Utter stupidity
It is a momentous day. Not only is it a fabulously sunny Friday - a great excuse for a picnic lunch on the lillypad with a frog of the opposite persuasion - today I actually agreed with something in the NBR!
It really doesn’t often happen, but today as I hopped across the pages of the NBR I found myself croaking in agreement when I read:
The creation of a Political Correctness Eradicator looks like the sort of thing that everybody thinks is terribly funny when they’re drunk. Afterward, nobody wants to let go of happy memories of the special night by pointing out that the idea is, in fact, utterly stupid.
This paragraph, in Ben Thomas and David W Young’s Hive Mentality column (not online), is right on the mark.
Having a Political Correctness Eradicator is the kind of idea that would sound fun just after you’ve finished your second bottle of Bolly and come crashing off the table you were dancing on. In fact it’s probably what you’d think of right after you finish declaring your undying friendship and love to some guy you’ve just met at the bar, just because you both played for the same rugby club as five-year-olds. But … in the cold light of day, it’s just very silly.
For a start, just what is Political Correctness?
Are the Nats talking about eradicating equal treatment for minority groups? Or do they plan to scour Government correspondence with a bottle of twink and change terms like spokesperson and police officer to spokesman/woman and policeman/woman?
It was a great idea - at the time - for snatching a couple of headlines with a batty sounding idea - sorry to any bats reading this - but I just can’t wait to see Mapp cope with the intricacies of promoting ‘Political Wrongness’. I suspect it may take more than a few painkillers to get over that hangover.
November 4th, 2005 at 2:10 pm
Political correctness (or at least that which people like Dr Mapp deride as politically correct) is not about respect for minority views or respect for minority rights, but rather about pandering to those views (or worse, government-imposed pandering).
Should then minister of ethnic affairs (is he still?) Chris Carter be allowed to send out a letter wishing people a Merry Christmas or Happy Easter? I should have thought so, especially when he had received letters from various ethnic and religious communities (of which he was not a member) wishing him well in their holiday seasons. But some people found it “un-PC” - that he shouldn’t have done it lest he offend people in various ethnic or religious minorities.
It *is* exceptionally important for the majority to recognise the exercise of fundamental rights of minorities, but those minorities must in turn recognise the fundamental rights of other minorities *and of the majority*. I think this is the concern people have with what they deride as political correctness - a concern that where we once had a tyranny of the majority, it may be replaced with a tranny of the minority - a situation in which adherents of the muslim and christian faiths cannot denounce what they view as sinful behaviour be it public drunkenness, fornication or homosexuality; and in which “piggy banks” are not allowed lest muslims be offended (we ought to note that no British bank considering abolition of piggy banks is considering abolition of interest chrages
).
It is a requirement of a liberal pluralistic society that the majority accepts the right of minorities to engage even in behaviours shocking or offensive to that majority; but these minorities cannot expect the majority to cease activities offensive or shocking to a particular minority. Where government policy seeks to prevent majority behaviours that may offend minorities (perhaps in the form of hate speech laws, or in DPF’s words “allowing publicly funded organisations to ban women from premises on the grounds of Maori culture.”) then I do not find it at all innaccurate to say that “political correctness has gone too far.”
Liberalism requires not only that we respect the rights of people who engage in pre-marital sex, or who eat pork, but also that we respect the rights of those who don’t and who wish to tell those who do that they might just go to hell because of it
November 4th, 2005 at 2:23 pm
Perhaps, whilst opposing political correctness, Dr Mapp won’t be promoting political incorrectness (or political wrongness, as you term it), but will instead promote apolitical correctness…
November 4th, 2005 at 5:46 pm
“For a start, just what is Political Correctness?”
It emerged first on US campuses in the early eighties as part of the relativism of postmodernism — it manifested itself on campuses with such things as speech codes, affirmative action, racial quotas and the like, and came here in the guise of such things as courses on ‘cultural safety’ and other idiocies promoted largely by academics and government departments.
As Stephen Hicks points out in his book ‘Explaining Postmodernism,’ political correctness emerged from the academic left as a way of shutting down debate. The pre-digested opions required by PC forces excludes real debate, and enforces instead standardised opinion.
As Walter Williams, a black economist, describes it, the corruption of language that political correctness demands brings to mind George Orwell’s important point in 1984, that “to introduce totalitarianism into society, you first have to corrupt the language.”
That comment comes from a documentary on Political Correctness produced in the early days of its arrival here by Lindsay Perigo and Deborah Coddington, which (fortuitously) I’ve just made available at my blog. Yes Virginia, this is a plug.
The offending post can be found here: Political Correctness: A classic documentary now online
That’s: http://pc.blogspot.com/2005/11/political-correctness-classic.html
November 4th, 2005 at 7:27 pm
And here was I thinking it’s origin was with party dictatorships, party lines and dissent from liberal left wingers, that no party line could encompass the breadth of the left. As a criticism by them of the official party line politically correct position. George Orwell was no fan of party political correctness.
I can see how this became part of the post modern debate and part of the debate about relativism associated with this, but cannot see how it became defined as being of that period of the early 1980’s - “1984″ notwithstanding.
November 4th, 2005 at 11:43 pm
First of all, I thought this debate was had and won over at kiwiblog? A PC eradicator is a complete nonsense position.
Secondly, Majority must tread carefully because she has the biggest feet. If Majority is the biggest kid in the park then she has to exercise a bit of care else she might hurt some of the little guys. It is a simple as that. It is the natural burden that comes with having been gifted more power. If you analogize politics to the playground then saying the majority should act like a majority is say that Majority should push the other kids around and tell them what to do. Political correctness is just being suitably circumspect if you are in the powerful position of the majority so as to avoid becoming a tyrant.
November 5th, 2005 at 1:12 am
“I can see how this became part of the post modern debate and part of the debate about relativism associated with this, but cannot see how it became defined as being of that period of the early 1980’s - “1984″ notwithstanding.”
Um, that would be the book ‘1984,’ rather than the year 1984. I think I inadvertently omitted the tell-tale inverted commas, while Orwell was simply unusually prescient.
November 5th, 2005 at 3:09 am
PC is a meaningless term of abuse for positions of social progressiveness. It is in itself a PC term, just a rightist one. It is a phrase seized upon to control discourse as an exemplar of the duckspeak of the right. Quacking with the brainstem does seem to be what Mapp is all about, so I don’t disagree that Orwell was a prophet. Mapp will do well in the Inner Party, just as soon as they capture power back from Outer Party. The perfect candidate, he will never be executed for having too many independent thoughts.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:06 am
And now we know what the Eradicator will do - the latest weekly ‘Mapp Report’ is out:
http://www.wayne-mapp.co.nz/Mapp_Report/2005/mapp_report_4_nov_2005.ht m
November 6th, 2005 at 2:52 pm
And in Muriel Newman’s weekly column (pdf here: http://www.murielnewman.co.nz/Weekly3.pdf ) she suggests a definition of political correctness:
“Political correctness occurs when minority groups silence debate on a particular issue to appease their own sensitivities - and to impose their will on the majority of citizens. In other words, a minority group disagrees with an opposing viewpoint so strongly, that it does not want the debate to occur at all.”
Which is probably somewhat more useful than the definitions provided by others that political correctness = courtesy
November 6th, 2005 at 5:33 pm
““Political correctness occurs when minority groups silence debate on a particular issue to appease their own sensitivities - and to impose their will on the majority of citizens. In other words, a minority group disagrees with an opposing viewpoint so strongly, that it does not want the debate to occur at all.â€?
Hmmm. So, when voices are raised in favour of the right to strike, higher taxes on the rich, subsidised public transport etc. and the minority group known as “the business community” shuts down debate on those topics - and indeed ridicules and marginalises those who propose them - is *that* political correctness?
See, Mapp and Newman can go on and on about “the rights of the majority” because they think of “white middle-class heterosexuals” as the majority. But in fact they’re not. When their privileges as the economic elite are threatened by the *real* majority, they’re the *first* to demand special treatment! PC indeed.
November 7th, 2005 at 9:46 am
“when voices are raised in favour of the right to strike, higher taxes on the rich, subsidised public transport etc. and the minority group known as “the business communityâ€? shuts down debate on those topics…”
Well of course they shouldn’t do this - they ought to point ought the flaws in the arguments, and the negative consequences to them, the economy and others - in short they ought to debatem, but I thought that this is generally what they do do - ridiculing what they see as stupid ideas, rather than who they might see as stupid people.
I’d question whether the group of people favouring a strong, high-growth economy were a minority, however (whether or not those speaking can be labelled as a part of another minority (be it business-owners or any other), becuase let’s face it, everyone is part of some minority).
November 7th, 2005 at 11:38 am
Yes that sounds just about ‘right’. I reckon the establishment of PC and its antithesis both spring from a realisation that power and control over others is largely about who gets to define and interpret the language. If a majority uses its power to the detriment of minorities then the most effective form of redress is to expose and overturn the way language is used to serve only one set of interests. I have an example.
During the election I asked Mr Brash to define again his term ‘race-based
funding’, and in doing so might he then concede as a member of the dominant racial grouping that he is in fact being funded on the basis of ‘his race’ every day of his life?
Suffice to say this concept went right over Don’s head. Being Pakeha is somehow not racial in the way being Polynesian is. Because he and others of his ilk claim the definitional high-ground it behoves other minority groups to seek to redefine and use the potential of language in the same way ruling groups do. My worry is that PC is still seen as something invented by disaffected minorities outside the majority, rather merely the co-option of an historical power construct perfected long ago by elite interest groups to mesmerise their majorities. The PC spotlight rarely illuminates the fact that the aspirations and aims of New Zealand’s broad majority are more closely aligned with its diverse minority groups rather than with its in-house, yet separate, highly insulated, ruling elites. The Greens could push for ways to have a national dialogue about the real nature of PC. Exposing the myth that a New Zealand majority defines and controls its own interests may not be politically rewarding but what the hell, time waits for no ‘person’, as Rod Donald might well say if he was still with us.
November 7th, 2005 at 11:52 am
oops my reply was to ondine not edge if anyone is confused.
November 7th, 2005 at 12:56 pm
I don’t have a definitive opinion here, but it seems to me that the phrase wants deconstructing. Political has to do with politics which is to me about how society governs itself peacefully… but lets check some definitions:
From the wikipedia:
1. (used with a sing. verb)
a. The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs.
b. Political science.
.
.
.
4. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) Intrigue or maneuvering within a political unit or group in order to gain control or power: Partisan politics is often an obstruction to good government. Office politics are often debilitating and counterproductive.
5. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) Political attitudes and positions: His politics on that issue is his own business. Your politics are clearly more liberal than mine.
6. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The often internally conflicting interrelationships among people in a society.
This is not complete, but in the interests of brevity I am leaving out stuff. The point is that the word “politically” apparently has to do with the meanings in 4, 5 and 6 in this instance. I believe that it is the sub-contexts of 4 and 6 in which the word “correct” can be applied. Fundamentally the idea of political correctness has to do with giving no offense nor any grounds for complaint to other groups… no matter how thin-skinned the other groups may happen to be.
In this respect it may be that the Nats have a small but real point. Managing hypersensitivities is a waste of time and effort. I doubt if this was their INTENDED point given the things they talk of doing, but there have been instances when I have certainly wished that someone could just get a sense of how ridiculous they were being and “suck-it-in”. The kerfuffle over the naming of the Washington Redskins being one of the memorable ones. .. again, apparently not exactly what the Brash one was discussing.
respectfully
BJ
November 7th, 2005 at 1:19 pm
Inner strength, it seemed, made him unique. The strength, despite his intelligence and largely-unheralded knowledge of Parliament and political processes, to publicly belittle himself if he felt the cause needed it. The strength to maintain that incredibly intense momentum despite political set-backs of the kinds that have derailed MPs from other parties. Most of all, the strength to project a bubbling positivity and - so rare at Parliament - a lovely child-like exuberance; and often in the face of insults which should have inspired anger.
I now wonder how real that strength was and whether some of the stress and barbs sunk deep.
At times we argued… inevitable when you work at Parliament. But with the Greens, it’s more as mates than employer/employee. My young daughter bought me, as a birthday present, a giant blow-up pink hammer to hit Rod with. I used it on him next day, telling him why. We laughed, and hugged. My daughter taught me something important then. So did Rod.
November 7th, 2005 at 2:03 pm
I reckon the establishment of PC and its antithesis both spring from a realisation that power and control over others is largely about who gets to define and interpret the language.
I personally think that that’s been taken far too far by the “pro-PC” crowd, in that some of them seem to think that all we need to do is change the language and problems of oppression disappear. Whether the word “Maori” is pronounced correctly or has an improper English plural or not really doesn’t matter a hill of beans to people who’re up at the sharp end of racism and poverty.
My whole point is that those who agree with neoliberal economic orthodoxy do shut down the debate by hysterical vilification of those who oppose them, and you can go to just about any blog out there to see the proof of this.