My inner turmoil - PC culture

HollyWood · 05-11-12 03:03:59

English and Mandarin talk about time differently—English talks about time as if it were horizontal (past being behind us and the future being in front of us), while Mandarin also commonly describes time as vertical (up = earlier, down = later). So it could then be deduced that language is a powerful tool in shaping thought about abstract domains. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is that language shapes thought otherwise known as linguistic relativity - which will make sense if you're an Orwell fan who incited a stronger version of this hypothesis: linguistic determinism.

"There would be many crimes and errors which it would be beyond his power to commit, simply because they were nameless and therefore unimaginable" - 1984
George Orwell

Still a lively debate in the socio-linguistic, feminist, psychology and anthropology communities (for over a century now), popular opinion since the ‘80s is that the effects of the language differences are predominantly confined to transient processing-type differences (e.g. Mandarin speakers are faster to identify that March is before April when on a vertical chart as opposed to a horizontal one; and inter-language color differences) rather than the more severe determining/alteration of emotion and cognition that Whorf theorized.

They have also found that certain cognitive processes don't use language to any significant extent and thus can't be affected by linguistic relativity. So I tend to think that categories like gender, processing whether someone 'looks' female or male and that kind of binary determinism is a cognitive process that doesn’t necessarily use language. I think it is obviously compounded by linguistic structures like 'he and/or she' as opposed to 'they'. But there are more complex indicators of gender such as my Auntie Sue. In German, the equivalent of ‘grandson’ and ‘granddaughter’ is the gender-neutral term Enkel. In Maori the terms for siblings tell you the gender of both the referent and the speaker – e.g. a younger sibling of the same gender as the speaker = teina. But gender is implied in many other constructions in English so that the sentence “My brother touches herself” is considered ungrammatical. Anyway you get the point. What Judith Butler argued in her gender performativity texts is that some speech acts actually do something. For example when you say, “I promise”, the saying is also the promising. These speech acts acquire their force through repetition and endorsement on a social and cultural level and gender is no different – iterated through gendered acts and processes. So gender inequality or problematizing gender itself is not confined to those more superficial linguistic manifestations of gender binaries, especially when terms like 'cis' or DFAB/DMAB, for example, are not reiforced on a larger cultural scale. I think it's important to respect the wishes of those who identify with non-traditional gender roles and refer them using the terms that they prefer but I also think that localizing and emphasizing the process/language can often work to silence broader discussion of institutional and cultural conditioning by placing too much emphasis on smaller lexical items.

“Yes, speech is a species of action. Yes, there are some acts that only speech can perform. But there are some acts that speech alone cannot accomplish. You cannot heal the sick by pronouncing them well. You cannot uplift the poor by declaring them to be rich” – Henry Louis Gates, Jr.

Similarly, I don't think we can shape engrained and popular thought through speech items alone and sometimes I find PC labels to be ultimately detrimental to the cause in question by reinforcing the overall oppressiveness of categorization. I find the term Person of Color, for instance, to be one of those terms. The term in my mind just puts greater emphasis on Whiteness as neuter: White and Other. While some advocates of the term POC will say that race is not monolithic (in that there is no need to differentiate different ethnicities) they will then allow for more specific labeling when not enough allowances are made for the incredibly varied racial and socio-cultural backgrounds contained in the POC label (the same has been said of the term ‘Hispanics’). I think that ‘POC’ is another way to focus on the ‘color’ of ones skin as opposed to the pertinent socio-cultural issues surrounding racism and most importantly, reinforces the White/neuter and POC/Other divide.

Similarly, Queer/feminist theory will at once say that gender is not monolithic in that there’s no need to place such emphasis on someone’s gender (which is performative) and on the other hand, I have never experienced so many varied labels and identifications in any other community. It’s important for labels like cis-gendered (the opposite of trans-gendered) to be in use because it de-neutralizes it and makes it known that ‘trans’ is not the Other to a ‘normal’ gender identity, thus, encourages a more critical view of gender. So I think this language, does DO something so to speak. However, I think the excessive labeling and use of politically correct terminology with a continual emphasis on smaller speech practices has the potential to be counter-productive. Most people still don't know what it means when I use the term cis- and while it’s important to recognize the diversity that gender (and sexuality alike) offers (as opposed to the traditional binary), is it not also important to de-emphasize gender ‘categories’?

Which brings me to trigger warnings. I can’t go a day without being accosted by warnings. My tobacco has a gangrenous leg or an dead/disfigured unborn fetus on it to warn me of its dangers; a horrific car accident looms over me from a billboard on the highway to discourage speeding (and of course there’ll always be some horrible news about tofu being really awful for you or the choice between margarine and butter, whatever’s causing cancer this week etc.). I understand why people with allergies need the ‘may contain traces of nuts’ warning and I understand why people who’ve suffered trauma feel they need trigger-warnings to that same end. What I don’t understand is why they’re so goddam important for anyone writing a blog but not important for say, a journalist writing for a daily newspaper. While they made sense to me at first, trigger-warnings have gotten so ‘niche’ that they seem to be (for all intensive purposes) obsolete and just another ‘label’ we need to apply to any IP we churn out. The whole point of story-telling is to trigger people’s lived experiences. Sometimes those experiences will be traumatic but reader/viewer identification is heightened by that connection and can offer new avenues for discussion and/or healing. You can’t put a trigger warning on life and sometimes a trigger will be totally benign and unforeseeable. While scouring the internet, if you read a title “Local woman raped and murdered after domestic dispute” are you going to need some extra trigger warnings? Perhaps the title was enough to trigger you already? Either way, I feel this is another example of cumbersome forced speech patterns that are largely useless. If you are having a panic attack and need some help, don’t search the net for help; call a friend, a sponsor, an ambulance if you need to! Either way, searching for help with trauma on the net and then being appalled to have been triggered (or even injured) by something you found while searching 'self-harm' or 'rape + help' seems rather ridiculous! “There are some acts that speech alone cannot accomplish” – trigger warnings (to me, and please feel free to disagree!) are one such act – I seriously doubt their effectiveness in not-triggering anyone’s specific ‘trigger’ whatever that may be.

More info: http://fuckyeahtriggerwarnings.tumblr.com/

Which of course brings me back to political correctness. While I find the Vice trend of being politically incorrect and/or excessively ironic and self-depreciating (because it connotes i-don’t-care hipness) to be overplayed and a cheap way to avoid criticism, I find that I’m inundated by political correctness on a colossal scale and while trying my hardest not to offend anyone, my scope of expression is limited. My favourite art and literature tends to be the stuff that doesn’t give a fuck about political correctness: Bukowski, Camus, Aretino, DeSade, lots of pornographic material. I can't subscribe to many aspects of PC culture; if I did, I'd refer to myself here as a DFAB (designated female at birth), dyadic, able-bodied, class-privileged, white-privileged, cis-gendered sex worker. What's the real advantage of attaching so many labels to eachother? To quantify, group and categorize seems to be exactly what is undesirable in the same communities that promote this language use.

While integrating words like cis-gendered into speech is important to me, this PC culture in the blogosphere, feminism and queer theory is pissing me off because it creates rules and regulations about speech that make communication unforgivingly humorless, stifled and counter-intuitive. Perhaps most importantly, no aspect of speech, PC or otherwise can be regulated and we can’t force it into mainstream use, so most of this stuff will remain ‘niche’. The perpetuation of these terms require force through repetition and endorsement on a social and cultural level and I really can't see more than a small proportion of them being appropriated in this way. Regardless of the freedom of information and speech that the internet has provided, it's more a matter of 'who can shout the loudest' (Aven Frey) than who can impart the most critical/informed/witty/poignant opinions. Shouting louder and louder until they drown out the other voices until those voices don't feel loud enough to compete. A lot of the time I find the super-politically correct groups to be the loudest and the least critical of opinions on the net (within my areas of research) and with so much hateful inter-community competition that I end up wanting to scream ‘oppression isn't a pissing contest!’. But both sides have their pleasures, while to take offense and to fight the minutiae endows the minor-detail-PC police with a feeling of superiority or at least moral aptitude, to piss people off gives one the thrill of subversiveness - so anonymity and this power dynamic on the net ensures that this sort of debate (especially surrounding language) is never going to reach an amicable conclusion.

Here begins my inner (now outer) philosophical debate. I am fully aware that I go around in circles a bit and that's because I'm conflicted as to the outcome/ways forward. There's no straight-forward solution. Feel free to tell me what you think – save me some inner-turmoil.

Last edited by HollyWood (05-11-12 03:23:42)

HollyWood · 05-11-12 04:56:59

http://bitchmagazine.org/post/hipster-s … ism-sexism

"Hipster sexism hinges on the assumption that 'no one thinks this way anymore' and therefore it’s funny, like making a joke about horses and buggies or something. It allows for sexist comments under the guise of being sooo far above them, and it’s a lot harder to call out than non-ironic, old-fashioned sexism" -Kelsey Wallace.

So we can't joke about oppression? Even our own oppression? Ever? "We need to laugh at the sexism, not with the sexists." - But it appears that 'laughing at sexism' automatically makes you one of the sexists in this article...

blissed · 05-11-12 12:57:18

PC meaning politically correct is a good example of how if you name a subject you own it. To me PC means polite and considerate and if we're considerate to each other we won't jump down each others throat if we think a well intentioned person has got it wrong. It's partly a reaction to people doing that that motivated the term politically correct in the 1st place, but mostly it's a phrase coined by journalists long ago who wanted to carry on being verbally abusive.

Humour is a bit like music, we can't like all of it, Like music, humour has different styles, and sometimes it's attacking, sometimes it affectionate. A lot of stuff makes me laugh right down to the very silly, but to be told like some people do, that you have no sense of humour because you don't like their joke and so don't like everything is like saying you have no musicality because you don't like every bit of music. I usually don't find sexism funny or racism and certainly not rape, Some people do but they run the risk of offending someone and it depends on how much they care about doing that. I don't really like that humour when it's self deprecating coming from the people who are oppressed. Sienfelds and Jon Stewarts typical Jewish depictions are funny up to a point, but then I think, stop perpetuating a racist stereotype. Go talk to Bob Dylan who isn't the "Jewish singer" but is Bob Dylan 1st. If your gonna talk about your oppression with humour, do some attacking of your oppressors. For me racist and sexist attitudes are pretty stupid so attacking the people who hold them should be a rich seam of humour.

.

Last edited by blissed (06-11-12 00:36:56)

HollyWood · 07-11-12 00:28:40

I hate Woody Allen and I totally understand how that 'Jewish Neurosis' is funny but it is totally overplayed and boring now. Like it was funny up until the 90s and now it's just old. Woody's still going strong without changing his ways or respecting women at all. But I guess my dillemma is that you will always get downtrodden as the 'humorless feminist' if you don't laugh, and a 'sexist' if you do. It's a no-win situation. So what I was asking all you folk out there of the forum, is 'how important is language in shaping the way we think about sexism?' and 'do I stop reading Bukowski and listening to Miles Davis/James Brown because of the new hard-line on subscribing to PC culture?' Politically correct isn't just 'polite and considerate' to me - it means an inordinate emphasis on tip toeing around on eggshells, hoping not to offend anyone. Which can limit expression. Some of the best social commentries are ironic or satirical (not including Vice - which is just hipster sexism in my mind) - you can eliminate these forms of humor by being excessively PC.

blissed · 07-11-12 01:23:23

Calling it political correctness has a huge way of shaping how we think about the whole subject. What your talking about is how people relate to each other who hold different views, more specifically a degree of aggressive arrogance. A kind of Puritanism.

I think for me as my thoughts on sexuality have developed, language has been hugely important in shaping how I've thought about sexism and so I would assume it's the same for other people. So many female words are derogatory when their male equivalent is congratulatory. Derogatory words in constant use every day all your life sink into our subconscious and influence the status quo. Calling someone an old witch when calling a guy an old warlock isn't in use at all and wouldn't be an insult if it was and it's closest equivalent of wizard is about as far from an insult as you can get . Slut is bad, stud is good. Bitch is derogatory, bastard is 30% bad, 70% someone potently aggressive and sometimes secretly admired. It's kind of the same with cunt. Though to me now, that the worst insult in English is calling someone the same name as female genitalia seems quaintly schoolboyish when you think of all the thoughts you could use to insult someone. Calling a guy a big woman is an insult. "when he got his tattoo he was screaming like a schoolgirl" Then there's the use of the word balls. You don't need balls to be courageous you need courage. Man up is used but I'm told that woman up sounds wrong. And if it does it's because of that subconscious mind shaping. Who's got to be more courageous, someone who's big and physically powerful or someone smaller and less physically powerful. What sounds better spinster or bachelor. There are so many examples of this in English that when you start thinking of them it seems like you could go on forever. So how many subliminal nudges towards sexism does this add up to every day, relentlessly for years and years.

.

Last edited by blissed (07-11-12 01:38:37)

HollyWood · 07-11-12 01:38:45

Yeah, but none of those examples of derogatory lexical items have a hint of satire/context - which, let's not forget, can work to critique or expose cultural meanings inherited by those words. So, I guess I'm not just talking about the terms 'slut' and 'cunt' whose meaning is changing ever-so-slowly, but the labels like 'dyadic', 'able-bodied', 'DFAB' etc. when referring to yourself (and if you don't use them you're a privileged bigot!). Words change over time - melioration - cool! But what about humor? PC-ness? Limiting the scope of expression... or is satire/irony forever outlawed because people are hyper-sensitive when it comes to labels etc?

blissed · 07-11-12 01:55:02

No is the answer for me. But everyone draws the line in a different place. I draw it after too many Jon Stewart Jew gags but I wouldn't be unpleasant to him about it. That's why I think your objecting to puritanism, where people think everyone should think like them and if they don't it gives them the right to interact aggressively.

I don't use labels when referring to myself or anyone else if I can help it. I'm getting less and less into satire as well. If you record a spoof that satires a song or movie, you might as well have spent all that energy making something of your own.

.

Last edited by blissed (07-11-12 02:02:50)

HollyWood · 07-11-12 02:05:23

Yeah. Thanks for your input. Just trying to get my head around what people think about this stuff! It's been an issue for me for quite some time.

HollyWood · 07-11-12 02:08:10

I guess the idea is that 'good' satire doesn't just 're-do' something differently (as in the spoof) but adds new meaning through making a comment on the original. So 'Not Another Teen Movie' doesn't really count, for example - in my book.

blissed · 07-11-12 02:11:16

Yeah thanks, it's nice when I can chrystalise my thoughts on something. I would say don't let the haters get to you. There are lots of people who are up their own arse. I've been to 3 colleges and in 2 of them the people I liked best cleaned the place or served in the canteen.

Not saying all satires bad just that it's losing it's appeal so has to get better and better for me to like it.

.

Last edited by blissed (07-11-12 02:14:49)

HollyWood · 07-11-12 02:12:30

I felt the same way about university. haha.

blissed · 07-11-12 02:28:22

I think we can fill our heads with smarts or emotional intelligence. I think to have lots of both most people would have to have a double sized brain. I better go to bed. Thanks for the chat

.

Orioneye · 07-11-12 06:09:48

It's pretty tricky to find somewhere to reply to this because so much is going on here. But I have been thinking about it for a while, and well...

As for the way we use language: Well it is perhaps in our willingness to accept other people's words that we can show respect and not necessarily in particular terms, which if I understood you correctly Hollywood: I agree can make people pompous and use these terms/language on an "elevated" level. So perhaps language is indeed at its most sensitive (or political correctness) when it is able to view others' ideas as legitimate. But maybe it is merely a reflection of the mind and individual. Does this mean that we can awaken another by feeding them particular language? I doubt it. But if the mind is willing...

I know little of Bukowski, for example, though have read one of his novels and seen an interview with him and one of his lady friends. His language did seem strongly sexist and his actions aggressive.

There seemed little censorship towards sensitive topics in Bukowski's written recollection (for I feel it was heavily autobiographical). Perhaps there is a desired shock value intended. Does this mean he is unapologetic about his actions (or what I assert are his. At least his characters')? We don't really know. His language certainly doesn't emphasize it. But on the other side of the words, that person writing (I like to hope, at least) uses them for a distinct cathartic reason. But if there is no remorse or realization from anti-human actions does this mean the cycle is simply continuing?

HollyWood · 08-11-12 00:51:09

Thanks for reading Orioneye and I know there's a little TOO much going on here! But my mind is a shambles and the cogs are always turning a little too laboriously. The thing I love about Bukowski is that it's a raw and relatable window into poor America, alcholism and sex addiction. He was strongly sexist but that's a reflection of his moral ambivalence towards his environment and identity as a hopelessly self destructive 'American lowlife'. At the very least his writing offers an insight into the psyche of others like him and I think it's valuable. I don't think he wrote for shock value, but focussed on the 'ordinary' lives of the poor and working classes such as himself, to emphasize the monotony and struggle of everyday life under the throws of alcohism, depression and poverty - without the flowery language and to the core of the societal issues surrounding his lived experience. Miles Davis beat his wife. That doesn't mean I can't listen to him anymore because the man's a goddam poet! I guess what i'm trying to say is that it's a larger cultural issue, this patriarchy, so to eliminate a few poets who remind us of it, is fruitless - and might even limit the depth of our world-view.

Orioneye · 09-11-12 06:44:34

HollyWood wrote:

I guess what i'm trying to say is that it's a larger cultural issue, this patriarchy, so to eliminate a few poets who remind us of it, is fruitless - and might even limit the depth of our world-view.

Hollywood, I find this an interesting point. In particular the erasure of history or certain perspectives or voices from it can be detrimental to our understanding of it for sure.

A book of short stories I am reading gets into this on the surface:

"Boy, that Coyote is one silly Coyote. You got to watch out for her. Some of Coyote's stories have got Coyote tails and some of Coyote's stories are covered with scraggy Coyote fur but all of Coyote's stories are bent.
Christopher Columbus didn't find America, I says. Christopher Columbus didn't find Indians, either. You got a tail on that story.
Oh no, says Coyote. I read it in a book.
Must have been a Coyote book, I says.
No, no, no, no says Coyote. It was a history book. Big red one. All about how Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue looking for America and the Indians."

Although it is a short story, "A Coyote Columbus Story," goes into too much depth for me to really quote what I am alluding to with this tidbit (but I have a feeling you folks will get the drift). As you can begin to see in the intro to this story the author is delving into how history is recorded and the "truth" of it. Basically I would agree that there is indeed a lot we can learn from a full, uncensored history.

Last edited by Orioneye (09-11-12 06:45:44)

viva · 12-11-12 01:25:10

Ok. whew. *rolls up sleeves*
This is a mighty many words but if I grasp the topic, Hollywood, you are struggling with the potential mind-takeover of the world of equality politics yes?

Like, once you start identifying with some archetype you automatically have to adopt all the likes and dislikes of that stereotypical borg mind - feminists don't like kitchen jokes, racially sensitive people don't like blackface nostalgia - or else swing entirely the other way, like Tom Green or Cavah Zehedi, and make irreverence your thing, and make your art an excuse to be outrageous, insulting, nontraditional, shocking and occasionally cruel.

I think as with all things, the middle ground lays somewhere inside and inbetween, and as (almost) always, being judgmental is just a mistake. One shouldn't judge another for using the wrong terminology, but instead initiate a discussion about comfort, boundaries, respect and acceptance. If you're really bothered by someone's sense of humor, it's possible you two aren't meant to share too much space too often.

My humor and my intellect tend to reject overlabeling and obsessing over these concepts of equality and awareness, but I am so grateful to those who take it much more seriously than I'd like to because I've learned a lot from the people for whom this discussion IS the most important discussion.

I have also struggled with absorbing it too wholly, getting myself in there too deep, and whatnot. I have skirted the edges, exploring what my privilege means and whether I want every conversation to become one of working to get some man or some able-bodied person to accept their privilege, and I have decided that ultimately, to me, this is not the most important discussion.

And that's ok.

I still intend to treat everyone with respect, love, and care as I always strove to do. I appreciate so much the new tools for sensitivity I have learned from these communities so focused on lifting up the marginalized, and that's great. But ultimately, these exploring and interaction with these communities don't change who I am as a person. I still think a lot of off-color jokes are funny, I think it was hot when Otis Redding begged for a little "respect" when he got home and even hotter when Aretha Franklin turned that shit around. I think the way Pablo Neruda and Charles Bukowski and Anne Sexton and e.e.cummings describe a woman is a pure glance into their own vision and therefore beautiful, because they are humans with a talent to transcribe their essentials into language and leave us parcels of themselves long after they are gone. For that I do not judge, only absorb. When it strikes me as beauty I take it in like beauty, information to nurture my growing brain garden.

Now, I'm happy that I have stumbled upon said communities of feminism, equality, activism, etc etc because as Blissed mentioned, without this window I have been educating myself in a "man's world", where a lot of times what got published, what got released, the producers who were confident enough to say "hey look at my work" - were men with mens' ideals and mens' dreams. And it is clear to me that I have internalized a LOT of that - feeling apologetic for my sexuality, inappropriate with my emotions, gaslighting myself even before I give society a chance, and idealizing what in my head is categorized as "guy stuff", while putting down what in my head is categorized as "girl stuff".

Those PC communities are helping me learn about myself and who I am more and more. And Bukowski helps me too. Both in their own way.

Trigger warnings - I can't comment on those because I have not been victimized (thankgod) and I do not feel triggered by anything...

In closing I really like this little scene from Louis CK's show where a gay guy talks about comedians using the word "fag" in their shows. Warning, dick jokes precede the "hmmm, thoughtful" bit. and continue to abound throughout.

watch.

nio · 16-11-12 00:47:04

I've been following this thread really carefully because my turmoil is much like yours, HollyWood, so I've been curious to see what people might say. I've considered whether I have anything to add to the dialogue myself but I don't feel I could be succinct, will talk in circles and build up a gigantic word count and when you have RSI, that just ain't an option!

And Viva, holy shit, that was beautiful. I love your brain for going such different places to mine and occasionally cracking my skull open and making me see things all fresh and new. You're excellent.

viva · 16-11-12 01:27:56

Oh my Nio I've been dying to see you here! I thought of you and the many talks we've had about this issue... I understand that your hands won't allow you to walk the walk required in attempting to talk this talk, it's endless, so I look forward to the next time I encounter your smart little mouth.

Until then watch that louie ck thing I linked at the bottom and be ready to tell me what you think. I think you'll love the ass-crushed dick diamonds!

nio · 17-11-12 10:23:47

Oh I've watched every single episode of his show and that scene is one of my favourites! x

VeronicaF · 20-11-12 03:37:24

I think language is a difficult thing. Both in terms of turning thoughts and vague mind wanderings into something solid for you all to read but also in terms of choosing the correct way to present these ideas without trodding on toes.

I find PC language odd. It's a language that has slowly developed to include and protect, but so often used to exclude. I think knowing terms like 'cis', 'dyadic', 'DFAB' etc comes from a place of privelege as it is. It's high language reserved predominantly for the educated, and everyone else is 'Other'. It's just shifting the circumstances a little.

I'll admit, many of these terms I have only come to recently, despite having an understanding of the ideas behind them for a significant period of time. But language is not always a first thought and I guess I've always just put the actions and intentions before the words. I dont doubt that at times my ignorance may have offended briefly, but in the grand scheme of things I think if another can understand that your intentions are good, the way you say it shouldn't matter.

Just my two cents...

blissed · 20-11-12 12:42:01

We've had a problem with this on the forum, which is perceiving whether the person who's language seems insensitive or even offensive is innocently well intentioned or not. Which is a lot easier in person than with just text.

Then when you do find they're innocent I've found it's best to find a way to communicate that you don't like the language they're using in a positive way. So whenever I've heard gay used as an insult or to describe something that's crap I've said, gay is good.

.

Last edited by blissed (20-11-12 12:43:27)

haraggan · 09-01-13 18:19:12

Wow, I thought HollyWood was awesome for listing Big Black in her favourite music, and then I find this thread... Now I'm really in awe!

So, OK, having studied and practiced anthropology (not to mention liberal politics) for well over 20 years, much of this is *still* over my head. Probably because my theory is way out of date; I'm still a follower of Structuralism and Dialectical Anthropology and have no use for Derrida.

I haven't spent much time thinking about the things you have, HollyWood, possibly because - as a middle-aged, heterosexual male (in the lingo of positivism) - I don't have the lived experience to act as a spur to those thoughts. But I have spent a decent amount of time thinking about the concept of "political correctness."

The crux of Dialectical Anthropology is the contradiction between what people (as a culture) do and what they say - or what pre-post-modernist (you know, back when we believed we could actually say things about people and about cultures other than our own) called (sorry if I'm telling you stuff you already know; it's mostly just my way of getting my thoughts in order) the "informant's model" and the "ethnographer's model," among other things.

Now in the case of "Political Correctness," what I find interesting is what people say/believe about it, and how that contrasts with what it actually is. These thoughts, by the way, stem from the period, Christ, more than a decade ago - when it was becoming a major talking point in the U.S. It looks, from your descriptions, like it's now grown way beyond what it was then. So, take whatever I say for what it's worth - very little, now, but maybe some useful historical crap for a garrulous old fart.

But at the time, it actually boiled down to something very simple - don't offend people if you can avoid it. And "Political Correctness" was not what it was called; that was a name given to it by conservatives. You've made it very clear you know the power of language, and this is an example. It was in getting people to think of this idea of not* labelling people in derogatory ways, of *not* doing and saying things that hurt them (as "groups" or as individuals) as a kind of regime, as a repressive thought police that was going to take away our ability to make jokes, to celebrate "Christmas" instead of "holidays", that the conservaives won a major victory.

I liken this to the use of the woirds "idealist" and "realist" to desribe political philosophies. Embedded in the words themselves is a judgment of the positions they are taken to denote in terms of their use value and efficacy. This is how hegemony works, by creating judgments that go deeper than ideology, that are unspoken and largely unquestioned because they reside in the language.

I had this conversation with Tom Sharpe, the satirist, in fact - a political liberal who certainly can't be accused of being "PC!" He worried about squads of critics and intellectuals (he refused to believe my description of him as an intellecual) were trying to take away his ability to be funny in his abrasive way. My response was "no, it's the really abrasive people who want you to *believe* somebody is trying to take away those rights.

I remember at the time Dennis Leary (a particularly abrasive comedian I never liked) ranting about all this "PC crap" and how it was taking away his freedoms by expecting him to act in a way more sensitive to other people than to his own convenience. his example was something like "why should I move to the edge of the sidewalk if I'm passing some woman walking alone at night because otherwise she might think I'm going to rape her?" My inner response was something like "Jesus fuck, you asshole, if that's all it takes to reassure someone, if all you have to do is step a couple of feet further away rather than shoulder-charging her out of the way, why wouldn't you?" Likewise, if all it takes is saying "happy holidays" to your Jewish friend instead of "merry Christmas", how big an inconveneinece is that? Apparently, *culturaly* speaking - if you ask Bill O'Reilly - it's too big an an inconvenience.

And now it sounds like, from your description, "political correctness" has succumbed to the definition it was given by its detractors. What was never so much a movement as it was a heightened awareness of the feelings of other people, and the general belief that such attentiveness was a good thing, has gotten bogged down in attmepting to be all-encompassing, which really just means developing more and more niches. Kind of like communism. But that's another story...

Cheers,

Matt

viva · 10-01-13 00:49:40

Matt, great, informative, and sensitive post. Thanks. I do think that political correctness was/is about a little more than common decency though - in fact, the concept exists because we couldn't rely on our fellow humans to be, well, decent. People are/were racist and bigoted and conceited and shallow-sighted, and their speech so frequently reflected those attitudes, which go over fairly smoothly in conversation but don't look so hot in print, on film, on the record. I don't know much, but I assume that's why we discuss 'political' and not merely 'social' correctness - political incorrectness is the principal walking into a remedial reading class and asking how the retards are going with their learners. Whereas saying 'happy holidays' (or even happy hannukah!) to your jewish friends is kind of just common courtesy (socially correct behaviour).

While I believe we all have a modicum of social responsibility as far as kindness and awareness, I also believe that the more actively you wield power in your community, the more responsibility you have to check yourself and ensure that your words are accessible to the people who are listening to you. I mean, you are asking them to listen.

I think comedians protesting this kind of social agreement is terribly silly. Comedians in general are smart people. Don't they get it? Their role - the power they take - is to shake people up. Turn things upside down. And yes, sometimes, in the interest of making people think about things in new ways, to offend. Political correctness was not developed for the comedian - though social responsibility remains theirs - so stop whining, assholes.

Political correctness is so the politicians stop calling black people Negroes - although, they really jumped the shark when they worked out that unfortunate "african-american" misnomer. How are we meant to refer to all the rest of the folks who are neither African nor American? Oopsie.

The general intentions of a PC culture - inclusion, accessibility, and kindness - are good and I think we should attempt to invoke those traits in our own daily interactions. The unfortunate part is the whitewashing thereof, the human inclination to change the speech without changing the mindset and therefore adopt a really really smug attitude without losing any bigotry at all...

haraggan · 10-01-13 08:59:53

Viva, you're right; I think I was over-simplifying the concept of "political correctness." I like your take on it. It's more than just common decency because the kind of decency it asked of people was and is fairly uncommon. I'm also pleased to see that somebody else has the same feeling about the phrase "African American" as I do!

Cheers,

Matt

#1 05-11-12 03:03:59

My inner turmoil - PC culture

#2 05-11-12 04:56:59

Re: My inner turmoil - PC culture

#3 05-11-12 12:57:18

Re: My inner turmoil - PC culture

#4 07-11-12 00:28:40

Re: My inner turmoil - PC culture

#5 07-11-12 01:23:23

Re: My inner turmoil - PC culture

#6 07-11-12 01:38:45

Re: My inner turmoil - PC culture

#7 07-11-12 01:55:02

Re: My inner turmoil - PC culture

#8 07-11-12 02:05:23

Re: My inner turmoil - PC culture

#9 07-11-12 02:08:10

Re: My inner turmoil - PC culture

#10 07-11-12 02:11:16

Re: My inner turmoil - PC culture

#11 07-11-12 02:12:30

Re: My inner turmoil - PC culture

#12 07-11-12 02:28:22

Re: My inner turmoil - PC culture

#13 07-11-12 06:09:48

Re: My inner turmoil - PC culture

#14 08-11-12 00:51:09

Re: My inner turmoil - PC culture

#15 09-11-12 06:44:34

Re: My inner turmoil - PC culture

#16 12-11-12 01:25:10

Re: My inner turmoil - PC culture

#17 16-11-12 00:47:04

Re: My inner turmoil - PC culture

#18 16-11-12 01:27:56

Re: My inner turmoil - PC culture

#19 17-11-12 10:23:47

Re: My inner turmoil - PC culture

#20 20-11-12 03:37:24

Re: My inner turmoil - PC culture

#21 20-11-12 12:42:01

Re: My inner turmoil - PC culture

#22 09-01-13 18:19:12

Re: My inner turmoil - PC culture

#23 10-01-13 00:49:40

Re: My inner turmoil - PC culture

#24 10-01-13 08:59:53

Re: My inner turmoil - PC culture

Board footer