The Real Trouble With Free Speech

In his excellent book, "Worse Than War" (2009, Public Affairs, New York), Daniel Jonah Goldhagen explores the issues of "genocide, elimination, and the on-going assault on humanity". At the end of Chapter 9 he makes the comment "actual minds create actual worlds". His point is that what we think about other people and what we believe should be "our" world eventually becomes the "actual world" for us. When an opportunity then arises where we can bring that world into being, we tend to grab it with both hands. If our thinking is around the exclusiveness of our family, our group, our race, etc then, when given the opportunity we will try to ensure everyone else acknowledges this and yields to our wishes. "We are in control". The result is often "worse than war".

I've been thinking about this a lot lately as the issue of free speech has been debated in the Australian media. In an earlier blog, talking about the incidence which started this latest discussion on free speech, I said:

"Before I proceed, let me make some things clear. First in relation to free speech. In my new book "Third Generation Leadership and the Locus of Control: knowledge, change and neuroscience" (2012, Gower Publications, UK), I make the following statement:

I have spent my life believing in the power of a democratic society where the rule of law ensures that people will not be imprisoned without trial; that habeas corpus is a vital component of a free society; that secret police and interrogation without legal representation is wrong and an abuse of power; that freedom of faith, speech and association are inalienable rights – even if I disagree totally with what you say, believe or with whom you associate, you have an absolute right to say what you want, follow the faith or non-faith of your choice, and associate with whoever you wish."

There are many people in every society who don't think critically about what they hear on the radio, see on TV or in the movies, or read in the newspaper. People who specialise in propaganda (from Goebbels down) have known and do know this. The result is that they are fully aware that if you say something often enough and authoritatively enough, eventually many people will believe it even if it is palpably untrue. For this reason every person and/or party pushing a particular agenda seeks to ensure that their message is propounded strongly and often. The role of "shock jocks" in the media is often critical in this.

Some would argue that this then becomes an abuse of "freedom of speech". I disagree. The real trouble with freedom of speech is that, all too often, the right to speak out is too seldom used by those of us who do apply our critical faculties to what we hear, what we see, and what we read. This failure by us to speak out ultimately runs the risk of letting "the inmates run the asylum". If that happens then, as Goldhagen makes very clear, the following words by Pastor Martin Niemoller (which originally applied to Nazi Germany) could have increasing relevance in today’s society no matter where that society may be:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

What sort of "actual world" do you want? If we are concerned about the messages promulgated by radio, TV, films and/or newspapers our response should not be to advocate some form of censorship. Rather our response should be to ensure that our voices are heard along with the others. But let's make sure we do this in an acceptable and respectful manner. A mark of true leadership is that we ensure all voices are heard - not just those who promote bigotry and discrimination.

What do you think?

More about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

How you respond tells a lot

 Recently I made a serious mistake. A week or so back I read a magazine and thought the material in it was interesting and informative. It contained an article on leadership and I wondered whether the publishers were interested in extending this to a dialogue. So I submitted a brief (1100 words) article and asked whether they accepted unsolicited material. I have done this before and, in a number of instances, my material has been edited and printed – invariably with the result that more articles appeared from other people and some good dialogue took place.

Yesterday I heard back from the publishers who told me that their contributors all paid for the privilege of having their articles published. I was offered a deal of 3 articles providing I paid $900 (plus GST) for each one. Over the years I have submitted many articles to newspapers and magazines (and have been paid by the magazines every time a submission has been accepted) but this is the first time that any publication anywhere in the world has asked me to pay to have a submission published. I politely refused the offer, explaining: “It appears as though I totally misunderstood your magazine – I didn’t realise that its articles were actually advertising promotions rather than informative material to foster general understanding and debate”. I also pointed out that nowhere in their magazine could I find anything to indicate its articles were actually paid advertising.

Did I get a response? Sure did and it amazed me. Within minutes the publisher replied:

Dear Doug,

Thank you for your prompt response. I believe that some part of the society under the influence of the current government and their green comrades has stopped realising that we still live in a capitalistic society and all products in the market place must be paid for.

Thank you for your help and please let all your associates and business friends know that they shouldn’t expect something for nothing from others trying to increase their business profile and/or sell their valuable knowledge and products. I received 4 requests including your kind offer just today to provide my business services for free.

We also have a very informative and self-explanatory website where you and your associates can easily find all the information on how to advertise and contribute an article in ZZZ Magazine.

I wish you all the best in helping others and yourself release your and their potential in yourself, themselves and others.

Yours truly,

ZZZ

PS I suggest you to request help from comrades in ABC for some free media space.

I have talked a lot over the years about the areas of our brain that control how we think and act. Regular readers will be fully aware of the “red zone” – “blue zone” dichotomy that impacts and determines whether we are predisposed to a First Generation Leadership, a Second Generation Leadership, or a Third Generation Leadership approach. My new book, Third Generation Leadership and the Locus of Control: knowledge, change and neuroscience (2012, Gower Publications, UK) sets this out in some detail.

Clearly the publisher of the magazine with which I was in contact operates from the “red zone”. The result is that an innocent attempt to develop a dialogue draws a response that tells us more about the responder than perhaps he realises.

One of the major problems I see in society today is that the “red zone” is the default for most of those in roles of leadership, authority, and influence. This is seen across the board whether we are talking politics, business, religion, or anything else. The result is a closing down of real dialogue and an attempt to “put down” or denigrate those who may have an opinion or stance that is different from one’s own. All too often it leads to extreme “right wing” and/or “left wing” positions that do little, if anything, to bring about a creative, innovative society.

Unconditional respect for all people regardless of any discriminating factor is the underlying concept of Third Generation Leadership and of the “blue zone” area of our brain’s locus of control. A key aspect of unconditional respect is that it never insults or denigrates the thinking of another. This publisher’s response adds reinforcement to the call for us to embrace a new way of interacting.

Do you ever ponder on what the responses you make or receive really tell the recipient? I do!

I’d love to know what you think.

More information about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

What Alan Jones’ comments really tell us

Over this past weekend it has become clear that one of Australia’s most influential broadcasters – someone who is sometimes labelled a “shock jock” grossly overstepped the mark in a virulent and totally offensive set of remarks about the Prime Minister and the very recent death of her father.

   

Before I proceed, let me make some things clear. First in relation to free speech. In my new book "Third Generation Leadership and the Locus of Control: knowledge, change and neuroscience" (2012, Gower Publications, UK), I make the following statement:

I have spent my life believing in the power of a democratic society where the rule of law ensures that people will not be imprisoned without trial; that habeas corpus is a vital component of a free society; that secret police and interrogation without legal representation is wrong and an abuse of power; that freedom of faith, speech and association are inalienable rights – even if I disagree totally with what you say, believe or with whom you associate, you have an absolute right to say what you want, follow the faith or non-faith of your choice, and associate with whoever you wish.

Second, in relation to politics. I am a past member of the Liberal Party in Australia and was once asked to nominate for Federal Parliament. I am no longer a member of any political party and, again as I say in "Third Generation Leadership and the Locus of Control: knowledge, change and neuroscience", I think a strong case can be made for arguing that the rise of political parties is a sign of the decline of democracy. For that reason I support independent candidates at elections.

In other words, I write this with no political agenda and from a perspective which believes Alan Jones (and anyone else) has an absolute right to free speech.

I believe that attacks such as this one by Jones tells us a lot about Jones and, from the fact that, with one exception, no-one at the function where he made the remarks appears to have been offended by them, we learn something about the people who were present that evening. It tells me that these people have no real concept of the unconditional respect for a person that ought to be the hallmark of leaders and aspiring leaders. It indicates to me that these people are ones who are lacking in true self-confidence and who compensate for this lack by a retreat into some form of fundamentalism and attack. In "Third Generation Leadership and the Locus of Control: knowledge, change and neuroscience", I say:

Self-confident people are those who understand that there is no need for any form of ‘talking down to’ or ‘putting down of’ other people. Self-confident people are those who always treat others with respect and who, as a result, ultimately expect to earn trust and respect for themselves ... A self-confident person is one who is always cognisant of the fact that everyone has his or her own issues with which they have to deal. .... Self-confidence is not weakness or any behaviour that indicates a lack of personal resolve. But neither is it the bold, brassy over-confidence that is encountered in the worst examples of some who seek to place unacceptable levels of pressure on people in order to achieve results.

Alan Jones (and his supporters) exhibits all the signs of a G1 Leader and of what I term "First Generation Leadership” – an approach that became challenged during the 1950’s and which has long since reached its “use-by” date. This is a male-dominated, “born-to-rule” approach in which the leader considers himself (it is usually a male) beyond reproach and with no need to show any respect to others unless they comply with his thinking and demands. Invariably First Generation Leadership and bullying are inextricably intertwined.

If a person wants to be a grub and/or a bully, that is their prerogative. But the existence of grubs and bullies should alert us to the need to change both what we look for in leaders and how we behave as leaders. What do you think?

More about Douglas Long at http://www.dglong.com