A recent letter to the editor in The Nugget Newspaper, which I edit and where Craig has a column, defended “political correctness” as “basically another term for respect, consideration, kindness, and generosity towards others despite their race, ethnicity, gender, or disability.”
This definition elides the modern origins of the term, which lie in totalitarian attempts to own language, and thus to dominate culture and ultimately the mechanisms of power.
For the letter writer, “political correctness” may equate to simply being civil — and certainly we could all use a little more of that. The problem is that, in its fundamental nature, political correctness is not about being civil — it’s about control. The term in its modern context appeared in the 1920s and ’30s, used by Socialists, who decried Communists’ adherence to ideology and the party line at the expense of truth. For a true believer, the value of a line of discourse was determined not by being factually correct, but by whether it was politically correct and served the Party’s ends.
“Political correctness” is not a bogeyman invented by the political right. It is manifested in speech codes and militant efforts to shut down dissent from the dominant culture on college campuses. I can attest to this. I graduated in 1987 with a degree in history from the University of California, Santa Cruz, which was an early adopter of the pernicious shackling of discourse that has since percolated across the nation.
My area of specialty, then and now, was frontier history. It became immediately apparent that my Native American History class was not about the study of history — it was an exercise in ideological agitprop for ardent adherents of a leftist, “anti‐colonial” ideology. This went far beyond a valid and much‐needed corrective to triumphalist mainstream history, presenting an anti‐historical and simplistic mirroring of an old morality play, caricaturing First Nations people as “victims” and white settlers as “oppressors.” I pushed back on that — and a handful of students petitioned to have me removed from the class.
It didn’t matter that my arguments were well‐supported, sourced, and factually accurate. They disrupted the desired ideological arc of the class and vigorous presentation “intimidated” students. My position and my mode of presentation were not “politically correct.” In those times, the university stood up for open and vigorous discourse and the petition was tossed aside without consideration. In 2018, I suspect the outcome would have been different.
Some campus manifestations of PC were amusing — such as the insistence on spelling “Women” as “Womyn” or “Wymyn” (as in, “no men in womyn”). Well, OK. But it just looks like Welsh.
The political right has its own PC proclivities, sometimes as risible as the “no men in womyn” thing. Who can forget the 2003 effort to rename French fries “Freedom Fries” because the French didn’t climb on board with the invasion of Iraq?
And “political correctness” is by no means the only threat to the kind of vigorous discourse that is the vital life’s blood of a republic. President Trump is also tapping totalitarian roots when he decries the press as “enemies of the people.” Nice Bolshevik turn of phrase there. I’ve had experience with that sort of thinking, too, receiving death threats after a March 2003 Nugget editorial in opposition to the invasion of Iraq.
Yes, we should eschew the sort of boorishness on the part of the president identified in last week’s letter. But we should be wary of any attempt to shut down certain types of speech, even (especially) speech that makes us feel uncomfortable. Whether the cry is “Fake News!” or a squeal of outrage in PC grievance theater, the goal is to silence others and control the discourse.
Whether it comes from the left or the right, it is an authoritarian impulse, inimical to liberty and it should be resisted wherever it is found.
Vladimir Lenin demanded political correctness — and liked to categorize opponents as “enemies of the people.”
On the one hand, I make a pretty good effort to use the adjectives that people prefer when describing them. On the other hand, the stuff going down with NASCAR driver Conor Daly right now is absolutely absurd. But looking at the way things move these days, especially on social media, dropping Daly is the smart business move for his sponsors.
I sometimes wonder if the movement towards political correctness has less to do with what underprivileged people want than it does with giving otherwise‐priviliged white academics and students something to distract them from what they see as their own guilt. Meanwhile, kids are dying in family detention in Texas. I’m so glad we’re focusing on the important issues.
X‐ring. It’s about signaling virtue, not about doing anything substantive to improve anybody’s condition.
As for adjectives — a clerk at one of my favorite indie book stores in Bend has now chosen to be a woman. I have no problem calling her what she prefers to be called. She made a polite request, which I am happy to honor out of individual respect. It’s not compelled behavior, which is what gets up my nose.
OK, I had to look up the Conor Daly flap. That is absolutely nuts. Punished for sins of the father? Sins that allegedly occurred 30 years ago and may have been innocuous in intent? Serves no purpose but to allow a sponsor to preen about their purported moral purity. Disgusting behavior.
It’s pretty nuts when you get right down to it. If anything, it seems like his dad should be commended for making a mistake once, apologizing and saying he’d never do it again, and then apparently never doing it again.
The “compelled behavior” is the part that gets me as well, especially when those doing the compelling are speaking for groups of people they have no business speaking for.
Seems like everything is about control. Home owners associations, speech codes, PTA’s, local, state and the federal government. Where does it stop? I just want to be left alone.
The RIR spirit animal is the badger. Just leave us alone and quit sticking your arm down my badgerhole and we’ll get along OK.
The thing about political correctness being about respect and consideration falls apart when the political correct show no respect or consideration for those of a different opinion. People who are easy to offend are often the rudest people. I know because I worked customer service jobs.
That said this is no way limited to those on the left. Trump is easy to offend too. We also are not living in an era of obsequious politeness either. We live in an era of over the top rudeness. Last election we had to choose between Trump who calls people “losers” and Clinton who calls them “deplorables.” (Which I don’t think should be even used as a noun.)
Jim,
I seem to remember that your response to the petition to have you removed from the Native American History class was to show up later in a tee shirt proclaiming “Peace Through Superior Firepower”. Why would the bleeding hearts possibly be intimidated by your presence? Try that today, and it wouldn’t be just the students that would be up in arms. Whoa… can we still use the expression “up in arms”?!
Bro John
True story.
You need re‐education, Comrade. Off to gulag! 🙂
To quote Waylon:
“They tried to run us off, but Willie’s slow
And I quit running a long time ago…”
My previous wisenheimer comment aside, you are absolutely correct. It’s all about control. I don’t have much patience with political correctness. And the way it’s gotten now, I sometimes wonder if the world has lost its ever‐loving mind.
Yes. Yes, it has…
“The political right has its own PC proclivities, sometimes as risible as the “no men in womyn” thing. Who can forget the 2003 effort to rename French fries “Freedom Fries” because the French didn’t climb on board with the invasion of Iraq?”
Don’t forget the right wing freakout over NFL players kneeling during the national anthem because its disrespecting the the troops or something because the military needs their sensitive feelings protected 24/7
I mostly keep my head down politically — don’t want to fight with friends, don’t want to discombobulate people, want to maintain conversations on stuff I like -, but it’s getting harder and harder. The assault on anything that doesn’t remain within wherever the boundaries are today just keeps getting more and more intense. Civility and respect need to be a two‐way street to have any validity, but that’s not what’s being demanded from either side anymore.
What’s really frustrating to me personally is that people insist on forcing discourse into a political channel. I have VERY limited interest in politics per se, and, as you all know, no affiliation. Yet it’s hard to have a conversation about culture, events, history, etc., without people turning it into some sort of ideological or partisan litmus test. People I’ve never met immediately start conversations about Trump — it’s their frame of reference for how they see a person. That’s nuts on every level.
.…and if you don’t remove yer appendage, we might just rip it off! An EXCELLENT totem for RIR! Be careful–you grab a badger, it can turn in it’s loose skin and do you some damage!
Some examples I point out to people who seem to think “political correctness” and doing right by people are the same thing(which they most assuredly are not!)–it was politically correct in the antebellum South to keep and sell slaves. It was politically correct in Nazi Germany to persecute and exterminate Jews and other ethnics. That always puts a whole ‘nuther perspective on folks’ ideas about political correctness!
Yes — absolutely.