What “political correctness” is truly about? While Jake Tibbett defends political correctness, Richard Wagner talks about the ways it benefits the elites.
What “political correctness” is truly about? While Jake Tibbetts defends political correctness, Richard Wagner talks about the ways it benefits the elites.
“Kiss-Ass” Generation Recognizes the Necessity of Political Correctness by Jake Tibbetts
Clint Eastwood is not alone in his dismissiveness towards “political correctness.” Such dismissiveness is common amongst those who secretly fear the potential ramifications of dismantling power structures that breed and encourage inequality and oppression. For progress to be made, those in positions of privilege must acknowledge this deep-seated fear of social change and work to ensure that the voices of the oppressed are heard loudly and clearly in the fight for liberation.
A Reactionary Response to “Political Correctness”
Clint Eastwood—the famed eighty-six-year-old actor, director, and outspoken conservative personality—didn’t mince any words in a recent interview with Esquire, the well-known men’s magazine. Eastwood, who found political fame after speaking to an empty chair as though it were President Barack Obama at the 2012 Republican National Convention, was asked by interviewer Michael Hainey about his thoughts on the 2016 presidential race between Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump. Never one to shy away from controversy, Eastwood replied with a few words about how he prefers Trump before blathering about how the idea of “political correctness” is an idea that is, in his eyes, limiting the scope of meaningful discourse.
Eastwood seemed to have trouble understanding why this concept of “political correctness” has become such a prominent topic of discussion in recent years. When Donald Trump was first mentioned briefly by Hainey about how he seems to perhaps invoke some of Eastwood’s classic mannerisms, Eastwood responded quite bluntly:
Opposition to “Political Correctness”
As a member of this so-called “kiss-ass” generation, I almost immediately realized that Eastwood’s interpretation of what he calls “political correctness”—an interpretation that is far from uncommon—is steeped in a misunderstanding of the structures present within society that promote social inequality and a fear of the changing dynamics that could arise if equality were to be realized.
Eastwood’s position, first and foremost, represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what being “politically correct” means. This position appears to operate under the assumption that hateful speech that works to strengthen the structures that contribute to the oppression of marginalized groups should be encouraged under the guise of “free speech.” To those who subscribe to the philosophy espoused by Eastwood, “political correctness” serves not to dismantle archaic social hierarchies but rather to force the populace to abide by a strict set of linguistic guidelines to avoid hurting anyone’s feelings.
Through this distorted definition of “political correctness” that is continually reinforced by socially conservative outlets, the oppressors appear to attempt to make themselves out to be the oppressed. The result of this reinforcement is a curious one: many of those who cry out about the effects of so-called “political correctness” seem to adopt the very same “victim complex” they often accuse the marginalized communities they work to oppress of possessing.
What “Political Correctness” is Truly About?
Laurence Berg, Canada Research Chair for Human Rights, Diversity and Identity, denounces the idea that policies of “political correctness” are oppressive in nature on the basis that the idea of “political correctness” is a reactionary response to a reframing of the debate on inequality and injustice, particularly in the developed world:
“The term politically correct is a reactionary term,” he said. “[It was] created by people who were worried by [social] changes…that affected their everyday understanding of the world in ways that pointed out their role in creating or reproducing dominance and subordination.” To Berg, what we know as “political correctness” is truly “a social movement by marginalised people…to use language…that more accurately represents reality.”
“Political correctness,” truly, is about being aware of the impact that our words have on existing power structures. “Political correctness” is about altering conversation to recognize the fact that those in positions of privilege, be it in regards to class, race, gender, sexuality, religion, or any other classification that implicitly or explicitly classifies members of society in a hierarchical manner, are in no position to discuss the prevalence and extent of privilege in society. “Political correctness” is about realizing that it takes unity, solidarity, and cooperation to effectively fight against the structures that breed inequality, and that recognizing sources of privilege and changing how we frame conversation can help move the conversation forward.
Addressing Fear and Recognizing Inequality
This idea of directly addressing oppressive societal structures, even in a manner as minimal as working to alter how we frame conversation, understandably causes fear in those who are used to maintaining positions of privilege and power. Mr. Eastwood, who, born thirty-three years before the March on Washington and thirty-nine years before Stonewall, has seen social and political dynamics in America change drastically, undoubtedly has recognized that his position of privilege has been threatened by demands for equality and liberation from oppression. Instead of hiding from conversation on what the road to equality requires of all of us, instead of complaining about a “kiss-ass generation” built on “P.C. culture,” instead of living in fear of losing power over the historically marginalized, people who have been granted positions of privilege need to simply listen. It’s not our place to determine which kind of language is offensive or oppressive. It’s not our place to decide whether the experience of a member of a marginalized group is valid or not. It’s not our place to proclaim that, because the status quo works for us, it must work for others. It’s our place to listen, to accept criticism, to take suggestions, and to work as allies to dismantle the power structures that encourage exploitation and harm.
If that journey begins with expelling harmful phrases and words that serve no purpose but to deprive others of power from my vocabulary, I accept that. If recognizing my privilege and working to improve the lives of those who don’t have as much power as myself make me a “kiss-ass,” I accept that.
As I see it, Mr. Eastwood, it’s a far more damning fate to live in fear of losing privilege than it is to acknowledge one’s role in preserving the structures that breed inequality and work to put an end to the microaggressions that only strengthen said structures.
***
Does political correctness actually benefit the elites? Jake Tibbett defended political correctness. This is Richard Wagner’s rebuttal
Free speech benefits the oppressed. As long as that basic freedom is protected, then there is always hope for marginalized people. No matter what else is done to them, they can voice their opposition in the hopes of persuading others to sympathize with their cause and effect change.
The United States became independent because marginalized colonists were expressing their opposition to the British Empire. They moved enough public opinion in their favor that revolution became viable. That is why freedom is speech is sacred to US. But vigorous protection of free speech isn’t just an anachronism.
Since the 1960s, we’ve seen many marginalized groups make gains by using freedom of speech to persuade public opinion. MLK led millions who made their voices heard, while the powers that be tried to suppress him. A second wave of feminism began in the late 1960s. Gays, and later transgender persons, made their voices heard. Lots of people at that time were “offended”. But in the end, their voices were heard and society was forever changed.
Does Political Correctness challenge the status quo?
Last week, fellow Pavlovic contributor Jake Tibbetts argued that political correctness ensures that “the voices of the oppressed are heard loudly and clearly in the fight for liberation”. Yet he states later – “If that journey begins with expelling harmful phrases and words that serve no purpose but to deprive others of power from my vocabulary, I accept that.”
During the 1960s, lots of hurtful words and phrases were used. While blacks were marching for their right to be treated as human beings, whites were calling them “nigger”, “animal”, etc. Also during that time, the Nation of Islam was circulating a theory that the white race was genetically engineered by an evil scientist on the Greek island of Patmos to be a devil race.
Free speech ain’t always pretty, but it’s necessary.
“Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression…” – John Stuart Mill
Political Correctness protects the elites
Have you noticed how the powerful are generally supportive of political correctness. This is not only academic institutions. Corporations are mostly very supportive of it. It was the corporations that started all that “Happy Holidays” stuff instead of “Merry Christmas”, because the idea of people of one religion having a holiday is just so offensive to anyone who is not of that religion.
The retailers like Target pay slightly above minimum wage, pester you to get one of their store credit cards and fall into their debt trap, but trans persons can use whatever bathroom they want. How progressive of them!
The Democratic Party establishment and their media allies clearly are as well. In 2004, Howard Dean ran on a rather populist platform. Despite his support for same-sex marriage before it was cool, despite his excellent record on civil rights, he got PCed when he said, “I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks.”
Is the redneck terrified that the prospects of equality will topple his privileged position? He’s probably no better off than his black fellow Americans. While Walmart discontinues the offensive, oppressive Confederate Flag, their wages remain low and their goods remain mostly made in sweatshops in developing countries. Where’s all the PC protesters giving a voice to the oppressed?
Maybe they were too busy worrying about something more horrifying that sweatshops and poverty. Chick-fil-A treats its employees well, and offers them scholarships. College students of every race, creed, color, and yes, sexual orientation can work their way through college while frying the tastiest chicken sandwiches around and never have to work on Sunday,
But the CEO of Chick-fil-A is an old Christian who closes his restaurants on Sunday but also considers same-sex marriage to be sinful. Ermagerd! There were boycotts, but they didn’t last. I mean, who can resist Chick-fil-A?
Yet according to Tibbetts , the opponents of political correctness are “the oppressors [who] appear to attempt to make themselves out to be the oppressed.” Is Walmart the champion of the oppressed?
Divide and conquer
The powers that be love to play one marginalized group against another, and political correctness is just another means of carrying out their nefarious will. It’s now politically incorrect for a politician to even say that they care about working class white people. Jim Webb (who was calling for criminal justice reform long before the emergence of #blacklivesmatter) has been PCed more than once because he has the audacity to say that white people matter too.
Martin Luther King understood that to achieve equality, people of all races must stand together. The “Poor People’s Campaign” symbolized everything the powers that be fear, and political correctness is undermining that legacy.