PC didn’t die, it was just resting
Intellectuals, commentators etc, Values - - Posted on March, 11 at 10:25 am by Ken L
Nearly 10 years ago, Policy published a piece about political correctness. It was timely because of the apparently unstoppable rise of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation movement (hard to call it a ‘party’). Lisa Hill began her piece in Policy:
John Howard’s incumbency has been marked by a sense that people can now speak more freely without what is sometimes perceived as the stultifying bridle of ‘political correctness.’ Howard has alluded with pride to a new era in which people can ‘talk about certain things without living in fear of being branded as a bigot or a racist’ (Howard 1996: 4).
Has the ’stultifying bridle of “political correctness”‘ really been hung up in the stable? How we wish it had been! Needless to say PC is alive and well and far more virulent than it ever was in the early 1990s.
It’s instructive to recall the nature of that early PC. Its critics were often a bit coy about spelling it out, but basically they objected to the public condemnation allegedly heaped on people who were white Anglo-Australians and proud of what they had accomplished in Australia. More specifically, they complained that they ‘weren’t allowed’ to criticise Aborigines or immigrants or other minority groups and that they had to take a ‘black armband’ view of history.
Even if we take this representation of PC circa 1996 at face value, it seems comparatively benign. In essence it tried to keep public discourse within boundaries defined by regret for past errors and a concern to create an inclusive society. It’s hard to see how it caused any real harm, beyond curbing exhuberant expressions of pride and self-satisfaction in the status quo. Unfortunately the contemporary version of PC is far from benign. It sets out to demonise groups and individuals and punish them for the views that they hold.
PC in the John Howard era targets two broad categories of thought crime: ‘unAustralianness’ and ‘Muslim extremism’ (though maybe the latter is simply a manifestation of the former). It is now socially and politically acceptable - nay, mandatory - to vilify people who fall into either way of Bad Thinking.
UnAustralianness is a delightfully fuzzy concept. At a semantic level of course the word is meaningless but PC isn’t concerned with semantics but sentiment. UnAustralianness springs from the mindless jingoism of “Aussie! Aussie! Aussie! Oi! Oi! Oi!” writ large. Catherine Lumby observed last year:
CONOR DUFFY: Catherine Lumby says the word featured heavily in the lead-up to last year’s Cronulla riots, and she’s concerned its overuse on talkback radio could have contributed to the conflict.
CATHERINE LUMBY: A lot of the discussion was about us and them. So, there’s this idea of, you know, Anglo Australians define Australia. Anyone else is sort of here as a guest.
‘Anglo Australians define Australia’ - that expresses it nicely. They were here first and they’re gunna bloody well keep it the way they want it, got it cobber? So if you’ve got something bad to say about cricket, Anzac Day or Sylvania Waters piss off back where you came from. Now kiss the flag or I’ll punch you.
UnAustralianness adopts a more sinister form in matters of national security. The new PC demands that we ’support the troops’, which means that any criticism of Australian military adventures in foreign lands is tantamount to treason and any querying of the War on Terror risks a torrent of ‘appeaser’ abuse.
As to ‘Muslim extremism’ … just when you thought PC couldn’t get any sillier, it does. It was silly enough when Sheik al-Hilali made some comments about women who get raped asking for it - comments that sounded remarkably like those a lot of Anglo Australians of a certain age habitually make in private - and caused a national wave of hysteria. Today we read of two new examples where PC has left common sense for dead.
Case number one:
A Muslim cleric has blamed the drought, climate change and pollution on the lack of faith Australians have in Allah.
Can you believe it? Why does the government let such people into the country?
Actually now I think about it, lots of clerics seem to carry on like this. Didn’t it all start with Moses and the Israelites having to wander in the wilderness for ages because they’d turned away from god? And when Christian clerics have days of prayer for rain that kind of suggests that the drought was all god’s fault in the first place but I don’t remember any outrage about Christian extremism. But forget all that, this guy’s a Muslim and talking about Allah therefore it’s offensive.
Case number two is far, far more worrying:
In a circulating DVD, a foreign sheik exhorts Muslims to take control of Australia by having more children, out-breeding non-believers.
Oh dear, not this again. This was how the damn Catholics were gunna take over Australia … their evil ploy of banning birth control meant they’d breed like cane toads (notice how it’s only ‘the other’ who ‘breed’? It’s a nice touch, dehumanises them) while us Protestants restricted ourselves to a restrained 1 or 2 kids … gosh it all comes flooding back to me from the 1950s. I must ask Cardinal Pell how the grand strategy worked out.
How did these two appalling incidents get to see the light of day? It’s not clear but from a reference to ‘results of News Ltd’s investigation’ it looks like Rupert’s minions have been out there fearlessly searching for the work of Muslim extremists so they can expose them to the blowtorch of public scorn.
The truly sad thing about these two cases is that’s it appears to have been ’Islamic Council of Victoria spokesman Waleed Aly’ who labelled them ‘extremist speech and literature’. If it was, it illustrates one of the problems of PC: it infiltrates the whole public discourse and subconsciously alters people’s mental models of the world so they all start seeing it through a PC lens.
Does PC directly limit people’s freedom of speech in any concrete manner? Generally not, except at the fringes with laws covering things like sedition and racial vilification. However in my experience it has a serious chilling effect on public discussion. Many people are reluctant to engage in controversy or to risk being out of step with the PC mainstream. Consequently they are reluctant to express a view about many issues. I experience this frequently when I try to encourage debate in class - most recent example, the majority of people had ‘no opinion’ about whether trade unions still had a worthwhile role to play in Australia. I don’t believe this was due to ignorance about trade unions (these were not kids fresh from school), it reflected a subconscious wish to avoid the whole topic for fear of saying the ‘wrong thing’.
No doubt PC is an inevitable outcome of people’s desire to suppress dissent, especially in matters that depend more on faith and emotion than on evidence and logic. It’s therefore important to identify and oppose PC wherever it occurs if we’re going to maintain any sort of genuine democracy in Australia.
Posted in Intellectuals, commentators etc, Values |
March 11th, 2007 at 11:07 am
As always I blame a combination of opportunistic politicians and soap-opera-style news media for a lot of this.
It’s a sort of mass hysteria. Loud calls to condemn, condemn, oh you failed to condemn with sufficient vigour, you are a bad person!
Another good example, the shadow Attorney-General Thompson after they found out a seven-year-old reference was in fact for an underworld murdering murderer! Not the slightest suggestion or evidence that seven years ago he knowingly acted as referee for a felon (was the man a felon at the time?), but he must resign anyway. Clearly his judgment is ‘flawed’!
There are only a few possible responses when faced with a ‘chilling effect’ on discussion in the mainstream. Desert the mainstream in disgust, or, just button up.
March 11th, 2007 at 11:11 am
And following on from my last comment, the news media cycle is notoriously brief. Sometimes, when these ‘controversies’ erupt, I wonder, just once, what would happen if the person under pressure just held their nerve. For a few days. See what happens.
If the ‘issue’ isn’t so momentous after all, well, who will be laughing last?
March 11th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Let’s face it, PC was bad when it was Paul Keating (especially) setting the parameters. Now that John Howard has decreed the things that we should or should not debate, it is refreshing to be free of PC. All the old taboo things (like criticising people based on race, religion, or creed) are now open slather, while as Ken points out, we must not question the Iraq war - not how we got to be there, how well or badly it is going, whether we should still be there, whether we actually have an Australian foreign policy - we must not question the competence or truthfulness of any member of the government (even if they are standing there with a receipt for $60,000 worth of printing they don’t seem to have). If Howard can get away with his history of lies and deceit for as long as he has, then the new PC is not working for me.
March 11th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
I would have said ON was one bloody big party for Hanson.
March 11th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Political correctness has always been with us, and will always be. All that changes with different political regimes is the acceptable version of PC.
March 11th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
This gets confusing because the whole concept of PC has changed, but the lexical meaning hasn’t caught up yet.
PC came from identity politics and feminists calling for chairpersons and personholes, the theory being that language shapes thought. It morphed as it went along until anything that someone might consider insulting was politically incorrect.
Hanson was about as incorrect as you can get, but the past 10 years has consolidated the position we’re in now, where PC is whatever John Howard says, or infers, it is. It’s more literal than it was in the sense that it’s now about party politics rather than identity politics. We just don’t use it that way yet.
Howard owns correctness, but the term is being used against minorities rather than by them. When you remove the word Multiculturalism from the immigration portfolio you are essentially practicing political correctness. Same weapon, different warrior.
March 11th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Howard owns correctness, but the term is being used against minorities rather than by them. When you remove the word Multiculturalism from the immigration portfolio you are essentially practicing political correctness. Same weapon, different warrior.
Similarly, the demand (on pain of removal of Federal funding) on public schools to fly the flag as a symbol of their commitment to “Australian values” (whatever they may be).
Or the need to spell out in specially-drafted legislation that marriage must not involve teh gays.
March 11th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
The book “Silencing Dissent” [Clive Hamilton and Sarah Madison, Allen & Unwin 2007] is all about how Howard’s view of political correctness now rules the airwaves and circumscribes political debate of any kind in Australia. Its well worth a read.
March 11th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
An excellent piece Ken…PC is most definitely being practised by the Howard Govt. & its media minions.
Many a conformist has taken on board their BS like cats do a fur coat…eventually they leave their protective coating all over the house & on every visitor.
From my experience over the past few years, it’s ranged from scowls & smirks if you offer up: “there’s far too much promotion & celebration of arrogant sport’s figures these days, particularly Cricket & Footy players” (coming from someone who enjoys watching a well played, laid back game of cricket by humble amateurs on a gorgeous spring day…& who holds Alan Border & the Waughs in high esteem) to embarrassed silences & uncomfortable twitching if you have the tenacity to mention an intense dislike for the ‘live exporting of animals’…or criticise the GLORIFICTION of certain takeaway companies…or that you’re “pro-gay marriage”…or that you think “most Muslims are Moderates”.
And mentioning the unoriginality & blandness of the ‘flag’ was just not on.
Nothing new…it’s just that Howard & his allies have taken a number of Aussie myths, Christian-oriented taboos, National stereotypes & wrapped themselves in them like a cocoon in order to quell discussion & dissent…whilst perpetuating ignorance, xenophobia, partisanship & troop mobilising Nationalism…topped w/ mean-spirited pragmatism, feigned religious concern…& American Republican style wedge issues.
However, I know things are changing ’cause i’ve actually had some in-depth & wide discussions w/ individuals lately who normally would take the “she’ll be right, let’s move on” approach but are beginning to question the ‘integrity’ of Howard & this Government…& occasionally throw in a supportive comment when the so called ‘taboo’ subjects are brought up. Some even become quite animated when discussing THE WAR, WORKCHOICE & the ’selling out of Australia’…
The FEAR barriers are being broken down…the people beginning to show their angst & concerns. Gettin’ some release from THE BOX they’ve been confined in…good for them.
Finally!
March 11th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
You’re in fine form today, nasking. Onwards and upwards.
Just saw Downer’s latest little foot stamping attempt at assassinating Rudd’s character on the news, and brother, is Downer diving straight into the sewer or what?
Must be getting bad private polling results. That confirm the public ones.
Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
March 12th, 2007 at 1:05 am
Most definitely Seeker, he’s one mouthy, hypocritical prat who wears his badge of Integrity like Thatcher wore compassion…ill-fitting & quite tragic to observe.
Like you said, “sad”.
March 12th, 2007 at 1:05 am
Great thread everyone, cheers.
I too witnessed the tante stamp by Billy Bunter on the news this evening; red faced, eyes popping, snidey, childish, and utterly pathetic. I fully realise that Club Howard knows no shame, have no conception of ethics, or indeed, have no moral concience, collective or otherwise, but can they really believe this bilge trawling will get them anywhere?
BTW, the term ‘political correctness’ is centuries old, and has generally been used over time in a perjorative sense. In the early 1990’s a group of pissed off white US members of the New Right - who saw their linguistically privileged language being ironed out so as to provide inclusive and civil discourse for people (female and male) usually treated as marginalised - hauled out the term from storage in order to provide a rationale for their imagined unfair loss of superiority. They claimed it was their noble duty in getting back to the ideal of ‘free speech’. Indeed, that was our dear leader’s exact excuse in 1996, following his refusal to condemn Pauline Hanson’s divisive and racist maiden speech in parliament. Which was absolute bollocks, but as a lowest common denominator tactic, it has gone down pretty well over time.
That is, I guess, until too many people see that they are the one’s being marginalised. I rather hope the tipping point is now!
March 12th, 2007 at 1:31 am
‘free speech’ eh?…i guess their ideal of ‘free speech’ has been pursued as effectively as the other ideal they grovel at the altar of…’free markets’…obviously the preserve of THE GODS & unlikely to touch down in Australia anytime soon. I doubt it will be long before they find some way to censor or hinder our discourse on these blogs.
Well articulated mini-history lesson Herindoors…I always enjoy reading your informative posts.
March 12th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Thanks to Lyn for reminding us that the whole concept of political correctness predates Howard by some years (the Great and Terrible Keating was more fond of lampooning it than employing it), stretching way back into the bouffy hair and shoulder pads of the 80s. The original wave of political correctness rapidly turned into a joke, what with office memoranda (what we had in the days before e-mail, kids) promoting the use of ‘chairperson’ and campus feminist groups agitating for ‘womynspace’. Political correctness as a slightly misdirected desire to highlight and eliminate exclusive language had but a brief and inglorious reign.
PC, when it emerged from the carcase, was a different thing. Actually, it was two different things. One was a convenient label for the right, a way to slap down struggling attempts to address exclusive language and structures. “That’s just PC” became a quick and convenient way to dismiss a challenging idea without actually engaging with it. As a practise, it’s still with us.
The other, closely related form of PC is a combination of censorship and Newspeak. It is, in fact, exactly the kind of structure of discourse that was examined by Paulo Freire in Pedagogy of the Oppressed. The objective of such discursive structures is quite simple: eliminate the possibility of dialogue, and thereby defeat the possibility of transformation. In other words: if you don’t dare ask for what you want - if you don’t have the words to express what you want - then you don’t get what you want. You get what you’re given.
You can see this everywhere in current public debate; in politics and policy and the exclusion or demonisation of some points of view in the media. I would argue that even the Work Choices legislation is an example of this. It’s based, after all, on the spurious assumption that all possible partners to an agreement have equal negotiating power (and equal capacity to negotiate). While this may be true for a very small number of employees, it patently is not for many people. Both the language of the legislation and the language of the agreements are themselves exclusionary: they are capable of being interpreted only by recourse to a linguistic toolbox which is, by tradition and economics, acessible only to a privileged few. You might know someone who has access to that toolbox, but it’s up to your boss whether you can even consult them, effectively limiting your capacity for dialogue. And both legislation and agreements are constructed in terms of exclusion: no penalty rates, no guaranteed woorking hours, no public holidays. The old, familiar concepts of the Australian working environment are deliberately ruled out of discussion. What is left is very limited, inflexible and strange: not elements of useful future dialogue.
PC is alive and well. It was never resting, but it’s now thriving. As Ken points out, whatever it might have been about originally, it’s now a tool for limiting discussion and supressing dissent. We do what we can to fight it, but I’m afraid it’s the lantana vine of language: it’s alien, it’s pervasive, and it’s here to stay.
But that’s no reason to accept it.
March 12th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
[...] Ken L at Surfdom investigates Political Correctness a decade after its inclusion on the national agenda, and finds it alive and well: PC in the John Howard era targets two broad categories of thought crime: ‘unAustralianness’ and ‘Muslim extremism’ (though maybe the latter is simply a manifestation of the former). It is now socially and politically acceptable - nay, mandatory - to vilify people who fall into either way of Bad Thinking. [...]
March 13th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
great post. makes you wonder if One Nation came a decade too early.
April 7th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Political correctness covers a multitude of sins and the occasional grace. In its gracious sense it enjoins public speakers to avoid giving unnecessary offense and inflammatory vilification in the depiction of people classified as lower-status than white alpha-males. These include as typical women, people of colour, ethnics, gays and so on. In this sense it is unobjectionable, even praiseworthy.
In its more odious sense political correctness comprises a political committment by activists to promoting two kinds of lies: one about the past and one about the present.
The first kind of lie is spreading falsehoods (black-armbanding) about the history of our Dead White Male founding fathers, essentially framing them as patriarchal racists. This is history as the permanent hermeneutics of suspicion, always trying to lift the lid on a can of worms, even if there are none there.
The black-armbanding agenda seems to be part-entertainment and part-parricidal. Edification and resitution are commonly given as the reasons for revisionism. But the conspicuous wearing of a hair-shirt was always a status-symbol amongst those seeking moral approbation.
The second kind lie is covering up inconvenient truths about the underwhelming performance of some conentemprary minority groups. These include criminal ethnics, unsettled indigenes, barren women, plague-ridden gays et al.
This Left wing embargo on inconvenient truth has led to a politicised war on science, particularly biology. Any attempt at explaining the low-status of minority groups by reference to biologically conserved characteristics was dismissed as a sly attempt to legitimise Nazism.
The agenda of the minority groups is pretty obvious: a free pass for sub-par performance and a free lunch to compensate. Thus affirmative action rests on shaky foundations.
April 7th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
“The new PC demands that we ’support the troops’, which means that any criticism of Australian military adventures in foreign lands is tantamount to treason and any querying of the War on Terror risks a torrent of ‘appeaser’ abuse.”
I rang a talkback jock a while (2years) ago to express my disapproval about our troops being in Iraq without UN approval. Spoke to the secretary of the said Jock who told me to wait. So I waited. Finally he got on the line and asked what I wanted to say…
Well, this guy was like pro war all the way, but foolishly I thought my opinion might mean something to his spellbound audience, so I figured, up your’s mate this is a free country and I’ll say what I want. Didn’t happen.
He asked me what I though of the war and because I was anti war he accussed me of being UnAustralian, I said stuff you, he said “don’t you care about our troops!” I said ‘shit yer there the best in the world! To good for this, we don’t have UN sanction you know, he hung up. I was so pissed of. But the audience lapped up his rhetoric. If I rang the same station today and got the same jock, what do you think he would say?
Let’s say if I rang up in another 2 years?? Well opinion changes and unless freedom of speech applies to media, all the time, public feeling will always be suppressed and will lag behind true perception, real time.