Individuality shouldn’t trump need for civility

Johnson is a first-year Ph.D. student in the clinical psychology
program.   Illustration by ERICA PINTO/Daily Bruin

By Chris Johnson

In 1978, Nobel award-winning writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn gave
the commencement address at Harvard. Solzhenitsyn admonished
America for its failure to nurture individual freedom in a manner
consistent with its past. In his address, he stated:

“It is time for the West to defend not so much human
rights as human obligations. Destructive and irresponsible freedom
has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little
defense against the abyss of human decadence ““ such as, for
example, the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young
people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime and
horror.”

A cursory examination of current contentious social issues
suggests we did not hear him 22 years ago, and would be well served
to consider his wisdom today.

Individual freedom of expression unrestrained by government or
others should be of profound importance in a democratic society.
But, this focus on individual freedom should not transcend the
imperative of civil obligations.

The increase over the last 10 years in movie violence and
sexuality, the increase in racial tensions and the seemingly
intransigent divide over abortion has had a detrimental effect on
our society. These conflicts are largely the result of leaders who
have refused to make the needed transition from emphasizing civil
rights to demanding the fulfillment of civil obligations. In a
sense, progressives have ceased to be progressive.

Although many progressives frequently claim a monopoly on civil
rights, conservatives are in fact the party of Lincoln and the
Emancipation Proclamation, the party that initiated the Equal
Rights Amendment and women’s suffrage movements. Popular
rhetoric states that civil rights are anathema to the Republican
Party. This could not be more fallacious. What conservatives are
guilty of is emphasizing that although we are all unique in some
way, our individual freedoms are best ensured when we readily
embrace our obligations to be civil to one another.

This issue of race is a dilemma resulting from a persistent
focus on civil rights instead of social obligations. We have ceased
to exist as a nation of Americans first, and unique individuals
second. Few are concerned about what is best for the nation as a
whole. Rather, more are interested in how America will serve their
own specific ethnicity.

The difficulty a society faces by giving credence to the concept
of race is that race is a malleable social construct indicative of
nothing about a person other than skin pigmentation. The deplorable
injustices done to various groups throughout history should serve
as a persuasive reinforcement that such a system of classification
is cancerous to a free society.

If one chooses to approach the subject of race from a purely
biological perspective, the concept also finds little support. If
one assumes that we evolved from single-cell matter, then we all
have a common ancestry. We have discovered potential genetic
markers for depression, schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s, gender,
instinct, memory, intelligence, but alas, no indicator for the
construct of race. If one chooses to approach the subject of race
from a spiritual foundation, Buddha, Vishnu, Christ, Allah, and
Yahweh tell us that we are all children of God, with little or no
emphasis on race.

In spite of civil rights advances gained as a product of both
political parties, the current decay in civility and respect for
others is due in large part to a liberal ideology that has failed
to adopt a new focus. This misguided liberal ideology was best
demonstrated by the lack of outrage over the recent revelation that
the Rev. Jesse Jackson has a child born out of wedlock. Because his
focus on civil rights for African Americans was more important than
his familial obligations, he continues to receive praise.

The argument over abortion is another obvious contortion of
individual freedom. Proclaimed standard-bearers of compassion have
turned the intentional termination of unwanted children into an
issue of reproductive rights. Lockean philosophy, which has greatly
influenced the modern American concepts of “The Rights of
Man” and our civil liberties, holds that one person’s
rights end where they infringe upon another’s.

Common sense and deduction tell me that I do not have the right
to reproduce with whomever I choose without their consent. Nor do I
have the right to harm innocent people.

Even further from the grasp of logic is the fact that many
supporters of the right to abort unwanted children also oppose the
death penalty because it is cruel and unusual punishment.

A more socially productive route would be to focus on
reproductive obligations instead of reproductive rights. This
paradigm shift would involve social and legal pressure for men to
be active fathers and responsible contributors to the children they
create. Additionally, it would obligate mothers to nurture those
children.

Lastly, explicit media violence and sexuality is an insidious
problem. Recently, in New York, a painting was put on display
featuring a nude woman as Christ at the biblical last supper.
Additionally, this painting depicted all the Apostles as black,
with the exception of Judas, who was white. Many proponents of free
expression such as this, as well as public pornography, television
violence and explicit musical lyrics claim that all expression is
protected expression.

In a curious twist of freedom of speech protection, many First
Amendment advocates support the public display (and public tax
support, mind you) of Serrano’s dubious work of art
“Piss Christ” which features a crucifix in a glass of
urine, and support display of the “Sensation” featuring
the Virgin Mary splattered with elephant dung, while simultaneously
prohibiting any verbal behavior considered “hate
speech,” and vehemently opposing school prayer.

Last year the American Psychological Association testified
before Congress that increased exposure to violence on television
correlated with increased aggressive behavior. Due to the frequency
of violence against women, one would assume this fact to be a
motivator for feminist groups and everyone else to speak out
against media violence.

But, if people continue to pay premium prices for movies and
music that feature human carnage and spew misogyny, the
entertainment industry will continue to demonstrate freedom of
expression has no limits. In this respect, many in the
entertainment industry have opted to invest their creative
resources in the expression of their civic right instead of
demonstrating a concern for their civic obligation.

America’s uniqueness is not born so much out of its fervor
for civil rights, but rather its recognition that with freedom
comes responsibility. Unrestrained civil rights have the potential
to become a platform for an “anything goes” anarchy,
which is ultimately counterproductive to a free society.

Unfortunately, proponents of civil rights, abortion rights and
speech rights are silent when it comes to discussing societal
obligations. Many will not even entertain honest intellectual
disagreement about the best way to secure those rights or those
obligations. Where we are fortunate, however, is that we have the
unique opportunity to choose our emphasis.

We can continue a divisive and detrimental focus on unrestrained
individualism, or we can encourage civic responsibility to each
other and ensure that those calling for fulfillment of civil
obligations are loudly and clearly heard.