This phrase, “political correctness,” adjective “politically correct,” is a blessing and a curse.
It is a blessing because it gives a name to something that does not wish to be named: to a “syndrome” in the old Greek sense, of “things that run together.” It was once a Maoist phrase, expressing a Leninist idea. Something could be “politically correct” even if it were factually a lie; for, to the Communist, truth has no independent existence, outside the interpretation of the Communist Party.
Today, the phrase refers to the post-Communist utopian ideology, and its “progressive” political agenda—to social engineering schemes designed to remold human beings in obedience to feminist, environmentalist and multiculturalist dictates, as well as to the old socialist ones. Beyond this, the phrase encompasses the methods of intimidation used to silence opponents of the current agenda, ranging from intense academic peer pressure, to the creation of secretive star chambers such as Canada’s “human rights” commissions and tribunals.
The phrase is also a curse, however, because it can become impossibly vague, and ironical, and finally frivolous. Vague, because the ideology to which it refers is itself vague: it promotes new abstract “rights” quite promiscuously as it goes along. Ironical: because the term is itself often used by the politically correct. And ultimately frivolous: because it is too light a wagon for the load. The politically correct seek to eliminate debate by trivializing all serious discourse; but resistance to the trivial can be made to appear trivial itself.
Over the Labour Day weekend I attended several panel discussions touching on “political correctness,” at the annual general meeting of the American Political Science Association. It was held in Toronto this year, outside the U.S. for the first time. There was a controversy earlier when various members first realized that by meeting in Canada, and discussing political questions with academic freedom, they could be subject to monitoring and possible complaints under Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Several asked to be apprised of Canada’s current speech codes in advance, to learn we have none: for our “human rights” bureaucrats decide what is and isn’t acceptable only after the fact.
In practice, our “human rights” commissioners were unlikely to consider any complaints against visiting APSA professors, given the terrible publicity they’d received recently from their show trials of leading Canadian journalists. Clifford Orwin, a prominent Canadian political scientist, argued forcefully that any suggestion this could happen in Canada was over the top. (Tell this to Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant.) Others argued that only Canadian citizens can be hauled before our kangaroo courts; visiting U.S. professors would be protected by American citizenship. The controversy died away.
But while only Canada has the deep shame of actual Section 13 provisions against free speech, it is obvious that politically correct phenomena are as much a part of daily U.S. academic life, as Canadian. An excellent example, put forward by Robert P. George, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence in Princeton University, in the panel on “Conscience, Expression and Liberty”, is the “orientation” programs given to freshmen arriving in universities across the continent. These are compulsory sessions of politically correct indoctrination, designed to brainwash the young and impressionable, and turn them against any moral or religious formation they may have received from their families.
He, and several other of the more conservative academics, made what I think is the key point about the apparent triumph of political correctness on campus: that it has depended upon the pusillanimity of the people under attack.
It is crucially important to fight back: to denounce those who try to silence us; to subject their intellectual fashion cults to public ridicule; to show solidarity with those who are being muffled and victimized; to give them encouragement, and prevent their isolation; to defy openly the edicts of the politically correct; to retaliate against every attempt to encroach upon academic freedom. (“Forgive, but retaliate,” was Prof. George’s formula, by analogy to Reagan’s old Cold-War detente formula: “Trust, but verify.”)
A good place to start would be with those orientation programs. They need to be exposed for what they are, and challenged in forensic detail. Professors of goodwill, regardless of their own political views, should go out of their way to uphold the honour of their profession, by assuring incoming students that the university is not a closed leftwing camp; that social and political indoctrination is not a natural expression of academic ideals, but a subversion and perversion of them.
The purpose of our universities is to extend knowledge, in pursuit of truth; to live truth, and to enjoy truth. This is an open-ended pursuit, the precise opposite of political correctness. But it will die in the darkness of the dungeon unless it is publicly defended and upheld.
- Robin Hoodism is on the rise - Sunday January 2, 2011 at 9:35 am
- Taking on the Reformation - Wednesday December 29, 2010 at 8:53 am
- The miserly Canadian - Wednesday December 22, 2010 at 5:23 am
