The Politeness of Freedom - A short essay on Political Correctness

libbysd Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:31:59 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

I wrote this essay from a Liberal perspective and would not usually post it on Labourhome, however, I feel it's content just as important to social democrats as it is Liberals. there is a need for us to defend political correctness and I do not feel that need is being met in either quantity or quality. Discrimination and prejudice hurts everyone and political correctness is there to combat this. This needs to be explained, I hope I did an OK job.



Political correctness is an odd matter for us liberal democrats, the inherent contradictions contained within it seems to symbolize the strains between the right and the left of our party. However, we cannot simply continue to ignore the issue, for doing so is allowing the debate to be taken over by a reactionary right winged press, incapable of fully understanding the complex implications of this issue upon society. To allow these people to go unchallenged would be a crime in itself and so we must work out a truly liberal response to the modern threats to political correctness and not just tackle it in policy but take the debate to the public.

We are confused as a nation about political correctness. On the one hand we don't want discrimination or identity based divisions between ourselves and on the other we care deeply about freedom of speech and add to that the desire for relative equality between the people of all identities and you have a web of confusing philosophical contradictions. This gap has been exploited by those on the right, by those who think all this 'pandering' to minorities comes at the expense of the freedom of the 'majority'. Even the 'liberal conservative' David Cameron, before he was leader, made a speech about gay rights getting in the way of the majority's needs. How should us left leaning liberals respond?

Well, at the moment, we simply don't. There is a void, a silence, emanating from Britain's liberal majority when it comes to political correctness. It is the elephant in the room, a mildly embarrassing necessity which, much like the question of the EU, is often shunted to the back of our priorities while others of a less reasoned persuasion are allowed to dominate the debate.

The cries heard again and again from the right wing camp proclaim a false world in which their freedom is being destroyed by either 'thought Marxists' or 'liberal fascists'. 'Political correctness has gone mad' is the rallying cry and the vast majority of the population, to some extent or another, agrees with them. There is not just a deception going on here but also a gross misunderstanding upon the nature of liberty and this must be exposed in order for political correctness to be defended.

Firstly it must be understood that the slogan 'political correctness gone mad' is being used as a front for those who think 'political correctness is bad'. The difference between those two statements is the difference between reform and revolution and we must be both wary and challenging in our response to people who put forward the former proposition. What do they mean by 'political correctness has gone mad'? and more importantly how do they wish to change the way language is looked at in the workplace and public forum while still accepting the responsibility of the challenges of social integration?

Much has been made of the story that in one school the song 'baa baa black sheep' was changed to 'baa baa rainbow sheep' but surely if some poor child is suffering racist abuse because of the song then it is not wrong for the teachers and parents to take action. Are they inferring that people should not take action against discriminatory abuse or are they just annoyed about the contradictions webbed within political correctness itself? The two can get confused and at worst completely mixed up. Most people would agree with the latter, that they are mildly annoyed at the contradictions embedded in political correctness. Many making the argument against political correctness themselves however, whether knowingly or not, buy into the former. These people must be challenged; surely it is not absurd or mad to do what political correctness generally implies?

But then what does political correctness imply? According to those incredibly sane and thoughtful persons at the 'Campaign Against Political Correctness' it is an intolerant and divisive form of censorship designed to destroy our country as we know it. I don't quite know how the country as I know it actually is being destroyed or how many riots and strikes have been started in opposition against political correctness but I am happy to take their word for it. There is now something that can be described as close to an industry in political writing going along the same lines as the Campaign against Political Correctness, the vast majority of it seems less about a concise or serious political problem and more about middle aged middle class right wing grumpiness. One only has to take a brief look at the politics section in your local Waterstones to find these little books of whingeing, one can almost hear the self indignation of their conservative readers as one leafs through the pages. Take this extract from 'How to be right' the latest example of grumpy right winged whingefests -

"Celebrating Diversity - as our local Councils so often claim to be doing on our behalf - may sound jolly but in fact it's just a grindingly politically correct euphemism for "state enforced multiculturalism". Like multiculturalism, diversity has nothing to do with getting us to mix it up in one big happy melting pot. Quite the opposite. For "diversity" read "division"."

For a similar view I would advise heading here

The nasty right or 'sour Tories' as I would put it seem to be under the impression that political correctness achieves nothing and its implications are as great a challenge to freedom of speech as were the policies of Stalin and Hitler (although Hitler sure knew how shut those bloody lefty liberals up! grumble grumble). The reality of what enforcers of political correctness actually believe is so at odds with this view.

Firstly, political correctness is founded upon the assumption that discrimination and prejudice exists within society. On this matter there is little doubt. Boris Johnson, our glorious new mayor and future prime minister has talked in his book 'Have I got views for you' about his personal racism and how he believes all people are in one way or another sexist, racist, homophobic or just plain prejudiced. He then goes onto say that we must acknowledge this but overcome it through the strengths of our own will and get on with our lives. The aim of political correctness is thus to eliminate outward prejudice and discrimination, this is a view not just accepted by the left but by the right also with the only difference being that one believes the state should take a role and the other does not.

In a sense political correctness can be equivocated to enforced politeness. It is there to make the outbursts of Boris Johnson's racism unacceptable and although Boris Johnson may disagree with its often crude implementation, as so many people obviously do, he would most likely agree with its attempted goal.

There are those who just don't care about getting rid of discrimination, who don't see it as an issue or at least not a serious one. We as liberals from both the right and left however must understand it to be one of the greatest evils within society. It doesn't matter whether you want to nationalize pet shops or marketize the NHS, prejudice hurts you. It is a distorter of free markets, a roadblock to equality, it creates divisions within society and harms the aspirations and hopes of so many millions of people. The challenge of taking on prejudice is surely a liberal cause.

 Freedom isn't petty. Not being allowed to call someone 'black' in a derogatory way in the work place is not an infringement of your freedom because for one it does not infringe upon your private life and for two it is merely preventing you from doing something that is quite simply impolite and hurtful. This draws on to my final point.

Freedom and politeness are not enemies, they are companions. They both preach the idea of tolerance and understanding for one another, that human beings must be respected. If we are to preach Liberalism in this country then political correctness must be encouraged for its aims are fundamentally similar to what we are trying to achieve. What we are not trying to achieve is some sort of polite utopia, such a thing would be a dull and dreary place to live and the crudeness of much of today’s political correctness can give the impression that this is in fact what we are aiming for. 'Reform, reform, reform' must be our plan of action, we have to explain to people what political correctness means and make it smarter and adapt it to the more tolerant society we have today. There are great challenges facing our country in this area, we cannot fail.

 

John Dixon, Chairman of UEA Liberal Democrats

http://aradicalwrites.blogspot.com

hifimonkeykong@btinternet.com



tags: , , , , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
The Politeness of Freedom - A short essay on Political Correctness | 7 comments (7 topical)

Re: A short essay on Political Correctness (#1)

by jkitleft on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:03:41 PM GMT

What annoys me about jibes of political correctness, is that, why isn't it simply called 'correctness'? For instance, I've been called politically correct, for saying that the word race, to connote skin colour is archaeic, as of what we now know thanks to science. I prefer the term ethnicity. However, this may be more down to etymological pedantry.

But the horror stories of political correctness are false. No-one can provide evidence of the baa baa black sheep story occuring. No-one can provide evidence for the myth of an EU straight bananna.

How do people think the word, 'kike' disappeared? I don't see fighting for that word to be eliminated from acceptable vocabulary as illiberal, or fascistic. Nor the words 'wog' or 'nigger'.

PC hasn't been enforced by this government, and electing the Tories wouldn't stop the apparent PC swamping us. It is self-censoship. Often from a lack of education. The word 'niggardly', doesn't connote KKK get-togethers. The word discrimination is a complete contradiction of racism, as racism is a collective bigotry, and discrimination means to differentiate.


Re: The Politeness of Freedom (#2)

by AngryVoter on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:34:28 PM GMT

 

Before I begin, I shall remind folks I am Centre-Right leaning, and I treat everyone equally and as "British", despite colour creed or religion. I am sure some of the more... "strong" liberals however will disagree with some of my Assertions below, and sadly I do feel a little dirty near my conclusion where the language perhaps seems a little BNP-like.

I think the problem is a lack of encouragement to integrate with the latest million or so [We don't know the actual number of migrants, which the far-right also capitalize on with relative ease] migrants.

 When the Afro-Carribeans and Indian sub continent groups came over in the late 1950's they integreated easily and were encouraged to do so with the informative movies from the Propaganda Ministry, err, sorry. "Ministry of Information" as it became known. It encouraged them to do things "our way" as it was, while also showing that people would be at least mildly accepting for folks of different races to come here. There was some low-level encouragement of adding their own culture to ours also.

A good chunk of various other groups such as the original set of Poles from the late 30's to late 50's also integreated rapidly and easily by adopting British traits and we in turn would adopt various bits of their own cultures.

It's how Britain has worked for centuries.

Now however the feeling and the attempt at multiculturalism, which I felt was doomed to failure from the start, [and lauded as a racist for it by Labour supporting people in my area, no less...]  has caused chunks of the UK to actively "feel" foreign and for people to become wary of chunks of cities where, the grim joke is, "Spot Whitey".

My town is overwhelmingly white. I will say that simply and clearly, but I am not disturbed by going into areas where the majority of people are of a different ethnicity, I drive through and often walk through a quarter of a town where I work, a few miles away where the majority of the population is Pakistani, and is often reffered to as the "Pakistani Quarter" or the "Ethnic Quarter".

 

The problem with some integration in some places, however, is that this area exists in the first place. We have actual ethnically based ghettos in the UK's major towns and cities, and even in some of the lesser provincial towns today also. The attempt at multiculturaism outside of "The City" has been a rather large failure in some of the Cities around the country.

Why is this? In the town I mention, Burton, the groups are fairly well integrated, this is because for a start the quarter is fairly small, and surrounded by other ethnicity areas, such as the Polish Contingency, and old white working class Burtonians. They all move around between eachothers shops, all have regular contact with eachother, and all three tend to meet in the same pubs and clubs. They've all set up their own "Ethno-specific" shops, but don't tend to scorn people who aren't Pakistani/Polish/White when they enter their shop.

Polish Meats go into Pakistani spices and are all cooked in the British Pubs and served.

(Which I have seen happen in shop in Derby, where Indians, Muslims and the Kurds have clashed several times.) 

Why does this work? Simple. The Council and MP have never sat around constantly prodding for multicultrualism in Burton, but have done so in Derby, which has seen riots and problems, along with significant tensions between the minorities and the still majority White/Highly Integrated Indo-Afro-Carrib majority of the city.

It's a classic case, in my perception, of state meddling in a process which would happen naturally if given some time to simply evolve on it's own.

There's no real enforcement of political correctness in these towns either, it just naturally happens if you don't meddle and try to force the groups together.

It's the same here in my town. There are Turkish and Indian minority families. But here they're very well integrated because they weren't allowed to "ghettoize" at all. Sure there's still racist snubs. But those are largely from ignorant kids, or from old men who are from another time and it's simply "acceptable language" to them.

One family in the area came here 40 years ago. Today you don't remember they're of a different minority or culture until they mention Divali is coming up.

A group of 20 turks and their families came around 12 years ago, they all live across the town, and again, now all speak english fluently and are even beginning to pick up a local accent.

They were always dispersed around the town when they came, rather than clumped into "cultural" ghettos.

It eliminates the need for political correctness because you forget when people act like an "everyday" Brit.

That's what I'd prefer to see from now on, the elimination or reduction of these "Ghettos" that make people from other culutres nervous. That make the majority white population nervous.

So far we've only had some halting steps from the government generally about immigration at the start of the system, the only way to eliminate the need for "correctness" is to tear down the lines that divide us and integrate. They take bits of our culture, we take bits of theirs.

The question then becomes on of where the "bits taken" should be drawn. This is perhaps the most "BNP-like" language I will say here, and I dislike saying it...

But the majority population, the well integrated of this country, should be the ones who encourage the majority adoption of their beleifs, ways of doing things, social nuances etc, upon the smaller groups of minorities.

It's the only way, so far, that would see us all be able to live better alongside eachother and be able to reduce the calls of "Political correctness gone mad." and even perhaps, push PC to the backburner for real, rather than forced there by the politicians desperate not to be drawn as racist, or controversial.

Largely because, aside from a couple of scrapes and knocks, it's always worked. 


Re: The Politeness of Freedom (#3)

by jkitleft on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:56:31 PM GMT

I would agree that multiculturalism is harmful to integration. Indeed, I posted a response to you outlining my criticisms of it. The problem is, how you interpret the majority's 'behaviour'. I believe, what is key, is to integrate minorities, and new migrants (though I'm not sure how many there are, but I don't believe the outright lies of the Express and Mail, who have often said there have been 3 million, in recent years), into the core concept of Britain, which I believe is being a secular, liberal democracy. I believe certain aspects of cultures, are incompatible with a tolerant society.


But often, there are too many myths about PC e.g. the Baa Baa Black Sheep story. It is notable, that many black men have died in police custody in the last 30 years, and are statistically 6 times more likely to be searched than white counterparts. A little 'correctness' in that area wouldn't be harmful.


PC isn't being enforced as a legal doctrine, and lets just go through the measures that have been denounced as PC, or any criticisms of these measures denounced as PC. Ken was the leading politician calling for gay rights in the '80's. But fear of AIDS led to him being called PC. When Labour expressed concern over Section 28, and the failure to launch an inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence, they were called PC.


People talk of censorship. Ironically, forbidding teachers to talk about homosexuality, and suppressing information about racism, seems to define censorship.


Nobody says 'Paki', or 'Fag', or 'Nigger', without being challenged in a mainstream audience (though it is tautological to say it would be welcomed in a neo-Nazi audience). Who says 'hottentots', or 'piccaninnies', or 'kikes'?


When civil partnerships were introduced, or (lets roll back the clock), the Equal pay act was introduced, there have been calls of Political Correctness. No decent person says they are against these measures, but when people in recent decades have often tried to challenge institutionalised discrimination, they are derided.


Being politically incorrect is somehow seen as a virtue. Denis Thatcher was constantly being praised for being 'politically incorrect'. His daughter has said he used to refer to black people as 'coons', and he lobbied for the status quo of white supremacy in South Africa to be kept.


[ Parent ]

Re: The Politeness of Freedom (#4)

by doctordunc on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:58:17 PM GMT

It always seems strange to me that people feel there is a very strong need for 'conformity' (though they call it 'integration') when we talk about ethnicity or race, but not about other aspects of diversity.  Nobody suggests that it would be better if gay people behaved more like straight people, and didn't have 'gay quarters' and 'gay nightclubs' - that there'd be less need for political correctness if people were just a little less gay.  (Or if anybody does say it, they bloody shouldn't!)  Nobody suggests that if only we all listened to the same music, wore the same clothes or spoke with the same accent, we'd all live better alongside each other.  But it seems acceptable - even the new 'politically correct' 'common sense' - to say that things would be okay if only black people were less black.  It has always struck me as wrong-headed.  It puts me in mind of Norman Tebbit's 'cricket test'.  His suggestion that people weren't properly British if they were supporting the Pakistan cricket team.  When you think about it, it's a ridiculous notion.  I know people who support Yorkshire and Pakistan in the cricket (yet might support England over the Aussies, and the West Indies over South Africa, etc.)  Why not?  We all really have a complex array of identities and I can't think of a single reason why 'Britishness' should be considered a particularly important or rarified one.  Indeed, if we could come up with a good, progressive idea of Britishness, I couldn't suggest a better one than 'not caring what Britishness is'. 

The insistence that people 'conform' or integrate produces a great deal of the problems or perceived problems of a lack of integration.  It doesn't matter to anybody that Camden High Street is full of goths.  Indeed, it's one of it's attractions (in the same way that people flock to various 'Chinatowns').  Diversity is a good, positive thing which we can celebrate (and be a lot less precious about).

In that considerably more chilled atmosphere, we can and should promote language classes, awareness raising, etc, etc. - not to 'enforce' integration, but as a service to people who would find such things useful.


[ Parent ]

Re: The Politeness of Freedom (#5)

by Tom Harris MP on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:44:57 PM GMT

Interesting post, but can I just ask why I'm not allowed to ask for a black coffee at my local authority restaurant?


Re: The Politeness of Freedom (#6)

by jkitleft on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:20:04 PM GMT

No, it's those issues where there can be a universal cry of 'Oh, for god's sake!'. That is absolutely rediculous, and treats black people as children. If you're going to focus on discrimination against black people, why not focus on why so many black people die in police custody?

The censoring of words like discrimination (which is avery good thing, as it means to differentiate, something which racists are incapable of), and words like 'niggardly', is obscene. It is an inherently racist concept. Black coffee is black. Black people have darker skin. White people have lighter skin. But I do not have skin that is the colour of a sheet of paper.

Many who adhere to orthodox PC, seem to assume, ironically racist themselves, that black people are somehow these people incapable of an intellectual thought and who have minstrel style skin. This is an insult to black people. Human emotions, are universal concepts, as are thoughts and desires. So why must we act, as if we are adhering to the notion of the southern states in the 20th century, of "Seperate, but equal"?


[ Parent ]

Re: The Politeness of Freedom (#7)

by doctordunc on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:10:26 PM GMT

Well yes, that's silly.

Having said that, it always reminds me a bit of when my students start going on about 'political correctness gone mad'; they say things like 'you can't even say manhole cover' (at which point I always get them to repeat it, then pretend to call the police to have them arrested).  Of course you're allowed to ask for a black coffee (I assume no dreadful repercussions followed your rebellious behaviour?)

But I agree, this particular example is a silly one.


[ Parent ]

The Politeness of Freedom - A short essay on Political Correctness | 7 comments (7 topical)