Knowledge or Prejudice
A critic writes us that he finds no fault with freedom of speech, and that Emma Goldman’s disregard of ordinary moral laws and blasphemy of religion do not destroy the fact that she exists. But such an article about her as appeared in our last issue is well calculated to make us appear absurd, he thinks; it sounds like the oration of some one who is just beginning to discover the things that the world has known always; and he closes with this deliciously naïve question: “Do you believe in listening respectfully to advocates of free love, and, because of their daring, applauding them?”
Yes, we believe in listening respectfully to any sincere programme; we believe that is the only way people get to understand things. We even believe in listening seriously to insincere programmes, because the insincere person usually thinks he is sincere and helps one to understand even more. By doing all these things one is likely to reach that altitude where “to understand all is to forgive all.”
As for “advocates of free love”—we recall the impatient comment of a well-known woman novelist: “When will people stop using that silly, superfluous phrase ‘free love’? We don’t talk about ‘cold ice’ or ‘black coal’!”
And, though our applause was not confined to Emma Goldman’s daring, as our critic would probably concede, is not daring a thing worthy of applause? Just as conflict is better than mediation, or suffering than security, daring is so much more legitimate an attitude than complacency.
But it is that remark about “things the world has known always” which exasperates us the most. The world has not known them always; it doesn’t know them now. It has heard of them vaguely—just to the point of becoming prejudiced about them. And prejudice is the first element that sneaks away when knowledge begins to develop. If the world represented by our critic knew these things it might be roused to daring, too.