Politically Correct Poppycock

 

            One does not need the solar perspective to detect absurdity in the debate, or should we say the joke, known as political correctness.  But it does help to see the failings of both sides of what has for the most part been an almost one-sided debate.  No one, it seems, admits to believing in political correctness.  Although the concept itself is very American, there is a much stronger element in the American psyche against being seen to follow such a system of propriety.  We are much more willing to adopt the same "rebel" look as everyone else than stand alone for conformity.  Again and again a writer or speaker will begin with, "no one is less politically correct than I, but" to establish individuality before launching much the same diatribe as another.  Our uniform disdain for this concept of "political correctness" almost suggests it is a straw man, erected by the legions of identical individualists to be knocked down to show our nonconformity.

 

            The absurdity of the "debate" lies both with those whose actions were first labeled "political correctness" and those who do the labeling.  This can most easily be seen in one of the most widely reported events of the debate.  It all started when a number of American colleges and universities established rules of conduct by which students were not to speak, write or otherwise express sexist, racist or ethnically offensive comments to each other.  At one of these schools, a male student objected to several female students of another ethnicity cavorting loudly outside the building where he was trying to study. As part of his vocal objection, he referred to the young ladies as "water buffalo" whereby he was hauled before the "political correctness" authorities who then had to decide whether this constituted a racist, sexist or ethnic insult.

 

The very act of attempting such a distinction supplies the humor for the other side. What purpose is served by such a code of conduct? Mental purity? That is laughable on its face. The only practical purpose is the simple expectation that members of an educational community treat each other with respect and civility. This is a reasonable aim, and should therefore be the rule and its measure. It saves us from the hair-splitting decisions as to whether a particular comment constitutes a forbidden variety of insult. An insult is an insult. To establish certain categories of insults as offenses in effect allows all others. To simply require civil treatment at once covers the intended offenses, plus any not originally thought of, plus it allows one form of rudeness to be measured fairly against another even if the other has no group-specific connotations. Why should the male student's rudeness be the only example brought before the rudeness tribunal? More just would be to consider both his rudeness and the rudeness that provoked it and compare. Highly offensive insults of whatever variety can still rightly be judged, but basic civility should be the measure, not complicated definitions of one or several varieties of insult.

 

            Silly, illogical and even potentially unjust as the political correctness forces may be, the stated opposition has made even less sense.  To try to enforce rules against certain types of insult rather than promote general civility may be impractical, but to deny the desirability of opposition to bigotry in the name of individuality is to provide excuse for bigotry.  What does it mean to say, "No one is less politically correct than I."  If political correctness is to avoid racist, sexist and other group-specific insult, then to abstain from political correctness is to indulge in such insult.  To decry "pc" is to defend the offensive.  To be the least "pc" is to be the most bigoted.

 

            So what is right and what is wrong here?  Trying to enforce pc in isolation from other forms of offense is to open it to ridicule.  Both to open it to ridicule, and to ridicule it is to lend strength to the unjust prejudices we all have, and most resist to some degree or other.  One good answer is, if we are to enforce civility within our educational institutions and otherwise, we should do it across the board, including the categories of offense labeled pc among the incivilities we reject.  And at the same time, the anti-pc folks need to give it another look, recognize that there is good pc and nitpicking pc, but that in any event it is more than a joke, much more than, if it is at all, an attack on individuality.  We can be individuals, either as a group or for real, and still maintain a certain level of respect for other different individuals. 

 

            Our joint heritage on this beautiful blue bubble in space calls upon us to rise above the pettiness of insult.  To respect others is to respect ourselves as part of the great whole of which the others are likewise part.  To see beyond the shallow and the transient is to reach for the greatness of all we can be.

 

Back to Table of Contents http://www.solarnation.org/sptoc.htm