Political Correctness
By Dave Mangold
----------------------------------------------------------------
Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing them and to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again , to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. – George Orwell, 1984
----------------------------------------------------------------
When did being politically correct take over for simply correct?
It seems to me that there is no morally relevant significance to niceties and euphemisms; granted that there’s something to be said for the dodgy sort of conversational elusiveness that allows a person to talk about taboo subjects while sounding like a Times correspondent (does the Times have correspondents? CNN does, and they’re very proper). But there’s a meaningful transition from doublespeak into Newspeak … which in turn turns into Doublethink. I’m not a particular fan of Orwellian analogies – in themselves they ironically tend more toward rhetoric and alarmism about Orwell’s fictional world than circumspect consideration of the real world. But the Newspeak/Doublethink concept seems oddly current and perceptive right now, and I often wonder about how cautionary tales that everybody knows can do so little to focus attention. I shouldn’t wonder this; I should simply consider how long ago J.C. (messiah, not Bach) said “let he without sin,” and realize that the logic can be ingrained all the way into the consciousness and have no effect.
Social criticism is a bit hairy; how do you point a critical lens at everyone? I tend towards giving over human failings to human nature and not fight it. More importantly, does social criticism require that you share in the blame? Anyone who would voluntarily remove themselves from the set-of-all-humans ought not to be seriously considered in their complaints, suggestions, etc. After all, if you’re not one of us, then who are you really to make suggestions? This is my great escape route from true moralism; I count myself among that set-of-all humans who, by now, can’t be argued to have higher purposes, aspirations, or authorities. We’re all bad little selfish utilitarian Skinnerettes, who, when it comes down to it, would go Kurtz and never consider “the Horror.” It’s a hard thing to love, but I’m trying. Of all the terrible affronts I’ve ever made to my Christian heritage, that’s probably the worst, but then of course in my book that counts for having the serenity to accept the thing I cannot change. After all, what conception is there of any wickedness beyond what humans have already done at least twice?
This is aberrant logic, I realize. Knowing of what horrors man is capable makes it necessary for some to have faith in a greater goodness. To some it’s in the next life, in the gentler aspects of human nature, in some animistic, unbalanced positive energy innate to humans (i.e. spirit or soul), or maybe the continuing refinement of social contrivances that differentiate us from animals. But mostly this faith centers around the pursuit of a more idealized here and now, and that’s where social criticism comes in. It’s the motivation for political correctness and taboo subjects and euphemisms and all of those little white ones.
Personally I don’t subscribe to any taboos, and it always frightens me when encountering others who don’t share my detatchment inspire confusion in me. Whether or not I have a stomach strong enough or an outlook cynical enough or a mentality stoic enough, I should relate to that instinct of humans toward unmentionability. True, I take pride in my boldness, but on those occasions where I outright fail to understand why a taboo is necessary, I honestly wonder whether that makes me a sociopath. My initial reaction is to categorize the offended as a mental eremite, but it is inescapable that I have never met somebody as inoffensible as myself.
So the social critic’s position becomes the relevant concern. Is the whole world beset by posturing? Familiarity and comfort with verboten subjects (Thoughtcrime?) carries a stigma of immorality in it’s own right; I’ve often said that you can pick out somebody with a misspent youth by their ability to convert from ounces to grams. (28 grams to the ounce, Domers. An eight-ball of cocaine is 3.5 grams and knowing the right people can land one in your hand for under a hundred bucks in my hometown. I have no idea how many people that would serve.) Willingly discussing sexually deviant behaviors you’ll never engage in is enough to make a ‘pervert,’ heaven forbid discussing religiously or racially sensitive topics. But I personally just don’t get it. Maybe it’s a side-effect of being the ignominious WhiteSuburbanMiddleclassHeterosexualMale, but I can’t think of what somebody would have to say to me to truly offend me. And when I see someone offended over something I or somebody said, more often than not I just don’t get it. I want to tell people to drop the act; nobody will judge them for being real (which, of course, is only true in select company. My home town is the most closed-minded open-minded place in the world. My college is second. Pride, baby.) But I don’t, and usually it occurs to me that the reasoning I ascribe to their outrage is not the same reasoning they would.
So then, must I count myself out of the set-of-all-humans? Is there something wrong with me? I’m inclined to think not, but what else is new. So how do I examine this particular leaning toward political correctness? Being a selfish little utilitarianist of the highest order (business major), I could apply a cost-benefit analysis. In my mind, the ability to avoid the sensation of indignity and regard rhetoric with indifference is a most desireable benefit, for all the frustration it inspires. Mental separation from my fellows is, for all its benefits, a real cost. (for the sake of full disclosure, the greatest benefit of lax standards of propriety is the lack of sexual inhibition) The balance tips when the “he without sin” edict occurs to me; as sick and twisted and base as humans are, it’s lovely to be human. I enjoy casting no stones , and I would rather relate to humanity at it’s lowest, most honest point. As inseparable as the doublethink of high-mindedness is from the human character, it’s still dishonest, and thus will always impede the plodding escape from the unexamined life. Whether such internal veracity is possible or even desirable is certainly in doubt – it seems entirely probable that meeting life will only serve to prove how mean it is, and how nasty and brutish we are. But it seems to me that accepting your humanity beats denying it – even if accepting it makes you the exception. That is to say, in not the political or even the moral sense but the epistemological one it is “correct.”
So what then of political correctness? Well, if it were morally or epistemologically correct, they wouldn’t call it that, would they? But of course this is trite; I owe more commitment than that. Though I have a hard time reconciling it with Derrida’s credible insistence that meaning proceeds from language and not vice-versa, my admonition would be to exercise incredible skepticism toward rhetoric. This is of course anathema to this entire article; though I’ve tried to make it self-evidently cogent, I’ve also dotted it with literary references that amount to authoritarian appeals – textbook logical fallacy. Hopefully my thoughtlines are whole enough on their own to justify my position, though. That, after all, is my entire point: justifiable positions. Perhaps it's more often than not a justifiable position to be offended at this, that or the other, to lash out pitifully against the immutable injustice of it all, but I've yet to hear the justification. So, soft hearts, virgin ears and precisely balanced sensibilities: is there something wrong with you? How doubled is your think? I won't deny it of myself, only explain.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Postscript:
"In the paper of 1892, two different functions were assigned to the ego in the course of the development of hysteria: (a) Most hysterical symptoms were recognized as being consequences of traumata. Any experience which could elicit intensive painful affects could become a trauma, depending upon the sensitivity of the ego. This sensitivity was the only factor through which the ego contributed to the development of the disease, but nothing further was said about it."
(The effect of the structure of the ego on psychoanalytic technique, Kurt R. Eissler. Refers to Breuer & Freud)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing them and to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again , to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. – George Orwell, 1984
----------------------------------------------------------------
When did being politically correct take over for simply correct?
It seems to me that there is no morally relevant significance to niceties and euphemisms; granted that there’s something to be said for the dodgy sort of conversational elusiveness that allows a person to talk about taboo subjects while sounding like a Times correspondent (does the Times have correspondents? CNN does, and they’re very proper). But there’s a meaningful transition from doublespeak into Newspeak … which in turn turns into Doublethink. I’m not a particular fan of Orwellian analogies – in themselves they ironically tend more toward rhetoric and alarmism about Orwell’s fictional world than circumspect consideration of the real world. But the Newspeak/Doublethink concept seems oddly current and perceptive right now, and I often wonder about how cautionary tales that everybody knows can do so little to focus attention. I shouldn’t wonder this; I should simply consider how long ago J.C. (messiah, not Bach) said “let he without sin,” and realize that the logic can be ingrained all the way into the consciousness and have no effect.
Social criticism is a bit hairy; how do you point a critical lens at everyone? I tend towards giving over human failings to human nature and not fight it. More importantly, does social criticism require that you share in the blame? Anyone who would voluntarily remove themselves from the set-of-all-humans ought not to be seriously considered in their complaints, suggestions, etc. After all, if you’re not one of us, then who are you really to make suggestions? This is my great escape route from true moralism; I count myself among that set-of-all humans who, by now, can’t be argued to have higher purposes, aspirations, or authorities. We’re all bad little selfish utilitarian Skinnerettes, who, when it comes down to it, would go Kurtz and never consider “the Horror.” It’s a hard thing to love, but I’m trying. Of all the terrible affronts I’ve ever made to my Christian heritage, that’s probably the worst, but then of course in my book that counts for having the serenity to accept the thing I cannot change. After all, what conception is there of any wickedness beyond what humans have already done at least twice?
This is aberrant logic, I realize. Knowing of what horrors man is capable makes it necessary for some to have faith in a greater goodness. To some it’s in the next life, in the gentler aspects of human nature, in some animistic, unbalanced positive energy innate to humans (i.e. spirit or soul), or maybe the continuing refinement of social contrivances that differentiate us from animals. But mostly this faith centers around the pursuit of a more idealized here and now, and that’s where social criticism comes in. It’s the motivation for political correctness and taboo subjects and euphemisms and all of those little white ones.
Personally I don’t subscribe to any taboos, and it always frightens me when encountering others who don’t share my detatchment inspire confusion in me. Whether or not I have a stomach strong enough or an outlook cynical enough or a mentality stoic enough, I should relate to that instinct of humans toward unmentionability. True, I take pride in my boldness, but on those occasions where I outright fail to understand why a taboo is necessary, I honestly wonder whether that makes me a sociopath. My initial reaction is to categorize the offended as a mental eremite, but it is inescapable that I have never met somebody as inoffensible as myself.
So the social critic’s position becomes the relevant concern. Is the whole world beset by posturing? Familiarity and comfort with verboten subjects (Thoughtcrime?) carries a stigma of immorality in it’s own right; I’ve often said that you can pick out somebody with a misspent youth by their ability to convert from ounces to grams. (28 grams to the ounce, Domers. An eight-ball of cocaine is 3.5 grams and knowing the right people can land one in your hand for under a hundred bucks in my hometown. I have no idea how many people that would serve.) Willingly discussing sexually deviant behaviors you’ll never engage in is enough to make a ‘pervert,’ heaven forbid discussing religiously or racially sensitive topics. But I personally just don’t get it. Maybe it’s a side-effect of being the ignominious WhiteSuburbanMiddleclassHeterosexualMale, but I can’t think of what somebody would have to say to me to truly offend me. And when I see someone offended over something I or somebody said, more often than not I just don’t get it. I want to tell people to drop the act; nobody will judge them for being real (which, of course, is only true in select company. My home town is the most closed-minded open-minded place in the world. My college is second. Pride, baby.) But I don’t, and usually it occurs to me that the reasoning I ascribe to their outrage is not the same reasoning they would.
So then, must I count myself out of the set-of-all-humans? Is there something wrong with me? I’m inclined to think not, but what else is new. So how do I examine this particular leaning toward political correctness? Being a selfish little utilitarianist of the highest order (business major), I could apply a cost-benefit analysis. In my mind, the ability to avoid the sensation of indignity and regard rhetoric with indifference is a most desireable benefit, for all the frustration it inspires. Mental separation from my fellows is, for all its benefits, a real cost. (for the sake of full disclosure, the greatest benefit of lax standards of propriety is the lack of sexual inhibition) The balance tips when the “he without sin” edict occurs to me; as sick and twisted and base as humans are, it’s lovely to be human. I enjoy casting no stones , and I would rather relate to humanity at it’s lowest, most honest point. As inseparable as the doublethink of high-mindedness is from the human character, it’s still dishonest, and thus will always impede the plodding escape from the unexamined life. Whether such internal veracity is possible or even desirable is certainly in doubt – it seems entirely probable that meeting life will only serve to prove how mean it is, and how nasty and brutish we are. But it seems to me that accepting your humanity beats denying it – even if accepting it makes you the exception. That is to say, in not the political or even the moral sense but the epistemological one it is “correct.”
So what then of political correctness? Well, if it were morally or epistemologically correct, they wouldn’t call it that, would they? But of course this is trite; I owe more commitment than that. Though I have a hard time reconciling it with Derrida’s credible insistence that meaning proceeds from language and not vice-versa, my admonition would be to exercise incredible skepticism toward rhetoric. This is of course anathema to this entire article; though I’ve tried to make it self-evidently cogent, I’ve also dotted it with literary references that amount to authoritarian appeals – textbook logical fallacy. Hopefully my thoughtlines are whole enough on their own to justify my position, though. That, after all, is my entire point: justifiable positions. Perhaps it's more often than not a justifiable position to be offended at this, that or the other, to lash out pitifully against the immutable injustice of it all, but I've yet to hear the justification. So, soft hearts, virgin ears and precisely balanced sensibilities: is there something wrong with you? How doubled is your think? I won't deny it of myself, only explain.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Postscript:
"In the paper of 1892, two different functions were assigned to the ego in the course of the development of hysteria: (a) Most hysterical symptoms were recognized as being consequences of traumata. Any experience which could elicit intensive painful affects could become a trauma, depending upon the sensitivity of the ego. This sensitivity was the only factor through which the ego contributed to the development of the disease, but nothing further was said about it."
(The effect of the structure of the ego on psychoanalytic technique, Kurt R. Eissler. Refers to Breuer & Freud)
posted by College Libertarians of Notre Dame at 8:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home