The Marketplace of Ideas

Dear Readers,

I feel that you are owed something of an explanation. As some of you are aware, my identity, once a well-kept secret, is now relatively widely known. As a result, I had decided to cease active blogging. My community, such that it is, happens to be a relatively close-knit place. I was made aware that certain individuals were extremely offended by the ad hominem invective that they felt I expressed on this blog.

For that I am sorry. In real life, I am a nice person (if a bit of a cynic). I do not go out of my way to mock individuals, although I am often tempted. Ideas, on the other hand, are an entirely different kettle of fish.

In liberal democracies, the main rationale supporting freedom of expression has been dubbed "the marketplace of ideas." In short, this doctrine asserts that truth will arise when ideas are freely subject to debate in open, transparent public discourse.

As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (my second favorite jurist) wrote in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919):

But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas...that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.

I am a strong believer in this idea, with a few important caveats. First of all, this notion is predicated on the assumption that all sides to a debate will have equal access to this marketplace. Historically, the mass media (newspapers, radio and later, television) were restricted to those parties who could afford to transmit their messages to the public. Only the ideas that were favoured by the moneyed publishers could "compete" in the marketplace of ideas. In truth, this marketplace was less of an open bazaar and more of a Big Box Store. Whatever Walmart wants to sell their consumers will be put on the shelf. Potentially better products are not sold unless the proprietor decides to offer them.

The Internet in general, and blogging more specifically, changed everything. For the first time, the marketplace of ideas was truly an open marketplace. Any party could offer their ideas for evaluation by the general public. Blog posts, comments and thoughtful discussions allowed for ideas to be dissected and evaluated by a critical and intelligent readership.

Another caveat must be applied to the marketplace of ideas. Aside from equal access to the marketplace, there must be a parity in competence between the competing ideas. An idea may be true, but if it is presented by an incompetent debater, it is unlikely to rise to the top and be recognized as truth. Conversely, a skilled debater can employ rhetoric and misdirection to promote a thoroughly flawed idea with his or her readership being left none the wiser.

Finally, it must be recognized that people are often more swayed by emotion than they are by reason. A seasoned writer may tug at his readers' heart strings without actually advancing any evidence as to the truth of his proposition.

An extension of that relates to mockery and personal attacks. Rhetorically, these are often extremely effective. Most people would rather heap scorn on an individual than logically evaluate the veracity of his ideas. It is cheaper, faster and a heck of a lot more fun. But at the end of the day, it is intellectually dishonest.

Those major caveats aside, I strongly believe that if there is Absolute Truth in Chareidi doctrine, it can survive reasoned criticism in this public forum. And if it cannot survive such an attack?

Thomas Jefferson, in his 1820 letter to William Roscoe regarding the founding of the University of Virginia, puts it as follows:

"For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."

So let us proceed in this endeavor with less invective and less character assassination. At the same time, let's continue to critically examine dogma and search for truth, wherever we may find it.

J.D.

(Citation: Much of the information regarding the marketplace of ideas can be found here, here and here.)