Dissent: Bertrand Russell
 |
| Bertrand Russell by ChatGPT |
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and
fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of
doubts.” Bertrand Russell wrote that a century ago in his essay ‘The Triumph of
Stupidity.’ It seems truer today than ever.
Hundreds of people in India have been
arrested for questioning certain government policies, after 2014. Some died in
prisons. Dissent is sedition in the country now. Dissent is mistaken for
disruption, disloyalty, or even treason. What does Russell say about dissent?
Dissent is not merely a right, for
Russell, but also a moral necessity. It is the quiet but firm refusal to surrender one’s conscience to
the comfort of conformity. Russell lived through the most turbulent
periods of the 20th century such as the two World Wars, the rise of
totalitarian ideologies, and the nuclear threats. In each of these moments, he
chose not the safety of silence but the risk of opposition.
At the heart of Russell’s
understanding of dissent lies a deep commitment to reason. He believed
that truth does not emerge from authority, tradition, or majority opinion, but
from critical inquiry. To dissent, therefore, is not to rebel passionately, but
to think honestly.
In his essay Free Thought and
Official Propaganda, Russell warns against the subtle pressures that force
individuals into intellectual submission. Societies reward agreement and punish
questioning. Dissent becomes the only safeguard against this slow erosion of
independent thought achieved subtly by societies and governments.
Russell’s dissent was not confined to
abstract philosophy. During the World War I, he openly opposed Britain’s
involvement. Most intellectuals fell in line, persuaded by patriotism or
pressured by public opinion. Russell stood apart. He saw war as irrational
slaughter, fuelled by blind nationalism and unexamined loyalties. He wrote
articles, gave speeches, and aligned himself with anti-war groups.
As a result, Russell lost his
lectureship at Trinity College, Cambridge. He was charged with “conduct
prejudicial to the safety of the state.” He carried on with his criticism of
the government for its violent ways related to the War. So he was arrested: not
for opposing the war but for a sentence that hinted at the misuse of military
power.
The prison became another workplace
for the great man. He wrote his brilliant Introduction of Mathematical
Philosophy during his term within the walls. It was Russell’s own voice of
dissent: a work of clarity and precision against the chaos outside.
Russell’s dissent extended beyond
politics into religion, education, and social norms. He challenged dogmatic
belief systems that demanded unquestioning obedience. In works like Why I Am
Not a Christian, he exemplifies dissent not as an attack on faith, but as a
defence of intellectual freedom.
He saw authority, whether of the
state, religion, or tradition, as something that must always justify itself
before reason. Without dissent, authority becomes tyranny; with dissent, it
remains accountable.
Dissent is not destructive. It is
constructive. Progress depends on those who are willing to question the
accepted. Every scientific breakthrough, every social reform, every expansion
of human rights has, at its core, an act of dissent. To suppress dissent,
therefore, is to suppress the possibility of improvement.
In our age of echo chambers and
algorithm-driven conformity, Russell’s voice feels more urgent than ever.
Dissent is being drowned in noise today or dismissed as negativity. Worse,
dissenters are arrested.
Our leaders must understand this:
Dissent is not a disruption of the order; it is saving the order from the
dangers of unquestioned certainties.
PS. This post is a part
of Blogchatter A2Z Challenge 2026
Previous Posts in this
series
|
Coming up on Monday Empathy |
Why is War even necessary?
ReplyDeleteHumans are essentially animals, as brutal as they possibly can be. That's the simplest answer I can find to your question. If you had raised the question with an identity, I'd have written a longer answer.
DeleteHari OM
ReplyDeleteDefinitely! To Disagree is not to say one immediately wishes to be in combat, but this is too often how it is taken. The art of disagreeing agreeably seems to have been lost. Diplomacy and Detente appear to have Disappeared... YAM xx
Brute strength has taken over diplomacy and detente. Most of today's prominent leaders are only brawn no brain - displaying 56" chest ...
DeleteDissent is not disruption of order but saving it from unchallenged certainties.... Could not be profounder. And the mid-piece, dissent is not just passionate rebellion but clearheaded search could not be truer. Just to end with Gandhi, the seeker. "Democracy is about enabling people to resist the abuse of authority.
ReplyDeleteThe ordinary people in India today have either been made absolute fools or absolutely helpless by the political system. But you and I as well as similar others can go on raising questions at least.
DeleteIt is interesting how much we resist questioning authorities and how conditioned we are to the argument "because this is what it is." I loved that line that dissent is about truth and reason.
ReplyDeleteWe have gone beyond 'conditioning' to accepting intellectual slavery.
DeleteThanks for this post to introduct Russel. Cultivating devoted groups to achieve our aims – exploiting fanaticism for personal gain – seems to be the defining philosophy of our time. While followers are often genuine, their leaders frequently misuse their trust.
ReplyDeleteWe have no leaders now, only bullies. People who should have been mafia dons became Presidents or Prime Ministers.
Delete"Without dissent, authority becomes tyranny; with dissent, it remains accountable." I think the biggest problem right now, at least in India is accountability. We seem to be giving a clean chit to our elected representatives. without making them accountable.
ReplyDeleteReligious scaffolding has given this unaccountability to our present dispensation.
DeleteThose that punish dissent tell on themselves. They tell us that they are not as comfortable in their beliefs. If they have to make sure no one contradicts them, they can't feel very strongly about what they are saying.
ReplyDeleteYes, some kind of insecurity drives their fear of dissent.
DeleteHealthy or constructive criticism should always be welcome unlike today !
ReplyDelete