Read the following excerpt and answer the questions.
The Conquest of Happiness,
Chapter Nine: Fear of Public Opinion, Bertrand Russell
In the Modern world, owing to the swiftness of
locomotion, people are less dependent than they used to be upon their
geographically nearest neighbors. Those who have cars can regard as a neighbor
any person living within twenty miles. They have therefore a much greater power
than was formerly the case of choosing their companions. In any populous
neighborhood a man must be very unfortunate if he cannot find congenial souls
within twenty miles. The idea that one should know one’s immediate neighbors
has died out in large centers of population, but still lingers in small towns
and in the country. It has become a foolish idea, since there is no need to be
dependent upon immediate neighbors for society. More and more it becomes
possible to choose our companions on account of congeniality rather than on account
of mere propinquity. Happiness is promoted by associations of persons with
similar tastes and similar opinions. Social intercourse may be expected to
develop more and more along these lines, and it may be hoped that by these
means the loneliness that now afflicts so many unconventional people will be
gradually diminished almost to vanishing point. This will undoubtedly increase
their happiness, but it will of course diminish the sadistic pleasure with the
conventional at present derive from having the unconventional at their mercy. I
do not think, however, that this is a pleasure which we need be greatly
concerned to preserve.
Fear of public opinion, like every other form of
fear, is oppressive and stunts growth. It is difficult to achieve any kind of
greatness while a fear of this kind remains strong, and it is impossible to
acquire that freedom of spirit in which true happiness consists, for it is essential
to happiness that our way of living should spring from our own deep impulses
and not from the accidental tastes and desire of those who happen to be our neighbors,
or even our relations. Fear of immediate neighbors is no doubt less than it
was, but there is a new kind of fear, namely, the fear of what newspapers may
say. This is quite as terrifying as anything connected with medieval witch
hunts. When the newspaper chooses to make a scapegoat of some perhaps quite
harmless person, the results may be very terrible. Fortunately, as yet this is
a fate which most people escape through their obscurity; but as publicity gets
more and more perfect in its methods, there will be an increasing danger in
this novel form of social persecution. This is too grave a matter to be treated
with disdain by the individual who is its victim, and whatever may be thought
of the great principle of the freedom of the press, I think the line will have
to be drawn more sharply than it is by the existing libel laws, and anything
will have to be forbidden that makes life intolerable for innocent individuals,
even if they should happen to have done or said things which, published
maliciously, can cause them to become unpopular. The only ultimate cure for
this evil is, however, an increase of toleration on the part of the public. The
best way to increase toleration is to multiply the number of individuals who
enjoy real happiness and not therefore find their chief pleasure in the
infliction of pain upon their fellow men.
1.
This passage was written around
1930. The author says, “Social intercourse may be expected to develop more and
more along these lines, and it may be hoped that by these means the loneliness
that now afflicts so many unconventional people will be gradually diminished
almost to vanishing point.” Has this prediction come true? If so, how?
2.
Has social media such as SNS
increased the “fear of public opinion”?
3.
The author says that doing what
you really want to do will lead to real happiness and, in turn, tolerance to
others with different tastes and opinions. Do you think globalization of
communication will contribute to this process?
What other
aspects of society than those written in the passage has social media had its
influence on?
Sample answers
1.
I think the author’s prediction has come true,
especially since the advent of the Internet, which provides opportunities to
contact and bond with people across the world. This makes it easier to find someone
sharing the same tastes and ideas, and those with new ideas will also have more
chances to find people who have the same kind of new ideas and opinions as
theirs.
2.
Unfortunately, social media is
a double edged sward and has increased the fear of public opinion. Unlike the
era of newspapers, the speed and scale of the information circulation is
exponential. A rumor can be shared by people all over the world literally in a
second. Also, what is transmitted is not only words and pictures but also video
and sound; hence, egregious harassments which were unthinkable before keep
ruining the lives of targets, many of whom commit suicides. Moreover, anonymity
protected by the system is used with ill intention, and this has raised the possibility
of anyone becoming victims. Therefore, few can be indifferent to scapegoating
now.
3. Agree
I agree with Russell’s belief that people who
enjoy inflicting pain on others, especially those who are different, are also oppressed
and can liberate their mind by listening to the true voice of their heart with
the help of technology. Things have been improving gradually as technology and
media expose us to more information than before. For example, living together
before marriage had to be done in discreet 30 years ago, but now it can be
talked about openly as more people share many more ideas about happier marriage
and relationship. Female managers, single mothers, and gays are less
discriminated against than they were 15 years ago as more people came out and
reported their plight on the net. Changes in public opinions have been taking
place in many aspects of life and society. It can be said that the more
accessible information becomes, the freer and happier people will become, which
will reduce our desire to oppress those who act differently.
Disagree
I doubt that globalization of communication
will liberate people mentally and make them more open-minded. You can lead a
horse to the river but cannot force it to drink. For example, people who hate a
particular group of people proliferate despite this flood of information. White
supremacists, Neo-Nazis, violent right-wingers, or Islamic extremists still
exist and even seem to be increasing. Preconception or dogma often make some people
blind and lose natural respect to others. The nature of the Internet can be
related to this problem. Unlike TV and newspaper, which provide varieties of
information one-sidedly for better or worse, the Internet tends to learn the
user’s taste and narrower the range of information supply, excluding what the
user is not interested in or dislike. This system of filtering information can
be producing more narrow-minded individuals than before. I think technology
will contribute to freeing the mind of only those who are ready to be freed.
- mass movements of huge scale
e.g. Arab Spring,
Occupy Wall Street, mass movements on environmental issues in China, Friday For
Future
- decentralization of information
management
e.g. WikiLeaks (a
whistle-blowing site which allow people who happen to find injustice in
governments or huge corporations to report it anonymously), spread of
information through social media before official announcement, blogs
supplementing or replacing editorials and Op-Ed, new business opportunities for
individuals and small businesses
- grass-roots relief operations and researches
e.g. the Great East
Japan Earthquake victims and radiation level researches, data collection
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿
注: コメントを投稿できるのは、このブログのメンバーだけです。