Socrates' Gadfly Analogy: Rushdie, Fiske, and Free Speech

Introduction: Defining the Gadfly

Webster's New American Dictionary defines "gadfly" as "a person who annoys, especially by persistent criticism" (p. 213). By that definition, Socrates' critics certainly would have considered him one. It is, after all, easier to dismiss someone as a mere gadfly than to acknowledge them as an astute social critic or a rare perceiver of truth — particularly when their words feel threatening. Individuals or groups whose interests, power, or authority may be challenged by what someone says are often eager to apply the label "gadfly" (or worse) in order to trivialize that person's words and encourage others to do likewise.

In that respect, journalist Edward Fiske, the subject of Paul Fussell's Class, and novelist Salman Rushdie — who consistently reminds others that his seemingly esoteric and singular problem with free expression is really their problem too — are gadflies in the same tradition as Socrates was in his day. The common ground among the three is that all are seekers of truth, even the kinds of truth that threaten or offend others.

Fiske, Bennett, and the Threat of Honest Criticism

In Fussell's Class, journalist Fiske comes in for harsh criticism from a university professor named David Bennett for daring to call Bennett's institution third-rate. As Fussell notes, the professor, rather than heaping abuse on Fiske, might have taken constructive action to improve education at his university — for example, "cleaning up the registration mess, or reforming the teaching assistant scandal" (Class, paragraph 150). Instead, Bennett inflicted "gadfly" status on Fiske. The old adage "the truth hurts" applies here. Bennett might also have asked himself, in conferring gadfly status on Fiske, "What is a mere journalist doing attacking my professional terrain?" Clearly, for Bennett to look objectively at his own flawed institution represented a genuine threat.

Fiske's Selective Guide to American Colleges may have made him a gadfly to some in 1982–83. Salman Rushdie, on the other hand, qualifies for permanent gadfly status.

Rushdie as Permanent Gadfly and Social Prophet

Over the years, Rushdie has convincingly demonstrated the many ways that his seemingly obscure conflict with extremist Muslim clerics is not so obscure after all. As Rushdie writes in "'Respect' and the Thought Police": "broad . . . international acceptance of 1st Amendment principles is being steadily eroded. Many special interest groups, claiming the moral high ground, now demand the protection of the censor" (Los Angeles Times, B9). Rushdie's editorial was written in 1996, when he was still looking warily over his shoulder for one or more of Khomeini's — or, after Khomeini died, some other extremist's — henchmen. Even so, it is fascinating to reflect, nearly a decade later, on the prophetic value of his words.

The truth of Rushdie's persistent warnings throughout the 1980s and 1990s has become glaringly apparent. Many who dismissed him as an annoying, eccentric, self-interested gadfly in 1996 would recognize him as a social prophet today.