political correctness is just alright with me

Prof. Alan Wolfe recently commented on Bernard Henri-Levy's new book on America -- which copies Tocqueville's approach to America -- saying that one of the things he liked about it was that the author did not dismiss out of hand "political correctness" as a cultural movement in America.  Go here for more.

I don't think Prof. Wolfe is a big friend of political correctness -- though I don't know that for a fact -- but he (so it seems to me) thinks it is important enough of a cultural phenomenon not to be just simply dismissed with scorn.  But enough trying to characterize Wolfe's view, which should be left to him anyway.  Let's take his implicit challenge seriously.  What is the "balance sheet" of political correctness? How much 'good' has it caused and how much 'evil'?  Here we have this contested term -- political correctness -- and my question is:  What would it look like to do a serious intellectual, cultural, and social inventory, as opposed to a merely partisan and polemical one?  I'm sure we all hope there's a difference between those two modes!

What is political correctness?  Political correctness *focuses on the power implications of language*.  Let's take a simple example.  In American culture of the 1960s, referring to a woman as a 'chick' was unexceptional.  But let's note immediately: not in all cases would 'chick' be acceptable, even then.  When Eddie, from "Leave it to Beaver," talks to his friends' mother, he calls her "Mrs. Cleaver."  He would never have called her chick.

And this is the first point:  "Political correctness is not sui generis."  In fact, there have always been 'words' or phrases that could not be used (in a socially correct way) with reference to some people. Even those who pride themselves on being "politically incorrect" stop themselves voluntarily when it comes to certain usages.  But long before the term 'political correctness' entered the vocabulary, there were all sorts of "can do's" and "can't do's" ruling social interaction.

But there is a difference when this privileging or delegitimation of terms 'comes to consciousness.'  "Political correctness" is the term that is given to the power affects of language that has become self-conscious.  And that's the second point.

Which leads to the third:  there is no way of getting away  from political correctness.  There is this or that iteration of political correctness; the phenomenon itself cannot be wished away.  It's like Freudianism: we may not like it that a huge influence on our conscious decision-making pulses from a non-conscious realm over which we have no control, but that's the way it is.  It's not as if God died yesterday. It's been a while.  Achievements in self-consciousness about the un-self-conscious origins of our self-consciousness cannot be merely, wilfully, dismissed on the grounds that "hey, it's really important that there be a unified subject, or else fascism might happen!" Achievements in self-understanding (socially speaking) cannot be wished away -- much less condemned -- because they have dangerous "side-effects."

There have always been terms, words, that are more or less acceptable, depending on social context.  Plenty of places today where you can do just fine using the word 'chick'!  No one will say a word! But in the "broader culture" this is a no-no.

And so is it a good thing that the "broader culture" restricts terms and words.  Every single thoughtless critic of political correctness would  be forced to admit this.  Easily forced.  All one has to do is say, "Does your criticism of political correctness include the unspoken, but certainly effective, stricture against making Jewish jokes?"  I just looked on the internet for what must have been something like, I don't know, 1.8 seconds and found nothing but the most innocuous jokes about Jews.  If there had been an internet in 1965, which there wasn't, and you could do a search of Jewish jokes, who wants to bet they would have been a lot less innocuous?

I was in Poland recently conquering yet new territory for my Alma Mater, and one of the issues that came up by chance was: Polish jokes. My hosts were right: there used to be incredibly vicious and degrading Polish jokes out there, and now that kind of joke has kind of vanished. You just don't hear a lot of people breaking up the dinner party with a lovely, degrading Polish joke -- or Jewish one for that matter.  "What happened?," I asked our hosts?  They mentioned a number of factors, but one of them was:  Political Correctness.  That movement made it much more difficult for comics and others to routinely slander the Polish nation. And what is that if not Political Correctness?

Comments

[Craig]

Is it not possible that these gains (the disappearance Jewish or Polish or Blonde jokes) have merely been sublimated or displaced elsewhere? It seems (and I'm on Tyra Banks' side here) that the disgusting racism against Jews, African-Americans, or women has been displaced onto (into?) a disgusting racism against the fat -- especially those who are poor. In other words, could not the 'protection' of certain groups with respect to certain words and sentiments just not re-appear in another form with respect to other groups? To put it another way, is a change in language an index of actual shifting expressions of racism, sexism, classism, etc? Or yet in another way, is it possible that these hatreds are functionally necessary -- regardless of the object to which they are directed?

[John S. Ransom]

Thank you, Craig, for your insightful and valuable comments, not that anyone needs me to validate what they say. But what I like about them is that they take the premise of the discussion seriously: namely, what is the balance sheet of political correctness?

But let's take the issue of fatness. I have a wonderful colleague working on just this issue, namely, how is 'fat' mobilized in America's culture. When I go to the Wal-Mart in my home town and see a bunch of fat people using electrically charged wheelchair devices to cruise the aisles for pringles and whatnot, judgmental thoughts come into my mind. "They should be walking," I say to myself. "It would be good for them. There's plenty of time for sedentary activities later. A trip to the grocery store is a good time to get a little walking in." Against this spontaneous prejudice (not for that reason mistaken) others have written: for instance "The Obesity Myth: Why America's Obsession with Weight is Hazardous to Your Health" by Paul Campos.

Craig's point, if I understand it right, is that the "total amount" of oppressive signs do not change, but merely shifts from here to there, from group to group, total quantity remaining stable. Yesterday it was loose women, today it is fat people. But even if we grant this absolutist equivalence, it surely is significant that the cultural signposts change! The whole women's movement was a movement designed to re-value the cultural contents of certain signs. Think Mary Tyler Moore. Let's say it was true that the discriminatory 'id energy' behind degrading women was partially transferred to fat people. (We say 'partially' because we're not to kid ourselves that rampant discrimination, violence, and psychological degradation against women at all socio-economic levels does not still exist.) Even if that were true, *there would still be value* in chasing discriminatory and Othering attitudes from one realm to another. We have them on the run!, is one way to think about it.

[Jodi]

John,

I like this expression very much:

"Political correctness" is the term that is given to the power effects of language that has become self-conscious.

It makes me think of the movie The Aristocrats (have you seen it? it's based on the comedians telling the same joke over and over to see who can say it the most obscene way). One of the interesting aspects of the film is the way it can compel members of the audience to find their limit point, the point that should not be passed, the point where political correctness kicks in. So, I was fine with mocking the victims of 9/11 but not fine with a version that was racist against blacks; some of my friends were fine with everything until the obscene jokes were told by people holding small children.

Craig, if John's formulation is right, then we might have the following: there is no language that is outside or beyond power (and here all the Agambenians freak out); political correctness, then, is a consciousness of the effects of power; as power formations shift, there will likely be corresponding shifts in consciousness; but, there won't be anything like a fundamental overcoming of power as long as we are linguistic beings. To me, that is more precise than saying that racism is simply transferred or displaced.

[Craig]

John - it isn't so much that I hypothesize an 'absolute amount of hatred', but rather a necessary division within the social. The role of ideology, then, is to cover up that division. The cleavages may be more (class, race, gender) or less important (fat, stupid, uncouth)... if this is right (and I'm not prepared to argue in detail that it is!), then even if one division is covered up or resolved (or moderately resolved), it still stands to reason that a new one will appear or an old one will re-surface. To that extent, the ideological function itself is absolute and always present, but possibly in greater or lesser intensity. People have been killed for their race, gender or sexual orientation, but, to the best of my knowledge, there has not been a (well-publicized?) case of someone being beaten to death for being fat.

If this is correct, I think it raises two questions: is language a reflection of a real change (i.e., if we don't have sexist jokes anymore -- or at least less frequently -- does that mean that we don't have sexism anymore)? does language act as an index of cleavage (i.e., want to know what a real division in the social is: listen to a joke)?

Jodi - I don't mean to suggest that there isn't a strong relationship between language and power, but my question is more to the effect of what sort of index or marker is language for power? With respect to sexism, I think we can say two things: there has been a real gain for women relative to men respective to, say, Mary Tyler Moore. We can look to a number of 'real' things (wages, opportunities, etc) and we can look to a number of 'imaginary' things (jokes, etc). However, I don't think anyone wants to say that sexism has disappeared or is a non-issue. If blonde jokes have been mostly destroyed by political correctness, it doesn't seem to follow that sexism has likewise been destroyed. Rather, it seems that expressions of sexism (or racism, or whatever) have merely become more subtle.

[Matt]

Oh God, more BH-L. Now there's a genre that deserves all the ridicule one could possibly muster. But best refrain from comparisons, I suppose. There are exceptions after all. Actually that first review/letter strikes me as fair (the second may begin even better, though it rapidly deteriorates.)

Craig, more subtle and more extreme both, certainly (and also in relation - or two sides of the same coin if we take the 'leninist' riffing on the more patient critique of an inadequate liberal 'tolerance' seriously...?) But are you saying we're all still racists, despite the (alleged) gains in sensitivity to language? (I wanted to write "within language" just there, but so often "political correctness," as popularly cited, seems to emphasize, if not fetishize language precisely as something exterior.) It strikes me that such gains would still beg to be measured within the context of a more immediately damaging backlash, if quantity is even the right measure here..

Anyway, certainly appreciate your points, John. But if we are to take the proposal of an "inventory" seriously, aren't you bound to consider how "political correctness" is only one (increasingly mantrized, demonized, polemicized, and so increasingly counter-productive) manner of describing, or temporarily pidgeonholing what is in fact an ongoing and dynamic process of...awakening within language (not to put too warm a spin on it), stuff equally of the enlightenment and an emancipatory ideal? It seems to me these larger stakes beg to be made explicit, though I can understand the stategy, I think, behind keeping them implicit, at least for now, even if this strategy feigns a bit of ignorance about its own polemicism..

You hint at this ongoing process, of course, one that some (impatient) may like to pretend is stuck in a sort of permanent infancy (either that or self-destructive, self-destroyed):

It's not as if God died yesterday. It's been a while. Achievements in self-consciousness about the un-self-conscious origins of our self-consciousness cannot be merely, wilfully, dismissed on the grounds that "hey, it's really important that there be a unified subject, or else fascism might happen!"

I personally think it would be a disastrous stretch to call this a breach of Godwin's law, though some might feign colossal offense, and try.

Jodi, that's a fitting connection to "The Aristocrats." I've been watching some old Andy Kaufman (and Lenny Bruce) clips lately, which maybe touch on similar, refreshing yet provocatively un-funny themes. As for the "freak[ing] out", can I just register tangentially here a vague skepticism that it is really the 'outside' Agamben pursues that is anywhere conclusively dealt with by Foucault (or anyone else)? Thanks.

[Scott Eric Kaufman]

Quick comment: One thing political correctness has done is create language communities largely organized around the ability to be politically incorrect without fearing chastizement. So John, when you googled for Jewish jokes, one fo the reasons you didn't find many of the sort you expected is that they aren't posted for the whole world to read, but on group message boards not tracked by Google. (Most of the big forum providers like phpBP allow sites to be privatized, to exist outside of Google's reach.) And as someone who puttered about some Southern sites a few months back (after Katrina), I can tell you that the hardcore politically incorrect jokes you're looking for are alive and well and still in heavy rotation.

[Tim Neale]

The UK has no constitutional guarantee to free speech. The negative side of political correctness are painfully obvious here. It is now a criminal offence in the UK to say any thing any one finds offensive.

Some examples are

Muslim leader faces police questioning about 'homophobic' remarks

North Wales Police considering a complaint made against Prime Minister Tony Blair over allegedly using a swear word in relation to Welsh people

Gay magazine in race row after calling Islam a barmy doctrine

A student who called a mounted policeman's horse "gay" arrested and held overnight

You can not eliminate prejudice by outlawing the language it uses. Legislation inspired by political correctness is increasingly being used by groups to attack one another. Far form leading to a more tolerant society it is having the opposite effect.

[Alain]

I have to agree with Scott. "Politically Incorrect" language is a badge of honor for most people I know. I am amazed at how racist and ethnocentric most people (including the "educated") really are. As Craig points out, this may reflect a fundamental division of the social that ideology attempts to conceal. But I also think it comes out in the context of the so called culture wars which reflect a certain ideological displacement of class war. It seems that many discussions of political correctness get entangled in the larger cultural differences between "regular folks" (white working poor and middle class) and the snobby liberal elite that live in the northeast and hollywood. Clearly the latter group (including Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand and Ted Kennedy) do nothing but think of ways to make the rest of our lives miserable. The importance of this mythology for the self understanding of many Americans cannot be overstated. It is a key part of the reason why the conservative movement is so successful.

[Alain]

Just a followup to the last comment - recently in the news there has been some mention paid to the NSA domestic surveillance program. Among the groups being monitored are PETA, GreenPeace, Catholic Workers Alliance, Gay and Lesbian Student groups, Peace activists etc... I suspect that many "mainstream Americans" do not have much sympathy with the views of these groups. Of course this should not matter but I suspect it will influence how important most people think the domestic spying issue really is. Many may feel that these people are "subversives" - not real Americans etc... This may seem tangential to the issue of Political Correctness but I think it reflects the extent to which PC has not established very deep roots in relation to political consciousness.

[Diane]

I have been trying to read articles about the World Council of Churches movement against violence.
Three of the organisations especially involved are Quakers and the Catholic Workers. it is extraordinary, that when I have gone to any of these sites, and tried to connect through links or email to related sites, they all come up with "timed out" messages, and a number never appear at all, even though references to them have been posted in other ways within this month.
Hmmnn....