PC World
I was talking with 
trinker about political correctness and being "honest" about racism. It was inspired by her post in which she made this response to someone suggesting that they'd rather people expressed bigotry more openly.Strongly disagree. (So strongly that I don't have enough words to express my vitriol toward the concept, and rely on words of calm and reason.)
Allowing expression in the name of "not being PC" defangs the entire structure of being able to confront the problem of -ism from its roots.
It puts the disprivileged in the position of swallowing the -ism "unless it's bad enough".
And "bad enough" tends to be a standard that becomes harder and harder to meet as one grasps for proof that it *is* -ism and not just some random ass being a random ass, such that the only thing one can complain about is if someone is dead and the body is marked in large clear letters with "I KILLED THIS PERSON BECAUSE THEY WERE $category".
I do not think this is what you intend.
I was thinking about a response, but then Trinker cornered me on IM, and I dumped out a lot of what I was thinking. With her permission:
Tablesaw:I was just thinking that one of the main functions of "political correctness" as invoked by social conservatives, is to nullify the evidence of social change.
Trinker:expand pls.
Tablesaw:It's very similar to the color-blind narrative of affirmitive action. When we start to see non-white, non-male people hired into positions of power, the narrative becomes that they were hired because of "affirmitive action."
Since people take cues from social situations, this narrative tells people to discount this evidence because it has been coerced.
None of those people are getting these positions because they deserve them, or (heaven forbid) because they were more qualified than other applicants. There is always a white man who deserved it more, who's been deprived of his due because people are scared.
The same with "political correctness" and language.
Trinker:ah. I am going to start a new counter-narrative, of the incompetent white guy who got in by nepotism...and suggest that people consider seeding those, to see if it helps the "PoC affirmative action" card.
Tablesaw:You don't need to change anything about what your or thinking. Because even though everyone around you is changing the way the act, they only do it because of political correctness. They're scared of the PC police. They're obviously not saying what they really feel.
Or they're pandering to those people so that they can get something.
Either way, it's dishonest.
Trinker:..but a person in that headspace is little inclined to believe that racist thoughts are no longer in vogue...
Tablesaw:Well, I was mostly looking at the effect it had on other listeners.
But it's also a crucial step toward POC are the real racists, just like affirmative action is the real cause of inequality in the workplace.
Trinker:so...kind of left stuck at what's possible.
Tablesaw:In what sense?
Trinker:is the only answer to encourage blatancy? is preferring "PC" constructions harmful?
Tablesaw:There will never be true honesty in communications like this. I usually see "obvious racism" as a wish for the main ideology of racism to revert from color-blind racism back to Jim Crow racism. I don't think that's possible without a similar structural reversal. I think the nostalgia for that is either because of the increased privilege it held for white people, or because it is seen as a time, for POCs and allies, when threats were easier to identify and combat. But, of course, that's hindsight.
Trinker:I think that encouraging blatant speech bolsters more racialized terrorism, and that discouraging it is shaving the iceberg...
Tablesaw:I don't think that "blatancy" is much of a help either. Because most racism/microaggression comes out when people are not thinking, just following percevied sociological cues. These folks never actual think, in their heads, "I HATE BLACK PEOPLE." If there's a secret racism that is being masked, it's at a far deeper level, so encouraging honesty alone is not enough. One would have to encourage people to be more aware of how racist social structure bias their thought and opinions. And doing that doesn't really need any particular blatancy.
Trinker:YES. thank you, that's the bit I was scrabbling for.
Tablesaw:As for PC constructions, I think that, at best, they serve as an easily achievable benchmark. PC labels say, "I am grouping you based on racial and other societal structures because that is how our society still works, but I am going to use a somewhat negotiated neutral term to describe that label." I do think that this is a step forward, in general.
It's extremely important for, for example, politicians or reporters who have to talk to and about generalized groups.
Trinker:Ahh...pushback against PC is also the same as colorblindness valorization. Of course.
This journal has moved to Dreamwidth. Entry originally posted at http://tablesaw.dreamwidth.org/492839.html.
Comment(s)
trinker about political correctness and being "honest" about racism. It was inspired by her post in which she made this response to someone suggesting that they'd rather people expressed bigotry more openly.Strongly disagree. (So strongly that I don't have enough words to express my vitriol toward the concept, and rely on words of calm and reason.)
Allowing expression in the name of "not being PC" defangs the entire structure of being able to confront the problem of -ism from its roots.
It puts the disprivileged in the position of swallowing the -ism "unless it's bad enough".
And "bad enough" tends to be a standard that becomes harder and harder to meet as one grasps for proof that it *is* -ism and not just some random ass being a random ass, such that the only thing one can complain about is if someone is dead and the body is marked in large clear letters with "I KILLED THIS PERSON BECAUSE THEY WERE $category".
I do not think this is what you intend.
I was thinking about a response, but then Trinker cornered me on IM, and I dumped out a lot of what I was thinking. With her permission:
Tablesaw:I was just thinking that one of the main functions of "political correctness" as invoked by social conservatives, is to nullify the evidence of social change.
Trinker:expand pls.
Tablesaw:It's very similar to the color-blind narrative of affirmitive action. When we start to see non-white, non-male people hired into positions of power, the narrative becomes that they were hired because of "affirmitive action."
Since people take cues from social situations, this narrative tells people to discount this evidence because it has been coerced.
None of those people are getting these positions because they deserve them, or (heaven forbid) because they were more qualified than other applicants. There is always a white man who deserved it more, who's been deprived of his due because people are scared.
The same with "political correctness" and language.
Trinker:ah. I am going to start a new counter-narrative, of the incompetent white guy who got in by nepotism...and suggest that people consider seeding those, to see if it helps the "PoC affirmative action" card.
Tablesaw:You don't need to change anything about what your or thinking. Because even though everyone around you is changing the way the act, they only do it because of political correctness. They're scared of the PC police. They're obviously not saying what they really feel.
Or they're pandering to those people so that they can get something.
Either way, it's dishonest.
Trinker:..but a person in that headspace is little inclined to believe that racist thoughts are no longer in vogue...
Tablesaw:Well, I was mostly looking at the effect it had on other listeners.
But it's also a crucial step toward POC are the real racists, just like affirmative action is the real cause of inequality in the workplace.
Trinker:so...kind of left stuck at what's possible.
Tablesaw:In what sense?
Trinker:is the only answer to encourage blatancy? is preferring "PC" constructions harmful?
Tablesaw:There will never be true honesty in communications like this. I usually see "obvious racism" as a wish for the main ideology of racism to revert from color-blind racism back to Jim Crow racism. I don't think that's possible without a similar structural reversal. I think the nostalgia for that is either because of the increased privilege it held for white people, or because it is seen as a time, for POCs and allies, when threats were easier to identify and combat. But, of course, that's hindsight.
Trinker:I think that encouraging blatant speech bolsters more racialized terrorism, and that discouraging it is shaving the iceberg...
Tablesaw:I don't think that "blatancy" is much of a help either. Because most racism/microaggression comes out when people are not thinking, just following percevied sociological cues. These folks never actual think, in their heads, "I HATE BLACK PEOPLE." If there's a secret racism that is being masked, it's at a far deeper level, so encouraging honesty alone is not enough. One would have to encourage people to be more aware of how racist social structure bias their thought and opinions. And doing that doesn't really need any particular blatancy.
Trinker:YES. thank you, that's the bit I was scrabbling for.
Tablesaw:As for PC constructions, I think that, at best, they serve as an easily achievable benchmark. PC labels say, "I am grouping you based on racial and other societal structures because that is how our society still works, but I am going to use a somewhat negotiated neutral term to describe that label." I do think that this is a step forward, in general.
It's extremely important for, for example, politicians or reporters who have to talk to and about generalized groups.
Trinker:Ahh...pushback against PC is also the same as colorblindness valorization. Of course.
This journal has moved to Dreamwidth. Entry originally posted at http://tablesaw.dreamwidth.org/492839.html.
Comment(s)