Is offending people the true measure of progress?

Musings on our socio-cultural evolution and what it means for us today.

I get it. The title, in itself, seems rather offensive, doesn’t it? Sounding as it does like a defence for the crude, impolite and pigheaded among us. Rest assured, that isn’t the intent of this piece, even if it invariably makes a case for the same.

So, here’s a thought to get started. When and by what measure can we say with reasonable certainty that we as a society have made socio-cultural progress? Abolishing slavery and the eventual granting of equal rights to all “men” was one such moment in time. Extending the same rights for women can be identified as another one. And in each instance, in every place, where the above ideas were implemented, many if not most were offended by the attempt. Indeed, in parts of the world where these are yet to take hold fully is for the very reason that people in positions of power in those societies are deeply offended at its prospect. Another example would be of decriminalising same-sex relationships. Next in line is the case for non-binary gender identities. And so on. And each time, without fail, socio-cultural progress has deeply offended many when it was mooted.

A simplistic rationale would be to say, “of course, it goes like this because people are naturally resistant to change”. However, there’s a distinction. Being resistant to change isn’t the same as feeling offended. Resisting change can be for any number of reasons. To rage against the prospect of losing money, as in the case of horse carriages manufacturers with the advent of the automobile in the distant past. Or against inconvenience, in the face of mandatory waste segregation in the present. Resisting change is more often than not, a materialistic response. Taking offence, on the other hand, goes a lot deeper. It provokes the fundamental idea of what you hold sacred. And it may or may not have a material axis attached to it. For instance, abolishing slavery did have a direct economic impact on the plantation owners, but it was the dismantling of the notion of white supremacy that was inherent in the cause that triggered the American civil war. In contrast, acknowledging millions of people’s personal struggle against the social construct of gender identities does not have any measurable economic impact on others, neither does decriminalising same-sex relationships. Nonetheless, the offence taken in all of these instances is of comparable consequence.

However, none of this is to say that the mere act of offending someone qualifies as an attempt at socio-cultural progress. That would indeed be a rather facile assumption to make. Nonetheless, achieving the latter does seem near impossible without affecting the former.

So, what does all of this mean for us? What is the tangible, actionable implication for our society if this theory is accepted as a fair one? Firstly, the veneer of maintaining political correctness at all times as a virtue needs to be questioned. Especially if it means sacrificing an important yet uncomfortable conversation at its altar. The risk of offending someone is a risk worth taking in the pursuit of a higher purpose. The argument against, of course is that the same privilege can be utilised by extremists of all kinds to spread their socially regressive ideas, too. This, brings us to the second and in fact, the essence of the matter at hand — free speech.

Is free speech absolute? Can I insult who you are and what you stand for in the vilest of ways? Can you do the same to me? Or is establishing a socially responsible boundary to what can and cannot be spoken in public, an absolute necessity?

The US and England are prime examples of both schools of thought. In England, the socially responsible line is drawn at racial abuse. One cannot, under any circumstance, abuse a person on basis of his or her race. In the US, on the other hand, the first amendment rights are so powerful that it is practically impossible to criminalise speech of any kind, racial or otherwise. The KKK’s continued official and legal proclamations are a case in point. One could even argue, at least with some iota of merit, that the Trump ride to the White House was in some small way a direct result of the extreme right exploiting this very privilege. Hence, what is the preferred side to err on?

In my view, the US model is preferrable. Yes, even with the consequence of someone like Trump in the most powerful office on earth. There are a multitude of reasons as to why I think so. Not the least of which is the practical enforcement of the exception. Let’s take the English example, racial abuse. To me, the problem crops up rather immediately in the form of the second word in the phrase itself — abuse. What is the definition of abuse? A reasonable one is likely to be defined along the lines of not offending or hurting someone solely on basis of the colour of their skin, appearance, ethnicity and so on. Reasonable, indeed. The trouble lies in what constitutes this offence, is it only the slurs uttered with the sole intent of causing hurt, or does an academic study, even if based on psuedo science, that justifies the superiority of one race over the other also qualify as such? After all, there is a genuine argument to be made on the latter being a more potent form of racial abuse as it comes in the guise of academia, giving it more credence and study. Therefore, to continue down this path leads us to the obvious destination of bringing the latter under the preview of the law as well, effectively, outlawing and banning a form of academic research, because many if not all deem it frivolous or malicious. Can you see the emerging slope slipping downhill?

Here’s another reason, and this is backed by centuries of empirical evidence. Banning any sort of non-physical expression has achieved, without exception, the exact opposite of the desired outcome. Be it the banning of books or paintings, of teachings and indeed religion itself. Outlawing expression of any kind only succeeds in driving it underground. The letter of the law, even with the most efficient of enforcements, cannot rewire people’s thinking, their belief, their faith. Law is simply not that powerful, it can never be. And no sooner does an idea go underground, it acquires an allure of the forbidden, catalysing its spread in ways that an open, mainstream debate on it would have been incapable of accomplishing. And so, absolute free speech may have gotten the world four years of Trump in the most powerful office, but it is also what got him out of there. It is also most certainly what helped the US avoid a 21st century civil war.

Selective freedom is oxymoronic as it is untenable.

So yes, while surely offending people on principle is not a shortcut to socio-cultural progress, offending people nonetheless is an unfailing measure of it.

If it hasn’t pricked, the needle simply hasn’t moved enough.