The Dogma of "Anti-Political Correctness"
From time to time we find individuals assaulting "political correctness" but their definition of it seems to be a little vague. Now, I am no fan of the de-politicized liberal public debate - any readers of this blog must have understood that much - but I cannot help but see the American reactionaries behind these statements, endlessly regurgitated by American comedians and conservative groups alike.
I believe that there must be some political correctness: at least in the sense of social acceptance. If our prime minister told a joke about homosexuality in the parliament, or indeed (to take a petty example), if someone were to boisterously make obnoxious jokes about socialism when I was merely trying to find peace to read I would be indignant: and for a good cause. There are certain social rules which should be respected. Anger or reaction when they are broken is not silly, or being touchy, it is part and parcel how humans work.
With that said, a communist is the last to be happy about what you can and cannot say in the public sphere. The Swedish state's official historical revisionists "Centrum för Levande Historia" (Center for Living History) are the latest regiment in the anti-Communist armies that serve to make it impossible for anyone to maintain that political stance.
To get to my point, however, there is often a reactionary claim that since it is alright for black people to refer to themselves by various old, derogatory slurs, it is okay for everyone to do so. They simply cannot understand what would be the difference between homosexuals making jokes about their own social group and others, non-homosexuals to do so. We who react against these things that touch these, and many other matters (I recently saw a commentator in a blog post who wondered why people reacted against a newspaper stating that an "Israeli" was a hero in a specific situation noted the newspapers report on just that, while hypothetically not reacting against it if it would have said "Canadian" instead) are said to be stupid, or touchy, or whatever it might be. Indeed, there are few quick responses to that attack since most people only subconsciously realize why they react in one manner or the other rather than being able to put it into words. This is also the reason why this argument appears so oftenly - particularly in reactionary circles ("Why is it so wrong to talk about the problems of immigrants if we always talk about problems of Swedes/Americans/etc?") where special delight is had over it.
This idea is the product of an imbecile understanding of social hegemony and power worthy of the very conservatives that embrace it. In society various groups hold various power, to assault one of lesser status than you is an affront. For it to discuss itself is a completely other thing; for it to "kick upwards" is much the same. It is the same as someone else cracking jokes about your family; unless a close friend whom you are certain is not aggressively inclined against them, it is incredibly rude.
Furthermore, there is no 1-1 relation when it comes to social groups. For us to react against the use of, say, "Jewish" instead of "Israeli" casualties in the reporting of one or the other bomb raid in Israel is not racism - it is a reaction against the media situation and the sliding of words used by that very same group in an attempt to subvert and propagandise.
To attack immigrants or others under the banner of free speech or anti-political correctness remains racist, there are substantial differences in the relation of power and what you are actually doing by the statement (in many cases, putting a stigma on a group or crime "black rapists" as Angela Davis takes up in her book, for example) than our reactionary understands by their blind view of society.
I believe that there must be some political correctness: at least in the sense of social acceptance. If our prime minister told a joke about homosexuality in the parliament, or indeed (to take a petty example), if someone were to boisterously make obnoxious jokes about socialism when I was merely trying to find peace to read I would be indignant: and for a good cause. There are certain social rules which should be respected. Anger or reaction when they are broken is not silly, or being touchy, it is part and parcel how humans work.
With that said, a communist is the last to be happy about what you can and cannot say in the public sphere. The Swedish state's official historical revisionists "Centrum för Levande Historia" (Center for Living History) are the latest regiment in the anti-Communist armies that serve to make it impossible for anyone to maintain that political stance.
To get to my point, however, there is often a reactionary claim that since it is alright for black people to refer to themselves by various old, derogatory slurs, it is okay for everyone to do so. They simply cannot understand what would be the difference between homosexuals making jokes about their own social group and others, non-homosexuals to do so. We who react against these things that touch these, and many other matters (I recently saw a commentator in a blog post who wondered why people reacted against a newspaper stating that an "Israeli" was a hero in a specific situation noted the newspapers report on just that, while hypothetically not reacting against it if it would have said "Canadian" instead) are said to be stupid, or touchy, or whatever it might be. Indeed, there are few quick responses to that attack since most people only subconsciously realize why they react in one manner or the other rather than being able to put it into words. This is also the reason why this argument appears so oftenly - particularly in reactionary circles ("Why is it so wrong to talk about the problems of immigrants if we always talk about problems of Swedes/Americans/etc?") where special delight is had over it.
This idea is the product of an imbecile understanding of social hegemony and power worthy of the very conservatives that embrace it. In society various groups hold various power, to assault one of lesser status than you is an affront. For it to discuss itself is a completely other thing; for it to "kick upwards" is much the same. It is the same as someone else cracking jokes about your family; unless a close friend whom you are certain is not aggressively inclined against them, it is incredibly rude.
Furthermore, there is no 1-1 relation when it comes to social groups. For us to react against the use of, say, "Jewish" instead of "Israeli" casualties in the reporting of one or the other bomb raid in Israel is not racism - it is a reaction against the media situation and the sliding of words used by that very same group in an attempt to subvert and propagandise.
To attack immigrants or others under the banner of free speech or anti-political correctness remains racist, there are substantial differences in the relation of power and what you are actually doing by the statement (in many cases, putting a stigma on a group or crime "black rapists" as Angela Davis takes up in her book, for example) than our reactionary understands by their blind view of society.
Labels: hegemony, political correctness
posted by Björn at 3:12 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home