• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Left Wing Critique of Political Correctness

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
People seem pretty comfortable to say political correctness is left wing. It certianly has its origins in the New Left in the 1960's and 1970's. But this isn't the whole story.

The reason why political correctness is considered left wing is because it is used in instances to defend minorities as a form of egalitarianism. But political correctness is a form of self-censorship or censorship. It implies no action and leaves the fundamental social conditions as the source of sexism, racism and homophobia unchanged. political correctness is a substitute for action against those structural inequalities and in practice it helps perpetuate them. Outrage becomes a substitute for change.

We come to care more about when people say ****** than the number of black men in jail, or about the use of native american sterotypes as mascots in american football than the actual conditions in which native americans currently live. Politically incorrect behaviour is sensational and makes headlines, improve ratings and sell papers, whilst structural inequalities pass large unnoticed. The system- with all its oppression and exploitation- continues.

Not only that but political correctness helps capitalism. By erasing "offensive" sterotypes and words from the market place, it becomes a way of marketing products to people outside of those groups that typically make up the ruling class: white, hetrosexual men. Its a way to getting people to buy products and make money by selling an idealised image of an inclusive marketplace built on a warped egalitarianism where we are all formless consumers. Political correctness serves to erase collective identity and memory of unjustice and assists in getting people to identify as "individuals" who passively consume and whose social standing is determined by their purchasing power.

On a related note, multiculturalism is a thinly vieled attempt to sanatise socio-economic segregation, social conflicts and inequalities by portraying each group as being equal before the law or having equal oppurtunities within the market place. Again, actual inequalities are ignored and perpetuated to serve to "individualise" everyone into consumers. Multiculturalism is inescapably a consequence of free trade, the free movement of goods, services, capital and people accross borders as part of capitalism's globalisation and search for markets. Economic globalisation produces cultural globalisation. It is political correctness to treat people as if they were equal in this market even when they are discriminated against. It doesn't matter that these "freedoms" are driven by economic necessity, that poorer people move to rich countries to find work and that rich people invest in poor countries because its cheaper and makes a profit.

It is this "sensitivity" to all cultures that makes political correctness highly relativistic. The value of cultural relativism in the marketplace it is ability to act as a basis for inclusion rather than exclusion. It serves to turn as many people as possible into consumers all working towards individual enrichment as their entire history, culture and traditions are erased under the pretense of "equality", becoming standardised commodities for cultural appropriation. Rather, it makes the world in capitalism's image of free buying and selling. It doesn't matter if the Islamic world enforces sharia law at the expense of women, gays or apostates: its the terms to do bussiness with them. The price of the wests dependency on middle eastern oil is "tolerance" of islamic authoritarianism. It doesn't matter if the clothes we wear are made by prison labour in the heart of communist china: tolerating human rights abuses is just good business. But it is politically correct to emphasise how buying such products will "convince" China or Saudi Arabia of the virtue of freedom because free buying and free selling is what defines the nature of freedom under capitalism. It is politically correct to treat all buyers and sellers as equal: free markets andCapitalism are essential, whereas Democracy is just an accessory.

In many respects Political Correctness echoes Christian conceptions of thought and speech as sinful and that society must police them as crimes against god or the natural order. it comes to resemble the fanaticism of religious fundamentalism. And like all fanatics, the proponents of political correctness are fervant in proportionate to which they doubt their own convictions and want so desperately to believe in their own self-deception. of course the function of political correctness is to evangilise capitalism through the mass media and to instill a propaganda of the individualistic consumer and therefore to erase the perception of inequalities as a substitute for building a society that would do it. The ultimate expression of political correctness is to change peoples perception and therefore their begaviour to reconcile themselves to accept Capitalism.

Thoughts?
 

Kirran

Premium Member
How much of what you say with these things is as a thought experiment, and how much your own view? I get the impression there's a mixture going on. For example, multiculturalism has negatives as you highlight but if done and taken differently, in a critical environment, then it can be something very positive, as we can see in Canada and Switzerland.
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
How much of what you say with these things is as a thought experiment, and how much your own view? I get the impression there's a mixture going on. For example, multiculturalism has negatives as you highlight but if done and taken differently, in a critical environment, then it can be something very positive, as we can see in Canada and Switzerland.

Well spotted. :D The OP is a mixture of both thought experiment to try and make a consistent argument as well as my own views. This is still something I'm unsure of and is a response to talking with people on the forums and watching things change over 2016 (mainly brexit and Trump).

I think the far right have become very successful and dangerous because its been able to present its views as a question of "free speech" and treating it as an absolute entitlement. Its been able to present itself as a legitimate part of free democratic socities. Perhaps its to do with the collective memory of fascism and the struggles in the 60's fading. But there's probably deeper reasons to do with internet culture and social media dislocating control from the mainstream press on the message we recieve and so isn't an aberration. This is on top of the growing income inequality as a source of social conflicts from several decades of neoliberalism, so the internet just provides an oppurtunity to something that would happen anyway.

Whats really dangerous though is how more centre-left movements are tied to the old conception of political correctness and therefore either dodge or fail to address the issues fueling support for the far right. There is a deep conservatism in their behaviour which means they are failing to adapt and they make the same mistakes of under-estimating the threat, thinkibg it will play by the old rules.

There are always norms which define the legitimate scope of speech amongst a group of people. These tend to be implicit and you can see it on RF when someone hits a tricky subject and a swarm of condemnation comes out. The forum rules and moderation also act in the same way but as extremely open and tolerant in their scope. The limits of what is acceptable conversation happens none the less. Its just that whats within that scope is changing very rapidly and is being defined by voices on the far right. The far left have to learn to talk about the same problems even if they offer different solutions. :)
 

Kuzcotopia

If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
I appreciate you academic take on this, but isn't this a practical issue?

These are the questions I have to ask anyone who's willing to vote a specific way because they're sick of political correctness:

What was the last time you felt restrained from saying something, and what were the circumstances? What did you want to say, but couldn't? What wold have been the consequences?

Very few people have a legit answer to this. I know I can't think of a single instance of restraint where I wanted to say something, but felt restrained from doing so.

There is far more backlash and consequences in people's minds about PC ideas than actually exist in reality.

In reality, this backlash is the real political tool, used by right wing media as a phantom scapegoat to trick common people into voting against their own best interests.
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I appreciate you academic take on this, but isn't this a practical issue?

These are the questions I have to ask anyone who's willing to vote a specific way because they're sick of political correctness:

What was the last time you felt restrained from saying something, and what were the circumstances? What did you want to say, but couldn't? What wold have been the consequences?

Very few people have a legit answer to this. I know I can't think of a single instance of restraint where I wanted to say something, but felt restrained from doing so.

There is far more backlash and consequences in people's minds about PC ideas than actually exist in reality.

In reality, this backlash is the real political tool, used by right wing media as a phantom scapegoat to trick common people into voting against their own best interests.

Nice take on the OP btw. :)

There are plenty of times I can think of where I wanted to say something on RF and didn't because I thought being considerate was more important.

But offline, immigration has been an untouchable issue for me. Thats a big one because its thought of as "racist". Actually admitting you have racist, sexist and homophobic prejudices even if its to overcome them is a hard one too.

I think if you have tested the limits of free speech in a community, you know your saying something other people feels "wrong" and there is the strong impulse to "shut up". I agree that alot of anti-PC stuff is to do with trolling and is shallow and empty, but there are certian issues in society which are taboo: e.g. sex, death, violence, suicide, mental illness. Those may not come under the umbrella of political correctness but there are absolutely subjects where you may have a legal right to say something and yet still struggle to say it because of how we are conditioned to socialise as people.

Free thought and free speech are very hard in practice, particuarly when you feel as if your thinking or saying something that will generate unianimous opposition. It feels personal then because you expect they'll attack the speaker and not just whats being said. There are alot of things I could say but I generally let being considerate act as an over-ride.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
What was the last time you felt restrained from saying something, and what were the circumstances? What did you want to say, but couldn't? What wold have been the consequences?

I think the bigger problem isn't what we might experience personally, but how the PC police impact the truly free exchange of ideas in the public space. Some examples:

- It is NOT the case that every story has two valid sides. (e.g. giving equal time to climate change deniers)
- We should NOT back off of our criticisms against the church for widespread pedophilia
- We should NOT back off of our criticisms of Islam for misogyny
- We should NOT back off pursuing election shenanigans

And so on.

On a personal note, I think the RF mods do a fantastic job. I think they allow a surprising amount of very blunt criticism of religions, and I still feel the need to pull my punches sometimes.
 
Top