Mainstream versus democracy

Every time has its obsessions. Every people and every society share a number of common viewpoints and a sense of urgency about a reduced number of topics. This is the so-called mainstream thinking, the way of thinking shared by a majority of people. To give an example, before World War 2, the desire for order belonged to mainstream thinking. After World War 2, other priorities took over: equal rights for women, for other races, other beliefs, other types of family life.

Mainstream thinking has its positive sides. It usually makes a society evolve in a certain direction: closer to paradise and very often away from some past evil. But it also has its drawbacks. First the priorities are always limited, because public opinion doesn't seem to be able to cope with too many issues at the same time. Secondly, the priorities are determined by a limited group of opinion makers and amplified by a large majority of blind followers. Look at the success of Twitter. Mainstream is often not as democratic as it seems. And last but not least, mainstream can be un-nuanced and violent. The minorities who don't comply with mainstream thinking, can be heavily persecuted. The freedom of speech is only valid if this speech amplifies mainstream thinking, not if it contradicts mainstream thinking. Philosophers and prophets need to take risks to make the required corrections to mainstream thinking.

I sometimes worry about the tone of some 'politically correct' internauts. In their enthusiasm to amplify mainstream thought, they create mainstream victims, people who don't fit the picture. They condemn people and come up with with the arguments of 'respect' and 'freedom of speech' according to the needs of the day. To give an example: today you can easily support good causes like gay rights, immigrant rights, etc (I consider these positive outcomes of recent mainstream thinking) but don't count on sympathy for people who express their christian or Muslim beliefs, wearing visible signs of their religion and attending weekly rituals. Today, mainstream is evolving towards a growing contempt for religious practise in general. Where did the freedom of religion stay? The freedom of religion includes the freedom of expression of religion. If you need to hide your religion, this legal freedom is totally pointless.

Wearing a headscarf for instance, can't be compared to wearing a T-shirt with insulting slogans. (Some politicians make this false comparison, though.) You may argue that wearing a scarf is still a legal right today. True, but read what people are writing on the Internet. All persecutions started with some kind of ridiculisation. I notice that Christians and Muslims are becoming unexpected allies in their defence against a growing contempt for any type of visible expression of their faith. Mainstream without values leads to oppression of minorities. It is a threat to real democracy.