Collectively, we’re bored, which is why everyone and his brother is weighing in on Jonathan Chait’s new piece on political correctness. Here, for example, is Jia Tolentino writing at Jezebel:
It is surely not lost on Jonathan Chait that the loudest critics of political correctness have as a matter of tradition been the people who are most accustomed to speaking in whatever manner pleases them without facing social correction—which is to say white men, a group that also often reads being named as such as a hysterical insult proper, despite there being no historical disenfranchisement attached to this identity category, and quite the opposite, of course. But it’s tiresome when people get so damn mouthy, you know what I mean?
I’m a white man, but I still think I know what she means.
On the other hand, Andrew Sullivan loved Chait’s piece, so there is probably something wrong with it beyond embarrassing projection.
I’m not going to try to outwit all the wags who have taken down Chait’s piece. I’ll just point out that I am better person because I no longer use words like “retard, “fag” and “bitch.” Sometimes I want to use those words, not because I am angry but because they have their uses. Often it seems like there are no perfect and innocuous synonyms for them, and a writer (or a comic, I imagine) never likes the feeling that they can’t use the best word because they’ll get shamed and scolded.
A funny thing happens, though, after you spend years not using a word that is needlessly hurtful and provocative. It changes the way you think. Those words lose their allure. They no longer feel like the best available word for what you want to describe. And then you realize that you don’t feel the same way about the groups you used to mock and use as all-weather insults. You’ve become more generous in your thinking. Less judgmental. More self-critical in a good way.
Not only does it feel inappropriate to compare an insufficiently aggressive man to a woman or a homosexual, it feels like it’s less important to be an aggressive man. And, you know, maybe it’s worth it to spend a little more time figuring out a way to call someone stupid than just calling him a retard and thinking that’s so clever.
My point here is that concerted efforts to get people to stop using certain epithets the way they have traditionally been used isn’t just a one-way street of oppression and thought policing. When people stop using those words in the traditional way, they do eventually start to stop thinking in the traditional way.
Now, for an object lesson: think about the word “torture.”
That used to be a bad thing. Everyone agreed.
Then our government tortured people and tried to defend itself, and look what happened.
Now we can’t agree on what the word means or even if it is a naughty thing.
Policing what words mean and how they are used is ultimately a political act, and if the political aim is good, then the effort is justified and likely to yield good results.
My rule: don’t pay torturers and don’t let them try to define away their crimes at commencement speeches or anywhere else.
Frankly, Boo, you’re take – and to a certain degree John Hodgman’s Twitter-essay (that’s a thing?) – are the best critical responses I’ve read.
I think Chait’s “good” point is that liberalism should be about the debate, not the conclusion. Liberalism, as an Enlightenment philosophy is about considering all viewpoints and then applying reason to eliminate those that don’t work or are morally repellent.
Your point about shunning certain words ultimately leading to better thoughts is interesting. In some ways, though, you’re already to a point where you’re ready to agree with the conclusions. You’re ready to agree with the idea that using a female term to describe an “insufficiently aggressive” man is wrong. What about those that need more convincing?
I think the well-documented “tolerance” of the Millenials is a product of the elevation of MLK to secular, American saint. Every January we celebrate his ideas of diversity, inclusion and justice. And that has an effect over time.
Having the debate – in a truly liberal, open-minded way – is an important part of true education. And that makes the decision not to say “fag” in INTERNAL choice not an EXTERNAL mandate. That’s the preferred end-state.
By simply banning the word “fag”, we don’t engage in education. My school calls out students when they use the word, but that is always an educative discussion, not merely censorious.
The problem that extremes of PC-type criticisms can create is they simply by-pass the unpleasant debate for the mandate. As Amanda Marcotte wrote, “There is a need for this argument to be made, but Chait isn’t the one to make it.”
More white bashing. As tiresome as black bashing and gay bashing. This is what the progressive movement has come to?
I only ever use bitch in a humorous context.
But to the extent PC is used to stifle discussion (triggers in say college classes) then it should be ignored. I generally see it as a way to stop and think if I’m being an asshole from the other persons POV.
Excellent points, Booman, I’ve found a similar change in my own thinking over time with the choice to change my vocabulary. It’s really uncomfortable to be called on your privilege and on your racist or sexist actions when you think of yourself as a liberal or progressive, but if you’re willing to listen it makes you a better person.
It also reminds me that liberal thinking and progress is an ever moving target, and that that’s a good thing even if it means that you find yourself falling behind the curve from time to time as you get older. It’s sad to see so many liberals saying things that boil down to “wait, I didn’t mean for progress to go that far!” and then start bleating like conservatives trying to stand athwart history and yell stop. I hope that when I eventually fall behind the curve of progress, I have the grace to accept it and not show my ass too badly.
Pointed out elsewhere, this song was made for people like Chait:
I’m not a big fan of political correctness. Then too, if someone “offends” me then I’m pretty quick with the middle finger and move on. For me it’s less of an offense than a data point – “Oh, you’re one of them.” I suppose I just prefer to know where people stand and treat them accordingly.
part PC is pretty sensible: some words are clearly used to subjugate and when used people should be called out on them.
But on both sides of the political spectrum there seem to be legions that wait for the offending word to be uttered. I get the sense that PC is used by them to just vent and to confirm their worst suspicions about the other side.
I work near a mostly African-American public school in Boston. I walked to work the other day, three students were walking the other way and one noted about another “that N is sure is in a hurry”.
Context matters. The word when used among African Americans means something different than when uttered as an epitaph by a white person. It seems many of the PC battles ignore this basic truth.
These days, when the word is uttered as an epitaph by a white person, the person usually seems to be a “peace” officer.
I believe you meant epithet.
So…growing up is good?
I love this description of an important part of leaving childish things behind. Slurs aren’t helpful! They vex people needlessly, and cloud thinking (worse!).
As they say in the Pa. Dutch country, ‘we grow too soon old, too late smart.’
Great analysis, Booman; but you fail to make a crucial distinction. As a matter of conscience, courtesy and refinement, it makes sense that people should refrain from using words that might reasonably cause others offense. But in a free society, restrictions on speech need to be scrutinized extremely closely because all manner of mischief lies in the details of those restrictions. For starters, who gets to say what’s acceptable and what’s not?
I see our society as a clusterfuck of violence in forms mostly (but not exclusively) subtle. Judgmental, cutting remarks are a kind of soft violence. They hurt others and lead in the direction of (though they do not justify) overt violence. As a collaborative attorney and mediator, I admire and do my best to live by the brilliant work of Marshall Rosenberg (Non-Violent Communication), Harville Hendrix’ insightful analysis of human relationships and similar teachings that help us to understand the feelings and needs that underlie all forms of conflict. At the same time, people have to come to such understandings of their own accord. It cannot be forced.
Much as drug prohibition does not work whereas education campaigns against cigarette smoking have been extremely effective, we can educate people about wise choice of words and encourage certain forms of communication over others. But when one forces the issue by setting up rules and punishments for violations of those roles, it opens a Pandora’s Box of unintended consequences.
Evelyn Beatrice Hall, in her biography of Voltaire, wrote “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Those words are often ascribed to Voltaire himself, though I think it was more accurately her attempt to encapsulate his beliefs. I think there’s much wisdom in such an approach.
OT, but wow!
These are the best of all the 50,000,000 words I’ve read about Chait’s stupid column.
When these words are used as a knee jerk reaction, they become a form of labeling that in turn is meant to derail any conversation. So yes, when you ‘grow up’ you should be looking to have the conversation not stop the conversation. Excellent BooMan.
A lot of the anti-PC stuff I see is just “I want permission to be an asshole.”
It’s like the Redsk*ns debate. If you walk up to a person of native american culture/descent and call them that casually, they are probably going to think you’re an asshole. Why be an asshole? Some folks have nothing better to do.
Individually, I was bored. By the very first takedown of Chait’s piece, and the second, and the third. Snarking at these center-left warhorses is a junior varsity sport.
But you actually had something sensible, meaningful, true, and original to say. Thanks.