Just interested in people's thoughts and feelings on political correctness in an anarchist society. I am a fan of political correctness in that I recognise it as a way of actually being nice to people and respecting diversity, there is nothing more annoying than someone down the pub banging on about how political correctness has gone mad, but isn't political correctness decided by a higher authority, often the government? What is people's take on political correctness in an anarchist environment?
Political correctness as some
Political correctness as some sort of moral imperative I oppose. It's often used to stifle a critical understanding of political situations according to the liberal Weltanschauung, and I find it most hilarious that right-wingers whine and cry about how they can't say the N word anymore or be sexist or bang on about foreigners.
It's a reactionary ideology of the ruling class however, and it doesn't help the oppressed in the way we would imagine it should be solved, that is, by eliminating classes. It's patronizing and superficial.
That we as lefties tend to be "politically correct" does not stem from our adherence to this ideology, but to our understanding of the world that is partially compatible to it on the surface.
While most of my colleagues
While most of my colleagues and acquaintances would probably say I am a bit politically correct, in reality I'm just sensitive to what might cause offence. I don't think the concept of political correctness is particularly helpful. People should be challenged on what they say or do, stifling those feelings doesn't make them go away in the way that struggling openly against them can (not necessarily will, but...).
A lot of the time it comes down to restrictions on what language can be used - while I think people should be called out on the language they use, I've seen it used to marginalise people who don't know the correct language. (As in "we can ignore what this tenant rep says because he calls black people coloured....") As such it supports those who are better able to deal with bureaucracy and the codes of language used by the powerful. A side effect of this is that people who do want to express racism or other prejudice find different ways of doing it e.g. Muslims being demonised; David Starkey; the arguments used by the EDL, Tebbit's cricket test, etc.
It's also used politically to shut down arguments. I don't think that is healthy; I think we should actually talk more about quite basic things like why racism is wrong and why women being treated badly is wrong. We shouldn't assume we have nothing to learn, nor should we assume that our audience has nothing to learn.
Regards,
Martin
[those two responses were
[those two responses were awesome]
I get frustrated with political correctness, not because it's wrong but because it's so fucking superficial. I feel like a lot of the time certain types of people are very willing to take on board the politically correct terminology about things, but express the exact same bigoted attitudes and actions as they were before, but through the new language. A recent example of this was the Tories claiming their reforms of Disability Living Allowance was a 'social model' measure, which shows an acceptance of the language of the disability rights movement, whilst being totally contradictory to its actual content. And what martinh says about people who don't know the language but have good ideas being excluded is so incredibly true (and also depressing). In my experience 'radicals' use the language another person uses to guess at their attitudes and so on in a way which kind of works within their cliques but is phenomenally counter-productive when dealing with most people
Modern use of the term
Modern use of the term 'politically correct' started with the right wing in the 90's as a pejorative. I think it's a dumb term.
This isn't really an anarchist question as much as it is an 'are you a douche' question. Don't call women bitches unless you want to get punched, don't call homosexuals fags unless you want to be punched. It has so little to do with a holier-than-thou moral imperative, and much more to do with just respecting others when you talk to them. If a disabled person doesn't like being called a "gimp" then don't call them that. It's just decency.
Usually I hear the term 'politically correct' thrown up as a shield by assholes. "Oh, so now I can't say 'fuck all you bitches' because it's not politically correct, huh? Ya PC faggots." Quite honestly, I have no interest in telling people to be politically correct, and a lot of interest in kicking assholes in the teeth.
Actually the term started on
Actually the term started on the left, in the 60s or 70s I think. It got big in the late 80s more often as not as a term of opprobrium, but before that it was mostly used in a joking, self-castigating sense by lefties.
Modern use of the term...
Modern use of the term...
Birthday Pony wrote: Modern
Birthday Pony
Yeah, that's my understanding as well. It's basically a reaction of conservatives against feminist/anti-racist/LGBT struggles. It has served them extremely well, because it reduces these struggles to a question of using the correct language, hiding aspects structural discrimination, while making lefties look somewhat authoritarian if not orwellian.
Lots of good responses
Lots of good responses (looking at you Red, Martin, and No1).
Eh, I like being correct.
Eh, I like being correct.
bzfgt is on the money here.
bzfgt is on the money here. I remember it being used on the left before the right started using the term 'political correctness gone mad' and it was often a self piss take, a way of disagreeing in a light hearted manner (i.e. 'that's politically incorrect' meant 'that's a bit dodgy'). Mind you, I'm sure it would have been used seriously by some elements on the authoritarian left.
But in the 70s/80s you had the rise of the career lefties getting plum jobs at local councils and they often promoted anti-racist, anti-sexist initiatives via their work. Much of this was well meaning stuff, but you know the score, give the boss class a chance and they'll wield anything like a weapon. So, 'political correctness' could be either a way of being nice to each other and respecting each others differences, or it could be a useful method of divide and rule in the workplace. Then you had the media latching onto it, e.g. the Daily Mail running the 'Baa baa green sheep' story which, though completely made up by right wing journalists for the purpose of attacking Labour controlled councils, is now accepted as 'fact' by many.
Serge Forward wrote: bzfgt is
Serge Forward
I think the 'respect for diversity' espoused by left-leaning (sometimes anarchist) members of the administrative strata (I'm also thinking of the 'parasitocracy' of social workers, charity professionals, etc. who make a career out of the suffering of the lowest-of-the-low) can be used as a cover - "Look how nice we are!" - to offset the actual fact of their bad behaviour towards their clients (cutting funding and support under lying pretexts - "Prioritising care", "Not our remit", etc.).
In a non-leftist administrative context, I remember one instance of when this card was played. Some while ago a manager summoned me upstairs for an off-the-record 'chat'/arm-twisting about my attendance... I alerted my union rep, who came up with me. In the course of this unpleasant pressure, my rep said, "But he's got a handicapped child!", to which the manager retorted, "The word is learning disability!"
Stewart Lee was influenced
[youtube]jGAOCVwLrXo[/youtube]
Stewart Lee was influenced and came up on the tail end of that 80's lefty liberal comedian well-meaning set and in another clip from 'Stand Up Comedian' has a go at the right who decry political correctness. 'Political correctness, wasn't that shit, imagine being fair to people'
Obviously we have problems with the term for very different reasons than say Jeremy Clarkson or a Daily Mail reader.
I'm in broad agreement with much of what's been said, especially about 'political correctness' as a moral imperative.
For me, the language we use is of course important, and I challenge, workmates, friends and acquaintances all the time about their choice of language.
But as Martin says, jumping down their throats about political correctness is pointless moralism. Challenging is more important than shutting down. I try to basically, depending on context, be thoughtful about what I say. I sometimes fuck up, although I'm usually able to judge context.
[youtube]1IYx4Bc6_eE[/youtube]
'people usually use the phrase 'political correctness gone mad' are usually using that phrase as a cover measure to attack minorities'
A few issues with what he says, but that 'well meaning' imperative is summed up by Lee - 'insitutionalised politeness'
Stewart Lee should be in
Stewart Lee should be in every libcom thread. Always.
Is this fucking serious?
I can see the jailers of the mind argument coming in about 10 posts...
The phrase should of course
The phrase should of course be political correctness is undergoing mental health issues. This countries going to hell in a fucking hand cart.
Chilli Sauce wrote: Stewart
Chilli Sauce
It is fucking serious... You won't get any 'jailers of the mind' stuff from me on this thread... I've got direct experience of these fuckers... I know libcom is riddled with apologists for these filth, which is why it took a lot for me to post this.
So, admin deleted, no flaming
I have direct experience of
I have direct experience of the 'parasitocracy'. Lefty social workers saying 'if your child requires 24 hour care ... why don't you give it'.
Lots of these arseholes make darn good careers out of the 'caring' professions. Whilst we struggle on carers allowance and put-downs.
Sorry I can't write more... I have to toilet my 23 year old.
What Stewart Lee said. Let's
What Stewart Lee said. Let's not derail this discussion to talk about social workers. If you want to talk about that start a new thread.
As someone else has mentioned, it's worth noting that most stories about "political correctness gone mad" were actually totally made up by the right-wing press
Birthday Pony wrote: Modern
Birthday Pony
Oop, my mistake. Sorry to correct you where it wasn't needed. (My post was fun and educational anyway.)
Speaking from a Socialist's
Speaking from a Socialist's perspective, I find the whole PC thing to be the scared liberal's approach to dealing with prejudice. Rather than simply trying to muzzle anyone whose opinion we might find offensive, we should be able to challenge them and debate them openly, for example homophobic or sexist ideas.
The Jeremy Clarkson thing is a strange example to me. Anyone who watched the program could tell he was being completely sarcastic and in my opinion quite funny and I say this as a self confessed 'ultra-leftist'. Watching Clarkson's comments and watching someone who is genuinely advocating violence against trade unionists, you'd be able to tell the difference. What I don't like is all the calls for him to be forced to apologize. It reminds me of the forced confessions at the end of a Stalinist show trial or a fanatically religious society demanding a heretic to recant their sins and beg god for forgiveness.
I think it's a liberal fear that prejudice ideas will slowly creep in and takeover if we don't crack down hard on those whose opinions transgress the sunshine-and-rainbows view of society the media tries to present us. Yes, racism, sexism and homophobia and all manner of nasty attitudes exist in society, but we won't change them if we simply try to silence those who hold them. Our best shot is to be able to challenge them in an environment of honest and open debate.
Another example is the woman filmed drunk on a train ranting about her racist views who was arrested. I don't know if she was arrested for being drunk or racially abusing the other passengers, but if it is the latter than that approach is completely flawed. Whatever penalty she receives will not make her less racist, if anything it will only deepen her resentment. But the scared Centrist Liberal is scared of challenging such views openly in debate because they are scared that they will lose and unfortunately that's an attitude many of my fellow leftists have picked up along the way in their efforts to jump on the identity politics bandwagon (opportunistically).
I think it comes from another liberal myth, that, for example, Hitler and the Nazis or Mussolini and the Fascists were able to take power and do the terrible things they did simply because society granted them an open platform to discuss their ideas. Without getting into a history lesson, this is untrue and they gained support for a broad spectrum of reasons, not simply because the population all agreed with (or even fully understood the gravity) of their racist ideas.
As far as political
As far as political correctness on the left, there are a lot of M-L and weird tendencies which use it as a billy club. I recall reading one such article that said in a meeting of workers, white male workers should pay attention that they do not speak longer than non-white male workers; should not voice opposition or polemic to non-white male workers if they happen to disagree with what was said; etc. as doing these things perpetuates white skin privalege and patriarchy. I understand that we are all influenced by the influence of the dominanat ideology of the ruling class, but treating eachother fairly and consciously deciding not to make a factor of race or sexuality or gender or anything else should be enough, especially when we all aspire to a classless, stateless free and equal world.
The ultimate self-parody of this on the left being the Symbionese Liberation Army, where a group of white students of means with one black member (who was the 'field marshal'/leader), were going to be the vanguard of the black revolution.
Realise this is quite a bump
Realise this is quite a bump to an old thread, but came here after thinking about what's called "political correctness". I was with a female friend the other night, drinking with a gay couple. Later, in talking about this to a leftist friend, I mentioned noting which of the two gay guys were the most effeminate of the two and immediately got attacked for stereotyping and making assumptions. This is what separates Anarchists from others on the "left": we don't overanalyse. I didn't judge the guys on being gay and have no homophobia I'm aware of, just stated one of the two was definitely the passive partner. Does that imply prejudice? i didn't think so. Likewise, we anarchists want to go straight for the jugular with society's problems and not piss around with intellectual debate: the root cause of all this shit is capitalism so rather than chip away at the symptoms, we attack the cause. Even when discussing class with lefties, you'll get taken to task on whether class is economic or social and all that stuff. This is what alienates our class from radical politics, wooly sweatered, bearded pseudo intellectuals confusing them with stuff like rights for single lesbian parents and suchlike, it's a distraction from the real problem: capitalism itself, and the ruling class who benefit from it. We have no prejudices, we know all humans are equal but we'll be fucked if we're going to sit around sicussing the finer points of Marxiuan economics and all that crap.
To return to the OP's question: it seems the right wing have the "PC" ground now. It's unacceptable to knock the rich, criticise your own political leaders in times of "crisis" or use words like "socialism". It's all shit. Spoeak as you feel. You know why you're an anarchist and there's no set of rules apart from those instinctive ones that led you to the mindset you have now.
Wildcat272 wrote: Later, in
Wildcat272
now, I didn't hear this discussion so can't really say much about it. However talking about qualities being "effeminate" or "masculine" is problematic as it implies that men and women have in a qualities one where another.
You also equate being "passive" with being effeminate, which is problematic as well. I don't know exactly what you said but to me it sounds weird and I would probably ask what you meant in more detail.
If you think that women are naturally passive, or that all couples replicate patriarchal dynamics (masculine, effeminate, active, passive etc) then this could be some sort of prejudice.
I'm afraid I disagree with this as well. I think most people on the "left" don't analyse things enough. Most trots, for example, don't analyse things at all, just trot out (geddit?) the party line or regurgitate what Lenin said 100 years ago.
I also don't think analysing things is a problem. Of course it's a problem if all you do is analyse things and you don't actually do anything, but that's different.
er again I would say speak for yourself here. And you are engaging in an intellectual debate here on internet forum yourself!
firstly, I think this shows you have quite a negative view of the working class, if you think that we are "confused" by the concept of rights for sexual minorities. Fortunately I think this view is misplaced, and nowadays most workers in the UK at least are (at least theoretically) opposed to gender/sex/race etc discrimination.
Also, I disagree with the thrust of your argument here. Struggles against discrimination against part of the working class is a central part of the class struggle as a whole. You can't say that women, LGBT people, BME people, disabled people etc will have to wait "for the revolution" to have their problems solved.
with your first point here, unfortunately this is very much not the case. While anarchists/socialists may theoretically have a commitment to equality, it is unfortunately often extremely lacking in practice. Look at all the recent examples of sexual abuse/rape within socialist groups, and similar problems within the anarchist scene.
no1 wrote: It's basically a
no1
I agree. 'Politically correct' in current usage is basically a euphemism for 'thought police,' though when you look at the people who invoke it (ie. the 'political correctness gone mad' crowd) and the way it's used, it's generally used to shut down ideas that they don't happen to like without anything approaching a rational discussion based on fair evaluation of the evidence and arguments supporting respective points of view.
The irony of that is that it's a little (you guessed it) thought-policey. What do you call it when thought police accuse their critics of being thought police? Besides being totally hypocritical it's also projection and a way of blaming critics for existing rather than actually allowing ourselves to be held accountable for the arguments we make. It seems to me there's also a strong element of butthurt to the extent that suggesting that critics are thought police is indicative of the assumption that there's no difference between criticising someone and attacking them (the old 'with me or against me' fallacy and the creed of tyrants everywhere); by that logic to hold someone accountable for the kind of bigotry and prejudice that begets the oppression of others is to deprive them of their freedom and oppress them. I think that's the kind of thing we need to overcome if we're ever going to establish the kind of society that is basically sane and just to the extent that it is classless and run along anarchist lines.
An old thread and things move
An old thread and things move on I suppose but I thought this piece by Roy gave the term a much wider application; https://critical-mass.net/2016/07/22/political-correctness/
I have my disagreements with some of Roy's ideas but his blog is worth dipping into from time to time.
I agree. A more direct
I agree. A more direct language would be appropriate.
(2 videos are in this post for those firefox users who cant see it)
[youtube]vj7pTKstpfU[/youtube]
[youtube]vuEQixrBKCc[/youtube]
Gulai Polye, the second video
Gulai Polye, the second video is very funny (with the exception, in my opinion, of the comments on death), the first one very, very true. Thank you for sharing.
I think the European conception of death is grounded very much in an individualist ideology, in separateness, atomisation.