Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 00:01:02 -0500
From: "Shawn P. Wilbur" <swilbur@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.07.9603102224.B13406-d100000@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Reich quote on right of Free Speech
To: orgonomy@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Sender: owner-orgonomy@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU

Yes, indeed, this is a good one. This business of trading aphorisms seems
a bit like quoting scripture, particularly given the general distaste for
authority which has flavored recent threads, but there is certainly
nothing like getting back to the basic texts (unless it is getting to the
investigations that they recount.) Perhaps we could linger over some of
these a bit more than we have to date, confront our own ignorance with
"firmness and seriousness."

I was particularly struck by the sentence: "A social system cannot be
called democratic if it is afraid of posing decisive questions, finding
unaccustomed answers, and engaging in a discussion about such questions
and answers." This is coupled with the scientists' duty to speak out in
the name of science, and to demand the right to speak, no matter what the
cost. More, there is the charge of "seriousness and firmness." On the one
side, there is a distinction to be made between democratic and
undemocratic social bodies (and i think this part of the argument scales down
from the level of the state fairly without serious distortion). We can ask
then whether this or that society is "democratic," although things become
unfortunately abstract if we say things like "America is/isn't afraid to
pose decisive questions." Or we can ask whether OML is "democratic" in
this sense, as a society, if a fairly small and peculiar one. Speaking
only for myself, i'm afraid i don't think decisiveness or "unaccustomed
answers" are our strong suit yet. That is largely a result of ignorance,
both of orgonomy - a young, complex, interdisciplinary
science-in-the-making, suffering still and in new ways from the purposeful
withdrawal and withholding of information - and of one another (and,
certainly, the atmosphere has not been conducive to self-disclosure lately.) 

And what if the societies of which we are a part are found wanting in the
democracy department? Reich doesn't talk about that in the quotation, but
perhaps there are lessons in his life story about the importance of
finding spaces in which important work can flourish. Certainly, we have to
consider whether elective spaces, like the OML, can charge us with
anything more than elective responsibilities. (In other words, if a
particular channel of speech appears less than democratic, and there are
other channels, is one obliged to remain active in the repressive channel?)

We come to the responsibility to speak out, which is more than just a
"right to free speech." It is precisely a form of accountability. By
speaking at once of the "scientist" and "free speech" the stakes are
raised quite seriously. To speak *as a "scientist"* means that your speech
is in the service of a movement toward understanding the natural world,
and it means that you open yourself to scientific critique. 

I wonder how many of us really want to take this particular passage from
Reich as our guide. It seems to me that it sets a much stricter standard
of accountability than any i have suggested. (I have to object to the
characterization of the free speech thread from below - as a "distracting
side bar discussion on who ought to have the right of free speech, as well
as who gets to control the issues being discussed" - since the argument
(in those rare moments where we engaged one another enough to really
argue) seems to have been primarily about how we understand "free speech"
in the first place, and, much more importantly, about how we extend more
fully free speech to everyone (not, as is implied below, to only some.) 

Back at the beginning of the free speech thread, Chris spoke in favor of
"more democracy." More recently, Jim has called for accountability
(precisely in addressing matters of science.) The passage below suggests
top me once again that the two calls are not incompatible - and, further,
that they may not be separable. (And it may not be popular to suggest it,
but i wonder if James DeMeo hasn't shown us a couple of examples of
Reich-style "democratic speech" already, in print and in his response to
the list, as well as in his willingness to stay on the list as long as he
did.) 

In any event, there are cloudbuster questions still hanging. Having worked
with the problems of "responsibility" and "causality" a bit, and finding
them tough nuts to crack under the circumstances, i'm curious how other
folks cut that knot. There are also more simply factual distinctions to be
clarified, such of those in Michael's last post. Since we've already
experienced at least a bit of confusion on basic facts surrounding DOR and
Orur, and since the material convering those aspects of Reich's work are
somewhat hard to access, there is certainly room for us to share
information there. So by all means, let's get down to it, but let's not
forget Reich's insistence on both the rights and responsibilites inherent
in "free speech."

-shawn

On Sun, 10 Mar 1996 GalileoII@aol.com wrote:

>      I like the suggestion to share some of our favorite passages from
> Reich's writings.  Considering all the distracting side bar discussion on who
> ought to have the right of free speech, as well as who gets to control the
> issues being discussed, it might be instructive to keep the following excerpt
> from "The Function of the Orgasm" in mind:
> 
> 
>      "I am not a politician and I am not versed in politics, but I am a
> socially conscious scientist.  As such, I claim the right to say what I have
> recognized to be true.  If my scientific observations have the capacity to be
> conducive to a better organization of human conditions, the purpose of my
> work shall have been fulfilled....
> 
>      "The scientist is duty-bound to insist on the right of free speech under
> all conditions; this right must not be left to those whose intent is to
> suppress life.  We hear so much about the duty of a soldier to be willing to
> sacrifice his life for his country; we hear too little about the duty of a
> scientist to expound a truth once it has been recognized, cost what it
> may....
> 
>      "Those who call themselves democrats and want to contest this right on
> the part of the researcher, physician, educator, technician, or writer are
> hypocrites, or at least victims of the plague of irrationalism.  Without
> firmness and seriousness in vital questions, the fight against the plague of
> dictatorship thrives -and can only thrive- in the obscurity of unrecognized
> issues of life and death.  Man is helpless when he lacks knowledge;
> helplessness due to ignorance is the fertilizer of dictatorship.  A social
> system cannot be called democratic if it is afraid of posing decisive
> questions, finding unaccustomed answers, and engaging in a discussion about
> such questions and answers."
> 
> 
>      Wilhelm Reich, The Function of the Orgasm, (Pocket Book edition
> published 1975, pages 13-14.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list orgonomy@lists.village.virginia.edu ---


     --- from list orgonomy@lists.village.virginia.edu ---

Many thanks for Geocities providing this free space
Get your own Free Home Page

Web Hosting · Blog · Guestbooks · Message Forums · Mailing Lists
Allwebco Web Templates · Build your own toolbar · Financial Data · Audio, Fonts, Clipart
powered by bravenet.com