A measure of freedom

Essay by Sven H.E. Borei

Presented in English and Swedish

English edited by Ian Hinchliffe
Rendered into Swedish by Inga-Beth Hinchliffe

Many states and kingdoms have lost their dominions by severity and an unjust jealousy. I remember none that have been lost by kindness and a generous confidence. Evils are frequently precipitated by imprudent attempts to prevent them. In short, we never can be made an independent people except it be by Great Britain herself; and the only way for her to do it is to make us frugal, ingenious, united and discontented.
John Dickinson, 1765
(American statesman, 1732-1808)

PREFACE

The essay which follows was originally written as a philosophic comment on absolute or functional illiteracy viewed from a rather larger context than that of the individual non-reader. That it was not published then was mostly because of its seemingly narrow focus. In retrospect, it was probably not the essay that was limited, but its author, dressed, as it were, in the blinders of the movement he was part of.

Now, some 15 years later and educated by some experience with local politics in a small town an ocean away from where the essay was conceived, those blinders have in large part dropped away. In the first conception, the term illiteracy was tightly limited to skill-related illiteracy and to the information denied individuals who cannot read or who read poorly. Censorship was led to equal this denial. But censorship includes two other types of “illiteracy”, both induced and both instruments of power and oppression, petty as well as comprehensive.

The first is commonly called “disinformation” and is accomplished either by commission or omission. The former is what Orson Welles called government-speak or deliberately making the communication so convoluted, so complex as to make it incomprehensible. Omission, on the other hand, leaves information out of the communication, fails to communicate necessary information in any way or witholds the information by labelling it sensitive or secret or dangerous. Such deliberate choosing which information is made available to “outsiders”, including the general public, skews the picture of events in favor of the perpetrators and makes what is available largely incomprehensible and often useless. It causes what might be called “access non-literacy”.

The second type is not usually included under either illiteracy or censorship. It is usually ignored or in some fashion included in the general educational debate, included without ever being defined either as to cause or as to effect. What is referred to here is the entire process whereby people are taught how to read, i.e. made literate, and then carefully induced not to read, i.e. made non-literate. Disinformation is one instrument in this process in that it teaches people to mistrust what they read. A low priority on critical reading skills is another in that it teaches people to mistrust how they read. A third instrument is the prevalence of comments that suggest that people don’t really need to read – that others will gladly provide the information pre-sorted. Lastly, by viewing education (and health) as the first place to cut to balance budgets, politicians and other leaders send a dangerous message – learning and its key skill, reading, have low priority in a functioning society. This all adds up to what might be called “induced non-literacy”.

Of the three types, the first is probably the easiest to combat in that it is measurable and visible. But the last two must be attacked if our open and democratic societies are to survive. And since many of the current power-holders owe their positions to combinations of access and induced non-literacy, the battle will be long and bitter and the outcome is wholly uncertain.

Sven H.E. Borei
Lerum, Sweden
January 11, 1995

Main Text:

I
The largest freedom is the one which allows you to think and read what you choose and the noblest country is the one which prepares you for that opportunity and offers it to you without reservations attached either to you or to the offer. Unfortunately, there is no country in the world today which does that. Some of the reasons might be seen and understood within the light of present day nationalistic or political realities. Some might be reasoned through within the present development of state education systems and philosophies. But most of the reasons are based in fear – fear felt by the states for what their citizens might read, of what their people might come to know. Fear which equals censorship which equals oppression which breeds illiteracy. For what simpler way to censor what the large numbers of people read is there than, in one way or another, make sure they cannot really read anything at all? Or to tell them all what or how much they can read? Or even to give them so much choice that the very surfeit makes them incapable of making a choice?

The smallest freedom then, is the one which allows you no choice in what you think or read. This range between freedoms gives us a scale, albeit crude, of the amount of oppression and fear which exists in any society. In other words, measure the level of literacy and the amount of choice available in using that literacy and you will have measured freedom.

II

There operates a direct relationship between literacy and participatory democracy. The greater the amount of literacy and reading choice afforded a people by their government, the stronger a democracy it is. And the relationship is symbiotic in that each feeds the other. Just as democratic participation cannot exist without some literacy, uncensored literacy is impossible without participatory democracy.

Viewed this way, literacy becomes a political choice. For what a state does or does not do about the literacy levels of its citizens tells what kind of state it wishes to be. What a state does or does not impose in the way of censorship upon its citizens tells us what kind of state it is afraid to become. To say that a state is what the reading level and reading materials of its citizens is, is not an exaggeration.

So too with the western democracies. If they truly wish to remain fully open, participatory democracies, then a priority of government must be a priority of literacy. Unfortunately, one of the freedoms which come with any democracy is the freedom of oppression, the freedom of imposition. This dichotomy is the more apparent because of its supposed non-existence. Everything says it does not exist. Everyone claims it is not there. So people do not see it and do not combat it. But literacy would and so those forces within democracy who would oppress, who would suborn the state for their own purposes, will not promote literacy nor fight censorship.

The concept is not new, but we persist in not applying it to the western democracies. It should be applied. It is the true measure of civil rights and political intent. When the largest freedom is the one which is always foremost and always defended, participatory democracy will survive. This is the best defence. This is the best offence. This is democracy.

III

There operates a direct relationship between illiteracy and self-interested, modern dictatorship. The greater the amount of illiteracy, the smaller the reading choices afforded a people by their government, the stronger the control on the reading activities of a people, the deeper a dictatorship it is. And the relationship is symbiotic in that each feeds the other. Just as dictatorship cannot exist without illiteracy, semi-literacy or strong censorship, none of them can exist without some form of dictatorship.

For a dictatorship, literacy is a clear, political choice. For what a state does or does not do about the literacy levels of its citizens tells us what kind of state it chooses to be. What a state imposes in the way of censorship, tells us what kind of state it does not wish to become. To say that a state is what the reading level and reading materials of its citizens is, is merely descriptive.

So certainly with dictatorships, but more closely with the developed ones. If they truly wish to survive as closed, self-interested dictatorships, then a priority of government must be a priority of illiteracy and censorship. By definition, no freedoms are allowed in total dictatorships. Indeed, total oppression precludes freedom. Everything is organized to prevent freedom. No-one pretends otherwise. Still, the government fears it and combats it. For not to do so would be to relinquish the control it has achieved through promotion of illiteracy and imposition of censorship.

The concept is not new, but we persist in not applying its lesson to the western democracies. It should be applied. The lessons of dictatorships are the true measure of what we claim to avoid within civil rights. They embody the political intent we say we do not have. But when we do not defend the largest freedom with all of our resources, then we relinquish our strongest defence. Then there is no offence. Then we allow the gradual growth of total dictatorship.

A participatory democracy offers freedoms. It describes the rights, privileges and responsibilities which are available to its citizens, available for their choosing. But all three must be supported by reading ability and democracy says it cannot require a reading ability of its citizens. So the government gives freedoms which cannot be exercised or protected. Seemingly everyone has the opportunity. Seemingly there is universal education. But without a state priority for literacy, one which says that everyone must read for the state to survive, illiteracy grows. Because the citizen has the right to choose illiteracy. But a democracy cannot long survive illiterate.

A dictatorship imposes freedoms. It describes the rights, privileges and responsibilities which it gives to its citizens. All are, in effect, required. And all three must be supported by a reading ability. So the dictatorship requires a reading ability of its citizens. But only enough to make it possible for the citizens to exercise the rights, privileges and responsibilities given them. Everyone has the opportunity. There is a universal level of education. There is a state priority of literacy, one which says that everyone must read at a certain level for the state to survive. The citizen cannot choose illiteracy. Yet the state cannot choose partial literacy. This door, once opened, cannot be shut. And a dictatorship cannot long survive literate.

Democracies, then, seem to give freedom and choice to their citizens, but set themselves on the path to destruction in the name of those very freedoms. Dictatorships seem to impose everything on their citizens, but set themselves on the path to dissolution because of the impositions made.
It would seem that a pendulum theory pertains to both, that both will swing towards each other endlessly. But neither type of government can allow the pendulum to swing. Both must obstruct its path or be transformed. And for both the means are the same – censorship.

Censorship is a taking away and a replacing, done by governments or by groups within the state. It is imposed out of fear and from a need to control. It takes away access to materials and information. It wipes away learning opportunities, by limiting them or simply by not creating them. And it replaces everything with the information and learning which serves the censors’ purposes, no more and no less. It creates the fiction the government seeks.

The question of what seems to be happening is important. For in created fictions, we can be persuaded that things are happening which really aren’t. This is what propaganda, censorship and political speeches are all about – a persuasion of seemingness.

Dictatorships and democracies are alike in their use of censorship. And for their citizens the defence is also the same – universal literacy and a refusal to accept a shifting seemingness as their reality.