The societal value of free expression is both public and personal. Our communities benefit from rigorous and challenging conversations brimming with free expression and thought, and individuals benefit from an understanding that their positions and perspectives are valued and protected. A central pathway for growth can be find in the protection of free expression.
Free expression extends far beyond the verbal and into the sensorial; free expression can be an abstraction, a dance, a feeling externalized through a litany of mediums. A healthy and thriving society is contingent upon the solidification of free expressions as an innate moral conviction or devotion from individuals of all walks of life. We see in Elizabeth LaPensée and Nichlas Emmons’ piece on the videogame “When Rivers Were Trails” how free expression implemented through mediums divergent from traditional notions of what free expression is can challenge harmful histories and ongoing reifications of cyclical traumas.
Free expression allows oneself to formulate an identity by relating to others and speaking or otherwise expressing themselves candidly. Michel Foucault explored the development of free expression in Ancient Greek society in a series of six lectures given at the University of California, Berkeley in 1983. He interrogated the Grecian conceptualization of parrhesia, which in essence means to speak candidly and say what one believes.
Foucault said in his first lecture that the speaker who is engaging in parrhesia “emphasizes the fact that he is both the subject of the enunciation and the subject of the enunciandum…” This description of parrhesia and the speaker’s relationship to oneself leads me to believe that speaking candidly and engaging in free expression allows oneself to formulate their positionality to the external world in accordance with their beliefs. Speaking freely gives the speaker an avenue for envisioning themself in a broader, communal context and offers a reference point for introspection and relatability.
Furthermore, free expression as denoted by Foucault enforces a societal culture concerned with challenging pre-existing beliefs and dogmas. The parrhesiastes enter a space of inherent challenge that is tied to freedom when they move themselves to speaking or otherwise expressing themselves candidly.
“In parrhesia, the speaker uses his freedom and chooses frankness instead of persuasion, truth instead of falsehood or silence, the risk of death instead of life and security, criticism instead of flattery, and moral duty instead of self-interest and moral apathy,” Foucault said.
Free expression is absolutely worth protecting. It allows us to move beyond our pasts and into futures yet-realized, and it affords us opportunities to envision change, collaboration and growth on both macro and micro levels. The ability and right to speak candidly is perhaps one of the most important political and philosophical protections we have, and allowing free expression to be diminished or denigrated will only lead to negative consequences for our society writ large.
Finally, I would argue free expression is not afforded to all; historically marginalized individuals may face serious consequences for speaking candidly in ways white men will not, and if the former do engage in free expression their perspectives or positions may not be given the same weight in dialogue as the latter. We should advocate relentlessly for expanding free expression to incorporate all individuals and positions.
Comentarios