Liberty, Freedom of Expression and Literature

 Introduction 

John Stuart Mill's philosophy provides one of the more comprehensive insights.   

Mill argues the only time coercion is acceptable- (by that I mean ensuring or persuading someone to do something they are unwilling to do or take into consideration ) is when a person's behaviour harms other people—otherwise, societies should treat diversity with respect.

His Utilitarian approach contained in his essay on Liberty champion’s individuals and society rights to embrace unpopular opinions since they may turn out to be correct or successfully challenge entrenched ideas to underpin progress. 

Liberty according to Mill is integral to progress for two main reasons. First, the unpopular opinion may be right and secondly it enhances debate leading one to better understand opinions. 

Some of the problems that emerge from his Utilitarian approach is that it is often impossible to determine if a work in fact will causes widespread harm until well after the event of the published work. One sees the growing capacity for dangerous conspiracies that continue to spread misinformed views all hatched under the context of free speech. The damage is sustained long before harm can be ascertained.

In that respect some sort of community standard seems necessary other than purely the subjective idea not to cause harm. 

In Australia diversity and inclusiveness of individuals is now recognised in legislation to ensure one is free to make personal choices about ones identity and to enshrine

Privacy provisions that prohibit non- consensual personal information being disclosed, 

Individuals cannot be forced to identify and state their pronouns, disclose their sexuality, or express personal preferences which contravenes anti-discrimination laws in existence. 

Authors need to be aware of these provisions to avoid offence but it seems an overreaction to go back and amend past books and publications to conform  to these recent laws, analogous to tearing down old statues of those prominent figures now considered offensive in the light of their past actions. 

But one obviously needs to be familiar with these laws when writing an autobiography to avoid offence. Generally speaking fiction writers presume those reading their works accept the fictional basis so they are free mostly except for porn or disgsting material.  

As far as autobiography is concerned a writer’s position is no different to individual rights in everyday life - the freedoms and restrictions under the law from which ignorance is no defence. 

Mill’s concept of individualism 

However, Mill does recognise there needs to be some brakes within governance. He realizes that a society that becomes completely free of any constraints inevitably will succumb to a powerful minority who will override an individual's basic rights and curtail freedom.  

Liberty is compatible with an enjoyment of freedom enshrined in law and by regulation. Hence a democracy needs to ensure individual rights of expression are enshrined in its governance and only curtailed where outcomes can be demonstrated to be harmful according to Mill.   

He sees the individual as paramount in governance to take precedence over the state.  

Hence, the state exists for the individuals rather than the other way around. This assumes a degree of individual education within a properly constructed society. That might lead one to argue that concept entails a leap of faith. But Mill does acknowledge such an idea of self-sufficiency cannot apply to children and some of those with limited mental or physical capability. 

He advocates warnings against dangerous practices and poisons rather than making them illegal or banning their use. 

Liberty and limits on powerful groups are compatible aims. 

But to reiterate the question of liberty implies equality to achieve the individual’s participation which may call in turn involve far more intervention than possibly Mill envisaged.  

How can people have a say if there are no laws and effective governance to ensure minorities and the disadvantaged are able to be heard by those in power. One powerful person’s freedom might enslave another to silence.    

Hence the necessary regulatory oversight is imperative if the rights of all individuals are to be maintained.

Entertaining entertainment as one way not to avoid harm to others.

Within the bounds of entertainment (as to how we define it) it is hard to see how literature, films or whatever media is involved can cause harm when produced purely for entertainment and the reader is suitably informed. Of course there must be some limits set as a form to restrict distribution to the vulnerable, children and where community standards necessarily give rise to a ban on disgusting material. That involves the subjective definition as to what is entertainment or art and what isn’t.    

Moral purpose and intended outcomes 

I am reminded of the words of Mark Twain who emphatically denied that no person should ever read anything into his work other than it was just a story intended to entertain.  

For it seems that this view of writers, that aim to entertain can hardly be construed as causing harm. Furthermore it is common practice for writers to include a note that no characters in any novel represent real people and that any perceived resemblance is unintentional. 

In other instances an author might legitimately engage in a social challenge to highlight injustices of one kind or another within the fictional characters that make up the narrative, so as to confine to the fictional narrative and avoid personalization. Even so one generally might want to present both sides to any matter which is bound to create more interest and integrity to avoid the author's bias to be on display.    

Autobiographical and memoirs are always subjective in the eyes of the author 

The degree to which we see ourselves will always differ as to how we are perceived. So that if you wanted to understand the real personal nature of someone an autobiographical account may not be a good starting point. If you were afforded the luxury of being able to talk freely with those who knew that person well you may have a better perspective but even so memories are not always reliable. 

Ultimately the author’s ego is potentially going to show matters in their best light unless a disciplined factual approach is taken which concentrates on events and outcomes to avoid judgements on people and so forth. It’s hardly surprising that many celebrities’ autobiographical accounts invoke hostility between siblings after publication whose perspectives markedly differ.  

A good example of how to avoid such pitfalls is acclaimed novelist P. D. James ‘A Time to be in Earnest’  who is described by reviewers as a rich “fragrant of autobiography”.

She concentrates on her life’s experiences- beginning with school days, being happily married, the tragedy of her husband’s mental illness and the great thrill of her first novel being published.

We learn something about her as a person inclusive of an obsession with Jane Austin and her ideas on the evolution of the detective novel as a form of popular entertainment, together with her fears it might entertain ideas of crime amongst readers which she aims to overcome with moral outcomes. 

Herein we see the advantage of an author seeking to be entertaining and interesting to provide insights into her area of expertise with glimpses of her desires for ethical outcomes.

There is an absence of controversial judgments about those close to her or matters bound to stir up hostility. 

Q & A – Possible answers to questions  

What are the responsibilities of a writer?

The concept of authors looking to entertain readers seems to offer the best perspectives of not causing harm, to concentrate on factual and or perspectives that don’t involve controversy. Rather the author’s fictional characters are the ones challenging social issues where applicable.  In Australia diversity and inclusiveness of individuals is now recognised in legislation to ensure one is free to make personal choices about ones identity and to enshrine Privacy provisions that prohibit non- consensual personal information being disclosed, 

Individuals cannot be forced to identify and state their pronouns, disclose their sexuality, or express personal preferences which contravenes anti-discrimination laws in existence. 

Authors need to be aware of these provisions to avoid offence but it seems an overreaction to go back and amend past books and publications to conform to these recent laws, analogous to tearing down old statues of those prominent figures now considered offensive in the light of their past actions. 

An a emergent modern day phenomenon for fiction writers to pragmatically embrace the concept “anything goes” since it’s fictional and you need to understand that if you’re a  reader of fiction, so that’s the end of the matter. 

Similarly as far as autobiography is concerned a writer’s position is no different to individual rights in everyday life - the freedoms and restrictions under the law from which ignorance is no defence. 

How should a creative person approach their craft? How far

should they go to avoid offence (if at all)?

Some acknowledge they have responsibilities and what about a balanced approach?

To add a moral dimension that can be effectively woven into the story by way of a parable or in a narrative it is best to avoid pointing the finger - at individuals or causes. Where it is known to be a controversial topic allow the fictional characters to engage in a balanced debate to show both sides and thus avoid offence. But one obviously also needs to be familiar with new laws when writing an autobiography. From a pragmatic perspective a fictional account needs to be accepted as such if you’re a reader of fiction.

What degree of freedom of expression do you give yourself? Offence be damned? Truth (my version of it) at all costs?

Artistic integrity paramount? Minimizing harm to others? Compromise?

When writing an Autobiography one preferably aims to be entertaining and interesting about you life’s journey by providing insights into your area of experiences - glimpses of your desires or aims that shape your narrative. That possibly excludes any adverse judgments about those close to you or to entertain one sided options on controversial matters bound to stir up hostility. Ultimately one has to be careful not to allow one’s ego to potentially show matters in terms of self-interest as in the best possible light always, but rather to opt for a factual approach to concentrate more on describing the events, their outcomes and feelings at the time. 

To reiterate a good example of how to avoid such pitfalls is acclaimed novelist P.D James who “Time to Be in Earnest” described by reviewers as a rich “fragrant of autobiography” “where she concentrates on her life’s experiences- beginning with school days, being happily married, the tragedy of her husband’s mental illness and the great thrill of her first novel being published.

We learn something about her as a person inclusive of an obsession with Jane Austin and her ideas on the evolution of the detective novel to become a popular entertainment for many, together with her fears it might entertain ideas of crime which she aims to overcome with moral outcomes. 

Herein we see the advantage of an author seeking to be entertaining and interesting in the absence of harsh judgments about those close to her or to talk about controversial matters presented in such an emphatic manner it is bound to stir up hostility. 

Being frendly and the bonds of friendship

 Definition  

Friendship is a topic requiring a working definition which I propose as follows:  

As a noun: One whose shared interests underpins a deep affection, trust and rapport independent of sexual or family love. 

As a verb: welcoming, accepting, empathetic, kindly and being loyal.  

Ideas on how friendships may have first formed

According to many evolutionary biologists friendship may have developed as necessary enhancement to survival. Even in the upper echelons of the animal Kingdom we notice  a form of friendship and deep affection amongst social animals. 

For instance a pride of lions  rely on trust as successful hunters (involving skilful and strategic teamwork) of  very large animals inclusive of elephants - continually reinforced given the obvious tell-tale signs of fondness we witness within the hierarchy of the pride.   

Friends and Happiness  

In a publication entitled “Friends and Happiness: An Evolutionary Perspective on Friendship” the authors David M G Lewis of Murdoch University, Leith Al Sheaf  of the University of Colorado, Eric M Russell of the University of Texas  and David M Buss even talk about the development of reciprocal altruism as an evolutionary long term survival advantage.      

The authors suggest our evolutionary journey was reliant on hunting or scavenging large animals (to obtain the necessary protein to underpin larger brains) that required a collaborative effort based on trusted friends within the tribal structure. 

“Who are we? Where did we come from?”

Likewise Dr.Hugo Zeberg of the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden reports on new technologies, research and collaborations to begin to answer the question: “Who are we? Where did we come from?”

The answer is we have far more in common with our extinct or ancient cousins than we ever thought.

Scientists hypothesize that the idea of sticking together and adding friendly support became integral to our survival represented in those genes that make up our present footprint.

Blood Brothers

Noting past societies had traditions of close, loving, male friendships — sometimes called “blood brothers”. Blood brotherhoods are common among hunter-gatherer societies and early warrior societies, often involving an exchange of blood or vows. Among the Akwe-Shavante, indigenous people of western Brazil, parents encourage their sons to develop one or two close friends, their i-amo (“my other” or “my partner”), who become their companion for life. 

Evolutionary traits arising from the great migrations

The attributes we associate with friends continue to define someone who will be supportive and trustworthy. Such traits were particularly important during the great migratory journeys, for tribespeople to rely on those bonds to find their way through violent climatic upheavals. So that an affinity with nature and reliance on skills and social interaction leading to deep affection and dependence became an existential reality.    

Those challenges shaped that need for deep relationships and with nature.   

Friendships of First Nations People and the kinship system  

Women’s friendships were forged principally as carers,  food gatherers, storytellers and in ensuring socialisation within the mob or clan. On the other hand young men reaching maturity received tutoring in the law and their responsibilities.

But the concept of friendship was much wider than European ideas. Within each nation (there were approximately 500 pre colonisation with their own language) there were complex laws and customs governed aspects of their existence. Therein that gave expression to deep feelings of affection for not only the land but across the nation.

This was achieved by virtue of the concept of “Moëty"where one is born either as a hunter-gatherer (on one side of the "Moety" ) or as a conservationist charged with ecological responsibility on the other. Their respective responsibilities were defined by predetermined “Totems". Within that nation all peoples in the clans and mobs are regarded as close friends where they were born on your side of the Moëty you belong to.   

So, to reiterate, wherever you travelled within a nation (defined by landmark boundaries) all those within your side of the Moëty must show hospitality and friendship.

The complex nature of how this works dates back to the Creation stories, embedded in the Dreamtime, ensuring everything can be seen as two halves, inclusive of yourself and your environment. 

Accordingly, pre colonization, the Moëty system existed across Australia where there is a section or subsection system with four to eight ‘skin names’. Individuals gain ‘skin names’ upon birth based on the skin names of his or her parents, to indicate the section/subsection that he/she belongs to. The children must not marry into that side of the Moiety, regarded as their extended family, but alternate with each generation.  

Totems as predetermined existential responsibilities  

The foundation of the kinship system is the totems where each person has at least four: one personal, family, clan and nation totem. The Totems provide a link to the physical universe: to land, water, geographical features, and animals. The family, clan and nation totems are pre-ordained but an additional individual totem is decided by tribal elders to recognize personal strengths.They convey your clan’s  responsibility and the landmarks and rights within those designated areas. 

For instance if Emu was a designated Totem, then one side of the Moëty in the clan would have expertise in hunting for that animal whilst one born on the opposite side as a conservationist ensures eggs are not taken to preserve sustainability. They would know everything about its life cycle and habitat.    

Individuals then are accountable for their totems and are to ensure these totems are protected and passed on to future generations. This then invokes a friendship to the earth and its landmarks believed to be bequeathed by the creative spirits.  

Skin Names explained 

The 3rd level of the kinship system are skin names. They define the relationship of one another and their obligations to one another. An individual doesn't have the same skin name as their parent's, husband and wife. Rather It is a sequential system based on the mother’s name (in a matrilineal system), or the father’s name (in a patrilineal system), and has either a four cycle or 8 cycle naming cycle.

To reiterate, on each side of the "Moety" the children who marry must marry into the opposite side until such time as the cycle is complete. The naming cycle then repeats. 

It is not hard to understand why the early anthropologists had no idea what it meant and how it subsequently became compromised with the decimation of the clans and nations.   

An Aristolean perspective

In Ancient Greece his idea for friendships was those relationships which were forged by people who like each other, do good for one another, and share their aspirations during that time together.  

He identifies three kinds of friendships: one of utility, one of pleasure and finally one he called the perfect friendship. In the first type of utility, the relationship is based on the good as one to another, in the second type it is contingent on mutual pleasure arising from shared activities.  

Friendship as a motivation to do good works

Friendship contains elements of the abovementioned given we share pleasing tasks which might mean our love for dogs, for example underpins friendships involving shared activities such as walks and discussions. When a friend becomes overwhelmed then we may routinely prepare meals or act as a temporary carer and so forth.

Shared values

Their perfect type of friendship  according to Aristotle involves one forged when those friends are good and alike in virtue; for each alike wishes well to each other… they are good in themselves” , 

But the reality mostly is it is a mixture of things and it is hard to imagine a close friend relationship to develop without a common interest where some value is perceived in respect of the relationship, 

Symbolism and the wider community 

In many Asian countries for instance there is the annual celebration of Friendship Day with the custom of exchanging gifts, cards or flowers.

Friendship Day was first proposed in Paraguay in 1958 which became the catalyst of the idea of a Global Friendship Day.

Ever since the 30 July has been fervently celebrated as Friendship Day in Paraguay every year and has also been adopted by several other countries.

The World Friendship Crusade has lobbied the United Nations for several years to recognize 30 July as World Friendship Day; finally, in 2011, the General Assembly of the United Nations decided to designate 30 July as the International Day of Friendship and proceeded to invite all the Member States to observe the International Day of Friendship as per the culture and customs of their local, national and regional communities, including through education and public awareness-raising activities.

Friendship is regarded as the important gateway that builds bonds and develops camaraderie and trust between all cultures as we are mostly social people.

From a global perspective the simple action of building friendships is seen as the shift that is urgently needed in society to achieve lasting peace. The UN and UNESCO believe this would put an end to division, poverty, violence, and human rights abuses.

In a more personal level the giving of friendship bracelets is a popular practice as a token of affection which can be traced back to ancient China. Similarly the role of close friendships is evident in the biblical stories, in novels, poetry, images and in the lyrics of the popular songs such as “That’s what friends are for” – “in good times, bad times I’ll be on your side forever more”.  

 Better health and well-being linked to friendship 

According to By Michael R. Kauth, Ph.D., professor, Menninger Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences at Baylor College of Medicine the concept of friends evolved because having a close friend improved one’s chances of survival and the survival of one’s children.

That coincides with the idea we make friends as most people don’t want to feel alone, but seek validation and companionship just as they did face the perils of life so long ago. But feeling lonely doesn’t apply to some people able to substitute activities with a love of nature whose interactions might more aptly be described as only having acquaintances. 

But for the most part, according to a study of 323,000 people across 99 countries referenced by Kauth, friendship was linked to better health, greater happiness, and a higher level of well-being. If close, loving friendships are an adaptive trait that evolved among early humans, we should expect that close friendships are common and valued across cultures. 

Modern day Friendships

In modernity we are left with the remnants of our evolutionary traits despite mostly being far removed from the affinity with the land and the battle against the elements of our ancestors. What seems to form the basis of friendships today is shared activities and interests. Nothing could be more important than world peace where shared friendships whether tentatively based on trust or not seem to be the best way forward.   

Tim Delaney and Anastasia Malakova in an article in Philosophy Now categorize and analyse the different kinds of modern-day friendships.

The authors indicate that friendships are forged for safety, survival, social inclusion and to maintain a sense of identity. 

Sociologist Peter Belau (1918-2002) suggested we employ a ranking system in forming friends motivated by a perceived reward in enhancing social approvals and sending shared outlooks. 

What also occurs is that those initial strong friendships can equally drift apart for any number of reasons? 

The bonds in modernity seem much more complex to be divided into many subcategories: attached principally driven by feelings of affection or personal regard; those who provide assistance and support to one another; those who are on good terms with one another because they share certain attributes, such as religious and cultural affiliations; those who share a common interest such as music or favourite sports team; or, by those who participate in certain social activities, such as travelling or bush walking or hiking. 

Conclusion and suggested Q&A discussion points   

Clearly, the modern era has introduced many new forms of friendship that couldn't have been dreamed of by our ancestors.  But the question is are those first traits that were necessary for survival still applicable today? – I think they are in this age of the human- the Anthropocene”! : The period during which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and the environment.   

Q&A- discussions

Let’s be friends, or at least friendly.

Is that possible or worthwhile? Can you live a solitary existence and be happy?

There is no question from my perspective it is not only possible to be friendly but friendships were instrumental in our survival just as underpins social animals. From First Nations People we can understand how it was for all peoples in the clans and mobs to be regarded as close friends on the basis of their birth on one side of the Moëty.   

That ensured anywhere in a nation (defined by landmark boundaries) you could call on a friend to be of help when that person was on your side of the Moëty. That was the concept of the enlarged friendship group akin as if part of your family even though you may never have met.      

Friendship is regarded as the important gateway that builds bonds and develops camaraderie and trust between all cultures as we are mostly social people.

From a global perspective the simple action of building friendships is seen as the shift that is urgently needed in society to achieve lasting peace. The UN and UNESCO believe this would put an end to division, poverty, violence, and human rights abuses.

To reiterate Friendship is also linked to better health, greater happiness, and a higher level of well-being. If close, loving friendships are an adaptive trait that evolved among early humans, as I believe is the case, then we should expect that close friendships are common and valued across all cultures. 

Can you live a solitary existence and be happy?

One doubts it is possible or even practical to live a solitary life but one can accept some individuals will form an affinity with nature or a particular passion where any necessary interactions are more in the form of acquaintances.

Mental impairment may also negate that social norm to the extent deep relationships are not possible.

Can you be friends with a pet? A piece of software mimicking a human entity or even a virtual pet? Is social media the answer to friendship (as was the case for pen-pals long ago in my childhood days )?

Pets can act as friends, but it is not possible in my view for us to invent machines as real comforters other than what already exists in calming music, animal contact and the various media applications that can be continually improved.   

Does gender play a role or stage in life?

The female friendships tend to be more empathetic and socialistic whilst male bonding is usually later on with bonding to support activities, but today the roles are becoming blurred.     

Is friendship the other side (opposite) of loneliness?

That coincides with the idea as to why we make friends as most people don’t want to feel alone, but seek validation and companionship just as they did face the perils of life so long ago. But feeling lonely doesn’t apply to some people able to substitute activities with a love of nature whose interactions might more aptly be described as only having acquaintances. Friendship is not necessarily the other side (opposite) of loneliness.  There is a difference between being lonely and craving companionship as distinct to being happy in your own skin so to speak. That may allow someone to be happy in the absence of close friends.

Is friendship an end in itself, a positive good for not just wellbeing, but personal development and growth?

Their perfect type of friendship according to Aristotle involves one forged when those friends are good and alike in virtue; for each alike wishes well to each other… they are good in themselves” , 

But the reality in my view is that mostly it is a mixture of things and it is hard to imagine a close friend relationship to develop without a common interest where some value is perceived in respect of the relationship. 

What is it that makes for a good friendship? A big question, not easily answered.

In a nutshell in my view one where shared interests allow for a deep affection, trust and rapport, knowing one can always agree to disagree in providing an honest answer and one who can be relied upon in times of need.