The Real Taste of Liberty: Valuing Social Openness over Political Freedom
"Freedom," now more than ever, has become the standard buzzword in the political literature of all countries. Whether it be promoting pro-Western democratic revolutions in the Middle East, or subverted rebellion against established regimes, the single word "freedom" somehow represents all concentrated anger of dissatisfied populations and suppressed ambitions of disenfranchised activists. It is a word that arose passions of millions and fears of all political censors.
Generally when the word "freedom" is touched upon in the media and government announcement, it is almost always representative of political freedom, an ability of individuals to express their opinions and views without fear of persecution. Certainly, all democratic regimes (and several non-democratic ones) have actually enforced laws to guarantee freedom of expressions. No matter how marginal and violent the views are, as long as the views are not hurtful to other segments of society, their rights to express the views are protected by the law.
Yet, on the other hand, there is absolutely no law in any country that guarantee that every view expressed openly (to influence public opinions, as they are meant to be) are guaranteed to be influential. It is perfectly legal for all people to only stick to one opinion even though a thousand others have been expressed in opposition. And even in a democratically-elected government with perfect protection of political freedom, if it sees the vast majority of people following only one opinion, it can easily shove all the other ideas under the carpet.
Most people will think that such a situation is absurd and impossible. After all, in even the smallest, most isolated, and most homogeneous community, constituents will have to come from (slightly, if need be) different backgrounds, upbringings, beliefs, and income levels. All these factors will make sure that their honest opinions on any matter, no matter how mundane and generally agreed upon, be slightly different and contradicting.
However, having lived in a democratic yet highly collectivist society that is Japan, the situation does not seem that far-fetched. Note how I just used the word "honest opinions." People can certainly utter their opinions freely, but that may not guarantee that they will deliberate go out and shout out their opposition to the prevalent opinion on any issue. Sure, the loud rebel will not be punished by being arrested, but the pen presence of someone who opines against the established value certainly makes the majority feel "uncomfortable."
And making others feel "uncomfortable" is just the beginning of a long-lasting (and perhaps never-ending) social punishment for the rebel. He will be openly avoided by society, whether at the level of casual friendships or (in the long-term) crucial domestic business relationships. Dissent can only lead to poverty, both at the social and (indirectly) financial aspect. Sure, the rebel felt good for a second blurting his thoughts in public, but given the cost of alienating everyone while getting absolutely no followers in a highly conservative, uniformed society, it is highly doubtful whether the initial act is even really worth it.
The Japanese proverb goes, "any nails that sticks out with be hammered in." To create that "smooth wooden board" that is this peaceful, socially ordered Japan, I wonder how many of these dissenters were quietly sacrificed by being "hammered in"? The fear of social retribution can only force the Japanese dissidents into self-censorship (i.e. not to project any "honest opinions") or turn to escapism after realizing the unchangeable nature of social reality.
And this is exactly the lack of "social openness" that need to be destroyed in the process of creating a vibrant, innovative, and multi-polar society. In Japan and every other collectivist society, political scientists should not just hold on to their naive beliefs that political openness can automatically lead to a forum of diverse ideas. The tendency of social seclusion and affinity to the status quo (no matter how stagnant it has become) must first be eliminated for political freedom to have any positive effect on society.
Generally when the word "freedom" is touched upon in the media and government announcement, it is almost always representative of political freedom, an ability of individuals to express their opinions and views without fear of persecution. Certainly, all democratic regimes (and several non-democratic ones) have actually enforced laws to guarantee freedom of expressions. No matter how marginal and violent the views are, as long as the views are not hurtful to other segments of society, their rights to express the views are protected by the law.
Yet, on the other hand, there is absolutely no law in any country that guarantee that every view expressed openly (to influence public opinions, as they are meant to be) are guaranteed to be influential. It is perfectly legal for all people to only stick to one opinion even though a thousand others have been expressed in opposition. And even in a democratically-elected government with perfect protection of political freedom, if it sees the vast majority of people following only one opinion, it can easily shove all the other ideas under the carpet.
Most people will think that such a situation is absurd and impossible. After all, in even the smallest, most isolated, and most homogeneous community, constituents will have to come from (slightly, if need be) different backgrounds, upbringings, beliefs, and income levels. All these factors will make sure that their honest opinions on any matter, no matter how mundane and generally agreed upon, be slightly different and contradicting.
However, having lived in a democratic yet highly collectivist society that is Japan, the situation does not seem that far-fetched. Note how I just used the word "honest opinions." People can certainly utter their opinions freely, but that may not guarantee that they will deliberate go out and shout out their opposition to the prevalent opinion on any issue. Sure, the loud rebel will not be punished by being arrested, but the pen presence of someone who opines against the established value certainly makes the majority feel "uncomfortable."
And making others feel "uncomfortable" is just the beginning of a long-lasting (and perhaps never-ending) social punishment for the rebel. He will be openly avoided by society, whether at the level of casual friendships or (in the long-term) crucial domestic business relationships. Dissent can only lead to poverty, both at the social and (indirectly) financial aspect. Sure, the rebel felt good for a second blurting his thoughts in public, but given the cost of alienating everyone while getting absolutely no followers in a highly conservative, uniformed society, it is highly doubtful whether the initial act is even really worth it.
The Japanese proverb goes, "any nails that sticks out with be hammered in." To create that "smooth wooden board" that is this peaceful, socially ordered Japan, I wonder how many of these dissenters were quietly sacrificed by being "hammered in"? The fear of social retribution can only force the Japanese dissidents into self-censorship (i.e. not to project any "honest opinions") or turn to escapism after realizing the unchangeable nature of social reality.
And this is exactly the lack of "social openness" that need to be destroyed in the process of creating a vibrant, innovative, and multi-polar society. In Japan and every other collectivist society, political scientists should not just hold on to their naive beliefs that political openness can automatically lead to a forum of diverse ideas. The tendency of social seclusion and affinity to the status quo (no matter how stagnant it has become) must first be eliminated for political freedom to have any positive effect on society.
Comments
Post a Comment