Political Correctness and the Dynamics of the Last Days
The term "political correctness" first came to prominence in the 1980s
as a term associated primarily with an aggressive enforced intellectual
conformity that had spread and metastasized within American academe
since the sixties but had achieved dominance in the humanities and
social sciences across a broad swath of American higher education by at
least the middle of that decade. While a small subset of this mentality
had manifest itself on the Right, indeed virtually in its entirety
among the fundamentalist Christian subset of evangelical Protestantism,
this had been extremely limited, primarily to K-12 public school battles
over certain books and the more visible debate over the teaching of
evolution within the public schools. The vast majority of such cases,
and the deep pervasiveness of this mind set within contemporary
academia, have and continue to proceed forth from the Left. Indeed, the
term “political correctness” entered public consciousness as a term
designating a stifling intellectual regimentation within academia
associated with a tenured Left that had come to dominate disciplines and
departments such as history, sociology, cultural anthropology,
literature, English and sub-specialties of these core subjects.
Also associated with the term were the now infamous campus speech
codes, coerced sensitivity and diversity training for students
displaying the politically “incorrect” attitudes and beliefs, and the
use of punitive grading by leftist professors to enforce philosophical
conformity to the professor’s views, including his/her views on very
controversial subjects open to multiple interpretations. The process
of “the long march through the institutions”, a term originally used by
Antonio Gramsci and which could be used synonymously with the term Kulturkampf,
or culture war, as describing a socio-cultural war against western,
classical liberal values and concepts, but with a particular leaning
toward the eradication of Christianity and its associated values and
concepts of morality, individual responsibility and free will (or as
Latter Day Saints would normally say, free agency), family, and
individual self determination, was, for all practical intents, complete.
Also during this period, it became ever clearer that most of the key
institutions of society, those who’s core relation to society were as
institutions involved in the creation, interpretation and dissemination
of knowledge and information, had been progressively colonized and
ultimately, come to be dominated by the cultural Left, a process that
was hardly conspiratorial, in the normative sense of the term, but which
was a key aspect of the culture of the post sixties Left and important
as a unifying cultural and psychological theme among its activists and
intellectuals, who gravitated in large numbers after the sixties and
early seventies into academia, the public schools, the foundations, book
and magazine publishing, government and the news media.
This drive to colonize and remake the core institutions of society from
within, as opposed to confrontation from without (a fundamental theme
of many leading sixties radicals) was not then so much systematic, as if
most or all of these people were following, in some sense, marching
orders from some central source, but systemic;
the idea of the long march through the institutions being a core
concept of the culture and ideology that unified the Left even when its
various movements and causes were moving along idiosyncratic, if
parallel paths.
Whether some form of Marxist social analysis, feminism,
environmentalism, ideological racialism, the Gay rights movement (and
its associated academic props such as “queer theory”), ethnic liberation
ideologies, sexual liberationism, or any number of a multitude of
political ideologies masquerading as academic disciplines that usually
have the rather ambiguous term “studies” appended to their descriptive
titles, all of these have come to have a decisively dominant presence in
American (and western) intellectual, political and educational life
thorough their overarching presence and influence within the key
institutions mentioned, but with special reference to pubic education,
higher education, the traditional mainstream print and electronic news
media, and the entertainment industry.
“Political correctness” is the pivotal technique or intellectual
instrument by which the Left gradually subverts, delegitimizes,
sabotages and destroys both understanding of and faith in western, and
most especially, American civilization’s fundamental premises, concepts,
values, qualities and form of political and economic structure. It is a
war whose primary focus is control of history and language.
Political correctness, which we may also understand, especially in the
educational and news media realm as a kind of intellectual cleansing process,
is at its base a war for the control of language and its meaning.
Indeed, one of its major successes has been the polluting and corrupting
of the language with a plethora of terms that, while they appear simply
descriptive, are actually loaded, sometimes in a very covert manner,
with ideological meaning and implication. We are surrounded by such
terms today, and many of them have become, over time, and as new
generations have risen in their presence, terms of common usage whose
ideological origins and weight have been lost to consciousness – and
hence, unwittingly accepted – by large numbers of people who, apprised
of their cultural origins, would recoil from them and then begin to
question their origin and provenance.
Terms such as progressive, participatory democracy, liberation,
reactionary, social justice, fairness, rights, alternative lifestyle,
Gay, African American (and all forms of hyphenated American sub-groups),
people of color, undocumented immigrant, animal companion (we could go
on an on here, encompassing much of the present cultural, social and
political landscape) are all terms which appear descriptive, but have
been reframed by the cultural and political Left as prescriptive
terms that carry ideological assumptions as if they were symbolic hosts
carrying linguistic parasites. For example, the term “progressive”
means to move forward, or advance, and has an inherently positive
psychological connotation. It is to move forward and advance toward
something better, higher and greater. “Progressive”, however, is a code
term for what we otherwise would simply understand to be “leftism”, a
category of movements, causes and ideologies that, despite various
schools of thought and emphasis, coalesce around hostility to any form
of classical liberalism, property rights, free market economics, and
Judeo-Christian social/moral principles.
Are any of these movements, causes and ideologies positive, in the
sense in which the term “progressive” implies as a psychological
reference for most people? The problem here, of course, is that many
people would disagree strongly with this connotation, seeing leftism as a
uniquely retrograde force in the world wherever it has had its ideas
actually applied, and seeing it as primarily digressive in effect. As
with terms such as social justice (socialism), reactionary (anti, or
against leftist beliefs, and hence “reacting” in a knee jerk or self
serving fashion), Gay (homosexual), African American (a black American
who is understood as part of an African Diaspora in North America and
who should think of him/herself as a permanent outsider with regard to
the American experience and American values), alternative lifestyle
(antinomian personal behavior, especially in the sexual realm), partner
(a married or cohabiting couple
- blurring the distinction between the two), and a plethora of other
terms, language is co-opted, politicized, and redeployed as a tool of
cultural warfare in which, over time, people, and especially new
generations who grow up with only the politicized meaning of the terms,
find themselves, even when consciously dissenting from the arguments of
the Left on various issues, nonetheless using the terminology,
catchphrases, slogans and linguistic forms of the Left; in essence, find
themselves enveloped within the semantic frame of reference of the Left
before any debate has even begun.
Once one has accepted the terms and definitions of the enemies of one’s
own ideas, one has tacitly accepted his fundamental premises to the
extent that the terms being used carry, even if masked by the normative
meaning of the term itself, those very premises. Words used in
political and cultural warfare become ideological weapons, and become
vectors for concepts and understandings that may be quite different from
their normative connotations, and may, as Orwell pointed out in his
classic dystopian novel 1984, be indeed the opposite of their traditionally accepted meanings.
What does all of this have to do with the gospel, and the living of the
gospel? Well we might ask. As difficult as it is to attempt a
separation of the core concerns and questions of politics from the
gospel, this must be utterly abandoned at the point in which honest and limited political differences become open cultural warfare aimed at society's foundational principles,
and virtually everything becomes a target for politicization and an
ideologically based struggle for control over the meaning and form our
civilization will take. At this point, many aspects of politics which
could, to some realistic degree, have at one time been relegated to a
secondary status outside the perimeters of gospel application, now
invade and try to annex the most fundamental aspects of the human
condition to which the gospel speaks and has its most intimate concerns:
who we are, why we are here, the nature of our human experience, the
structure of human nature, our fundamental relations to property, the
nature and meaning of morality and its relation to societal integrity on
a larger scale, and one of the central antagonisms that rose to the
surface in the preexistence, the tension between equality and freedom,
and the proper boundaries between the individual and the collective.
Political correctness presents us with a unique challenge in that what
we think about ourselves and our relations to others, as well as
regarding the legitimacy of the underlying premises of our civilization,
depend to a great extent, as does much else, upon the way we use
language. Just as those who control perception of the past control both
the present and the future, in the same sense as our language is
corrupted, manipulated, neutered, sterilized and altered to reflect the
philosophies and attitudes of the World, in time we find ourselves
confronting the secular world more upon its own terms than within the
framework of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
We may still consciously hold differing views, but as we adopt the
secular world’s language, we inevitably begin, little by little, to
adopt, even if ever so subconsciously, the assumptions carried by that
language as twigs and leaves are carried downstream by a river. To
adopt, for example, the term “social justice”, we accept, if only
tacitly (and is tacitness really ultimately acceptable in a gospel in
which we are to abstain from even “the appearance of evil” (1 Thes. 5:
22)), the fundamental assumption inherent in this term that justice is a
principle that inheres in and applies to groups and collectives, and
not to individuals on a case by case basis against a rule of law that
applies to all equally irrespective of group membership (whatever that
may be conceived to be). The one is at the base of collectivism, and
the other at the center of liberal democracy and representative,
constitutional government.
As I’ve written elsewhere:
Imagine for a moment a war in which one's soul — one's moral, intellectual, and spiritual destiny — were at stake, and that, battle by battle, the war progressed either to one's own benefit, or to the benefit of one's adversary. There are skirmishes, ambushes, harassment and intimidation, and sometimes, pitched battles.
The weapons in this war are the signs and symbols through which we understand, describe, and negotiate our experience. The major weapon here is language, and the battle is for the hearts and minds of our Father's children. In some cases, the weapons are also imagery, as with pornography, but in every case, even the images must be justified or defended with words.
Our adversary, in this case, has created a situation over a very long period of time (indeed, generations), in which, even when we engage the adversary or his supporters in a vigorous defense of righteousness and truth, we may find ourselves using the very same terms, and unwittingly making some of the very same assumptions as our adversary. We find ourselves, even if quite unconscious of it, fighting against the enemy even while allowing him to control the terms of the debate and limit the degree to which our own defense can deviate from boundaries he has set.
Our problem here is that even as we object vehemently to what the world
is teaching, we yet find ourselves objecting within the linguistic
boundaries the world has set. We describe our objections even as we use
the world's accepted terminology to do it.
Political correctness then, seeks to alter perception by altering the
meaning of language. An “alternative lifestyle” is no longer immoral,
only an alternate to the normative (and what good Foucaultian could
object to that?). “Liberation” from liberal or “bourgeoisie” negative
unalienable rights to socialist positive “human” rights may look at all
events like little more than a form of serfdom or slavery, but in a
world in which the meaning of words has no fixed anchors and definitions
need not be rational, logical or conceptually coherent, but only need
be ideologically consistent, freedom, as Orwell mentioned, can simply be
redefined as slavery, and slavery (in actuality) redefined as freedom
(within a theoretical ideological structure).
We will approach and grapple with these questions as we move further along in our explorations.
No comments:
Post a Comment