EMT
Platinum Member
- Jan 13, 2010
- 14,483
- 15,308
In his thread, Nyani Ngabu states that “JF is no longer a marketplace of ideas”, rather "an echo chamber!” He argues that JamiiForums no longer have "deep, passionate, and meaningful discussions". Having thought long and hard about this, Nyani Ngabu came to a conclusion that “Today’s JF is no longer a marketplace of ideas.”
Perhaps, I should start by asking: does “marketplace of ideas” exist or is merely a fantasy? If it does exist, then what does it mean to free speech, particularly here at JamiiForums? If the “marketplace of ideas” has any meaning to free speech, then the non-existence of it at JamiiForums could be a huge intellectual problem for those who defend free speech. If the “market” is merely a fantasy, then the case for unfettered free speech at JamiiForums could be severely wounded.
It could be that the “market of ideas” does indeed exist and that JamiiForums was or is supposed to be a “marketplace of ideas”. Since people can change their minds so often, then the “market” exists. I have personally changed my mind about many things here. However, this does not necessarily tell us how the “market of ideas” works at JamiiForums and elsewhere i.e. how members argue, debate and persuade others.
One could argue that the concept of “marketplace of ideas” is a fetish mythology because it ignores power dynamics in the debates around free speech. As the author, barrister and broadcaster Afua Hirsch wrote in her interesting article on “The Fantasy of Free Speech”:
“In an ideal world, views from privileged people who want to keep things the same would—like all other views—be presented in a marketplace of ideas, competing fairly with the perspectives that challenge it. This is how free speech is meant to work. But free speech doesn’t work like that. The marketplace of ideas, like many other markets, has monopolies, rackets and biases. Long-established “suppliers” of opinions with entrenched positions in “the sector” enjoy huge advantages. Marketplaces, inevitably, require merchants, arbiters and traders to work well. Why? Because the space in which they operate is rarely level.”
This suggests that “marketplace” is a problematic concept for the exchange of ideas. It suggests that democracy should be the place where we exchange ideas; markets should remain the place for exchanging goods and services. Arguably, “marketplace of ideas” is neo-liberal ideology attempts to marketise everything, including democracy.
I am not discrediting the concept of “marketplace of ideas” altogether, but simply arguing that the concept is not enough if we really want to abide by the spirit of free speech at JamiiForums and elsewhere. Perhaps, the concept of “marketplace of ideas” should be rehabilitated to embrace all kinds of under-represented voices at JamiiForurms and elsewhere.
The efficacy of the “marketplace of ideas” should be presented as a core moral reason why everyone should be allowed to speak, regardless of the extremity of their views. As Jamie Bartlett, pointed out “In Radicals: Outsiders Changing the World (Heinemann, 2017): “…rational ideas – even dangerous ones – should be allowed to flourish and compete. The theory … is that the good will out-compete the bad in the ‘marketplace of ideas’. With debate and discussion the stronger, more rational arguments win out.”
Who knows, maybe new members of JamiiForums are more rational than old members think, but that definition of rationality needs to dramatically expand beyond what is easily quantified?
Perhaps, I should start by asking: does “marketplace of ideas” exist or is merely a fantasy? If it does exist, then what does it mean to free speech, particularly here at JamiiForums? If the “marketplace of ideas” has any meaning to free speech, then the non-existence of it at JamiiForums could be a huge intellectual problem for those who defend free speech. If the “market” is merely a fantasy, then the case for unfettered free speech at JamiiForums could be severely wounded.
It could be that the “market of ideas” does indeed exist and that JamiiForums was or is supposed to be a “marketplace of ideas”. Since people can change their minds so often, then the “market” exists. I have personally changed my mind about many things here. However, this does not necessarily tell us how the “market of ideas” works at JamiiForums and elsewhere i.e. how members argue, debate and persuade others.
One could argue that the concept of “marketplace of ideas” is a fetish mythology because it ignores power dynamics in the debates around free speech. As the author, barrister and broadcaster Afua Hirsch wrote in her interesting article on “The Fantasy of Free Speech”:
“In an ideal world, views from privileged people who want to keep things the same would—like all other views—be presented in a marketplace of ideas, competing fairly with the perspectives that challenge it. This is how free speech is meant to work. But free speech doesn’t work like that. The marketplace of ideas, like many other markets, has monopolies, rackets and biases. Long-established “suppliers” of opinions with entrenched positions in “the sector” enjoy huge advantages. Marketplaces, inevitably, require merchants, arbiters and traders to work well. Why? Because the space in which they operate is rarely level.”
This suggests that “marketplace” is a problematic concept for the exchange of ideas. It suggests that democracy should be the place where we exchange ideas; markets should remain the place for exchanging goods and services. Arguably, “marketplace of ideas” is neo-liberal ideology attempts to marketise everything, including democracy.
I am not discrediting the concept of “marketplace of ideas” altogether, but simply arguing that the concept is not enough if we really want to abide by the spirit of free speech at JamiiForums and elsewhere. Perhaps, the concept of “marketplace of ideas” should be rehabilitated to embrace all kinds of under-represented voices at JamiiForurms and elsewhere.
The efficacy of the “marketplace of ideas” should be presented as a core moral reason why everyone should be allowed to speak, regardless of the extremity of their views. As Jamie Bartlett, pointed out “In Radicals: Outsiders Changing the World (Heinemann, 2017): “…rational ideas – even dangerous ones – should be allowed to flourish and compete. The theory … is that the good will out-compete the bad in the ‘marketplace of ideas’. With debate and discussion the stronger, more rational arguments win out.”
Who knows, maybe new members of JamiiForums are more rational than old members think, but that definition of rationality needs to dramatically expand beyond what is easily quantified?
