Parrhesia; A Discussion on Free Speech

Parrhesia is easiest to define as free speech. It is the dialogue that takes place in pursuit of the truth. Parrhesia is spoken candidly and it is done in the presence of others. In this article I will discuss the three parts to parrhesia: rhetoric, politics, and philosophy.

Rhetoric

If parrhesia is a dialogue between two or more people who engage in conversation, then rhetoric seems as though it would be the complete opposite. Foucault once said that dialogue was a major technique for playing the parrhesiatic game. Rhetoric, often involves long, drawn out speeches in which no one else is supposed to interrupt or even respond to. Although they appear to be polar opposites, they actually can coincide. Speech and writing are dependent upon each other. One cannot have good speaking without good writing and one definitely cannot have good writing without good speaking. The problem isn’t that they don’t form well together, but that people do not normally understand in how to use their free speech.

I realize how controversial that must sound. “You can’t have free speech and discussion that guides to truth if you are also dictating in what ways a person can and cannot use their free speech.” I disagree, and I believe that Foucault does as well. In Fearless Speech, he mentions how people can think that personal conversations are the best ways to get ideas out and be frank and honest with others. Alternatively, in rhetoric, one is decorating their every sentence with persuasive words and devices that will fall gently on the ears of their audience. In rhetoric, one utilizes the techniques that will change the hearts of those who listen, but in this process, some of the truth can be lost. This is why rhetoric and parrhesia can coincide. If one can find a way to be persuasive and hold their audience captive with the sheer power of their words, then they will be heard. For what makes free speech free without being heard?

Politics

Parrhesia was a guideline for democracy. Democracy is made up of a constitution in which all people have the right to speak freely and and have their voices heard and accepted equally. It is improbable to have a space in which people may speak publicly without first being told that they may speak freely, that is to say without any fear of punishment or retribution from their government.

This can get complicated when parrhesia starts to be used toward the people in power positions. For those in control, and those being controlled both need parrhesia. Those in control must be able to entrust advisers to use parrhesia to keep them from abusing their power and working against the good of the people. Those in control must be accepting of criticism and be willing to take advice even if it’s not necessarily what they want to hear. Meanwhile, those being controlled must use parrhesia to state how things can be changed for their good and be willing to speak candidly if they feel as though their leader is not acting accordingly.

This idea of how parrhesia should be utilized by those in control and their people, it does seem to hinge on the goodness of leaders. History, more often than not, has shown us the opposite. We’ve seen leaders overtaken by the allure of power and not care a lick about anyone under them. So we must wonder, can such a system contingent upon the goodness of any one individual be trusted?

Philosophy

Foucault regards philosophy as an art of life. He mentions how even though Socrates’ writings seemed parrhesiastic in nature, (for example how he would confront people in public and teach them truth) that this was not the language that he used. Maybe it wasn’t a word that was used at the time. But words aren’t as important as ideas, and one idea that is brought to our attention is that one cannot help others without first taking care of themselves. I agree with this idea. It has often been said you cannot love others without first loving yourself. These ideas are similar in that once a person truly loves themselves, cares for themselves, in that process they are able to see what love and care really are. Outside of seeing them in action in one’s own life, they are simply words, platitudes lacking any meaning or significance.

Parrhesia is seen as a form of taking care of oneself. In being candid, in participating in discussion for truth, you are truly able to care for yourself. Keeping your feelings and ideas locked inside if you can have damaging effects not only on your psyche, but to those around you. We must see free speech and pursuit of knowledge as educating our souls and in turn setting them free.

Think about it…

Women weren’t seen as citizens or even people at the time of Foucault’s writings about parrhesia. He would probably see all women’s involvement in politics as complete anarchy and view women’s parrhesia as forms of protest. It’s interesting how easily ideas can go from being stimulating and thought provoking, to completely archaic with little effort.