The Nature of Freedom's Fragility

Drawing from personal experience and historical observation, Hargadon argues that freedom is fragile, and the cost of maintaining it is a willingness to allow independent thought and dialog. This conception emerges from his analysis of how cultures and institutions operate through simplified narratives projected by those with power and authority, similar to the shadows in Plato's Cave.

Hargadon contends that the ability to share ideas that challenge existing power and control is fundamentally a part of the story of human progress. He points to the printing press as marking "an incredible milestone in our social evolution, considerably reshaping and re-distributing the power to communicate ideas." However, he emphasizes that disruptions to the power to control ideas and thinking do not come without significant human cost, citing an estimate that 250 million people were killed by governments in the 20th century.

Cultural Narratives and Truth

Cultures and institutions are built on narratives, which Hargadon defines as "defining stories that allow their members to find meaning in work and living, and also allow the passing on of a set of values to next generations." He argues that these narratives are typically "simplified stories projected onto the general members by those with the power and authority to do so."

The challenge, according to Hargadon, is that people "live in and through these narratives, but at a certain point in time we can come to recognize that what we adopted as truth are actually just stories, and that they are only virus-like approximations of truth." He notes that ideas spread because they are good at spreading, not necessarily because they have truth in them, echoing the principle behind the misattributed Mark Twain quote: "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."

Independent Thinking as Human Progress

Central to Hargadon's framework is the assertion that the human condition depends on individuals having access to information, being challenged to think critically and with more clarity, and in having forums for the open discussion and thoughtful and informed challenging of ideas. He argues that questioning established power structures through the framework of power and control serves as an essential tool for understanding both historical and contemporary events.

Hargadon expresses particular concern when people "label any questioning or independent thinking as 'conspiracy theories,'" arguing that this dismissal asks individuals "to relinquish their intellectual agency and that which is at the very core of human progress: the ability to think independently." He uses the Latin phrase "Cui bono?" (who benefits?) as a guiding principle for critical analysis.

The Tension in Educational Purpose

Hargadon identifies a fundamental contradiction in educational approaches, noting that "we're of two minds about education" and that "most cultures have had these same mixed educational motives." He describes this as existing along two dimensions:

Social control education focuses on "creating conformance, because it's much easier to run a family or an organization or a business or a country when people have learned the importance of obeying."

Individual capacity education aims at "strengthening the individual capacity for thinking, because a group or society that sees its strength in the combined capacities and capabilities of its individual members is less fragile, and arguably less dangerous, than one that sees its strength in demanding agreement and conformity."

Censorship and Intellectual Agency

Hargadon argues that to promote censorship is to promote a conception that the recipient of information is passive and incapable, creating "a terrible self-fulfilling prophecy." This approach "sees the individual as never more than a follower and a victim, without the ability to grow and exercise their individual thinking capacity."

He contends that censorship becomes "the ultimate justification for propaganda" based on the logic: "We, the smart ones, know what is right and the others will never understand it, so we have to manipulate and coerce them to follow along."

Instead, Hargadon advocates that the answer to bad or lazy thinking is to teach better thinking, not to censor. He emphasizes that if society absolves "ourselves of responsibility for teaching people to think critically and with understanding, and instead believe that we were supposed to select what is the right information for them, we're making a grave and historic mistake."

Contemporary Applications

Hargadon applies this framework to contemporary media platforms, noting their legal protection under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act for offering "a forum for a true diversity of political discourse." He expresses concern about these platforms' admission to "secretly and then openly censoring viewpoints based on often-fuzzy principles that are not universally applied."

The framework emphasizes the unparalleled need for civil dialog and "endeavors and investigations to uncover truth and abuses of power," particularly given "the ubiquity of electronic platforms for the airing of ideas" and "the use of those electronic tools for monitoring and tracking thought by governments and corporations."