Theory and Practice

A friend studying political philosophy in a beautiful ivory tower in the middle of England asked me about my insights on "freedom of the press" and the philisophical debate over censorship that I think I remember us discussing over drinks in a bar in Scotland once.

I told him that I didn't think I had very much to add to our theoretical ponderings. There is nothing theoretical about what happens in this country. It is so emotional, so daily, so grinding and routine that the theory is wrung out of it.

To believe in the freedom to write what you want feels something innate - and to watch truth chopped up and reformed is something I "feel" is wrong. And it is not just because the censors red pen can destroy weeks of interviews, thoughts, conversations and work - it is because if we do not know what is going on in our world how can we discuss? How can we change our ideas? How can we question? How can we judge? How can we relate to others? How can we decide the direction of our lives - or hold power in check? How can we self question and emerge with a new criteria or system for doing anything? How do we grow and adapt? How is authority kept watch over? How do we ever hear the voice of the marginalised?

Oppression requires the curtailing of ideas and thoughts. It requires the stunting of accountability, of transparency. It requires the silencing of truth and voices as much as it needs the monopoly over violence and those horribly large prisons where political prisoners can rot.

The government press rails about the Rohingyha (Muslim community in Northern Rakhine state) are not citizens, are not a part of Myanmar --- and there is no one in this country who can stand up and ask how a people who have lived here for generations are not citizens? No one can ask about why the Rohingya cannot marry - or travel - or worship their God.

Naturally, as in similar times and places, the people here have almsot entirely stopped believing the state press. They are sarcastic and angry and disbelieving of anything their government says - it loses any grain of truth simply because it is said by a government official - atleast in most people's eyes. But wholesale skepticism of government is not enough. Because skepticism without truth or investigation leads merely to angry frustrations and rumours rather than dialogue, discussion and change. Although it is a coping strategy that helps us all feel superior to the people who control so much of our lives - it does not help us strive for anything better. It is a survival strategy, but not a building strategy. Without the freedom to write and investigate and discuss all we do is grow more embittered by our present circumstances and more reliant on heresy, rumour and instinct.

I do not think theoretically about censorship - because when I think of it I see red - and the messy, clumsy violence of it makes me wince and feel impotent.

Asking me about censorship is like asking me to come up with a theory of love, or to create an abstraction about divorce or how I feel about God. It is possible and important to step away and theorize and philosophize about it - but when you are in the midst of a love affair, a separation or a moment of spiritual connection the theories do not even begin to touch the messy, complex reality of it.