A Few Thoughts on Political Correctness

[richardf8]

"Political Correctness" is a term we hear bandied about quite a lot these days, most often from conservatives who are feeling oppressed for some reason or another. It has come to mean censorship or censure of speech that is deemed offensive by someone or another.

To conservatives who feel for some reason that it is their cross to bear, unfairly imposed by a liberal establishment, I have this to say:

There is NO moral distinction between excising The Catcher in the Rye from school libraries for its content and removing Huckleberry Finn from school libraries because it has the "N" word. There is no moral distinction between bowdlerizing "Catcher" to relieve it of offensive language or doing likewise with "Huck." And BOTH have been attempted.

To liberals who feel unduly oppressed upon encountering epithets that are artifacts of a less-than-glorious past, a time when we weren't all equal, I have this to say:

There is NO moral distinction between excising The Catcher in the Rye from school libraries for its content and removing Huckleberry Finn from school libraries because it has the "N" word. There is no moral distinction between bowdlerizing "Catcher" to relieve it of offensive language or doing likewise with "Huck." And BOTH have been attempted.

Get it?

Put simply, Political Correctness, regardless of who is determining what is correct and what is not, results in a sanitization of our language and culture that serves only to further dichotomize our society. We cannot be so sensitive that certain words or situations are sufficient to send us through the roof and expect to continue functioning as a nation. And the way to avoid such a fate is to allow ourselves and our children to encounter these difficult passages, to wrestle with them and to harmonize them as necessary. This is the purpose of the humanities, and the danger of allowing any censorship at all is that it leaves us a nation that is ill-equipped to deal with, say, the 2 second baring of a boob on TV, or the the praise by one Senator of another Senator's legacy.

But what purpose does it serve, if we get all worked up over shit like this? [Oooohhhh. I said "shit." In a place where minors could see. I'm the downfall of all that is good and holy.] Simple. It distracts us from the larger issues we SHOULD be paying attention to. Like the fact that each time the pendulum swings from right to left and back, each side has nibbled away at one civil liberty or another. And we rarely get those back on the pendulum's return stroke.

Comments

[kevinjdog.livejournal.com]

Politically correct alterations like that is like putting white out on a deep internal wound. You're not getting to the source of the societal dysfunction, just putting a happy face on it.

[richardf8]

Anything forced underground is more likely to metastasize than stuff at the surface. I really like San Diego's solution to its drag racing problem: not only do the fine racers and spectators heavily, but they ALSO allow them to use the Qualcomm stadium to race and watch legally for a nominal fee, with the cops actually joining in the races and giving T-Shirts to those who beat them.

[moult.livejournal.com]

As a believer that language constitutes how we think as much as our thoughts constitute language, I don't entirely agree. Political correctness in its strict sense - taking the eraser to language/thought in order not to be unpopular - is pretty loathsome; and censorship can only make our lives poorer and more powerless. But PC doesn't equal censorship. The majority of counter-attackers against 'political correctness' (in Britain at least) are doing so as an easy way to reject any egalitarian or progressive idea they're uncomfortable with, not in defence of free speech overall. Perhaps that's why there seems to be far more counter-attacking than there is of the phenomenon itself.

Incidentally, do you happen to know who coined the term? And if anyone has ever used it positively? ('Political correctness gone mad' wants to suggest someone has.)

[richardf8]

As a believer that language constitutes how we think as much as our thoughts constitute language, I don't entirely agree.

Alas, this is one of those unresolvable dilemmas, like "nature vs. nurture," and all that. The problem being we have no idea the degree to which the language we use to describe this phenomenon influences our ability to observe it.

As to th history. Hmm. I first encountered it in Grad School in the early nineties, and encountered it again in the corporate world in 1999/2000. The academic encounter seemed to be neither pejorative nor full of praise. A politically correct idea was simply one that conformed to the zeitgeist, to the norms of the moment. In the corporate example, political correctness was used to describe an approach to interaction that was pleasing to upper management. There were no "problems" only "opportunties." The effect on language in the organization was such that when a coworker and I dropped a high speed laser printer in the parking lot, our manager came to us and said "I hear you've had an opportunity."

Really, I think that Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" does a very good job of dealing with the issues surrounding "political correctness" without using that troublesome phrase.

[deckardcanine.livejournal.com]

I think if it were initially conceived pejoratively, the coiner would not include the term "correct." It may sound tongue-in-cheek now, but I used to think otherwise.

[level-head.livejournal.com]

I am in agreement with this post.

And the conclusion that you point toward, that it is a bad thing for all, is unequally reflected in the opposition as you note.

But in any event, I am opposed to the PC movement. And it was indeed "imposed by a liberal establishment" -- universities -- and as well refers to "artifacts of our less-than glorious past". At the same time, new "artifacts" are being manufactured so that they can be addressed as well, hence the recent impetus to declare such words as "oriental" hate-names.

===|===========/ Level Head

[visservoldemort.livejournal.com]

Quite true. I especially liked the first part of your entry, which seemed to demonstrate that the political spectrum is not a line, but a circle, and we must oppose or support ideas, not parties or affiliations. At least, that's how I interpreted it.

As for your closing, you make a good point. How would you suggest society might move to rectify it?

[richardf8]

As for your closing, you make a good point. How would you suggest society might move to rectify it?

What are your thoughts on Noach? What do you think were the reasons for the mabul?

When cruft builds to a level at which it becomes a handicap, it must be cleansed away. Thosmas Jefferson wrote that a little revolution naw and then is not a bad thing. The US Government and all local govenments under it comprise a shambling beast fettered by laws passed for temporal reasons and never repealed. We need a way to start over. Look hard at the Torah, at the laws regarding Jubilee, and you will see that it constructs a society that wipes its slates clean periodically.

Maybe what we need to do, as a nation, is every 50 years we just burn the various codes and ordinances, sparing only the constitution and start from scratch.

Of course, such huge bonfires would only serve to hasten global warming, and the mabul that it threatens.

[visservoldemort.livejournal.com]

Come on Richard, you're not actually advocating thet overthrow of the US Government, are you? *laughs* Things are bad, true. Massive reform is needed. But don't you think there is still a way out other than invoking Locke's "Right to Revolt"?

[richardf8]

No.

I suppose that you, being the reasonable sort that you are, expect an argument backing that up. Here it is:

The changes that need to be made to our government are threefold:
1) Deconstruction of the two party system.
2) Deconstrution of the notion of corporate personhood.
3) Elimination of Laws that hobble us.

There are too many stakeholders in each of these in government to make meaningful reform possible. No legislator receiving corporate donations is going to vote against corporate personhood, because they depend on the "Free Speech" granted to corporations under the 14th amendment (in a fairly bizarre S.C. Ruling whose name I cannot recall) for their campaign donations.

And what Democrat or Republican would vote for a change to our election process that would place other parties on an equal footing with their own?

Finally given the previous two issues, any attempt at #3 would probably result in the repeal of the New Deal while leaving laws against drying male and female underwear on the same line on the books!

So the basic issue is that the people through whom the "massive reform" you call for would have to be effected under the current system are those least inclined to effect it. To whom then does the responsibility fall?