Skip to main content

Politeness, Political Correctness & Censorship

In "1984" George Orwell created the idea that the way we express ourselves has a fundamental effect on the way we also view the world. In the world of Newspeak, bad things could not be permitted, they could only be ungood. In such a way, the party restricted the ability of the individual to dissent. If the idea of dissent could not be expressed, then the very concept of opposition to the party line became impossible.

In recent years the idea of political correctness has gained much traction in the way we talk about the world. Ideas deemed to be socially unacceptable- discrimination on the basis of race, creed, sex, sexual preference and so on- are to be eliminated by the use of carefully proscribed norms. Sometimes the earnestness of this exercise seems faintly comic, and at times "politically correct" has become a term of abuse.

I have generally been tolerant of politically correct language, on the basis that it is a matter of politeness to address a person or a group in the way that they feel most comfortable. Increasingly, however, I have grown more uncomfortable with the idea that the wrong words can justify violence. Words like Nigger, which once had general currency, have become completely taboo- and given the historic loading on that word, it is a matter of politeness not to use it to describe another human being. Where one does so, it is usually deliberately offensive. Yet the net of political correctness now spreads far wider than this, and even the social norms that determine what is or is not offensive can not necessarily agree as to the right term. Yet, even where there is such doubt, the boundaries of what is acceptable are guarded with a vigour that often seems to match Orwell's own Thought Police.

And this is where I must not merely part company with the politically correct, but oppose them. The intensity with which some would wish to clamp down on free expression- or at least free expression with which they disagree- is often quite shocking. A free society must allow dissent. The network of lobbying and sinecure jobs as political officers has created a large economic clientele for the new industry of political correctness, but the fundamental foundation is not in support of politeness, but is support of proscription. Bans and stern punishments are the basis for this industry. Things are not merely deemed unacceptable as a societal norm, but as a political imperative. It is a very short step to get to the use of language as a political weapon- precisely what Orwell warns us against with Newspeak.

Then there is the question of who decides what is and is not acceptable?

In general, again as a matter of politeness, I have been content to follow what the distinct groups prefer that they should be known as. This has sometimes changed. For example, Self-identifying homosexual groups have used "Gay", "LGBT"- as part of a wider group of sexual minorities- or even "Queer", as a dissenting academic construct. All, even the last, may be deemed inoffensive, depending on context.

"Aye, there's the rub": context.

The fact is that even using what we must now refer to as the N-word, as I did above, is a matter of context- almost all language is. So the idea that we must obey some iron rules as to how we express ourselves is not only wrong, it is actually dangerous.

I choose to avoid language which I think might cause offence, but I can not support condemning those who do not choose politeness rather than confrontation. Like Voltaire, I may not approve of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.

Recently I have encountered American students who have been completely indoctrinated with the "politically correct" concept of language proscription- it is a humourless and neurotic world in which they live.

At my school it was "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me", in the US, such a blase approach seems impossible- and that is the beginning of the end of free discourse if such ideas infect the world beyond the campus gate.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Post Truth and Justice

The past decade has seen the rise of so-called "post truth" politics.  Instead of mere misrepresentation of facts to serve an argument, political figures began to put forward arguments which denied easily provable facts, and then blustered and browbeat those who pointed out the lie.  The political class was able to get away with "post truth" positions because the infrastructure that reported their activity has been suborned directly into the process. In short, the media abandoned long-cherished traditions of objectivity and began a slow slide into undeclared bias and partisanship.  The "fourth estate" was always a key piece of how democratic societies worked, since the press, and later the broadcast media could shape opinion by the way they reported on the political process. As a result there has never been a golden age of objective media, but nevertheless individual reporters acquired better or worse reputations for the quality of their reporting and

We need to talk about UK corruption

After a long hiatus, mostly to do with indolence and partly to do with the general election campaign, I feel compelled to take up the metaphorical pen and make a few comments on where I see the situation of the UK in the aftermath of the "Brexit election". OK, so we lost.  We can blame many reasons, though fundamentally the Conservatives refused to make the mistakes of 2017 and Labour and especially the Liberal Democrats made every mistake that could be made.  Indeed the biggest mistake of all was allowing Johnson to hold the election at all, when another six months would probably have eaten the Conservative Party alive.  It was Jo Swinson's first, but perhaps most critical, mistake to make, and from it came all the others.  The flow of defectors and money persuaded the Liberal Democrat bunker that an election could only be better for the Lib Dems, and as far as votes were concerned, the party did indeed increase its vote by 1.3 million.   BUT, and it really is the bi

Breaking the Brexit logjam

The fundamental problem of Brexit has not been that the UK voted to leave the European Union. The problem has been the fact that the vote was hijacked by ignorant, grandstanding fools who interpreted the vote as a will to sever all and every link between the UK and the European Union. That was then and is now a catastrophic policy. To default to WTO rules, when any member of the WTO could stop that policy was a recipe for the UK to be held hostage by any state with an act to grind against us. A crash out from the EU, without any structure to cope, was an act of recklessness that should disqualify anyone advocating it from any position of power whatsoever. That is now the most likely option because the Conservative leadership, abetted by the cowardly extremism of Corbyn, neither understood the scale of the crisis, now had any vision of how to tackle it. Theresa May is a weak and hapless Prime Minster, and her problems started when she failed to realize that there was a compromise that