Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHayes, Dennis
dc.date.accessioned2017-06-14T11:32:50Z
dc.date.available2017-06-14T11:32:50Z
dc.date.issued2017-05
dc.identifier.citationHayes, D. (2017) Freedom of Speech in a Therapeutic Age, in Pablé, A. (Ed) Critical Humanist Perspectives. The Integrational Turn in Philosophy of Language and Communication, London and New York: Routledge.en
dc.identifier.isbn9781138656710
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10545/621640
dc.description.abstractRoy Harris (2009) and Adrian Pablé (2012) have argued that integrationists, in their philosophy and in their linguistics, have a Socratic approach to freedom of speech that sees vigorous and robust debate as the foundational freedom. Everything must be put to the test of criticism. Every citizen has a moral duty to defend freedom of speech and every academic has a duty to defend freedom of speech as the foundational freedom of the academy. Freedom of speech has historically been restricted and controlled at various times dependant on the contingent concept of human being at any time. Authoritarian attempts to control speech and antipathy to human freedom to assent or dissent from established opinion are familiar. In contemporary therapeutic culture restrictions on freedom of speech appear more kindly but are more authoritarian. Seeing human beings as diminished, vulnerable or mentally unwell provides the basis on which the state and its institutions can intervene and regulate freedom of speech and freedom to hear. Bans and censorship are now seen to be necessary to protect vulnerable individuals rather than to protect the cherished but untested ideas of the new moral elites. The kindliness of the new authoritarianism makes it harder to challenge without the challenger being seen as a victimiser. In the contemporary therapeutic university the right to assent alone is allowed. Even body language, sighs and ironic utterances are questionable. The therapeutic university is becoming the silent university. As the university is the embodiment of societal attitudes to freedom of speech what we are seeing is the creation of the silent student and future citizen who dares not speak; not for fear of being harmed but for fear of harming vulnerable others. References Harris, R. (2009) Freedom of Speech and Philosophy of Education, British Journal of Educational Studies, 57 (2) June 2009: 111-126. Pablé, A. M. (2012) Excommunicated on the grounds of Harrisy: Roy Harris, Linguistics and freedom of speech, in Ashley, LRN & Finke, W (Eds.). Language Under Controls: Policies and Practices Affecting Freedom of Speech: Selected Papers from the International Conference, September 23-24, 2011. East Rockaway, NY: Cummings & Hathaway: 1-12.
dc.description.sponsorshipN/Aen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherRoutledgeen
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.routledge.com/Critical-Humanist-Perspectives-The-Integrational-Turn-in-Philosophy-of/Pable/p/book/9781138656710en
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/*
dc.subjectFree speechen
dc.subjectVulnerablilityen
dc.subjectSafe spacesen
dc.titleFreedom of speech in a therapeutic ageen
dc.typeBook chapteren
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Derbyen
html.description.abstractRoy Harris (2009) and Adrian Pablé (2012) have argued that integrationists, in their philosophy and in their linguistics, have a Socratic approach to freedom of speech that sees vigorous and robust debate as the foundational freedom. Everything must be put to the test of criticism. Every citizen has a moral duty to defend freedom of speech and every academic has a duty to defend freedom of speech as the foundational freedom of the academy. Freedom of speech has historically been restricted and controlled at various times dependant on the contingent concept of human being at any time. Authoritarian attempts to control speech and antipathy to human freedom to assent or dissent from established opinion are familiar. In contemporary therapeutic culture restrictions on freedom of speech appear more kindly but are more authoritarian. Seeing human beings as diminished, vulnerable or mentally unwell provides the basis on which the state and its institutions can intervene and regulate freedom of speech and freedom to hear. Bans and censorship are now seen to be necessary to protect vulnerable individuals rather than to protect the cherished but untested ideas of the new moral elites. The kindliness of the new authoritarianism makes it harder to challenge without the challenger being seen as a victimiser. In the contemporary therapeutic university the right to assent alone is allowed. Even body language, sighs and ironic utterances are questionable. The therapeutic university is becoming the silent university. As the university is the embodiment of societal attitudes to freedom of speech what we are seeing is the creation of the silent student and future citizen who dares not speak; not for fear of being harmed but for fear of harming vulnerable others. References Harris, R. (2009) Freedom of Speech and Philosophy of Education, British Journal of Educational Studies, 57 (2) June 2009: 111-126. Pablé, A. M. (2012) Excommunicated on the grounds of Harrisy: Roy Harris, Linguistics and freedom of speech, in Ashley, LRN & Finke, W (Eds.). Language Under Controls: Policies and Practices Affecting Freedom of Speech: Selected Papers from the International Conference, September 23-24, 2011. East Rockaway, NY: Cummings & Hathaway: 1-12.


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/