The Controversy That Lie in Parrhesia
“Proclaim the truth and do not be silent through fear.” — Catherine of Siena
Parrhesia comes from a Greek origin and is often translated into ‘free speech.’ Michel Foucault’s article, Fearless Speech, elaborates more on what parrhesia is and how parrhesia is used. According to Foucault, parrhesia takes on positive meaning in classical texts. For instance, parrhesiazesthai means “to tell the truth.” A parrhesiastes on the other hand, is someone who speaks the truth. A parrhesiastes says what is true, because he knows what is really true. Parrhesiastes are also said to be courageous because in essence, they are speaking to someone in power. However, by doing so, the parrhesiastes is subject to controversy by his or her’s very own parrhesia. If a parrhesiastes is someone who speaks the truth, where does the controversy come in?
As stated, to be a parrhesiastes you must have courage to speak to someone who holds power. This meaning that you must have courage to criticize or speak out against those who hold the power. This is where situations get sticky. If a parrhesiastes decides to speak out or contradict someone who holds power, he or she may be subjected to serious consequences. Foucault inclusively states that parrhesiastes is someone who takes a risk. The risk may not always cause someone his or her life, but the risk can bring various social degradations by those who hold the power.
Let’s take a look at people who are parrhesiastes and the consequences that came with their parrhesia.
The EPA, Environment Protection Agency, has tried for some time to educuate the public on climate change and how it has been affecting our environment. Officials of the EPA also talk about the dangers that lie ahead in our environment if we continue to neglect its importance. EPA officials back all their statements by facts proven by expert scientists who specialize in this field. When these officials come out and make a statement on global warming, it is not just a mere opinion, it is an opinion backed by facts. Interestingly, the EPA reiterated their claim on climate change and criticized President Trump when Trump stated that climate change was a hoax that was perpetuated by the Chinese. Trump did not take the EPA’s criticism to his statement lightly and eventually denied EPA officials and other government staff from speaking publicly about climate change and its environmental danger. Trump’s attempts to limit these scientists parrhesia only further proves that they are true parrhesiastes.
Why would they be considered parrheasiates?
They are parrhesisates because they were courageous enough to speak out against someone who holds power, in this case our President and his administration. They reiterated the importance of the environmental crisis we face despite the opposition against them. Parrhesia at times can come with consequences, especially if we speak out against someone in power. Ironically, as we see with the EPA, their parrhesia caused them to essentially lose their parrhesia.
Another example of a parrhesiastes would be Rosa Luxemburg. Rosa Luxemburg was tried in a criminal court and eventually convicted for “inciting the use of physical force” through a speech she delivered on the General Stike at the annual Congress of the German Socialist Party. Luxemburg was a Marxist and consistently spoke for the working class and against those in power. Luxemburg’s speech favored the formation of a General Strike to unite the working class. Her prosecutor mentioned that Luxemburg’s violence came from the excitement in her voice and controversial words such as “…in Germany we have also arrived at that point where Evolution must give way to Revolution.” Luxemburg essentially spoke out against the people in power and critcized the German government and even the war. Luxemburg was sentenced to two months in prison for her speech. Luxemburg acted courageously as she criticized those in power; she spoke the truth and was the voice for many of those who were oppressed by the German government. Because of her parrhesia, Luxemburg was sentenced to 2 months in prison and would later be killed by a bash and shot to the head.
Parrhesia can be controversial because it brings danger to us. As Foucault mentions, a parrhesiastes literally must take a risk with his or her parhesia. The risks can include death, as seen with Luxemburg, or social ostracism as seen with the EPA. One would believe that parrhesia is fundamental in a society and that we are all entitled to speak freely, but, this is not the case. Instead, we see consequences for our parrhesia by those in power. Our parrhesia can consequently be the reason why we lose our parrhesia- kind of ironic huh? It may be scary to take risks because of the negativity it may bring, but, it is important that we continue to express our parhessia despite the risks. The EPA and Rosa Luxemburg both brought important issues to light, we must not let fear limit our parrhesia. We must continue to protest and fight the injustices and even if our parrhesia brings us consequences, it can influence others to speak out and eventually, it can even arouse change.
