The Right to be Neutral: Should Russians Lose Their Jobs?

In the last week, two prominent Russian musicians had been dismissed or forced to resign from their jobs. In today’s parlance, they have been cancelled. What precisely did they do to merit their cancellation? Or in this case, what didn’t they do?

On Mar 6th, Tugan Sokhiev, chief conductor of Moscow’s Bolshoi Theatre, decided to quit after being pressed (by officials) to “clarify his attitude” to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, according to Reuters.[1] He said: “Today I am forced to make a choice and choose one of my musical family over the other. I am being asked to choose one cultural tradition over the other.”

On Mar 1st, Reuters reported that Valery Gergiev, chief conductor of the Munich Philharmonic, was dismissed “as he did not respond to calls to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine” from the Mayor of Munich.[2] The mayor had asked Gergiev, in a letter, to “clearly and unequivocally distance himself” from the war and Gergiev did not respond. He was also shunned by La Scala of Milan and the Rotterdam Philharmonic Orchestra. Just to be clear just how prominent Gergiev is, Rotterdam was going to have a Gergiev Festival in September this year. Now that’s no longer happening.

What exactly were their ‘crimes’? If they decided not to take a stance, if they wished to remain neutral, is that not permitted? Both men are first and foremost musicians. They are not politicians who might be expected, in their public role as politicians, to have a position on the war. They are not academic scholars in the universities, political science or international relations experts or diplomats who have an in-depth knowledge of the situation between the two countries or whether this war is just, moral or otherwise. If asked about the musical merit of Mozart’s operas, or the technical competency of the first violinist of their respective orchestras, you would imagine that they are more than qualified to express their opinion. Indeed, I wonder why should their opinion on the war have any bearing for them to do their work as conductors. The orchestras hired them to be conductors right? Or did they hire them to be political analysts and advisors?

Just to be sure you, my dear listeners, have understood my point, let’s paint a hypothetical situation. If someone asked you your opinion on the war or for that matter any current event, and you happened not to have any opinion, should you be cancelled if you said that you didn’t have any? Or even if you did have an opinion, but didn’t feel like sharing it, is that not ok? Must you have an opinion on everything? And if you did, why should anyone care about it? If you were an expert in the field that the event in question is about, then perhaps, the public should pay your thoughts and opinions some attention. But if you were famous in another way, say you are a CEO of a perfume company, why should your thoughts on the war or on any other matter other than perfume be given any attention by the public? Not that you aren’t permitted to have an opinion. You surely can and often do have opinions on things that are not in your area of expertise or even matters you know nothing about. But if you decline to have your opinion made public, is that not ok? Or if you do not have an opinion and want to remain neutral, why shouldn’t you be allowed that? Do you deserve to be cancelled for want of an opinion?

I want to present some philosophical perspectives on the matter and go back more than 2,000 years to the man who might be considered the father of the father of philosophy. His name is Socrates. A friend of Socrates went to the temple at Delphi and asked the Oracle at the temple if there was any man wiser than Socrates, to which she replied that there was none. Oracles were priestesses who predicted the future, and at that time, kings would not dare to start a war without first seeking their advice. Socrates was surprised since he felt he knew “practically nothing” and hence could not possibly be the wisest man. However, he investigated this notion and sought out men considered to be wise people.

He questioned politicians, poets, writers, speech writers and craftsmen, who might be considered wise, and realised a flaw common to them all. While they may know their domain well, or be skilled in a specific way, they then thought that they hence knew also things outside their respective domains. Socrates at least recognised that he knew little and had the humility and presence of mind to admit it, and in that way, he could see why the Oracle was right.[3]

Like Socrates, I am not sure why people, who are not knowledgeable in a particular field, should be given any weight or airtime on their opinions on that field. Just because one is a famous artist for instance, or a rich businessperson does not make them qualified to comment to the public on everything under the sun. Why do we ask movie stars for their thoughts on anything other than acting? I can see how celebrities can help a cause, since the media might report on it, hence giving prominence to the cause. Certainly they occasionally use their fame to good effect. But imagine asking a pop star whether mankind will land on to Mars in the next 20 years rather than asking scientists and engineers at NASA.

I am not saying that people are not permitted to have opinions. Immanuel Kant, in his essay, What is Enlightenment?, observed that there are two sides to a working person. He gives an example of a person working in the military. In his official capacity while on duty, it would not be appropriate for him to openly question the orders he receives from his superiors. However, he also has a personal side as simply a citizen of the country. Kant writes: “But he cannot reasonably be banned from making observations as a man of learning on the errors in the military service, and from submitting these to his public for judgement.”

Kant’s examples all circle around a professional having private opinions on their domains, for instance a soldier on the military establishment, a clergyman on the church and citizens on their society. He does not have an example on a soldier commenting publicly on the economy or a clergyman commenting on fashion publicly, especially if they are mostly ignorant about those topics. Hence it is still in keeping with Socrates’s thoughts on limiting one’s opinions publicly to their expert areas. However, what if a person declines to give to the public any opinion at all? By the lights of Socrates, this in fact is the right move to make if it is outside of one’s domain.

Kant’s point is on how those who do have knowledge should be free to give their opinions publicly as private citizens even if it contradicts the position of their official capacity. He is talking about a positive freedom to express oneself, positive in the sense that one is taking an action. There is another kind of freedom, as elaborated by Isiah Berlin in his essay Two Concepts of Liberty, of negative freedom. The general idea of negative freedom is to leave people alone to pursue their own will and not have any measures to restrict that freedom. He is not talking about some kind of absolute liberty where there are no restraints whatsoever. But precisely the case of the two Russian conductors will exemplify what negative freedom means.

The fact is, I do not know all the details of why these two conductors did not do as they were expected to. In fact, I have never heard of these two men until today when I read the news. I have made it out as if they perhaps did not know enough to comment publicly, though I doubt that is the case. Given that they are highly learned men and given how widely the war has been reported, I suspect they would know about it and probably have an opinion. However, if they feel that they do not wish to comment on it publicly, for whatever reason, I am not sure why they should be compelled to do so. It is their freedom, their negative freedom, to be allowed to say ‘no comment,’ isn’t it? If a person says ‘no comment’ to the press, say during an election, we would not assume that person to have taken a particular side, right? So why should these two conductors be forced from their work as musicians, which have nothing to do with the war?

I am going to go out on a limb here and think of some reasons why they decided that they cannot publicly state their opinion. While Mr Gergiev may be living in Munich, actually I do not know where he physically is, his family, friends and associates may be in Russia at this moment. If he spoke against Russia, he might endanger them. If he spoke against Ukraine, then I guess they would for sure have fired him, since they after all fired him for not stating his position. Similarly for Mr Sokhiev, I am quite sure he had his reasons for not stating his stance. They must have deliberated what is the best move for themselves and unfortunately, it involved resigning or facing dismissal from their work, which I cannot overstate, has nothing to do with their political opinion. They were hired as musicians. If they were hired for their political inclinations, then perhaps we might understand why they got in trouble but I doubt the Munich Philharmonic would have had political inclination as a hiring criteria, though I do not know about the Bolshoi.

Throughout this essay, I have not stated my own position on this war. I am in fact not qualified to give any opinion, and if I did give you my opinion, I think it would be wise of you to ignore it since why should my opinion on the war have any weight at all? I am no expert on international relations, warcraft, Russia or Ukraine. I do however have a learned opinion about philosophy, on Socrates, on the concepts of personal and official capacities, and positive and negative freedom. Perhaps this is one of the luxuries of philosophy, that anyone may feel free to speak about it, regardless of how much education they have, so long as they do so in a reasoned way. I also can imagine that some may argue that to remain neutral in the face of suffering is in itself not neutral. That is something different from what I am talking about here; it will require its own essay. What I am talking about here is how there seems to be an injustice done, when people are driven from their jobs because of their lack of a political opinion. If they do not want to speak out, why should they be forced to? For all those who wish to take sides, be it a well-considered or ill-considered position, it is their prerogative. But why should a person who declines to state a position publicly be compelled to do so, or face being dismissed, forced to resign or cancelled? How exactly does that help the war effort on either side other than just demonstrating a pure tribalism? Are we going to deny every Russian the right to work abroad if they don’t denounce Russia publicly? Are we going to deny every Russian the right to work in Russia if they don’t denounce Ukraine publicly? How is punishing people for their nationality, political position or lack of political position just? What’s next? Shall we cancel Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Tchaikovsky, Shostakovich, Mussorgsky and Kandinsky also simply for being Russian?

I hope you found this essay thought-provoking. As I had said, I am not here publicly giving my personal opinion on the war, and in case you did not get it, I am not defending Russia either. What I am questioning is why a refusal to state one’s position publicly is blameworthy. I know that war, and for that matter, justice, are sensitive issues but we still need to remain respectful and perhaps even more now than usual, to be kind in the face of tragedy, so please do think about that when leaving your comments. TY.






[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/bolshoi-theatres-chief-conductor-quits-after-pressure-condemn-ukraine-invasion-2022-03-06/


[2] https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/munich-philharmonic-dismisses-chief-conductor-gergiev-russia-stance-2022-03-01/


[3] https://philosophicalbachelor.blogspot.com/2021/10/socratess-last-days.html