In the previous article, we talked about the sound of one hand clapping. In there, the meaning of the expression, the adage, the famous proverb “Beware of the sound of one hand clapping” was discussed.
To recap, the expression “Beware of the sound of one hand clapping” simply means—beware or be wary of a situation, or any situation, or system, or movement, or a status quo, that hinders or prevents two or more sides and perspectives of any public issue or topic from having an open and meaningful discussion of said issue or topic that concerns the public.
The adage comes from the idea that if you prevent one hand from clapping, there isn’t really clapping done. All you can hear is silence. Silence is the sound you get when you prevent or hinder one side or party from sharing their points of view, evidences, and arguments. The sound of one hand clapping is the silencing of the opposing view.
And this idea of shutting down opposition or dissenting views from ever speaking out runs directly contrary to the democratic principles of everyone’s right and freedom of speech and of expression, of the basic right to express one’s sentiments and insights and sensibilities, and in these current times, sane outlook.
As a researcher for almost 10 years now, and having enough experience in the academe and public discourses, I have seen how this silencing or disparaging dialogues and open public discussions affect societies in the most adverse way. So, let me list down the following reasons 3 reasons why there shouldn’t be ‘the sound of one hand clapping’, of why we should let conversations run its natural free course.
1. For Truth – one can hardly, if ever, arrive at truth without open dialogues and confrontational discussions between opposing views. Open discussion without fear or intimidation and manipulation is integral to truth-searching. Allowing the other parties to speak is very important in any investigatory endeavors. One must realize that monopolization of the public platform will do more harm than good in the search for truth and reality.
2. For Justice – the simplest definition of justice is this—you get what you deserve, and you don’t get what you don’t deserve. But truth is likewise indispensably essential in the attainment of justice. The people cannot get what they deserve (material or legal) if there is no open and unhindered public discussion of what the facts really are.
Justice is best served when at the very onset of public deliberations of the pros and cons, boon and banes of issues of public interest, everyone is afforded the right to speak up, and express their side.
3. For progress – as a researcher and world history teacher, I’ve seen how open deliberations have led to the myriad of progress in every specific field of interest—religion and philosophy, business and economics, science and technology, legal and political. The public’s collective wisdom and insight must be expressed to each other for each other to make sense and make sense of said collective wisdom and insight for their own benefit.
All these three cannot be attained if all that a society/community can hear is the sound of one hand clapping.
Comentarios