that the state provides the correct tools for addressing the feeling evoked by these surveys. But rationalism can be extended to include the use of any means to promote a society that is more congruent with liberal democratic ideals overall.

It is my belief that many of the troubles of our dayincluding concerns over how free people feel to express themselvesstem from the punitiveness of our culture. One of the means employed to improve the situation should therefore simply be persuasion.

For the rancorousness of our free press very often reflects the deepest desires of its audiences to inflict punishment upon evildoers. Hysterical front pages from Jack the Ripper to the Central Park Five stand in historical testimony to this persistent fact. The public sphere in a free society is the venue for the public to whip itself up into a frenzy, and in so doing, put pressure on agents of the statepolice, prosecutors, and legislators. But it also puts pressure on employers, community leaders, business partners, and even friends. This pressure is not to solve some problem, to, say, more effectively fight crime or racism. Instead, it is a pressure to vent the publics fears and visceral desires to inflict punishment upon the wicked.

I do not believe this can be done away with. It is far too persistent a feature of free media, and empowered rather than discouraged by 21st century developments in media technology and business. But I believe we can move it in a better direction, on the margins. And one way I think we can do this is by insisting that people take seriously the harms we visit upon one another, for good reasons and for bad, knowingly or not.

A 2020 Pew survey found a quarter of adult Americans experienced severe forms of online harassment, with eleven percent experiencing sustained harassment. Most alarming is the finding that nearly half of adults under 30 had experienced severe online harassment, with sixty-four percent experiencing online harassment of some kind. Its hard to understand precisely what the respondents mean by some of these categories, but Pew did ask how upsetting the incidents were, with ten percent of all adults calling the incidents extremely upsetting and a further fourteen percent calling them very upsetting. Among women these numbers go up to fifteen and eighteen percent respectively, meaning fully a third of adult women have experienced online harassment that is either extremely or very upsetting.

Half of those who had been harassed believed that they were harassed because of their political views. These experiences alone may explain the results of the surveys discussed above in which Americans state they feel less free to talk about politics than they did in the past.

Pews severe forms of online harassment include physical threats, stalking, and sexual harassment. No one considers threatening to rape and murder people to be protected speech, much less the carrying out of the threat. But the dynamics of public speech arent so neat and tidy that we can leave these out of our account. An incisive but polished polemic which goes viral and draws enormous amounts of attention and ire onto its target runs the risk of creating a cascadethe sort of Internet stampede I assume all readers are quite familiar with. Even when the polemic is aimed at the most deserving of targets, even when it is very carefully written, even when the author specifically demands that the target not be subject to harassmenteven if the lions share of the stampede is made up of messages that are perfectly civilstill, the end result may amount to overkill.

It takes very few death or rape threats to ruin ones day, to put it lightly. Even if most of the messages on social mediaor wherever they may bemake a defensible criticism in respectable language, if a few such threats get swept into the mix, it will very likely color how the person experiencing it views the entire incident. And even without threats, one merited criticism is experienced very differently than one hundred, or one thousand, all arriving within a matter of hours or even minutes.

Moving beyond our hypothetical respectful polemic with its by and large respectful social media follow ups, in the real world the lions share of messages will not be as nice as all that. Pews two less severe forms of online harassment are offensive name-calling and purposeful embarrassment. In small doses it may seem silly to mention these things at all, but even those with the thickest of skins can stagger under the weight of dozens or hundreds of people characterizing you in the worst terms imaginable and actively seeking to show how simultaneously idiotic, pathetic, and evil you are. Even if the typical such incident isnt an unbearable burden, we can surely agree, as fellow human beings, that it likely does not feel wonderful, and can leave a person shell-shocked, heightening any anxieties or insecurities they already have or even creating new ones.

Consider, also, anecdotes recounted, by Anne Applebaum, in her essay about high status individuals occupying prestigious positions who were subjected to the wrath of The New Puritans. It is easy enough to dismiss these as the troubles of the well to do, but she mentions in passing that some among them experienced suicidal ideation, and in one case, even committed suicide. I dont think, as a fellow human being, this is something that should simply be brushed off.

Its quite possible their privileged lives left them more vulnerable to this outcome. Consider In The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Walter J. Torres and Raymond M. Bergner explain:

[A]n individual suffers humiliation when he makes a bid or claim to a certain social status, has this bid or claim fail publicly, and has it fail at the hands of another person or persons who have the status necessary to reject the claim. Finally, what is denied is not only the status claim itself, but also and more fundamentally the individuals very status to have made such a claim at all.

Whether the incidents that Applebaum and others like her have recounted involved temporary or permanent setbacks, they were no doubt perceived by the individuals in question as, to use Torres and Bergners words, a literal de-grading, entailing a significant loss of status that had been, up until then, successfully claimed and acted on and thus a loss of the individuals range of behavioral eligibilities in some community or communities.

The consequences of such de-grading, felt to be severely humiliating treatment by the individuals undergoing it, can be quite extreme; Suffering severe humiliation has been shown empirically to plunge individuals into major depressions, suicidal states, and severe anxiety states, including ones characteristic of posttraumatic stress disorder.

I think there is a strong argument to be made that high status occupations and prestigious institutions, together with their intensely competitive pipelines, both create a higher risk environment and select for a higher risk type of person, when it comes to experiencing setbacks as a harm. The tenured professors rivals who sought the same position, and had the same life trajectory of always succeeding in the ambitious goals they had set out to accomplish, might very well experience similar harms simply from having failed to obtain that position.

To accept this, we do not need to believe that anyone is owed a prestigious position, or even that it is wrong to publicly criticize them and actively work to remove them from that position. No doubt a politician or police officer who was taking bribes would be at similar risk for psychological harm if their crimes were exposed to the public; that is no argument against exposing those crimes.

All I wish to emphasize, for now, is that these harms are real, and just as we wouldnt doubt that people far removed from positions of social power are full human beings capable of being hurt, we ought not to doubt it of Applebaums subjects and their peers either. And of course, bullying and its psychological consequences are present at every level of the social hierarchy. This need not involve physical intimidation to cause harm; verbal abuse, especially when perpetuated in groups rather than by lone bullies, is quite capable of driving people to suicidal ideation.

No one defends verbal abuse as a category, but it stands in uncomfortable relation to freedom of speech. Verbal abuse alone is not necessarily a crime in this country. It may in some instances be construed as harassment, which is a crime, but the legal waters can be quite murky here. In practice, the boundaries between frivolous insults and verbal abuse are more ambiguous than we might like.

Let us now consider the harms that can be brought about through the exercise of other liberties. Freedom of association and contract allow people to band together for comfort, companionship, and to coordinate group action. It also allows people to enter into employment relations in order to provide something for sale and thereby to pay for the livelihood of employees and business owners alike. In short, these freedoms allow people to work together to fulfill their material, moral, and emotional needs, by entering into relations of mutual support and mutual dependence. But dependence is coterminous with vulnerability, and the types of punishments that association and contract make possible are far more severe than verbal abuse alone.

I have discussed how at-will employment might be reformed, but for the time being, that is the model that Americans live under. And under that model, what keeps most people in their jobs most of the time is more the lack of a reason to let them go, rather than a positive reason to keep them, specifically, on board. There are switching costs associated with finding a replacement and getting them ramped upcosts that, as I write this, are higher than they have ever been in my lifetimebut this important friction aside, the difficulty of objectively measuring employee performance leaves a great deal up to perceptions, which can be quite slippery and vulnerable to suggestion. This is most acute in white collar or knowledge economy settings where objective outputs are few and such outputs as exist are produced by teams, for which it can be quite impossible to determine individual contribution with precision. In the ordinary course of business, simply making a bad impression on the wrong person can set you on an uphill battle to maintain your position, never mind grow your career within the firm.

Under these conditions, if someone wants to make trouble for you for reasons entirely orthogonal to your job performance, it is not that difficult. We ought not to dismiss the threat that even a single social media user can pose to someones position with their current employer, any more than we should dismiss the impact of a single social media users threats of violence. It would not take a great deal of negative attention for management to begin to judge an employees perceived PR liabilities as exceeding the cost of replacing them.

But risk analysis aside, we ought not to underrate the psychological stress of having people publicly calling for you to lose your job, or even for termination to be considered. The impact of reprimands and internal investigations ought not to be dismissed either. Both could be considered a form of public shaming, whether they are done before the broader public or simply before ones coworkers. And the precarious nature of perceptions within an organization are such that raising the possibility that someone is a problem makes it sharply more likely people will consider them one regardless of the outcome of an investigation.

No one is owed a good reputation, and it falls to all of us to do the best we can to manage our own, and to stand up for others we feel are being wrongfully condemned. My point is not that criticism, reprimands, investigations, and termination are never warranted. My point is simply that we should be clear eyed about the harms they can produce, whether the actions that produce them are warranted or not. Too often, law and order conservatives are willing to dismiss the harms suffered by those put in contact with our criminal justice system, simply because some of those people turn out to have been correctly suspected of committing serious crimes. If liberals can recognize that the perpetrators of violent crimes are human beings whose dignity and safety is still worth caring about, surely we can extend this insight to racist or insensitive coworkers. Even when we agree the punishmentwhether jail time or termination of employmentfits the offense, we ought not to give in to the temptation to dehumanize the punished.

Feeling anxiety over losing ones job is hardly irrational, even among the relatively affluent and successful. No one can tell you how long it will take for you to find a new job, and therefore how long you will be drawing down whatever cash you were able to set aside before that point. Even if getting stuck in long term unemployment is unlikely for a given person, it is much more likely when you are already unemployed to begin with. And of course, with the increased chance of long term unemployment comes the other risks that increase with that; being unable to afford basics such as food, shelter, or medical care.

Even if we move beyond employment, where the potential harms are more obvious, other voluntary associations create vulnerabilities as well. To be stripped of membership, or even simply to be humiliated in front of other members, are perfect examples of Torres and Bergners de-grading, with the potential for the same sorts of psychological harms.

One can believe, as I do, that liberty is a central pillar of a liberal society, that it is the beating heart of the dynamism of liberal societies, and also believe that its edges can be very sharp, and cause real harm.

We might be better off if more people, before participating in their punitive desires or collective calls for blood, took a moment to consider the human cost of such personal indulgences. Even if punishment is merited, even if we think it is important, we need not revel in it. It is the reveling, the indulgence, actively encouraged by the culture of our public sphere, which I believe leads to excesses. If more people take these harms seriously, perhaps they will feel that they ought, before jumping on some media event bandwagon, to put in the proper time to understand what is known and with what certainty, and the substance of itor not, and simply leave well enough alone. Perhaps some will try speaking with HR or a manager first, rather than jumping as a first approach to gathering coworker signatures on a public petition to discipline or fire one of their colleagues.

These are the kinds of considerations that we ought to encourage as a matter of cultural and individual ethic. Its no cure-all, and theres no mechanism by which we guarantee such cultural changes will get adopted in the first place. But for those with an interest in this topic seeking to make a difference through persuasion, this is the route I would suggest.

While I dont think the matter has been empirically settled by any means, I dont believe that the challenges of speech in Americaeven including the red state anti-CRT billsare anywhere near the greatest problem in American society. The scale of abuse, humiliation, and violence on display in immigration enforcement, child protective services, and the criminal justice system are difficult to measure up against in this respect.

Nevertheless, a smaller problem is still a problem, and there is merit in trying to understand it. Many conservatives in the Cold War pointed to the real horrors of communism abroad in order to distract from the equally real horrors of Jim Crow at home, to say nothing of many problems that were smaller but worth talking about. When the chances of open nuclear warfare have increased, as it undoubtedly has today due to Russias war on Ukraine, it becomes rather difficult for any other problem, no matter how widespread or severe, to measure up. That does not mean we ought to ignore those problems.

The role of public and private constraints on and penalties against speech is a topic of central concern in the liberal tradition. Given that our cycle of re-litigating these questions by recourse to the same talking points over and over seems nowhere near an end, we ought at least to try to improve that conversation.

In the above, I set out to do just that, first by providing a model for thinking about the interplay between individual liberty and the character of the social system overall, and second by encouraging people to take the harms associated with cultural punitiveness more seriously.

[1] Jacob T. Levy, Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2015), 52.

[2] Ernest Gellner, Conditions of Liberty: Civil Society and Its Rivals (London: Penguin Books, 1996), 5-8.

[3] Ibid. 99-100.

[4] Jacob T. Levy, Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2015), 53.

[5] Jacob T. Levy, Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2015), 42-43.

[6] Ibid. 47

[7] Elizabeth Anderson, Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Dont Talk about It) (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2019), 48-49.

[8] Jacob T. Levy, The Multiculturalism of Fear (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2004), 209.

[9] Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, trans. Harvey Claflin Mansfield and Delba Winthrop (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2012), 244.

Featured Image is The fin de sicle newspaper proprietor, by F. Opper

Read the original:

Rationalism, Pluralism, and Fear in the Speech Debate - Liberal Currents

A near-unanimous school board vote Tuesday night struck down a proposal to create an After School Satan Club at the Northern York Elementary School.

The proposal was initiated by Samantha Groome, a resident of the district. Every board member except Thomas Welch voted against allowing the club to form.

Someone voted in favor, eh? was the first reaction of Lucien Greaves, the cofounder of the Temple of Satan that created the national After School Satan Club. It is indicative of a school board that has no idea what its limits are and its function is.

At least 300 people gathered to share viewpoints that ranged from emphatic support to vehement opposition of the proposal to form the club. The vast majority of voices, however, voiced dissent.

Many parents cited scripture to reinforce their points of belief. Some heckled opposition speakers. And some rose to the microphone to tell Christians to show Christian love to all.

Jodie Osborne of Wellsville delivered an impassioned speech citing scripture.

Im sad all we are talking about is Satan. Its not about Satan, its about God, Osborne said. Wrongs will be righted, and if we dont start standing now, were going to lose our nation.

Paul Miller took to the microphone and told the community to cast those in favor of the club out of town.

You shouldnt be here. Theres no room for you here. If this freaking group does get voted in, lets do something about it, Miller told the crowd.

The After School Satan Club is an after-school program that promotes self-directed education by supporting the intellectual and creative interests of students, according to its website.

The group does not worship Satan, nor does it try to proselytize. It seeks to promote free inquiry and rationalism, according to its website.

It was clear these people had no idea who we are, and what we are doing, Lucien Greaves, cofounder of the Temple of Satan that sponsors the after school club, said.

Some in the audience felt they knew enough to oppose it.

One Northern York County High School junior defended the group.

I am a religious person myself, however, Ive often found myself at the teeth-end of Christian love, the junior, who declined to give his full name, said. I find they can be quite intolerant at times. They can push people away easily.

The After School Satan Club could provide a place for kids who know they are different to go without being asked demeaning questions or having to explain themselves, the junior said.

Jackie Bieber, a recent arrival in Dillsburg, said she just lost a child to a suicide website run by a Satanic group.

They gave her step-by-step instructions. We move over here, and now we find out theres an after-school Satan club, Bieber said.

Wes Gessaman took to the microphone and said This is how it begins.

When I hear Satan, I dont research that. I dont look it up, Gessaman said. Im not about to let it slip through my fingers I could have stopped this from happening to others children.

The self-described mission of The Satanic Temple is to encourage benevolence and empathy, reject tyrannical authority, advocate practical common sense, oppose injustice and undertake noble pursuits.

Its a complete contradiction because Satan is a tyrannical force, Becky Rosely, of Dillsburg, said. However, she did speak of compassion.

They will know we are Christians by our love, Rosely said. Not by our nasty, snarky remarks. We should be doing a whole lot better job at sharing the love of Christ with them.

I do not want my towns image to be destroyed, William Dacheux, of Dillsburg, spoke up. I do not want Dillsburg to be known as the town that accepts everyone so long as you believe what we do. If we shelter our children from different worldviews that are out there, we are doing them a disservice.

A member of the audience held a crucifix above the crowd as Dacheux spoke.

Deanna Weaver, a Dillsburg resident, said while a significant number of people in the room were Christians, there were also people who do not believe in a superior being.

That in no way makes me a child pornographer, a cannibal or any of the absurdities that have been rumored. This lady [Samantha Groome] has been misrepresented, Weaver said.

Weaver continued to read the seven tenets of The Satanic Temple:

1. One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.

2. The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.

3. Ones body is inviolable, subject to ones own will alone.

4. The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo ones own.

5. Beliefs should conform to ones best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit ones beliefs.

6. People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do ones best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.

7. Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.

What is objectionable about all that? Weaver said.

Everything! the auditorium erupted in raucous comment. Weaver silently returned to her seat.

Greaves called the experience unnecessarily traumatizing for those who wanted the group brought to Northern York County and said religious freedom does not come down to a school boards vote.

They had the first meeting, and people didnt show up. They were hoping to humiliate and intimidate us and drive us out So they allowed people to show up and shout us down, then do their show trial and say they will not allow us to run the club, Greaves said.

They are a disgrace to their public post and they have no right sitting in those chairs, Greaves said.

Greaves said the group tried to do everything in their power to meet the standards district policy set and to work with them as smoothly as possible.

They instead decided to make a controversy out of it and turn it into the spectacle it became. Thats very regrettable, Greaves said.

READ MORE:

After School Satan Club up for vote by Northern York School Board

GOP gubernatorial hopefuls argue the issues, agree on criticizing those who skipped debate

Two Democratic candidates vying for Dauphin County state House seat removed from ballot

Originally posted here:

After School Satan Club rejected by Northern York School Board vote - PennLive

This is an edition of Up for Debate, a newsletter by Conor Friedersdorf. On Wednesdays, he rounds up timely conversations and solicits reader responses to one thought-provoking question. Soon after, he publishes some thoughtful replies. Sign up for the newsletter here.

Last week I asked readers, What worries you most about the direction of the country? For Adam, the answer is rooted in a perception that were underestimating what is at stake when we act:

The thing I worry about the most is breaking unfixable things. I think the modern era, especially defined by the GOP (but also by the far left), is more about performance than production. Our leaders dont seem to care about fixing problems, or even proposing solutions, just popularity contests, scoring points, and seeing how far they can push the envelope to stay in power. This didnt used to worry me as much. While Congress was always a procrastinator, they tended to get their homework done on time.

But I fear in the next few years, something will break that cant be fixed. Republicans are telling us theyre going to try to steal the next election. Democrats seem to be jamming their heads in the sand to avoid the issue and hope that two centuries of rule-following will save us. It wont. The more America breaks, the more other nations will step in to fill the void. What if the dollar ceases to be the world reserve currency? Most Americans cant comprehend the benefits we gain from this status, or the economic and lifestyle pain well suffer if it goes away. Once its gone, its gone. Theres no going back. What if a debt ceiling fight takes us over the edge? That might be all it takes. And can anyone tell me with a straight face they trust the leaders in Congress as responsible stewards of the country to NOT take us over that cliff? Damn the consequences?

Congress has gotten used to passes and do-overs. But there are things that will break us, will fundamentally alter life as we know it, well below the apocalyptic threats of climate change or nuclear war, but a new era of real, actual, American decline (not the made up American decline BS used in election ads). And were so polarized, so used to choosing and accepting less than we deserve in our leaders, I fear well lower the bar and accept it.

B. laments the abandonment of rationalism:

As a healthcare provider recommending COVID vaccination to skeptical patients, we are now educated by the CDC and our medical organizations that the best way to do this is, dont try to convince them using facts. In a nutshell this is an example of what worries me the most. The abandonment of any effort to make difficult decisions using rationalism.

So instead of approaching these decisions by using as much science, math, and reason as we have availableand acknowledging that almost all difficult decisions need to be made using incomplete informationweve now moved to a faith-based system. We choose a source of information like a cable news network or a minister or a politician or an internet community. And then just believe whatever they say rather than trusting institutions, fact-checking, and content experts. When both sides do that, there is no room for either compromise or getting anyone to agree that they might be wrong (now or in the past). We are thus left with no ability to address complicated, difficult issues like climate change, budget deficits, entitlement programs, or healthcare reform.

Jill is thinking about income inequality:

I am particularly interested right now in the debate spawned by Matthew Stewarts The Birth of a New American Aristocracy, the 9.9%, who own more wealth than all other Americans put together, and are perpetuating wealth inequality like never before. I am surprised to find myself in this class, and pondering how to get more clarity about the nature of the problem that our emergence as a class represents, and what can be done about this.

Matt worries that we dont invest more in the quality of education for all:

If we want to stay a leading force in the world, we should prioritize having the best educated population. Right now it seems like we are being forced into an absurd debate over preventing kids from being groomed or indoctrinated. Its an argument against activity thats not occurring, doing damage to the teaching field, school boards, and the overall effectiveness of education. We could be spending time and resources to give young generations the best education available, but we arent. Its going to haunt our country and inhibit our ability to progress as a competitive economy.

What makes me optimistic is to see the independent thought of the younger Gen Z population. They seem to understand social media and information in a different way that I hope allows them to identify mis/disinformation more naturally than older generations. They have skills and talents which will allow them to be successful in new ways. Millennials are uniquely well educated as a generation and will offer a lot of value as leaders. I look forward to a world more generally controlled by Millennials and Gen Z.

Tony believes that were doomed by the attack on truth that he perceives:

When I was a student in the late 90s and early aughts at Evangelical colleges, we were terrified of postmodernism. Perhaps ironically, we now find ourselves in a cultural moment foretold by those Evangelicals, but for different reasons and with many of them on the other side of truth. The fact that charlatans and pathological liars are allowed unfettered access to airwaves and social media is disastrous. It works for an anarchic state perhaps but not for a functioning republic. What we are seeing now is the nightmare underbelly of democracy that the Founders tried to prevent by implementing certain checks and balances. I see no evidence that this experiment is leading in a direction other than failure.

L. has concerns about excessive questioning of everything, but finds hope at work:

Im a middle school educator, teaching social studies in the Bronx. What troubles me is the denigration of institutions. I dont just mean government. We as a society have questioned and doubted so much (on both the left AND the right) that the familiar groundings of societyfamily, education, commercebecome objects of constant suspicion.

Social media is a huge culprit in this: any medium that makes a fool an instant expert is a conduit for anarchy. However, I found hope in my classroom. We were discussing the difficult legacy of the Declaration of Independence. 41 slave owners were among the 56 signers of a document that stated all men are created equal. I asked if the flaws of these men invalidated the ideas in the document (an idea that gets wide circulation in critical studies). One by one, my students disagreed. They all said basically the same thing: the ideas are too important to throw away. They are ideas worth fighting for, ideas that should be what we as Americans should work towards every day. I almost cried.

Sophia fears an environment that is increasingly efficient, polluted, ugly, controlled, tamed, tracked; a culture in which children and adults are increasingly afraid, lonely, and anxious despite objective safety; and a culture in which people die after years of slow deterioration of mind and body, while she finds hope in genetic engineering; an explosion of beautiful art in the form of writing, television, movies, and fashion; an end to farm animal exploitation through the invention of lab grown meat; and assisted suicide legislation and more good death culture.

Read: 14 reader views on sexuality and gender in the classroom

Like other readers, Isaac worries about social medias effect on society:

Social media as it exists today degrades human experience. I am fairly young but I dont use it. I believe the epidemics of anxiety, loneliness, and depression that are wrecking my generation are due in large part to the commercialization of social interaction. These platforms exploit human weakness and our tendency to believe things that we agree with, intensify in-group out-group thinking, and turn truth into a political football.

What worries me is that these platforms will remain central to all forms of public discourse, and that Americans will find it impossible to act as one people. We face numerous existential challenges. We cannot surmount them without a shared set of facts and values. I think that it is possible to create beneficial social mediathere are values to connectionbut that is not what we have today and unless there is a recognition that these businesses are sucking our attention dry at the expense of the things that matter most (love, compassion, truth, reason) we are going to be unable to surmount our challenges and I think we will be in an increasingly isolated, atomized, and alienating culture.

What gives me hope is this: America is a strong country. We have spent the last decade at least with no clear enemy, no clear purpose, and a pervasive need to self doubt and eat our own. If we play to our strengths, recognize the incredible gift of our democracy, our geography, and our people, then we could accomplish almost anything.

Errol fears that we are too pessimistic:

I worry that were entering a world of overcorrection.

I love this country, where you can break free of the worst and incorporate the best of the culture youve come from. That is one of the best ideas a society has ever had. But now mixing cultures is cultural appropriation and a bad thing. Weve allowed the most immigrants ever in the history of any government, yet weve somehow become the border wall country. Im not saying we are without serious problems, but we do do good and have a rich positive history as well. We invented airplanes and movies. We landed on the moon! These are pretty remarkable progressive steps for the species. The world is worse without the US in it, and while we can and should do better, it would be nice to acknowledge the good once in a while and to take a break from the constant negativity.

Martin worries about the degradation of local control:

My concern is that so many individuals, especially those in the current political class, are forgetting that we are a Federal Republic with a principles-based constitution underpinned by a liberal (in the classic, not political, sense) set of values. I guess you can ask, why does this matter?

In a Federal Republic a significant portion of decision-making can be pushed to local communities. What is unfortunate is that each time there is conflict between various layers of government our politicians in one party or the other seem to want to aggregate power farther from the citizenry. Over the past 20 years we have watched both California and Texas push for nationalization of their legislative priorities followed by the cry for states rights as soon the Federal government changed hands. And in both cases we have watched as these states have mandated behavior at the county, city and even school board level in conflict with local desires. As long as the principles enshrined in the 14th amendment ( nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws) are met, federalism allows for a multitude of laboratories in which to innovate and learn. Just as none of us really think technological innovation should occur only in one location, we should not believe that of political innovation.

Michael is so worried that he has thought about where else he might move:

I am frankly terrified about the direction of the country. I have never felt this pessimistic about where we are heading. It appears we are in an endlessly polarized environment where there is no unity and little or no concern for anyone who is not in our tribe. As someone who has been a liberal democrat all my life, and has mostly, but not always, lived in the northeast US, I appreciate that to some extent I live in a bubble surrounded by like-minded people. But many of us pay attention to current events and my concern is shared by many. I just had lunch with a close friend yesterday, and we were talking about what other countries might be a more hospitable, less stressful place to live. I have had more than a few sleepless nights thinking about this.

What am I optimistic about? One thing that I find both reassuring and perhaps a source of optimism is that my three adult children seem far less troubled than I am. They are busy with careers, relationships, house hunting, etc. Maybe as someone who is semi-retired, I just have too much time to think about things. It is almost as if the best case scenario is that as the federal government becomes less empowered (due to the originalism of the Supreme Court), states will evolve separately and perhaps people will gravitate to states that are more welcoming to them. We would no longer be a united country (I think that train has left the station anyway), we would be in more of a cold civil war. The enormous downside of that, of course, would be a fractured response to International events. It appears we are headed toward a more conflictual world stage and having a fractured and ineffectual US would certainly not help.

For Eric, theres nothing to be pessimistic about but pessimism itself:

I actually dont worry that much about the direction of the country, but I do worry about issues with the country. The thing that worries me most is the popularization of the end-of-the-world framework, often seen in a religious context, being applied to American democracy. This concerns me, because, right now, this type of pessimism is broadly and simultaneously permeating both the left and the right. I cant think of a precedent for this. There are always fatalistic pockets of society, but American fatalism appears to have gone mainstream. Democracy is just an idea. It exists solely in our collective imagination. If enough of us stop believing its a good idea, then it wont withstand an organized assault.

This is a serious problem. But, as I said, Im not that worried. Weve been through divisive times before. We survived an actual bloody Civil War over the right to own humans, so weve fought it out over the most serious issue. I think its a strong precedent for success. And were seeing tons of participation in the allegedly rigged process, from both sides.

Were living through the first time in human history when we all hear the thoughts of anybody who wants to speak their thoughts out loud. And a lot of people (but not all) seem to want to speak. But sometimes we forget that talk is cheap. People say all kinds of things that they dont mean, especially from behind a keyboard, especially if theyre anonymous. There are people who say abhorrent things that they actually believe. But there are a lot of people who speak incredibly flippantly about all sorts of stuff who, when push-comes-to-shove, would be forced to admit they dont mean it. Just think of the tough guy talk some people use behind their keyboards, who are actually sad, pathetic wimps.

The freedom to say things inconsequentially via social media has dovetailed with the desire for attention and a perverse incentive structure that rewards extreme speech, so a lot of people appear disenchanted with American democracy, but theyre living their best lives thanks to it. Now, it may be the case that the insincere language reaches such a fever pitch that coming generations internalize it without realizing how performative it is, and then we could be screwed. But I think humans will adapt to a world with social media and will find solutions to the malaligned incentive structure. People will continue realizing that American democracy, for all its flaws, is still pretty awesome, and well keep improving it.

Thanks for your contributions. I read every one that you send. See you Wednesday.

More:

12 Reader Views on Where America Is Going Wrong - The Atlantic

At a time when India faces the double whammy of linguistic imposition and attacks on the free press, April 12 marked a historic day as Indias first Persian newspaper Mirat-ul-Akhbar completed 200 years.

The newspaper Mirat-ul-Akhbar the title of which translates to Mirror of News was founded by Raja Ram Mohan Roy in the year 1822 in Calcutta. It used to be published on Fridays every week.

In 1803-4, Mohan Roy had presented his first Persian seminal writing in the form of a book named Tuhfat-ul-Muwahhidin to monotheists. And again, he wrote his second Persian book, Monozeautul Adiyan, focusing on discourses of religion in 1814. His improved grip on the Persian language probably led to the founding of Mirat-ul-Akhbar in 1822.

In the first issue of the weekly, Ram Mohan wrote, [T]he object of the paper was not to shower praises upon its promoters or his well-wishers or to scandalise anybody. On the contrary, it aims at reaching the truth. The second issue focussed on the British Constitution.

Akhbars take on persisting social evils like sati, child marriage, its opposition to religious fundamentalism, and emphasis on rationality and science constituted the multidimensional approach of the reformer. Raja Ram Mohan Roy was considered to have been influenced by Western modern thought and stressed on rationalism and modern scientific approach that reflected in his writings about topics such as on echo in acoustics, properties of the magnet, behaviour of the fish, and description of a balloon.

Roys Journalism of Resistance

Dr. P. Thangamuthu, assistant professor at Research Department of history in PT MTM College in Tamil Nadu, writes in an article: Ram Mohans editorial criticism of popular Christian faith, English foreign policy and of the British insolence on public roads towards the common people appeared too venomous for the British administration in India to swallow.

Roys other editorial criticism lambasting the Judge of Camilla, John Haynes, on the cruel treatment of a civilian led to a trial of the judge in the Supreme Court in April 1822, according to Thangamuthus article. Such an impact vis a vis a higher official of the English judiciary was one of its kind in the era.

But Akhbars functioning which meant great trouble for the imperial rulers was bound to bear the brunt of the rulers hostility. The newly promulgated press ordinance curtailed the liberty and expression of free press and as a mark of protest, Mohan Roy had to close the newspaper in 1823, citing his inability to publish the paper under the degrading conditions set by the ordinance.

What Mirat-ul-Akhbar embodied back in the day was resistance which is precisely missing today to a great extent. According to veteran journalist P Sainath, the quality and kind of journalism represented by Mirat-ul-Akhbar is more relevant in contemporary India than ever before. The editorial written during the British Raj, which managed to put a judge on trial in the Supreme court, was hard-hitting journalism. Mohan Roys prospectus of the paper with editorial stating that there will not be singing of praises of the sponsor also point to his will to resist. Sainath, commenting on Roys journalistic ethics, mentioned that the man who ended sati in the country, did not speak of giving the right to reply to the supporters of sati unlike todays model of right to reply for those who are oppressing or siding with oppressors. In our times, the only valuable journalism is the journalism of dissent.

Significance of Persian

Persian during the 18th century was still being used as a court language as well as among the educated, intellectuals, and the top policymakers of the country. Introduction of Persian or Farsi to the Indian subcontinent was by Central Asian Persian rulers in the 13th century. The language enjoyed a good reputation in literature and philosophy just like that enjoyed by the English language in modern India. After having played a key role in communication and literature, the language was replaced by English in the late 19th century. It has nonetheless contributed thousands of words to the vocabularies of not merely Hindi and Urdu but also Bengali, Marathi, and Gujarati.

The quest to keep Persian language relevant and preserve the flame, Iran Society in Calcutta has played a crucial role. The 77-year old Centre for Persian Studies was formed by Md. Ishaque, a noted Persian scholar. While studying at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London between 1938 and 1940, he came across the Iran Society, London, which was engaged in promoting Persian studies. And subsequently, on return to India, set up a similar society in the city. The Iran Society has been bringing out a quarterly journal without interruption for the past 75 years in bound volumes. It also provides scholarships to students and holds conferences.

Dr. Fuad Halim, the member of the council of Iran Society and of the editorial board of the Indo-Iranica journal, told NewsClick that Indias medieval history exists in Persian, which deserves to be preserved.

The writer is a freelance journalist.

Read more:

Bicentenary Year of Mirat-ul-Akhbar: Indias Pioneering Persian Newspaper that Embodied Resistance - NewsClick

Evidence based medicine has been corrupted by corporate interests, failed regulation, and commercialisation of academia, argue these authors

The advent of evidence based medicine was a paradigm shift intended to provide a solid scientific foundation for medicine. The validity of this new paradigm, however, depends on reliable data from clinical trials, most of which are conducted by the pharmaceutical industry and reported in the names of senior academics. The release into the public domain of previously confidential pharmaceutical industry documents has given the medical community valuable insight into the degree to which industry sponsored clinical trials are misrepresented.1234 Until this problem is corrected, evidence based medicine will remain an illusion.

The philosophy of critical rationalism, advanced by the philosopher Karl Popper, famously advocated for the integrity of science and its role in an open, democratic society. A science of real integrity would be one in which practitioners are careful not to cling to cherished hypotheses and take seriously the outcome of the most stringent experiments.5 This ideal is, however, threatened by corporations, in which financial interests trump the common good. Medicine is largely dominated by a small number of very large pharmaceutical companies that compete for market share, but are effectively united in their efforts to expanding that market. The short term stimulus to biomedical research because of privatisation has been celebrated by free market champions, but the unintended, long term consequences for medicine have been severe. Scientific progress is thwarted by the ownership of data and knowledge because industry suppresses negative trial results, fails to report adverse events, and does not share raw data with the academic research community. Patients die because of the adverse impact of commercial interests on the research agenda, universities, and regulators.

The pharmaceutical industrys responsibility to its shareholders means that priority must be given to their hierarchical power structures, product loyalty, and public relations propaganda over scientific integrity. Although universities have always been elite institutions prone to influence through endowments, they have long laid claim to being guardians of truth and the moral conscience of society. But in the face of inadequate government funding, they have adopted a neo-liberal market approach, actively seeking pharmaceutical funding on commercial terms. As a result, university departments become instruments of industry: through company control of the research agenda and ghostwriting of medical journal articles and continuing medical education, academics become agents for the promotion of commercial products.6 When scandals involving industry-academe partnership are exposed in the mainstream media, trust in academic institutions is weakened and the vision of an open society is betrayed.

The corporate university also compromises the concept of academic leadership. Deans who reached their leadership positions by virtue of distinguished contributions to their disciplines have in places been replaced with fundraisers and academic managers, who are forced to demonstrate their profitability or show how they can attract corporate sponsors. In medicine, those who succeed in academia are likely to be key opinion leaders (KOLs in marketing parlance), whose careers can be advanced through the opportunities provided by industry. Potential KOLs are selected based on a complex array of profiling activities carried out by companies, for example, physicians are selected based on their influence on prescribing habits of other physicians.7 KOLs are sought out by industry for this influence and for the prestige that their university affiliation brings to the branding of the companys products. As well paid members of pharmaceutical advisory boards and speakers bureaus, KOLs present results of industry trials at medical conferences and in continuing medical education. Instead of acting as independent, disinterested scientists and critically evaluating a drugs performance, they become what marketing executives refer to as product champions.

Ironically, industry sponsored KOLs appear to enjoy many of the advantages of academic freedom, supported as they are by their universities, the industry, and journal editors for expressing their views, even when those views are incongruent with the real evidence. While universities fail to correct misrepresentations of the science from such collaborations, critics of industry face rejections from journals, legal threats, and the potential destruction of their careers.8 This uneven playing field is exactly what concerned Popper when he wrote about suppression and control of the means of science communication.9 The preservation of institutions designed to further scientific objectivity and impartiality (i.e., public laboratories, independent scientific periodicals and congresses) is entirely at the mercy of political and commercial power; vested interest will always override the rationality of evidence.10

Regulators receive funding from industry and use industry funded and performed trials to approve drugs, without in most cases seeing the raw data. What confidence do we have in a system in which drug companies are permitted to mark their own homework rather than having their products tested by independent experts as part of a public regulatory system? Unconcerned governments and captured regulators are unlikely to initiate necessary change to remove research from industry altogether and clean up publishing models that depend on reprint revenue, advertising, and sponsorship revenue.

Our proposals for reforms include: liberation of regulators from drug company funding; taxation imposed on pharmaceutical companies to allow public funding of independent trials; and, perhaps most importantly, anonymised individual patient level trial data posted, along with study protocols, on suitably accessible websites so that third parties, self-nominated or commissioned by health technology agencies, could rigorously evaluate the methodology and trial results. With the necessary changes to trial consent forms, participants could require trialists to make the data freely available. The open and transparent publication of data are in keeping with our moral obligation to trial participantsreal people who have been involved in risky treatment and have a right to expect that the results of their participation will be used in keeping with principles of scientific rigour. Industry concerns about privacy and intellectual property rights should not hold sway.

Competing interests: McHenry and Jureidini are joint authors of The Illusion of Evidence-Based Medicine: Exposing the Crisis of Credibility in Clinical Research (Adelaide: Wakefield Press, 2020). Both authors have been remunerated by Los Angeles law firm, Baum, Hedlund, Aristei and Goldman for a fraction of the work they have done in analysing and critiquing GlaxoSmithKline's paroxetine Study 329 and Forest Laboratories citalopram Study CIT-MD-18. They have no other competing interests to declare.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned, externally peer reviewed

Schafer A. Biomedical conflicts of interest: A defense of the sequestration thesisLearning from the cases of Nancy Olivieri and David Healy. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2004;30:8-24.

Go here to see the original:

The illusion of evidence based medicine - The BMJ