Throughout the ages the purest method of exercising freedom has been through the act of creating. Even when they are imprisoned, all individuals are free to think and therefore to create. Intellectual creativity is, by its very nature, free. When an artist creates, his creative spirit is not repressed by any kind of external limits. (1)
However, intellectuals and artists are individuals subjected to both the spatial and temporal conditions imposed by Society and Culture. Thus what they produce is intimately linked to who they are and how they are and how they have been moulded by the moral, ethical, aesthetic or ideological precepts of their environment. (2)
Intellectuals and artists generally follow one of three different approaches:
- that of adhering to their original values. In this case what they produce is a representation of the environment in which they themselves have developed.
- that of searching for an answer to their own environment through criticising some of the older established values which society accepts as being obsolete. They inspire the sympathies of the more progressive layers of society and the antipathies of the more reactionary layers.
- that of searching for a global solution, transforming their protest into action. They are usually associated with movements which support the idea of violent social change through revolution. (3)
Thinking and creating are free, individual activities. They can only be controlled by the individual. Because of this, there should be no barrier between any artistic or intellectual creation and the audience for which it has been produced. (4) Only the audience can evaluate and decide on its value. Only the audience can decide whether it should be admired, criticised or ignored.
In general, any intellectual or artistic work can provoke a simultaneous reaction from followers of any of these three approaches. Success or failure depends on the approval or disapproval of the majority of its critics. It is often the case that the value of intellectuals' and artists' work is not recognized within the society of their time. In every age there are always a few who anticipate the future and confound the present. They are buried for years until future generations resuscitate them and restore them to dignity.
It is important not to confuse this genuine phenomenon of an hiatus between creator and the society of which he is member with the dishonest alibi which is very fashionable at present. This alibi attempts to excuse mediocrity as being destined for the future and not for the present.
Up to now I have been referring to societies which are culturally homogeneous and are organized politically according to a formal democratic system.
In societies which are based on non-democratic principles, older societies based on a system of absolute monarchy and single party dictatorships, control has invariably been exercised through the repression of freedom of expression. This is presented euphemistically as a mechanism for the protection of society. More recently, this function has been controlled by the State apparatus or by powerful institutions similar to the repressive, censorial position which the Catholic Church held for centuries in countries ruled by absolute monarchy.
Formerly it was done in the name of God, now it is done in the name of Revolution or Tradition. However it may be, in these societies all artistic and intellectual production which falls outside the allowances of those in power is subjected to a radical treatment: it is either seized or destroyed, the authors are either caught or kill themselves.
The State is no longer responsible for mechanisms for repressing freedom of expression in democratically organized societies. Instead, this function is transferred to the general population where it takes root in the sectors whose ideological bases are most compatible.
There are two sectors of society where these mechanisms for repressing and censuring freedom of expression are most likely to take hold. Conventionally they are described as the conservatives or the right and the progressionists or left.
Of course we must exclude from these two sectors those tendencies of democratic socialism and social democracy which not only accept the rules which underlie the democratic State but also conform to them.
Hence not even societies with a formal democratic system can be immune from censorship in their midst. This occurs as a function not of the State but of the People. It does not necessarily exist as an organized structure but it is a force which could be organized within the framework of the society.
This repressive, censorial force is based, primarily, on the forcible repression of freedom of expression exercised either directly or indirectly for centuries. It is a force which lies dormant in the collective unconscious of the most backward sectors of society. It awakes when it is confronted with intellectual or artistic production which is in conflict with its own system of moral, ethical, aesthetic or ideological values or when there is suspicion or confirmation that any work which conforms to its value system is rejected or ignored.
Finding themselves at a loss, there is a subconscious, sterile search for a mentor who will censure and repress the expression of conflicting values or who will promote the value system which is being professed.
In addition to the repressive, censorial force of the most backward sector, societies based on a model of formal democracy also embrace another model. It is not part of the dormant collective subconscious but is rather an active force which is rooted in the ideologies which mould monolithic régimes. It is in conflict with society and intellectual and artistic production which fail to respect its own canons. This is not because of moral, ethical or aesthetic disagreement but because of political or ideological differences. It classes itself as progressive and gives out, at the same time as it receives, intense animosity from the collective subconscious of the most backward sectors of society. There are no pacts nor are there conflicts. Each side aims at gaining control of the democratic political process which so alienates them for not being at their sole disposal yet from whose liberty they benefit sufficiently to be able to attack it.
This means that "public opinion" often moves or is moved by agents which mould it not according to general, abstract principles of freedom of expression but according to the advantages of promoting the value system which it embraces or of another, divergent or opposing system.
At the end of the day it is not freedom of expression which is being protected but only the freedom of that which is enjoyed or which can conveniently be raised in arms to service the interests of the group whether they are born out of ideological, political, religious or other affinities.
In view of the fact that this is not a defence of freedom of expression but rather a means of using it for personal advantage or against democratic political power, an appeal is made for censorship and repression of that which is disliked. The fact that it is freedom of expression which is being used to make this appeal, when it would be contested if the opposing party were to have recourse to the same right, is of no interest.
Thus we can understand the contradiction which exists when, for instance, the same groups who protest against any specific work make no protest when it is published yet are up in arms when another work is shown in film.
Surely coherence should reign when dealing with a real defence of freedom of expression so that in no circumstances may there be censorship.
With a solution which is simple for societies under totalitarian control and comparatively complicated for those societies which have a formal democracy, the question of freedom of expression becomes extremely complex when dealing with culturally heterogeneous societies which have at the same time a formal democracy.
This is a highly relevant subject for Macau. It shall be dealt with later when I shall attempt to interpret the questions which arise from the exercise of freedom of expression and what happens to the position of the State when it is confronted with the dynamics of creativity and artistic and intellectual expression.
Jorge Morbey
President of ICM
NOTES
(1) "The artistic process can generally be said to consist of two processes: the immediate and essential which has always been described as inspiration and which psychologically we characterize as an opening to the deeper layers of the subconscious; and a secondary process which is the elaboration in which the artist's essential intuitions and perceptions are woven into a cloth which can take its place in the organized life of conscious reality."
Read, Herbert: A Arte e a Sociedade, Ed. Cosmos, Lisbon, 1946.
(2) "No one can deny the profound relation between the artist and the community. The artist depends on the community - he looks to the community to which he belongs to find tone, rhythm and intensity. But the individual character of the artist's work depends on more than this: it depends on a well-defined desire for form which is a reflection of the artist's personality. There is no important art which does not embody the will to create."
Read, Herbert: O Significado da Arte, Ed. Ulisseia, Lisbon.
(3) "Nowadays there are several transitional trends in art and, naturally, there are also artists who are opposed to any change. However, it shall simplify matters if we divide these varied trends and examples into three general groups.
I - Academic Bourgeois Art.
II - Revolutionary Art.
III- Functional Art.
The second group can be sub-divided into:
a) expressionist art; b) super-realist art; c) abstract art. If we divide this group according to this pattern it is easier for us to pass from the concepts of one group to another."
Read, Herbert: A Arte e a Sociedade, Ed. Cosmos, Lisbon, 1946.
(4)"1. Everyone has the right to express and divulge his thoughts through words, images or in any other fashion, as well as the right to inform, to be informed and to inquire with neither hindrance nor discrimination.
2. Exercising these rights may not be prevented nor limited by any kind or form of censorship.
3. Any infractions committed while these rights are being exercised will be judged by the judicial court according to the principles of criminal law.
4. All persons, either individual or corporate, are guaranteed an equal and efficient right to reply and rectify just as they are entitled to compensation for damages which they have suffered."
(Article XXXVII of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic.)
start p. 3
end p.