Is free speech in danger on college campuses? A student at the University of Virginia recently sparked debate when she argued in a New York Times article that yes, free speech is in danger as most students self-censor for fear of social ostracism and academic reprisal. Responses ranged from the complimentary to the critical predictably along ideological boundaries, with progressives arguing that freedom of speech is a red herring to distract from social inequities and conservatives lamenting the loss of a basic human right for which our ancestors fought and died. Indeed, for most of human history there has been no guaranteed right to speak freely without fear of retaliation, and arguably it is only since the early modern period that governments prioritized it within their constitutions. But upholding freedom of speech in an age where it is being questioned means recalling its ultimate object: truth telling for the good of the other.
Parrhesia: To Speak Freely
Professor of political theory Teresa Bejan wrote in The Atlantic in 2017 on the very issue of campus free speech, arguing that today’s debates glimpse a more “fundamental conflict between two, very different concepts of free speech” undergirding ancient Athenian democracy. Isegoria meant the equal right of citizens, poor or rich, to participate in public debate in the democratic assembly, while parrhesia meant the license to speak freely – and perhaps offensively. While parrhesia sometimes (and still does) carry the connotation of unqualified chatter, it was most frequently presented in classical texts as truth-telling, even if unpopular, offensive, or dangerous to those in power. In Plato’s Apologia, Socrates famously testifies that he is unpopular in Athens due to his role as parrhesiastes. Another ancient author praised the rhetorical power of free, frank, and fearless speech, as “before those to whom we owe reverence or fear, we yet exercise our right to speak out, because we seem justified in reprehending them, or persons dear to them, for some fault.” Thus parrhesia implies an obligation to speak truth for the common good, even at great personal risk.
The Good Parrhesiastes
The parrhesiastes is not only willing to place himself at the mercy of the powerful, but to make known a truth which may be difficult for the hearer to hear. While the parrhesiastic tradition certainly includes many instances of bold (read: inappropriate, reckless, offensive) speech, the good parrhesiastes recognizes his obligation to the truth, and out of his limited knowledge tries to offer the hearer an approximation of that truth he aims to tell. He is neither verbally reckless nor deliberately offensive for offense’s sake, and political discourse proceeds as it would with an honest friend. In one of his lectures, the philosopher Michel Foucault contended that for Plato, parrhesia is found in friendship, not in quest of “the favor of a self-satisfied citizen body.” Many people today on all sides are so committed to expressing their allegiance to a particular group that they forget the point of politics. If we agree with Aristotle that happiness is the product of a virtuous life, then politics is the art of discerning government so as to form virtuous citizens. Similarly, the parrhesiastes states the truth boldly with the assiduity of a friend out of shared concern for the body politic, not for the thrill of dunking on political opponents.
Friendship is the Foundation
Ultimately, we are not obligated to “be friends” with everyone and we will encounter those with whom we vehemently disagree in our day to day life. So why does our right to freedom of speech grant us such latitude to express opinions, good or bad, to our neighbors? First of all, because few of us are good parrhesiastes. Much of the time, we are imperfect at expressing ourselves and prone to ill will. The right to freedom of speech recognizes that even those who reason or express themselves badly – and all of us do – can participate in and benefit from the body politic. As the forum for our education in virtue is the body politic, freedom of speech grants us the ability to make mistakes as we test ideas and come to new conclusions together. It makes our conversations richer, our interactions freer, and our country better. We come at equality not by forcing certain conclusions on others, but by convincing them through argument and example that a certain way is best. In a chapter from his book Emotions in Plato, scholar Frisbee C.C. Sheffield writes that “citizens learn…[what is required for virtuous citizenship] not, or not solely, through grasping principles of ‘equality’ and ‘justice,’ but by communal experiences in which they take pleasure and which cultivate a certain kind of love.” Freedom of speech serves to accentuate this experience of love, as we are able to admit to each other what are our faults and areas of improvement, so that we are all “recognized as equals and acknowledged as persons of worth and value.”
