Original text was posted here.

Written by Chris Maaraoui.

---

Freedom of expression “is your right to hold your own opinions and to express them freely without government interference” and figuratively without any interference. But are we truly free to express ourselves? 

Although this is the impression that western governments and other ‘democratic’ governments give us, it is barely the case. 

Expression is not only about language, it is also about the behaviour and thoughts of an individual. Expression is the ability to translate ideas and thoughts into sentences (whether written and/or verbally) and the ability to translate them through our body (way of dressing and/or simple movements such as walking or dancing.)

It is true that some societies give you the ability to criticise certain people in a position of power, however what you do with your body and your thoughts is always controlled. You might not get arrested, however the gaze of other people is always around, and awaiting you to slip. 

“For Sartre, gaze is pre-eminently supervision”

 

The discourse around pain and fatigue: constrained and restricted

It cannot be denied that our bodies and speech are highly policed especially if the body in question isn’t the ‘dominant’ one ( the dominant one being in a western culture, the cisgender white man). For example, a woman who happens to be pregnant will be pressured to act happy and excited, and implicitly won’t be allowed to express her fears and doubts. This policing of the speech falls firstly under a masculine domination which constrains women to their supposedly ‘natural’ role of being a mother. In many societies motherhood is still considered as the primary goal of a woman; a goal that is not only constraining but also perceived as ‘normally’ painful. The notion of pain is being normalised and therefore most of the time dismissed. As stated in the bible: “In pain you will bring forth children” , for some it is perceived as determined by God and therefore unchangeable. Although several techniques such as midwives birth methods and techniques developed by the Soviet government (“ non-pharmacological method of pain relief originated in the USSR and became well known as the Lamaze method in western English-speaking countries”) was proved to be efficient and often painless, for patriarchal reasons a lot of societies still portray birth as ‘normally’ painful. A big part of this pain is the result of pregnant people’s voices being unheard and left out of the birthing process. In fact, birth was handed to science and men, leaving midwives and women silenced. 

“A series of events between 1910 and 1920 set the stage for doctors to usurp the traditional role of the midwife and laid the foundation for a pathology-oriented medical model of childbirth”

Doctors pushed away ancient knowledge and midwives and imposed what they thought was better (bearing in mind that at the time doctors were cisgender men)

It is countless the number of women who tried to report misogynistic doctors and very often painful unnecessary surgical interventions (such as “the husband stitch”). But all of this was implicitly and explicitly kept silent, leaving generations of women and gender non-conforming people in pain. 

The notion of pain has been so normalised that the discourse around it is being denigrated: “it is ok if you endure a bit of pain, we all went through it”. Pain is being legitimised and the discourse around it shut down. As long as you deliver the final product (in this case the baby), society does not need to hear the rest. The discourse around an unpleasant pregnancy, birth and post pregnancy is censored and in the best case scenario is shamed. Shaming and criticising bodies who are not cisgender heterosexual male for expressing their pain is common in patriarchal societies. The labels characterising women or transgender people who tend to speak up about their pain reflects this shaming and censorship: “she is hysterical”, “she is hormonal”, “she has the baby blues”. The pain is blamed on the body itself as it is perceived as a ‘broken’ or ‘weak’ body in the first place. The medical profession has been criticised several times for not acknowledging the pain of women and marginalised populations. 

“There is also evidence that women, for no apparent medical reason, are not offered the same treatment as men, a phenomenon that raises the question of gender bias.”

Although, more and more women are now expressing their unpleasant birth and pregnancy experiences through social media, it is still a minority. 

This is not to say that a hetero cisgender man can talk freely about his pain. Surely, masculinity plays a role; in the sense where being strong is perceived as a ‘masculine’ attribute. However it is important to note that society has imposed on all of us a speech of strength and positivity. People are told to tolerate their pain and move forward. If you need therapy you are allowed to have it (if you have money and time) but in the end you must put on a happy face and go on:

“No matter the situation, always wear a smile”  

The policing of individuals, their feelings and behaviour is still present even in the most ‘liberal’ countries. Let’s take for example the case of a person having suicidal thoughts. There will inevitably be a policing of the thoughts of this individual and their body. As soon as a person expresses suicidal thoughts, institutions such as the medical one and the psychological one exercise a sort of control on the body and thoughts of the person in question. In western countries, the person will most probably be admitted into a hospital where they will be sedated and under surveillance. The intention behind this protocol might be noble however, the protocol itself is more than questionable, not only because it applies a strict control on the body but also because it shows a further control on the thoughts of individuals. Yes, suicidal thoughts might put the person in a position of harm, however societies play an active role in prohibiting you from having any negative thoughts in the first place. Capitalistic societies need ‘productive’ bodies, if you do not fit this description you will then be pathologized. In another sense, categorised as a ‘sick’ or ‘broken’ person that needs some adjusting. In postmodern societies, happiness is a norm. Society surrounds us with images of happy people and people taking control of their lives. The science of ‘positive psychology’ gained a lot of influence and claims to help individuals regain control over their life. Happiness is being portrayed as an individual choice, something that you are responsible for. Unfortunately, it is not that simple; we live in a society that controls our bodies and limits our choices. Our wellbeing is a social responsibility, not only do we need equal socio-economic conditions to take place but also the burden of shame and control on our thoughts should be less constraining. In fact, despite society’s call for a ‘free’ speech, people who tend to complain and are not optimistic are frowned upon and dismissed. Shaming people for not wanting to fit society’s definition of happiness is common and is often very harsh on individuals. Not only does shaming happen but it only allows people to express thoughts such as despair and fatigue solely in a medical context or a psychological consultation. Postmodern societies reduce emotions to a personal and private matter, something that should be discussed only within a specific context. You are expected to be ‘emotionally mature’ at work and in relationships. You learn that you must canalise your emotions and express your anger in ‘socially acceptable’ ways. Not all of this is negative, however it limits our mode of expression reducing our expression of anger, frustration and fear to only very few and private spaces. Whether it is at a doctor’s consultation or psychological consultation, it is a private sphere where the expected change is individual and not on a social level. You are expected to ‘change’ certain behaviours while society's imbalanced power dynamics can keep on going without questioning or change.

Freedom of expression reclaimed by fascists

Freedom of speech is a critical issue and many claim that they should be allowed to express racism, sexism, homophobia etc. However, it is a complex system to understand how, when and where to express ourselves. Surely you are allowed to have any feelings or thoughts and express it within yourself but what needs to be asked here is how this thought may affect others? Is it really necessary for me to express it outloud? In the case of a racist discourse, not only will it affect other people negatively but it is a thought that won’t create any progress besides perpetuating a system of inequality. Plus, expressing a feeling of anger or frustration can be done in other ways which is why it is important for society not only to value an optimistic and ‘life-positive’ discourse but also to encourage a discourse of vulnerability, fear and frustration. This discourse is allowed in postmodern societies only within the limits of counselling sessions but certainly not within society as a whole. This policing of our discourses manifested its negative effect through the latest campaigns of the president Trump and other conservative politicians which allowed without any moderation racist, classist, homophobic, sexist discourse. These politicians gave the false impression to the citizens that with them they are allowed to talk freely and to break the ’socially acceptable’ discourses. As Judith Butler mentioned:

“Many people are excited by this kind of exercise of power, its unchecked quality, and they want in their own lives to free up their aggressive speech and action without any checks: no shame, no legal repercussions.”

To avoid hate speech, it might be a necessity to tolerate the expression of humbleness and uncertainty. Humbleness is often perceived as negative and people tend to look up at people who are assertive instead. They forget that humbleness admits that no human being is above another, therefore would not place the blame or hate on a particular population. A humble speech can never be a hateful speech. Unfortunately, In many countries and communities a discourse of hate and violence is more acceptable than a discourse of vulnerability and humbleness. 

“Certain social bonds are consolidated through violence, and those tend to be group bonds, including nationalism and racism.”

There is a pressure to act tough; however accepting a discourse of vulnerability could help us get rid of discourses of hate. To contradict certain psychologists, I don’t believe that people are inapt to know their fears and express them the right way, I think that the pressure to be strong impedes people from admitting their fears. This is why we should always pay attention to which kind of speech is valorised and which one is not.

Freedom of expression in the era of social media

To add to that, a new form of policing appeared with the arrival of social media; the policing of our life choices and bodily expressions. What you post on social media will be controlled and monitored not only by the platform itself but also by other users. Sure, in theory, we have the right to post whatever we want but is it really the case? 

First of all you must obey the rules and regulations imposed by the platform. Certainly a lot of them are put in place to prevent behaviours such as bullying, racism, sexism, homophobia etc. However a lot of those rules are also aligned with the values of the American society (considering that the majority of influential tech companies started there) which for example bans certain groups by categorising them as terrorists. A definition which is complex and might often lead to racial discrimination. It also fits the perception of sexuality being perceived as private and shameful. The rules also apply differently when you are a man opposed to a woman, the same system that sexualise women’s bodies is being reproduced through the social media platforms which allows easily a man to post a picture of his nipple whether for a woman it will be totally misplaced (because sexualised) and therefore removed. I won’t go into a lot of details regarding the social media policies as it is a subject that was discussed several times already. However, what is also important here is to shed the light on the policing that is being done by other users which will implicitly tell you what you can or cannot post. Usually what you can or cannot post will depend on the society’s values you live in (although social media is now creating a sort of a global culture). For example if you post a photo of you getting married, you can expect to hit a maximum of likes; especially within cultures where marriage is seen as one of the most important life goals. The likes that we use or receive act as a police that will either applause or stop you from posting. Active users can easily understand which post or photo is socially acceptable and which one is not. This social acceptance is therefore measured by the number of likes or followers you get which will implicitly dictate your behaviour on social media. People also enjoy ‘policing’ others by liking or not liking a picture. It gives a certain sense of power; the power to decide what is acceptable and what is not. 

Of course, social media gave the possibility for marginalised population to have a say/ or a voice, for example many transgender activists used instagram and youtube to feature their personal experience. Although it is empowering, bullying is quite present. The number of attacks taking place online against marginalised populations can’t be dismissed.

“41 percent of adult internet users in the United States have personally experienced at least one form of digital abuse... However, these risks are particularly pronounced for populations that are already at risk of marginalization in the physical world.”  

Here again, we notice that policing is not necessarily the physical bodies of people in uniforms walking down the streets but rather the gaze of others that is always following us (online and offline). 

Regulations within the fashion industry and outside:

The gaze of others is scary for a lot of people especially when you do not fit the stereotypical mode of expressions. Let’s take for example someone in the subway wearing a bathing suit. Even if this person is allowed to do so, the gaze of others will indirectly penalise the person for doing so by looking, talking and pointing fingers. Sure this person might not care and carry on , but unfortunately many of us are affected by this external gaze. We are pressured to conform and express in the way the general gaze deem correct. Our bodily expressions are highly regulated and this is why the fashion industry exists. It provides a space for people to express by choosing between a multitude of clothes which gives the impression of freedom while also providing them with a ‘safe’ context that will make it acceptable to wear a certain piece of cloth. Objects such as clothing act as sign vehicles “carrying meaning just as written words.” Nowadays, unisex fashion is seen as more and more acceptable but is still regulated through the fashion industry. For example, the ‘boyfriend jean’ that is being highly marketed offers women a space to disrupt a tiny bit the boundaries between genders but at the same time this disruption is deemed acceptable only because the fashion industry branded it with its approval. How to wear it is also regulated, it must be worn with a certain type of accessories; plenty of fashion websites offer ‘fashionable ways’ to wear the ‘boyfriend’ jeans. It is still considered a ‘boyfriend’ clothing so you 'must understand' how to wear it in order to maintain the required femininity. Disrupting gender roles is then limited. Surely, people can choose not to follow fashion guidelines, however many of us tend to do so in order to avoid marginalisation and in this particular case, to avoid being labeled as 'ugly'.

Sometimes the regulations are not only within the fashion industry but also governmental. In some countries you might get arrested if your way of dressing doesn’t match the ‘gender norms’. For example, there is a law in Lebanon that impedes you from dressing up as the ‘other’ gender, as they might classify it as impersonation (this law is used specifically against transfeminine individuals).

The implicit restrictions and regulations on what we wear also applies in western countries. Let’s take for example the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, 

“the Brazilian electrician mistakenly gunned down by anti-terrorist police at Stockwell tube station”... “Officers said a contributory factor to Mr Menezes being shot was his chunky top, which they said could have concealed a bomb and was out of place on a warm day.”

Based on his race, class and what he was wearing he was perceived as a ‘potential’ threat. The officers were misguided by their racial, gender and class bias but also because of a preconceived idea of what someone is supposed to wear on a warm 'British day' (noting that the definition of warm in itself varies from a culture to another; if you come from a country with high summer temperature, you might not find a british summer very hot). Here again, we are not really free, we are always entrapped in regulations that limit our mode of expression. 

As a conclusion:

Having the right to express ourselves is an important right, however in postmodern societies this right is far from being granted. Not only does society regulate our thoughts and feelings but it also regulates our body and how we choose to express ourselves through it. With social media, policing does not happen only offline but also online. We need to be aware of all these limitations and how we can break them without allowing the emergence of hate speech. Sure, certain countries' prohibition is not explicit. People might have the opportunity to express themselves without being arrested by a government authority but this prohibition manifests itself in shaming and excluding people who express differently. The shame might rise from society and often introduce itself into our own mind. If society does not police us directly, it will find a way to make us feel ashamed and therefore change our behavior or mode of expression according to what is perceived as socially acceptable. 

We need to be aware that absolute freedom of expression will not and cannot exist. However, we can be aware of what we choose to express and control, and most importantly what these constraints reflect about the society we live in. 

 

References and useful resources:

1.  “Article 10: Freedom of expression”, Equality and Human rights commission, < https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/y-ddeddf-hawliau-dynol/article-1… > [Accessed on March 12, 2020]
2. Jean Paul Sartre cited by Deena Weinstein and Michael Weinstein, Post Modernised Simmel, (Routledge, December 2013)
3. Genesis 3:16, The Bible
4. Ema Hrešanová, “The Psychoprophylactic Method of Painless Childbirth in Socialist Czechoslovakia: from State Propaganda to Activism of Enthusiasts”, Cambridge Journals Medical History (2016)
5.  Judith P.Rooks, “The History of Midwifery”, Our bodies, Ourselves, <https://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book-excerpts/health-article/history…; [Accessed, March 18th 2020]
6. Carrie Murphy, “The Husband Stitch Isn’t Just a Horrifying Childbirth Myth”, Healthline, <https://www.healthline.com/health-news/husband-stitch-is-not-just-myth?…; [Accessed, March 18th 2020]
7. Ovidie, “Tu enfanteras dans la douleur”, Arte (2019)
8. Katarina Hamberg, “Gender Bias in Medicine”, Sage Journals (2008)
9. “The Joker”, Film directed and produced by Todd Phillips (2019)
10. Judith Butler, “Judith Butler wants us to reshape our rage”, The New Yorker, <https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-interview/judith-butle…; [Accessed on the 13th of March, 2020]
11. Spandana Singh and Dillon Roseen, “Online, Vulnerable Groups Only Become More Vulnerable”, New America, <https://www.newamerica.org/weekly/online-vulnerable-groups-only-become-…; [Accessed on the 13th of March, 2020]
12. “Why is there Social Stratification?”, Crash Course Sociology (#22)
13. Penal law, legislative decree No.340 issued on 1/3/1943, Article 521: “Every man who dresses as a woman and enters a place for women, or prohibited at the time for others than women, is punished with prison up to 6 months and a fine”. The Law as stated do not incriminate directly based on the dress code however, the police officers used this law to arrest transgender women even in public mixed spaces.
14.  “Police shot Brazilian eight times”, The Guardian, <https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/25/july7.uksecurity5&gt; [Accessed on the 13th of March, 2020]