A Castrated Debate

Not having written anything for this blog in several months (maybe a year?! - gasp), it has taken an extremely balanced and on-point article to make me dig out my old UN and PW. It is the kind of article that I am very pleased to read, because it directly addresses a large, nagging and important issue that has been plaguing me for the past several years. 'Not a Very PC Thing to Say' by Jonathan Chait faces head-on the growing problem of overly-pc (politically correct) uber-liberalism. It also happens to be responding, in turn, to an absolutely hilarious, clever, and nuanced column, written by Omar Mahmood in the University of Michigan's Michigan Review, poking fun at this kind of wonky attitude. Mr. Mahmood received harsh criticism and vandalism for his column, and I am glad to see Mr. Chait coming to his defense.

Anyone who has been on an college campus in the last several years, or talked to recent graduates, or lives in a hipster glen in any big city in the United States, has undoubtedly been confronted with the 'that's not a very pc thing to say' glare, or even been overtly called out on behavior that is considered insensitive and offensive.  The proliferation of terms like 'microagression' and 'trigger warning' and hashtags like #RIPpatriarchy or #JeNeSuisPasCharlie give example to a rising tide of indignation and intolerance towards behavior that is considered insufficiently politically correct or sympathetic.  Indeed, the whole furor over the Charlie Hebdo incident and the appropriateness of supporting the slain cartoonists points a spot light on how entrenched positions have become regarding free speech.  Similarly, the actor and comedian Chris Rock recently said in an interview that he no longer performs on college campuses, because students are too conservative - 'Not in their political views — not like they’re voting Republican — but in their social views and their willingness not to offend anybody. Kids raised on a culture of “We’re not going to keep score in the game because we don’t want anybody to lose.” Or just ignoring race to a fault. You can’t say “the black kid over there.” No, it’s “the guy with the red shoes.” You can’t even be offensive on your way to being inoffensive.'

Now, let me be perfectly clear, I am not trying to make any particular point (in this post) about racism, feminism, the definition of rape, the necessity of the 'trigger warnings,' or any other potentially controversial topic.  What I am trying to say is that - when people are not allowed to speak, when their voice is discounted because of their skin color, economic background, or because the listener has chosen to object to their words rather than the meaning behind them - the debate has been castrated.  Let me illustrate with an example.  I recently got into a rather fierce debate over the issue of racism.  My remarks were not particularly politically correct, but rather than address the meat of my argument, my opponent took the position of 'Well, you are white from an upper-middle class family, so you are in no position to talk about this issue."

This is a problem, because when you reduce someone else to the product of their circumstance and upbringing, you are essentially doing the same to yourself - which leaves no one with any means for growth or insight into anything else.  What can I say in return to that response?  If all I am, fundamentally, is a skin color and an economic state of birth, and my words and arguments, thoughts and feelings, mean nothing in contrast to that - or are simply an extension of my white, upper-middle-class-ness - then what is to make you anything other than your skin color and economic state of birth?  By castrating the debate in such a fashion, you remove the agency of all parties - accountability, but also the ability to act, to speak, to change or to think.

A similar argument applies to the ever-growing PC lexicon.  If I am not aware that I need to write 'trigger warning' before talking about the definition of rape, or if I am not aware that calling a black person 'black' is a microaggression, or if I am not aware of the entire set of pre-determinedly appropriate terms (or simply don't wish to be bogged down by their use), and that leads to my entire argument being discounted (or regarded disapprovingly but indulgently by my more PC cohorts) - well then, in this case, you have simply reduced me to my vocabulary and willingness to fit in, in the same way that I was reduced to my skin color and economic status before.  And if all we are - and can be - is determined by such characteristics, and we cannot talk to one another, then what is left?  We can only talk to those who are just like us, and have the same background and vocabulary.  We have created an echo chamber, into which no new ideas or healthy critique shall pass.

Anyway, check out the article and the column, which will undoubtedly be clearer and more enlightened that the ramblings of this (mostly-) white upper-middle class, not super PC, but otherwise deep believer in humanity.

Update: I believe this article represents an excellent example of the kind of narrow-minded uber-liberal view points that stifle discussion and promote an 'echo-chamber' mentality.  Reed College student Jeremiah True was ousted from the discussion section of his Humanities class for his views on sexual assault and rape, which apparently made his classmates feel unsafe.  However, looking a little deeper at True's opinions, it appears that his stance on sexual assault and rape just takes a more nuanced view than the current PC liberal stance allows.  Taking into account the legal ramifications of expanding the definition of rape to include sexual assault, and attempting to cast doubt on the idea of 'rape culture' and questioning the popular statistics, True isn't condoning rape.  He's simply trying to look a little deeper into a complicated issue.  Shutting out his voice may make his classmates feel more comfortable, but Professor Savery isn't doing his students any favors.  Thinking about important issues should make everyone a little uncomfortable, if they are truly willing to learn.  Also see here.  And also see here.  And here, with Al Jazeera hitting hard.