The debate over \u201cPolitical Correctness\u201d has hit the British headlines recently. Stories of \u201cloony leftism\u201d have been gleefully reprinted by the tabloids and even Tory ministers have joined in the fray. But behind the headlines, serious issues of censorship, discrimination and how to \ufb01ght oppression are at stake. Lesley Day examines the issues.<\/p>\n
New novel by the author of Jurrassic Park is launched in a blaze of publicity. Michael Crichton\u2019s Disclosure tackles sexual harassment\u2014but the victim is a male who is later the subject of a false accusation of harassment himself. In the theatre a serious drama Oleanna plays to packed houses. It is about a college professor brought to ruin by an unjusti\ufb01ed charge of sexual harassment. The instigator is a female student who offers to withdraw the charges if a series of \u201cpolitically incorrect\u201d books, including the professor\u2019s own, are withdrawn from the library.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile the British tabloids are delighting in the misery they have in\ufb02icted on a headteacher. After allegedly turning down a theatre trip using arguments associated with \u201cpolitical correctness\u201d, she \ufb01nds her job threatened and her sexuality under public scrutiny (see page 2).<\/p>\n
Offensive<\/p>\n
Social workers and teachers have come under attack from Tory ministers for a wide variety of practices from equal opportunity programmes, through anti-racist curricula to opposing trans-racial adoption. All of these are given the convenient label \u201cPolitical Correctness\u201d and then ridiculed and attacked.<\/p>\n
In this right wing offensive, reactionary writers and politicians have posed as the defenders of liberalism and free speech. They have sometimes been joined by those more often associated with progressive left wing causes. Supporters of \u201cPolitical Correctness\u201d (PC) have been accused of being authoritarian, of sti\ufb02ing \u201cfree thought\u201d or of being the equivalent of new witch-hunting McCarthyites. This extraordinary upending of reality helps the right wing justify their own witch-hunts which are aimed at anyone who challenges the enormous inequalities of our society.<\/p>\n
The reactionaries try to suggest that the odds are now stacked against white males, especially at work in terms of recruitment and promotion. All the advantages, they claim, now lie with women and people from ethnic minorities.<\/p>\n
But the facts remain that women\u2019s average earnings are still 70% of men\u2019s, that unemployment rates among black youth are twice as high for whites, and that surveys have shown a huge under-reporting by women of sexual harassment they suffer at work, particularly from managers. Amongst the sea of grey suits in parliament the red and electric blue suits of ambitious women MPs stand out precisely because of their tiny numbers. Amongst the 1,736 members of the judiciary only 92 are women and just six are from ethnic minorities. In 1989 black people occupied just 207 of the 18,644 posts in the top seven grades in the civil service.<\/p>\n
So the \ufb01rst response of socialists to the reactionary opponents of \u201cPolitical Correctness\u201d is straightforward. We know very well that the Tory ministers who demonise single mothers and lock up visitors from Jamaica over Christmas are opponents of equality and free speech and have to be fought tooth and nail.<\/p>\n
Reactionary<\/p>\n
But \ufb01ghting this reactionary backlash should not make us uncritical supporters of Political Correctness. Amongst the many differing practices and attitudes that are labelled PC there are some we should support and some we should reject. The method that underlies PC can be wrong-headed and dangerous.<\/p>\n
The term \u201cPolitical Correctness\u201d was a term \ufb01rst coined in irony or self-deprecation by left wingers in the United States referring to those whose political activity became increasingly con\ufb01ned to dealing with appearance, language and attitude rather than tackling the underlying causes of inequality. Indeed, preoccupations with these issues re\ufb02ected the decline and disintegration of the mass political movements\u2014black, women and lesbian and gay\u2014in the late 1970s. The right wing and the media then took up the term as part of the backlash under Reagan and Bush against progressive policies, particularly in the universities.<\/p>\n
These policies were the legacy of the political radicalisation of the 1960s and early 1970s. Students and staff in universities fought for changes in the curriculum, in language and admissions policies. The universities had for long been the preserve of the middle class and privileged. There were bitter battles to get more black students admitted. As numbers increased and more working class, black and women students arrived in classes, they increasingly challenged what was being taught. Feminist academics set up the \ufb01rst Women\u2019s Studies courses. Black students and teachers challenged the traditional views of the history of civilisation and literature which excluded and ignored the contributions, and often the very existence, of cultures other than the European and Anglo-American.<\/p>\n
Many mainstream academics have resisted this. They try to argue that the traditional liberal curriculum was value free and objective, whereas PC ideas mean promoting second rate writers and second rate civilisations. This is nonsense. Curricula are not neutral, and for the most part they re\ufb02ect the predominant ideology of the time\u2014that of the ruling class. When teachers and students make some progress in challenging this they are always opposed by those in command. For instance the Tories intervened to try and get the History component of the National Curriculum restricted to teaching the traditions and values of British imperialist history.<\/p>\n
But mistakes have also been made in the name of PC. In reaction to traditional Eurocentric history and literature some PC supporters railed against \u201cDead White Males\u201d dominating the curriculum. Famous literary works have been denounced as sexist, racist and offensive to students. The answer is not however to censor such works, to remove them from course lists and libraries. Students have to be taught to recognise them as products of societies dominated by oppression and colonialism which have to be viewed and analysed critically. The working class and the oppressed have to appropriate these works for their own, sorting out what is valuable and worth learning from and what is not.<\/p>\n
Language<\/p>\n
In Britain the focus of debate over PC has concentrated on language. Some of the most obviously daft aspects of PC have emerged in this area and the wrong method behind aspects of PC can be seen at work. Theorists such as Dale Spender in Man Made Language and other writings in the cultural \ufb01eld have developed idealist notions of the origins of inequality. Instead of a materialist explanation which recognises the roots of inequality and oppression in class society, language takes on an overwhelming importance. Supporters of this PC perspective seize on terms and labels and insist that anyone not using the \u201ccorrect\u201d term is a supporter of oppression. Accusations of racism and sexism get hurled about and in the midst of the furore, the question of policies and action for real change get forgotten.<\/p>\n
It has often been in the white collar unions and workplaces that these issues are taken up obsessively. Words such as \u201cdisabled\u201d are declared insulting to the \u201cdifferently abled\u201d. A recent National Association of Probation Of\ufb01cers conference ruled a motion which had the term \u201ctinkering\u201d in it as offensive to Gypsies. Strike breakers could no longer be called \u201cscabs\u201d as this was offensive to people with skin diseases and so on.<\/p>\n
Abusive<\/p>\n
As socialists, we know that changing language will not change the most important aspects of social reality. For instance, the changes needed to deliver decent chances for disabled people will come from \ufb01ghting for a society which isn\u2019t run in the interests of pro\ufb01t, which provides proper facilities and so forth, not from deciding which term is the best to describe them.<\/p>\n
But this does not mean to say that language is not important at all. Part of the \ufb01ght against sexism in the trade union movement has been changing the terms used. \u201cChairman\u201d carries a certain expectation which we want to change. And even more important has been the \ufb01ght against abusive or patronising language used to describe women and black people or other racially oppressed groups. Such language reinforces their oppressed position.<\/p>\n
Trotsky took the question of language very seriously. He welcomed some of the new terms thrown up by the revolution and looked forward to a creative fusion of old and new forms. He fought for clarity above all: \u201cLanguage is the instrument of thought\u201d. This phrase is very telling. The origins of exploitation and oppression may not lie in language but language contributes to shaping attitudes. That is why Trotsky and Lenin fought against rudeness when it re\ufb02ected contempt by someone in a privileged position.<\/p>\n
Target<\/p>\n
Trotsky fought against the tendency in the Red Army to revert to the old Tsarist habit whereby of\ufb01cers could use the familiar of \u201cyou\u201d (like the French \u201ctu\u201d) while those in the ranks were expected to use the formal version. \u201cOf course the polite and familiar forms are only matters of convention, but de\ufb01nite human relationships are expressed in this convention\u201d.<\/p>\n
Positive discrimination, known as af\ufb01rmative action in the USA, is generating the most controversy at present. It has become a prime target of the anti-PC campaign.<\/p>\n
Livelihoods and life chances are at stake. Whenever bosses and managers cut jobs or training programmes workers will be left competing for limited opportunities. Selection is never fair under capitalism. But in order to appear fair, capitalism provides\u2014and continually recreates\u2014prejudices to justify unequal treatment, appealing to one section against another. Usually, the bosses turn on those already suffering discrimination. This used to happen with policies of \u201cwomen out \ufb01rst\u201d, for instance.<\/p>\n
Modern managers are quite capable of using equal opportunities policies to foster divisions. \u201cWell of course you deserved it\u201d a manager whispers to a worker who fails to get a promotion or regrading, \u201cbut in the current climate of course the women\/black candidates have to get the preference\u201d. This insidious divide and rule ploy has to be fought head on\u2014most obviously through a united \ufb01ght for better conditions and pay for all.<\/p>\n
Programme<\/p>\n
But our programme should also encompass policies to combat inequalities, including where necessary \u201cpositive discrimination\u201d, and to right wrongs that are the product of oppression. Socialists try to unite all sections of the working class in \ufb01ghting for the necessary resources to deliver these reforms. At the same time we point out that such measures will not eliminate oppression until its root\u2014capitalist society\u2014is overthrown. But the working class will not win its oppressed members for this battle if it does not take such issues seriously. \u201cWait for socialism\u201d is no answer to give to the black student who sees an array of white staff running the college or the black railworker who sees all the cabins occupied by white drivers.<\/p>\n
The politics of Political Correctness has become at best an inadequate and pale re\ufb02ection of the thoroughgoing \ufb01ght needed to uproot inequality. At its worst it is muddleheaded and misleads workers and young people in how to \ufb01ght oppression. But its weaknesses should not prevent us \ufb01ghting for an effective programme to combat oppression and exploitation and to see off the reactionary offensive that lies behind the attack on \u201cPolitical Correctness\u201d on both sides of the Atlantic.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The debate over \u201cPolitical Correctness\u201d has hit the British headlines recently. Stories of \u201cloony leftism\u201d have been gleefully reprinted by the tabloids and even Tory ministers have joined in the fray. But behind the headlines, serious issues of censorship, discrimination and how to \ufb01ght oppression are at stake. Lesley Day examines the issues. New novel […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7724,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[104],"class_list":["post-3972","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-archive"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fifthinternational.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3972","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fifthinternational.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fifthinternational.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fifthinternational.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7724"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fifthinternational.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3972"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fifthinternational.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3972\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fifthinternational.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3972"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fifthinternational.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3972"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fifthinternational.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3972"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}