TORONTO, ONTARIO - Nobel laureate Aung Sang Suu Kyi's sentence of house arrest in Burma, also known as Myanmar, ended on Saturday. She was allowed to leave her residence for the first time in more than seven years. In some of her early statements, she noted that she had actually been more free than many others in her country while under house arrest, as she had little to fear. This view of the concept of freedom is one that I believe to be more meaningful than others I have encountered.
The linking of freedom and fear is hardly a new idea from Aung Sang Suu Kyi. Arguably her most famous speech is the "Freedom From Fear" speech from two decades ago, in which she goes on at length about the power of fearlessness. Yet, the concept of being free while under house arrest, while others that were not legally restricted were fearful and thus not truly free, is a further extension of that famous speech and even harder to grasp for most westerners.
In the west, the dictionary definition of freedom is usually something to the effect of "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint." That's normally taken to mean having no government restriction on speech and activities. If there's no legal restrictions on one activities, then one is free. I've long thought the concept has become especially contorted in the United States, where freedom has been equated with the ability to spend money, as if money were a direct proxy for ideas, and people seem very willing to give up legal freedoms in order to feel safer through things like the Patriot Act.
Yet, the words of the definition fit Aung San Suu Kyi's viewpoint. If one is in fear, then there is a hindrance and a restraint on their lives, and thus there is not freedom. What doesn't seem to be accounted for in North America is that there are potential sources of fear besides the government. Ask a homosexual individual in many (but not all) societal contexts, and they'll say that they do fear violence by bigoted individuals, and thus temper their behavior--their behavior is restrained, and thus they are not truly free. Minorities of all kinds, based on skin color, education, or even interest in targeted activities like protesting or photography, feel like they have to restrain their behavior, not going certain places for fear of their own safety. They are not truly free.
People in the United States seem obsessed with the idea that they need to protect their freedoms from a socialist government like that found in Western Europe or Canada. Yet, I personally feel less restrained in my behavior walking the streets of Zurich, Switzerland or even Montreal, Quebec than in Boston, Massachusetts or Sacramento, California because it seems to me there is less to fear in terms of random crime and being questioned or persecuted about one's activities or demeanor. If I were a visible minority, it would probably be an even more profound difference.
Anyone that has had similar feelings likely understands what Aung Sang Suu Kyi was saying. Nobody should need to be under house arrest to reduce their fearfulness, but pretending that money is freedom is not a superior illusion. No society I have encountered lacks issues to work on, but those that have gone farther in reducing the reasons for all their residents to be fearful have gone farther in promoting freedom than those that simply minimize symbolic intrusions.
Showing posts with label fear. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fear. Show all posts
Monday, November 15, 2010
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Politics: Fear and Climate Change
TORONTO, ONTARIO - Long-time readers of this blog know that I have a real problem with making decisions on the basis of fear, and zero patience for those that incite fear in the electorate as a political tactic. Some things, though, are fundamentally scary. Even those that don't believe in climate change likely would agree that if changes that scientists predict, like rising sea levels and more powerful hurricanes and other storms, were to actually occur that this would be a scary outcome.
Correct or not, the scientific consensus that the world is currently on a path to that kind of climate change has started to result in political action, and this has incited fear in industry. With the possible exception of petrochemical companies that are not diversified, I find this fear more than a little bizarre--it has been demonstrated time and again that "green" process changes, things like reducing energy use and recycling feed stocks--almost always lead to efficiencies that save companies money in the long run. Even for "carbon intense" industry, it seems to me that a move toward more climate-sensitive technologies represents a tremendous business opportunity for them to seize and make money.
Instead, though, many companies are resisting any change to the status quo, and fomenting bloggers and other defenders of the status quo that now have given us "ClimateGate" over some obscure e-mails at East Anglia University that taken out of context make it appear that scientists falsified climate data. Even the supposedly-liberal CBC aired an irresponsible commentary by Rex Murphy tonight. Murphy tried to claim that climate change is no longer settled science--never mind all the work that researchers all over the world have done that had nothing to do with East Anglia--and that climate change science and advocacy are irretrievably linked. While there were clearly problems at East Anglia, to make the claim that climate change scientists have been driven by financial and power considerations is pretty rich coming from an opposition that has the financial resources to overwhelm the entire academic sector and still hasn't been able to find more than a handful of researchers willing to agree with them. The argument borders on absurdity.
That's what happens, though, when people get scared. People need to get past their fear of the what-if's of climate change and take a hard look at the actual data are telling us and start looking for rational, effective, worldwide solutions that make economic sense. That's what is supposed to happen at the upcoming Copenhagen conference, and we can hope that it still will.
Correct or not, the scientific consensus that the world is currently on a path to that kind of climate change has started to result in political action, and this has incited fear in industry. With the possible exception of petrochemical companies that are not diversified, I find this fear more than a little bizarre--it has been demonstrated time and again that "green" process changes, things like reducing energy use and recycling feed stocks--almost always lead to efficiencies that save companies money in the long run. Even for "carbon intense" industry, it seems to me that a move toward more climate-sensitive technologies represents a tremendous business opportunity for them to seize and make money.
Instead, though, many companies are resisting any change to the status quo, and fomenting bloggers and other defenders of the status quo that now have given us "ClimateGate" over some obscure e-mails at East Anglia University that taken out of context make it appear that scientists falsified climate data. Even the supposedly-liberal CBC aired an irresponsible commentary by Rex Murphy tonight. Murphy tried to claim that climate change is no longer settled science--never mind all the work that researchers all over the world have done that had nothing to do with East Anglia--and that climate change science and advocacy are irretrievably linked. While there were clearly problems at East Anglia, to make the claim that climate change scientists have been driven by financial and power considerations is pretty rich coming from an opposition that has the financial resources to overwhelm the entire academic sector and still hasn't been able to find more than a handful of researchers willing to agree with them. The argument borders on absurdity.
That's what happens, though, when people get scared. People need to get past their fear of the what-if's of climate change and take a hard look at the actual data are telling us and start looking for rational, effective, worldwide solutions that make economic sense. That's what is supposed to happen at the upcoming Copenhagen conference, and we can hope that it still will.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Politics: Fear Has No Place in Politics
TORONTO, ONTARIO - In an interview with Peter Mansbridge on CBC Television's The National last Wednesday, New Democratic Party (NDP) leader Jack Layton was asked whether he "feared" a Conservative majority in the House of Commons. To his credit, Layton wouldn't give in to the concept of fear, saying that fear was "not a term I tend to use," though he viewed a Conservative majority as something that "I'm doing everything I can to prevent." Mansbridge followed up, asking him again whether he specifically "feared" a Conservative majority, and Layton expounded on his original response, saying that a Conservative majority was "fundamentally wrong for the planet."
Of course, Layton likely didn't make this statement on principle. Historically, when voters "feared" a Conservative majority, or a Liberal majority, they have run away from the smaller parties and voted for one of the two traditionally-larger parties in hopes that they would be more likely to contain the other party. So, had Layton said that he feared the Conservatives, it would have been interpreted as a tacit endorsement of the Liberals by many voters.
Yet, Layton happened to be correct on principle--voters should never vote on the basis of fear. His statement that "I tend to say we have a better alternative. We've got a future that can be filled with hope and real change" is a much more future-looking, positive statement than telling the voter to fear not voting for his party.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that fear has no place in modern life except in circumstances of actual, immediate physical danger from a violent or potentially violent criminal. Fear evolved as an emotion to make human beings take extremely conservative (in the literal sense of that word) decisions when there was a threat to their family. Before civilization, there were many threats that could result in the deaths of the entire family if humans did not heed noises in the night or encounters with previously-unknown things in the environment, from new plant species to people from other places.
When fear is invoked, freedom of action is inhibited. The external threat intimidates the person feeling fear. The fearful person no longer cares about their own personal wishes, they simply give in to the intimidation for survival's sake. In some cases, the fearful person may instead react violently, taking overly-aggressive action in attempt to stomp out the threat instead of giving in to it. In neither case does the person act in a rational way.
Today, those reading this message live in a very different environment, a complicated society that protects its members from external threats. It may occasionally fail in these protections, usually because of political incompetence. A properly-functioning government keeps crime under control, for example, and warns its residents about impending natural disasters, then helps them recover afterward.
In this kind of society, there is really no place for fear. There is no reason to be intimidated into acting against one's personal interests, and there is no reason to lash out at a threat that is better addressed by the society as a whole. The only exception is an interpersonal criminal situation in which one's person or family is threatened by a criminal temporarily outside of the reach of the society.
Politicians do not need to invoke fear. By trying to incite fear, they are either trying to intimidate the voter away from acting in their best interest, or to cause them to lash out irrationally. Thus, any voter that sees a candidate trying to incite fear should not succumb to that fear. They should instead ask why that politician is trying to intimidate them and question their motivations.
More politicians should make statements like Jack Layton made to Peter Mansbridge last week, refusing to give in to fear and instead offering a positive alternate vision. If voters follow the positive visions, politicians will eventually stop the fear tactics, and that should be the outcome we all desire.
Of course, Layton likely didn't make this statement on principle. Historically, when voters "feared" a Conservative majority, or a Liberal majority, they have run away from the smaller parties and voted for one of the two traditionally-larger parties in hopes that they would be more likely to contain the other party. So, had Layton said that he feared the Conservatives, it would have been interpreted as a tacit endorsement of the Liberals by many voters.
Yet, Layton happened to be correct on principle--voters should never vote on the basis of fear. His statement that "I tend to say we have a better alternative. We've got a future that can be filled with hope and real change" is a much more future-looking, positive statement than telling the voter to fear not voting for his party.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that fear has no place in modern life except in circumstances of actual, immediate physical danger from a violent or potentially violent criminal. Fear evolved as an emotion to make human beings take extremely conservative (in the literal sense of that word) decisions when there was a threat to their family. Before civilization, there were many threats that could result in the deaths of the entire family if humans did not heed noises in the night or encounters with previously-unknown things in the environment, from new plant species to people from other places.
When fear is invoked, freedom of action is inhibited. The external threat intimidates the person feeling fear. The fearful person no longer cares about their own personal wishes, they simply give in to the intimidation for survival's sake. In some cases, the fearful person may instead react violently, taking overly-aggressive action in attempt to stomp out the threat instead of giving in to it. In neither case does the person act in a rational way.
Today, those reading this message live in a very different environment, a complicated society that protects its members from external threats. It may occasionally fail in these protections, usually because of political incompetence. A properly-functioning government keeps crime under control, for example, and warns its residents about impending natural disasters, then helps them recover afterward.
In this kind of society, there is really no place for fear. There is no reason to be intimidated into acting against one's personal interests, and there is no reason to lash out at a threat that is better addressed by the society as a whole. The only exception is an interpersonal criminal situation in which one's person or family is threatened by a criminal temporarily outside of the reach of the society.
Politicians do not need to invoke fear. By trying to incite fear, they are either trying to intimidate the voter away from acting in their best interest, or to cause them to lash out irrationally. Thus, any voter that sees a candidate trying to incite fear should not succumb to that fear. They should instead ask why that politician is trying to intimidate them and question their motivations.
More politicians should make statements like Jack Layton made to Peter Mansbridge last week, refusing to give in to fear and instead offering a positive alternate vision. If voters follow the positive visions, politicians will eventually stop the fear tactics, and that should be the outcome we all desire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)