With the rising influence of postmodernism within academia, this philosophy is often framed as a means of promoting freedom by breaking away from conventional understandings about the world.
Yet, one could argue that a society governed by postmodern principles would be disastrous, not liberating, as it ultimately undermines freedom by placing us in a brave new world.
Slavoj Žižek – though considered a left-wing gadfly – was not entirely wrong when he criticised the rise of the ‘postmodern permissive father’. Analogically speaking, this is a father who no longer forces his children to visit their grandmother but instead says, ‘You should visit your grandmother only if you really want to – just remember how much your grandmother loves you.’ This description contrasts with the old authoritarian father, whose strict orders at least preserved the child’s inner freedom.
Upon hearing such a request, a child would not only be convinced to visit their grandmother but would also feel obligated to enjoy doing so. Although Žižek would likely disagree on this further point, attractive and non-restrictive phrases like ‘open your mind’ in the classroom often nudge students toward left-wing narratives through a postmodern permissiveness, without overtly punishing them for nonconformity. This increases the likelihood that children will adopt these beliefs, as it erodes their inner freedom, making them feel as if such beliefs have become their own.
This dynamic is also present in adult life, like how a manager or boss may tell an employee to put in extra effort if they want to advance their career or attempt to gain sympathy by mentioning how the team is short-staffed, rather than directly ordering that employee to stay late at work. The same applies to layoffs: an employee’s ‘resignation’ even if it couldn’t be avoided, is now considered the more acceptable alternative and spares the company or institution from unwanted negative attention compared to the act of directly ‘firing’ an employee.
Another postmodern concoction is the ‘friendly government’ where paternalism masquerades as encouragement or friendly guidance. Instead of strict rules, public behaviour is increasingly shaped through ‘nudges’ directing people toward certain desired outcomes. Subtle tactics like taxation and encouraging supermarkets to make healthier options extremely visible to customers, for instance, have proven to be more effective compared to the outright banning of unhealthy foods.
This permissive authority has formed a paradox: the appearance of extended freedom hides the underlying narrower and harsher choices. Due to a distaste for authoritarian methods, subtler and palatable forms of control are more effective in creating order.
While George Orwell’s novella 1984 portrayed brute force as the main tool for control, it turned out that compliance was more successfully achieved by telling individuals, ‘You are free to do X but will be expected to do Y.’ Permissive authority is highly insidious as it fosters a system where individuals freely participate in their own control. Writer and novelist Aldous Huxley shared similar views in Brave New World Revisited. Huxley wrote, ‘…a really efficient totalitarian State would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.’
It is obvious that traditional authoritarianism must be resisted; however, a more permissive authority has, arguably, more detrimental effects on long-term freedom due to the unconscious engineering of choice. People are more willing to do something when they believe that they are acting in their own choices, even if the choices are curated for them with predetermined conclusions. Thus, the world is starting to look more like the dystopia conceived by Aldous Huxley in his novel Brave New World than in Orwell’s 1984, owing to the illusion of free will. Permissive authority rids itself of the mechanisms of fear and animosity which has often been associated with traditional authority.
This also has a particularly detrimental impact on free speech where opinions that do not align with dominant narratives are viewed as unacceptable and must be buried. While social media companies have done outright censoring of speech in the past leading to criticism, softer methods like demonetisation and algorithmic suppression have started to prevail. This plays into the narrative that people can post whatever they want, but those with more ‘favourable’ views will be rewarded. Even if content creators do not explicitly defy the rules of the platform, they are still subject to what can be called ‘shadowbans’.
The antidote to permissive authority, oft-employed by governments and institutions, begins with recognising its emerging presence in our daily lives. The more we understand these mechanisms, the less we are taken by them.
