Group hypocrisy on free speech is possible, even in the absence of individual hypocrisy (short)
There’s an argument in philosophy that groups can have agency, and relatedly, commit immoral acts, in a way that may not be reducible to, or identifiable with, the wrongful acts of its individual members. I want to give a case study on the liability of groups towards one vice in particular- hypocrisy.
After recent events in Israel, a number of prominent leftists have been sacked for their, often quite tame support of Palestinians. One of the most prominent is Michael Eisen. Michael Eisen, whose name could be literally transliterated ‘To demand God’s gift’ or ‘God’s gift (is) to demand’ was fired: “after praising an Onion article lampooning the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas.” The Onion article in question was: “Dying Gazans Criticized For Not Using Last Words To Condemn Hamas.”
Subsequent to this and other incidents a game has played out as follows:
Left: “Interesting to see all these ‘free speech warriors’ suddenly unbothered by someone losing their job for their private political opinion.”
Right: “Interesting to see all these cancellers suddenly upset to get a taste of their own medicine”.
Now I think, to be honest, this is probably a fair comment from both groups. Both the left and the right are hypocrites about this, pretending to hold broad and general principles of free speech when it suits them.
But while there certainly are some individuals from both groups that are, individually, hypocritical on this point, I think the hypocrisy of the groups is greater than the sum of its individuals in an interesting way.
Let me use myself as an example. I’m on the left and generally pro-free speechish. I often get uncomfortable when right-wingers get fired for saying stuff, although it’s a complex issue and there are limitations and subtleties. However, I usually only very tepidly oppose right-wingers being fired. Often my ‘support’ will be nothing more than silence, I won’t cheer on the firing. I wouldn’t exactly call my behavior hypocritical certainly it does leave something to be desired, but time is finite, energy is finite, and the political capital I have to dissent from the group while remaining in good standing is also finite, and I’d prefer to use it on other issues.
In principle, we can imagine a situation with two groups. In each of those groups, there are two subgroups. Subgroups 1A and 2A support free speech for all, but usually only speak up about it when it’s their team being affected. Subgroups 1B and 2B support free speech only for their own side - this is not hypocrisy on their part because they’re pretty specific about it and never pretend otherwise. At the collective level, this is going to look like and function like, an enormous amount of hypocrisy for groups 1 and 2 as a whole.
A member of 1, 1m is fired from his job. Group 1A speaks up “We support free speech for all and thus demand 1m be reinstated”. Group 1B speaks up “We oppose this outrageous sacking”. They don’t add, “but only because it’s our own side”, not out of any dishonesty, but just because that’s not contextually relevant to how they’re thinking about it. 2A is silent or very quietly opposes the development. 2B says “1m richly deserved his fate and free speech is no defense”.
The overall message from Group 1 is:
“This is outrageous, something, something free speech”
The overall message from Group 2 is:
“1m richly deserved his fate and free speech is no defence”.
Now 2m is fired and the situation reverses. As a result, we get an overall message from Group 1:
“2m richly deserved her fate, and free speech is no defense”
And an overall message from group 2:
“This is outrageous, something something free speech”.
Thus, the total communication by the groups is hypocritical, even in the absence of any individual being hypocritical. I think it is quite reasonable to hold this against the groups in some sense- and let it change how you evaluate those groups-, even if it would be unfair to hold it against the individuals. Or, if it is fair to hold it against the individuals, I think the blame applies at least more strongly against the group.
Great article. Another example of group hypocrisy without individual hypocrisy can be found within democracy. I’ll share an excellent example I read in a book called How To Not Be Wrong. Let’s say the question is raised of “how do we reduce the deficit”? For the sake of argument, let’s say there are only two government programs: health and education. One-third of people might favour raising taxes, while a further third want to cut health spending, and the remaining third prefer to cut education spending. Each person has a perfectly coherent opinion. But overall, the group is hypocritical: a majority of people oppose raising taxes, but a majority of people also oppose putting any one program on the chopping block.
A similar situation can be seen in America today, though clearly more complex than the model outlined above. Therefore, polling data is often used to “prove” that American voters want a free lunch. But it’s possible for each individual voter to have a completely coherent, non-contradictory opinion, even while the populace as a whole appears contradictory.
"Subgroups 1B and 2B support free speech only for their own side - this is hypocrisy on their part because they’re pretty specific about it and never pretend otherwise."
Did you mean to say this?