Free speech is the direct consequence of the right to freedom of expression. After all, what use is having freedom of thought if you cannot express it? At the same time, we know that there is a difference between what you think about all day long and thoughts that you refine through the process of speaking before finally unleashing your opinion.
The "gradual production of thoughts whilst speaking," as Heinrich von Kleist called it in the early 19th century, points to the elementary interlinking of speech, thought and consciousness. What you say reveals what you think and how you see the world. Not everything that passes through your head is ready to be spoken, and even the ancient Romans knew that silence can turn a human being into a philosopher, as the Neoplatonist Boethius wrote back in the year 523 in The Consolation of Philosophy.
So what can and should you say, and what should you keep to yourself? For years, there has been a bitter dispute about this in many democracies around the world. And it is appropriate to pause here for a moment's gratitude to acknowledge how great it is that we who live in the free world have the privilege of being able to think and speak freely.
Human rights are far from a given around the world. As if that weren't bad enough, despotic opponents of freedom have started attacking the free world in many places. They spur on disputes, mostly online, and deliberately inflame debates. As Thomas Jefferson is credited with saying, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
When we engage in conflicts about free speech, in the end it is only the enemies of freedom who rejoice. At the same time, we all know that unconsidered speech can strain friendships, break relationships and offend family members. It is therefore important to choose carefully the words that we use, for the sake of peace, which can be so easily broken.
In Germany and the US, surveys now show that people of all ages and socioeconomic strata prefer to avoid certain topics. In other words, they censor themselves rather than address these topics. Or else they are fed up with "speech guidance" rules that are not only recommended for the use of certain terms but seem to be imposed.
In the US, political correctness — or PC — has been rejected by the broad majority. In Germany, according to the Allensbach Institute, which conducts public opinion polling, topics such as refugees and patriotism are strictly avoided in discussions with relatives and colleagues.
Self-censorship is your own choice and freedom
These two phenomena must be distinguished. Self-censorship is undesirable, but it is still an expression of your personal choice and freedom. You are not obliged to start a discussion about the government's refugee policy at any time or with anyone. It can be wise, as Boethius wrote, to remain silent.
On the other hand, "speech guidance" always opens the door to totalitarianism. It comes down to the question of who is prescribing a certain use of language and who is sanctioning it. Under Franco's dictatorship, the Basques were forbidden to speak their language. Language is central to cultural self-expression, to identity. Those who ban a language also ban the people who speak it.
Read more: Franco homage to be dropped from Spanish town
In an increasingly polarized world, the two main camps, roughly described as "nationalist" and "cosmopolitan" or as "conservative" and "liberal," are not that different from each other. They both define an ingroup of those who belong just as meticulously as the outgroup of those who do not belong. And those who do not immediately join the new code are very quickly excluded.
At the same time, it is a fact that you can only change a society's perception and consciousness if you use language to change people's thinking. For example, young, unmarried women today are no longer automatically referred to as Miss but can choose to be called Ms to avoid simply being reduced to their "value" on the "marriage market." After thinking about this change of language, who could not agree? Because language always reflects our prejudices and value judgments. And language is always evolving. And this change is invariably controversial. You can and must defend yourself against some changes, but you should welcome others.
A wolf in sheep's clothing
The furor about political correctness that is currently raging on both sides of the Atlantic seems justified in view of the attempt to guide language usage. But it is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The aim of speaking is to reach understanding, compromise. This is what populists, the fiercest opponents of PC, do not want in any way. They trade in resentment not empathy, which means showing understanding for others.
Read more: Stand up the far-right, Germany's Angela Merkel tells Europe
Conversely, in the other camp, of the "liberals", there are also stylistic blunders that do not stand up to reason or history. The so-called "Bible in a just language," which the Protestant Church in Germany published a few years ago, is one such example. In biblical times there was no equality of the sexes, stonings were the order of the day, the Bible is full of horrendous stories. But this will not be improved if it is airbrushed and evened out by a translation that has nothing to do with the original text. You have to tolerate such old texts, comment on them and put them into context.
As true as this may be, however, it is also the case that there is no prerogative in continuing with discrimination just because it was previously possible and not sanctioned, in a supposedly better time. This is what is being shouted by the populists of this world and they reap encouragement for it. Homosexuals are not "faggots" and black Africans are not "negroes."
That such insults were common in former times should cause the PC haters of our day to blush with shame, rather than insisting loudly that such things should still be allowed to be said.
Alexander Görlach is a senior research associate at the Institute on Religion and International Studies at the University of Cambridge as well as senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs and honorary professor for ethics and theology at the University of Lüneburg. He has also held a number of scholarly and advisory positions at Harvard University. He holds PhDs in comparative religion and linguistics and is a guest columnist for several publications including Deutsche Welle, The New York Times, Swiss daily Neue Zürcher Zeitung and business magazine Wirtschaftswoche.