In 2022, where do you stand with regard to political correctness? Has it gone far enough? Is it a sacred cow? Does anyone have the right — or courage — to counter it in public? What place is there for an imperfect opinion?
This 2018 Munk Debate makes for good viewing of a lively debate featuring Stephen Fry & Dr Jordan Peterson (con) versus Michael Eric Dyson and Michelle Goldberg (pro) on the resolution: "What you call political correctness, I call progress…"
What’s your take? I would love to have a conversation in the open on this!
I don’t see political correctness as the problem. It’s more a result of the underlying issue which I see as intolerance of others, driven by a belief that one’s individual view of the world is morally superior and infallible. A proposition that is wrong on every level.
Indeed. Sometimes it's about pointing out unintended insensitivity than necessarily intentional intolerance. In any event, to your point, no one has total dominion over what is morally superior. For example, different cultures have different approaches.
Certainly in the UK, my experience of the term 'political correctness', and more recent terms such as 'cancel culture', is that it most often ends up being the basis for a strawman argument by people who don't like that they can no longer behave unpleasantly towards others without consequence. The terms tend to be used to whip up a storm by particular parts of the political spectrum for political reasons, regardless of whether there's anything of substance at the root.
There's a frustrating, deliberate and dangerous conflation of two things: on the one hand you have freedom of speech, which is a complex thing, and worth fighting for, and also something which is fragile and awkward and can only really exist in a push-pull relationship with society itself. On the other hand you have being an arsehole. The deliberate merging and obfuscation of those two things is where you run into trouble and discussion breaks down. That's the strawman.
To take the most common example, someone being unpleasant and being uninvited from an event isn't 'cancel culture' or 'political correctness gone mad'. It's not censorship, either (although social media platforms have muddied the waters here due to their immense scale). But the argument is over-simplified and reduced down to these handy catchphrases, which certain tabloids can fling around without ever having to define or evidence them.
In short: I'm deeply suspicious of anyone who uses the term 'political correctness' or 'cancel culture', because they're used as emotional weapons rather than as useful descriptors. Their very invocation suggests an agenda is at play. (present company excluded... :P )
YES SIMON. there are so many words and phrases that have become shorthand that no longer means what it means - if that makes sense. Over here, “critical race theory” and “woke” are two that have started being thrown around to encompass a thing that they’re not - and then the argument becomes about the language rather than the substance and no one ever gets anywhere. Maybe you should join me and Reena and Minter in our discussion of the perils of conversing these days.
Language evolves naturally, of course, but it does feel that in the last decade there has been a more concerted effort to deliberately co-opt and warp words and phrases. Often to undermine particular parts of society, or to try to neuter particular movements.
Another concept that has been prominent in the way that words are used has been a form of deconstructionism where words can be evaluated free of context. As a result, we no longer can be sure of what the intention was.
I got caught using hearsay the other day. V embarrassing since I thought the source (a civil servant) was bona fide. Afterwards I was unable to find any proof. So had to go back to my friend with my tail between my legs.
Simon, thank you for your comment and yes, it's intentional to bring up "cans of worms" that need to be opened! In Jon Haidt's book, The Coddling of the American Mind, there is much written on the topic of the purpose of education. I believe that, in ironing out what education is to provide to its students (as well as the broader community and society), we might be able to move this debate forward.
The problem is political correctness instead of being a force for good, which is what its most ardent supporters claim, has become nothing short of a gag order. Speak freely to simply have a discussion and risk it all - your reputation, place in society, even your livelihood. So most people now speak freely only within trusted groups. Because the liberal notion of free inquiry, open discussion and honest, agenda-free intellectual pursuit of ideas is lost in the new regime of political correctness and its uglier cousin wokeness. I can't think of more illiberal notions and the idea that conservatives today are the gatekeepers of freedom of speech leaves me...well...speechless!
Your point reminds me about how back to front our political parties can seem... And, to a degree, how confusing LEFT and RIGHT has become. I feel that a two-party system has a tendency to reinforce a binary view of the world -- with little room for nuance or cooperation. That's not to say that I relish the 10+ party system in France, for example. To add to the situation, it seems that universities have stopped being places where wide debate is formally encouraged.
I am up for taking the risk of sharing my views on how we can help political correctness become the transformation and progress it could be in the future… tolerance, openness, the ability to listen/hear and the willingness to be open to being wrong and to change are key parts of this.. let’s do it soon..? J
Love it. Thanks John for sharing. The question I think that needs discussion is around shaping what we mean by progress. If we could bounce around on that concept and get some form of mutual understanding, might that not be a good starting point?
Given the likely difficult economic times ahead, where resources will be strained, I anticipate that the notion(s) of progress will end up being reformed...
I believe it’s important to be mindful of the different groups and classifications so that not to offend, however, I don’t agree with the extremes and force of political correctness. I believe it brings more chaos. If one does not agree with, for example, the movement BLM and that rather feel all lives matter, the individuals should not be “canceled” nor considered a racist. For me that is extreme and if that is considered political correctness, I would love to see another solution/approach to solve world issues.
full article in PDF if you are not a subscriber but there is no file attach function here
Extract :
Il a été un des premiers, en étudiant les mœurs américaines, à comprendre que l’individualisme anomique de nos sociétés démocratiques les conduirait à de nouvelles formes de tyrannie: un conformisme intolérant, encore plus féroce car inculte, sans nuance, agissant au nom même de la tolérance. Le visage pur et glacial du «camp du Bien».
«Dans les sociétés démocratiques, écrit-il dans un texte qui résonne si fortement aujourd’hui, la tyrannie de l’opinion ne frappe pas le corps (comme l’absolutisme), elle va droit à l’âme. Elle dit: vous êtes libre de ne point penser ainsi que moi ; votre vie, vos biens, tout vous reste ; mais de ce jour, vous êtes un étranger parmi nous. […] Vous resterez parmi les hommes mais vous perdrez vos droits à l’humanité. Quand vous vous approcherez de vos semblables, ils vous fuiront comme un être impur ; et ceux qui croient à votre innocence, ceux-là mêmes vous abandonneront car on les fuirait à leur tour. Allez en paix, je vous laisse la vie, mais je vous la laisse pire que la mort.»
I thought I'd provide a translation for those who'd like to read in English your comment Jean-Louis (and an extract from de Tocqueville's words):
[De Tocqueville] was one of the first people, studying American mores, to understand that the anomic [socially unstable] individualism of our democratic societies would lead them to new forms of tyranny: an intolerant conformism, even more ferocious because uneducated, without nuance, and acting in the very name of tolerance. The pure and icy face of the “camp of Good”.
“In democratic societies, he wrote in a text that resonates so strongly today, the tyranny of opinion does not strike the body (like absolutism), it goes straight to the soul. This tyranny says: you are free not to think as I do; your life, your goods, everything remains with you; but from this day forward you are a stranger among us. […] You will remain among men but you will lose your rights to humanity. When you approach your fellow men, they will flee from you like an impure being; and those who believe in your innocence, those same people will abandon you because they'd be abandoned in their turn. Go in peace, I leave your life to you, but I leave it to you worse than death.”
I avoid political correctness and speak freely. See Wikipedia: In the early-to-mid 20th century, the phrase politically correct was used to describe strict adherence to a range of ideological orthodoxies within politics. In 1934, The New York Times reported that Nazi Germany was granting reporting permits "only to pure 'Aryans' whose opinions are politically correct".[2]
I don’t see political correctness as the problem. It’s more a result of the underlying issue which I see as intolerance of others, driven by a belief that one’s individual view of the world is morally superior and infallible. A proposition that is wrong on every level.
Indeed. Sometimes it's about pointing out unintended insensitivity than necessarily intentional intolerance. In any event, to your point, no one has total dominion over what is morally superior. For example, different cultures have different approaches.
Can of worms, Minter. :)
Certainly in the UK, my experience of the term 'political correctness', and more recent terms such as 'cancel culture', is that it most often ends up being the basis for a strawman argument by people who don't like that they can no longer behave unpleasantly towards others without consequence. The terms tend to be used to whip up a storm by particular parts of the political spectrum for political reasons, regardless of whether there's anything of substance at the root.
There's a frustrating, deliberate and dangerous conflation of two things: on the one hand you have freedom of speech, which is a complex thing, and worth fighting for, and also something which is fragile and awkward and can only really exist in a push-pull relationship with society itself. On the other hand you have being an arsehole. The deliberate merging and obfuscation of those two things is where you run into trouble and discussion breaks down. That's the strawman.
To take the most common example, someone being unpleasant and being uninvited from an event isn't 'cancel culture' or 'political correctness gone mad'. It's not censorship, either (although social media platforms have muddied the waters here due to their immense scale). But the argument is over-simplified and reduced down to these handy catchphrases, which certain tabloids can fling around without ever having to define or evidence them.
In short: I'm deeply suspicious of anyone who uses the term 'political correctness' or 'cancel culture', because they're used as emotional weapons rather than as useful descriptors. Their very invocation suggests an agenda is at play. (present company excluded... :P )
YES SIMON. there are so many words and phrases that have become shorthand that no longer means what it means - if that makes sense. Over here, “critical race theory” and “woke” are two that have started being thrown around to encompass a thing that they’re not - and then the argument becomes about the language rather than the substance and no one ever gets anywhere. Maybe you should join me and Reena and Minter in our discussion of the perils of conversing these days.
You're so right Nicci. There has been a battle for words (and, more broadly, to sculpt the narrative).
Language evolves naturally, of course, but it does feel that in the last decade there has been a more concerted effort to deliberately co-opt and warp words and phrases. Often to undermine particular parts of society, or to try to neuter particular movements.
Another concept that has been prominent in the way that words are used has been a form of deconstructionism where words can be evaluated free of context. As a result, we no longer can be sure of what the intention was.
Yes, and folks don’t know what a primary source is anymore nor do they bother seeking them out.
I got caught using hearsay the other day. V embarrassing since I thought the source (a civil servant) was bona fide. Afterwards I was unable to find any proof. So had to go back to my friend with my tail between my legs.
Simon, thank you for your comment and yes, it's intentional to bring up "cans of worms" that need to be opened! In Jon Haidt's book, The Coddling of the American Mind, there is much written on the topic of the purpose of education. I believe that, in ironing out what education is to provide to its students (as well as the broader community and society), we might be able to move this debate forward.
The problem is political correctness instead of being a force for good, which is what its most ardent supporters claim, has become nothing short of a gag order. Speak freely to simply have a discussion and risk it all - your reputation, place in society, even your livelihood. So most people now speak freely only within trusted groups. Because the liberal notion of free inquiry, open discussion and honest, agenda-free intellectual pursuit of ideas is lost in the new regime of political correctness and its uglier cousin wokeness. I can't think of more illiberal notions and the idea that conservatives today are the gatekeepers of freedom of speech leaves me...well...speechless!
Your point reminds me about how back to front our political parties can seem... And, to a degree, how confusing LEFT and RIGHT has become. I feel that a two-party system has a tendency to reinforce a binary view of the world -- with little room for nuance or cooperation. That's not to say that I relish the 10+ party system in France, for example. To add to the situation, it seems that universities have stopped being places where wide debate is formally encouraged.
Ranked choice voting. Get rid of the extremes that are driving both sides.
I am up for taking the risk of sharing my views on how we can help political correctness become the transformation and progress it could be in the future… tolerance, openness, the ability to listen/hear and the willingness to be open to being wrong and to change are key parts of this.. let’s do it soon..? J
Love it. Thanks John for sharing. The question I think that needs discussion is around shaping what we mean by progress. If we could bounce around on that concept and get some form of mutual understanding, might that not be a good starting point?
Progress and whether or not it is desirable. I think there’s not universal agreement on that.
Given the likely difficult economic times ahead, where resources will be strained, I anticipate that the notion(s) of progress will end up being reformed...
I believe it’s important to be mindful of the different groups and classifications so that not to offend, however, I don’t agree with the extremes and force of political correctness. I believe it brings more chaos. If one does not agree with, for example, the movement BLM and that rather feel all lives matter, the individuals should not be “canceled” nor considered a racist. For me that is extreme and if that is considered political correctness, I would love to see another solution/approach to solve world issues.
I appreciate the nuance you bring to this Denise!
can we add something to Mr Alexis de Tocqueville's thinking 175 years ago
https://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/alexis-de-tocqueville-la-tyrannie-de-l-individualisme-et-du-conformisme-20220715
full article in PDF if you are not a subscriber but there is no file attach function here
Extract :
Il a été un des premiers, en étudiant les mœurs américaines, à comprendre que l’individualisme anomique de nos sociétés démocratiques les conduirait à de nouvelles formes de tyrannie: un conformisme intolérant, encore plus féroce car inculte, sans nuance, agissant au nom même de la tolérance. Le visage pur et glacial du «camp du Bien».
«Dans les sociétés démocratiques, écrit-il dans un texte qui résonne si fortement aujourd’hui, la tyrannie de l’opinion ne frappe pas le corps (comme l’absolutisme), elle va droit à l’âme. Elle dit: vous êtes libre de ne point penser ainsi que moi ; votre vie, vos biens, tout vous reste ; mais de ce jour, vous êtes un étranger parmi nous. […] Vous resterez parmi les hommes mais vous perdrez vos droits à l’humanité. Quand vous vous approcherez de vos semblables, ils vous fuiront comme un être impur ; et ceux qui croient à votre innocence, ceux-là mêmes vous abandonneront car on les fuirait à leur tour. Allez en paix, je vous laisse la vie, mais je vous la laisse pire que la mort.»
I thought I'd provide a translation for those who'd like to read in English your comment Jean-Louis (and an extract from de Tocqueville's words):
[De Tocqueville] was one of the first people, studying American mores, to understand that the anomic [socially unstable] individualism of our democratic societies would lead them to new forms of tyranny: an intolerant conformism, even more ferocious because uneducated, without nuance, and acting in the very name of tolerance. The pure and icy face of the “camp of Good”.
“In democratic societies, he wrote in a text that resonates so strongly today, the tyranny of opinion does not strike the body (like absolutism), it goes straight to the soul. This tyranny says: you are free not to think as I do; your life, your goods, everything remains with you; but from this day forward you are a stranger among us. […] You will remain among men but you will lose your rights to humanity. When you approach your fellow men, they will flee from you like an impure being; and those who believe in your innocence, those same people will abandon you because they'd be abandoned in their turn. Go in peace, I leave your life to you, but I leave it to you worse than death.”
I avoid political correctness and speak freely. See Wikipedia: In the early-to-mid 20th century, the phrase politically correct was used to describe strict adherence to a range of ideological orthodoxies within politics. In 1934, The New York Times reported that Nazi Germany was granting reporting permits "only to pure 'Aryans' whose opinions are politically correct".[2]
Those are most startling (and shining) examples of how PC is not always what it's cut out to be, eh?