I was interested by the recent conversation threads on self-censoring.
I too at times feel the social pull, desiring to belong and fall in with the dominant view. I could reword that and say that I try to be polite, don’t want to antagonise people, get tired of defending a position etc. But generally, all those mechanisms are a means for me to fulfill the biological/instinctual need for belonging. I want to belong therefore I act in a certain way that will ensure a sense of belonging. It’s a natural thing to do, we are social animals. Not conforming to cultural norms in some aspects of my life has showed me the harshness and stigma of being the outsider. It also thickened my skin and gave me impetus to understand the mechanism of belonging. We humans are designed to have a strong social instinct. And that is a good thing but when it’s used as a weapon by institutions of power to silence me, well there I draw the line.

There are many ways that institutions of power have maintained control of their subjects throughout history. There have been various forms of punishment and discipline. Self-censorship has developed as contemporary mechanism of control. We have been conditioned to control ourselves, we don’t need to be subjugated to an ever present overlord, we have one installed within us. The biological need to belong has been weaponized to curtail any potential opposing opinion and therefore silencing us.

The topic of self-censorship reminded me of Foucault’s analysis of the Panopticon. The Panopticon initially was a prison design by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). The physical design placed the prisoners in a round structure at the perimeter and the guards in a tower in the middle. Being very efficient, the guards could observe all cells from one spot, reducing the number of guards required. It was designed so that the prisoners couldn’t tell if they were being watched or not. All they could see was the guard tower. The prisoners would assume they were being watched all the time and Bentham theorised that they would modify their behaviour accordingly. Essentially they would guard themselves.

For Foucault (1926-1984) the Panopticon model was not just a prison design but a model of power and control that could be used in a variety of settings by any institution of power. He argued that this had become a way of social control in contemporary institutions and practices.

A thesis by Emily Brown explains a current panoptic experience through the use of surveillance in our society. Our online footprint is tracked, what we like and don’t like is tracked, our biometrics are gathered like face and voice recognition. “There is little of society left untouched by technological surveillance.” Essentially we live with the experience of being watched. Brown explains how a government’s overuse of surveillance though the internet can create self-censorship online. This is both conscious and unconscious behaviour. It is motivated by discomfort and fear. “People self-censor in order to avoid the social disapproval of others.”

Self-censorship is desirable to a government because it curtails dissent. Over surveillance creates an environment hostile to free speech. When people feel pressured not to dissent, their resulting normalised behavior is self-censorship.

“In modern societies people are increasingly watched, and their activities documented and classified with a view to creating populations that conform to social norms.”

Through the mechanism of normalisation, people being surveilled follow the rules of the institutions without questioning them or resisting them. Brown expresses the dangers of this,

“The consequences of this will be dire; in a society where alternative ideas are not expressed, they will eventually cease to exist, setting us on the path to authoritarianism.”

The recent guilty sentence of Jennifer Crowley I find unacceptable. I’m sorry for the parents that lost their children in the deadly shooting at Oxford High School in 2021. Ethan Crowley (15yrs) was sentenced to life in prison without parole. The mother has now been found guilty by jury to 4 counts of involuntary manslaughter each with a 15 year sentence. Prosecutors accused her of being negligent in allowing her son to have a gun, and ignoring warnings signs.

There are many things that I find wrong with this situation. When I looked at some of the articles (I know they are not necessarily facts but hear me out) Jennifer stated that her husband took Ethan to buy the gun as a gift only days before the shooting and took him to a shooting range. (His trial is in March.) I’m not sure at what point that makes Jennifer guilty of allowing her son to have a gun. We live in a culture where domestic violence against women is rampant. Perhaps this woman had no say in the home? Perhaps the threat of violence that women inherently experience in culture silenced her. So is it acceptable to criminalise women who are silenced by society and culture?

At Ethan’s trial he said himself that he was accountable for his actions, that neither the school or his parents knew what he was about to do. Yet they found the mother guilty and the school has not been made accountable. The school called the parents in that morning concerned over a picture he had drawn and wanted them to take Ethan home. The parents apparently had to go to work and didn’t take him home. The school failed to check Ethan’s bag in which he had a gun. But neither the school or principle or teachers were charged. Weren’t they equally to blame? Then there is the accusation that the parents didn’t take responsibility and take Ethan home and went to work instead. So perhaps they needed money to survive? Is poverty or the threat of poverty a crime? We live in a society where we are made to survive paycheck to paycheck.

At Ethan’s trial, the defense pleaded for the opportunity for parole based on a claim of mental illness. The judge rejected this based on the child’s ability to plan and carry out his actions, therefore any claim of mental illness did not impede his actions. So how can they now accuse the mother of not getting him help when the judge deemed he was not mentally ill? I know mental illness is defined differently in legal, clinical and social definitions. But you can’t swap those definitions around to make them convenient for your case.

Then there is the issue of getting help for a child with behavioral or mental issues. Apart from the fact that it is near impossible to get appropriate help, no one seems to ask the question ‘Why are there so many children with behavioural and mental health issues?’ According to this court case (and others) it must be due to parents. All parents must be the cause. We know that can’t be the case yet we find it acceptable to put blame on some parents. Why isn’t anyone asking ‘What is happening in our society and culture that is manifesting in children’s behaviour and mental health?’

This neoliberal capitalist society has got us convinced that we the individual is responsible for how our life turns out. It has been instilled into us that failure to succeed in the dominant culture is an individual problem and must be addressed by individual treatment. Furthermore this system gives psychiatric disorders to situations that are normal responses to the stressors of life under neoliberal capitalism. If an individual is unsuccessful under the neoliberal order then it is viewed as an individual illness needing individual treatment rather than a problem with society itself. This allows the people in power to be absolved of any responsibilities for the social conditions and injustices that contribute to distress.

The people in power keep us pointing at each other rather than pointing up.

Lets not attack and blame each other for the horrors that this system of oppression puts us through and start pointing in the right direction – the powers that create policies under neoliberal capitalism.

There are many good resources to read/view on this. Here are some

Mental Health Challenges Related to Neoliberal Capitalism in the United States

The Invention of Individual Responsibility