On the frayed edges of the battle of ideas - how do you determine what is "too far"?
In the cultural sector, we move on the border between free expression and responsibility. Art often asks uncomfortable questions - and that is its strength. But where does imagination end and glorification begin? For cultural institutions, this is not a theoretical issue, but a practical choice: who gets a stage, and under what conditions? In this article, Willemijn Kadijk explores how we keep room for sharp voices, without being blind to the dangers of extremes.
World history is driven by stories. Every revolution is accompanied by works of art, plays, and songs that inspire people to take action—sometimes even centuries later. Art, then, is an integral part of free thought and often pushes the boundaries. But it is precisely at those fringes that danger can lurk. For the same power that art can wield to spark the imagination and bring about liberation can also be abused.
By Willemijn Kadijk, consultant and researcher at Nuance through Training and Advice (NTA).
Consider how Nazism used aesthetics to glorify hatred—something museums still rightly focus on. Religious movements and groups fighting for equality have also used art to glorify bloodshed. The pen and the brush are powerful weapons—and weapons must be handled with care. But how do you determine what goes “too far”? One person might call someone a freedom fighter, while another sees them as an extremist.
The Idea Contest: Dancing Together, But With Rules
What makes democracy stronger than dictatorships is that we are always searching for the best idea. We have a free press, elections, and an opposition that challenges those in power and can propose alternative ways of doing things. Criticism and dissent are therefore a crucial part of a well-functioning democracy. You could say that art itself takes part in the arena of ideas—sometimes as a challenger, sometimes as a connector. At the same time, the contest of ideas can only work well if there are also boundaries. You can think of the contest of ideas as a dance competition. Anyone can participate, and the best idea wins, but there are rules: no intimidation, no violence, and no excluding people by dehumanizing them based on their background, faith, or sexual orientation. It’s about who performs the most beautiful dance, not who is best at eliminating opponents—or who, in the long run, even wants to abolish the competition altogether.
The Referee: Setting Boundaries
Some of these rules are enshrined in law: incitement to hatred, threats, and intimidation are prohibited. But society cannot rely solely on the police and criminal law. Civil society—associations, neighborhoods, groups of friends—must also set boundaries. If we have to call the police for every incident, it won’t be a pleasant situation. We—everyone—must therefore uphold standards of conduct ourselves, so that they endure. That is why many organizations have a code of conduct. Without such a code, you’re always playing catch-up. Take, for example, a far-right student organization that was allowed to set up a booth at a freshman orientation fair simply because there weren’t adequate rules in place beforehand to prevent it. Establishing standards in advance provides a framework; intervening after the fact is often too late and fraught with difficult trade-offs in situations that are already sensitive.
The Code of Conduct: Guidance Beforehand
A code of conduct for a cultural institution can be grounded in the law and the values enshrined in the Constitution. Always ask yourself: Does a radical statement contribute to the public debate, or does it stifle other voices without good reason? Hate and misinformation often go hand in hand. That’s why it helps to have guidelines for substantiation, accountability, and correcting errors. This way, you make your institution resilient against extremism.
Impartial judgment: the same rules for everyone
We know from research that people tend to excuse radicals from their own political camp, while condemning the other side for the same behavior. That is precisely why we need rules that apply to everyone, regardless of political affiliation. That way, you remain consistent and maintain public support. A diverse team (in terms of generation, background, worldview, experiences, etc.) helps to establish rules together that are widely accepted. Empathy and the ability to see things from another’s perspective are key here—the willingness to try to understand the other person, even if you don’t agree with them or even disapprove of their views. For all of this, you need internal trust. For example, the assurance that you can be honest in internal discussions. But you also need the assurance that you’ll receive support if you take a public stance that’s likely to provoke angry reactions. This allows a referee to do their job with confidence.
The goal: to grow through new ideas
As a cultural platform—where you have to decide who gets a platform and who doesn’t—you’re essentially a referee in the dance competition of ideas. Be trustworthy and objective, clearly establish the rules in advance, and explain your decisions. Keep your focus on what matters most: that anyone who wants to play fairly can try to win people over. That way, we as a society continue to grow through new ideas, and culture can continue to fulfill its role: a driving force for free thought, imagination, and growth.