The death of public discourse

ReflectionBy Alan

Keywords: Communication, Cultural criticism, Auronet, Censorship, Beliefs and Dialogue

One of the many things which have changed in Auroville over the past four years is the contraction and virtual disappearance of public discourse, meaning the free exchange of ideas and perspectives between Aurovilians in a public forum. Auronet has shrunk to a place where a few voices tend to express the same line and where rare challenges to this perspective are often attacked or ridiculed. Community meetings are banned unless called by officially recognised groups, while officially-sanctioned meetings tend to be attended mainly by those who support the regime and dissent or alternative views are rarely, if ever, expressed. And even though a plethora of alternative information and discussion channels have opened up on the Internet, these are not open to all and tend to be populated by those who share the same perspective.

And it’s not just the lack of discussion platforms supporting a diversity of perspectives which is the problem. Self-censorship is also widespread. Aurovilians today fear voicing their opinions and thoughts publicly if these challenge the official narrative as the consequences may range from public ridicule and boycotting to the possible cancellation of visas and/or residence in Auroville.

It is understandable, then, why people keep quiet or share their thoughts only with those who they know think like them. But there is a price to pay. For the fear of saying the wrong thing or speaking to the ‘wrong’ person is corrosive: the loss of the ability to freely express oneself leads to contraction, to a loss of the fullness of being, while the community as a whole is impoverished when public expressions of diversity are lacking.

When we inhabit silos of thinking, echo chambers in which we only hear our own views repeated back to us by others, we lose the capacity to expand our understanding by encountering different views, and assertiveness, dogmatism, replaces the healthy uncertainty which can lead to new discoveries. John Stuart Mill, who wrote the classic text on the importance of free speech, argued that truth is only discoverable through debate, through the free exchange of ideas. While, from a spiritual perspective, we may question this assertion – Mother made it clear that the discovery of Truth does not depend upon debate or mental reasoning – it remains true that if many of our assumptions are not challenged we lose the chance to change or refine them: few of us have the ability to vigorously question our own beliefs.

Above all, to open a reasoned discussion with someone is an expression of solidarity: it demonstrates that I think you are worthy of being listened to and responded to. In this sense, dialogue, discourse, is one of the most important of the invisible glues which hold communities together. This glue is weakening today. It is weakening because, while there are exceptions, more and more of us seem to be refusing to enter into dialogue with those who hold different views, not only because we think that only we hold the ‘truth’, or, more reasonably, because we think this is the time for action, not words, but also because we consider that those who don’t think like us are not worth engaging with. We have decided they are not ‘good’ Aurovilians and therefore don’t deserve to be listened to or even, perhaps, to be here.

And once we begin taking this road, there is no easy way back….