This night as they usually do, they had four debaters, two asserting that Political Correctness has gone too far, and two arguing not. They went back and forth and at the end of the night, through two polls, one at the beginning, and a second at the end of the night, concluded that those defending political correctness were more persuasive than those challenging the idea. The winner in these affairs is based upon who was more persuasive,
So with that those defending political correctness had persuaded more people to their side, than those arguing that political correctness has gone too far. I was not surprised. Aside from the fact that we were in the middle of NYC, or perhaps exactly because we were in that locale, those challenging the idea of political correctness just started from a weak and impoverished starting point.
Before I flesh that out, let us define political correctness. The four debaters pointed to several common examples of "political correctness". There was the idea that not all Muslims are terrorists. There was the tension between "Black Lives Matters" and "All" or "Blue Lives Matters". There was the idea that welfare and other government handouts largely go to minorities as opposed to those who are simply poor.
Before I flesh that out, let us define political correctness. The four debaters pointed to several common examples of "political correctness". There was the idea that not all Muslims are terrorists. There was the tension between "Black Lives Matters" and "All" or "Blue Lives Matters". There was the idea that welfare and other government handouts largely go to minorities as opposed to those who are simply poor.
In short, the discussion was focused on the tensions between various groups in a pluralistic society and how best to navigate such situations. Further, these groups have certain identities, and the question becomes who determines who these people are in these groups? Further, which of these groups has legitimate grievances and issues?
The two solutions embraced in the debate were to either embrace the labels and the associated identities, to be "politically correct", or ignore such labels and empathize with the actual people or individuals, and when necessary apply or appeal to the social science regarding their situations. Those were the two options offered here. That said, even though we can represent them as option A and option B, they are not equivalent, Like any decision, whether we are talking cars models, or homes versus condos, each offers unique benefits and consequences.
The two solutions embraced in the debate were to either embrace the labels and the associated identities, to be "politically correct", or ignore such labels and empathize with the actual people or individuals, and when necessary apply or appeal to the social science regarding their situations. Those were the two options offered here. That said, even though we can represent them as option A and option B, they are not equivalent, Like any decision, whether we are talking cars models, or homes versus condos, each offers unique benefits and consequences.
The consequences of the politically correct label is that you have a mix of groups ranging from radical and non-radical Muslims, black lives matters, versus those who are not black and those who are blue - the police. There are feminists, and non-feminists. Another is the transgender and gay communities. Each of these groups with their own unique set of beliefs, desires, behaviors, practices, and so forth. It seems like this is almost basic sociology or anthropology.
The alternative offered to this approach is that you do not embrace such labels, but rather simply empathize with the people you encounter. You empathize with individuals, not groups. And if there are tensions you embrace the social science. In short, you try to embrace and understand the individual. In this model you treat people as individuals - love your fellow man or woman. All individuals are equal, and when there is a problem that is when you appeal to culture, politics and economics.
So we have one that celebrates the diversity of cultures and the various groups that make up those cultures. The other celebrates the individual and the basic respect and empathy each is entitled to, one and all. On those occasions when we cannot empathize, we explore why. And this is where it is interesting. Based on those explorations, we broaden our definition of who we empathize with. The science allows us to empathize with those with different beliefs, and behaviors, and perhaps even who are members of other groups. The two approaches here basically converge.
I would argue that what I describe corresponds with the conclusions of the polls taken. At the end of the night, empathy and social science allow for new subcultures, which are ultimately described in "politically correct" language. We abandon old ways of talking and by updating and enlarging our set of beliefs are now able to embrace others and perhaps even groups.
So if this approach, that of empathizing and understanding others, is not adequate in arguing against the politically correct, what is?
Now let me again return to the idea of consequences. The consequent or the result of political correctness is to the protect the cultural identity of the other, of minorities. We have already seen that to embrace the individual and science is to largely arrive at the politically correct. Social science argues for the existence of cultural identity and that most individuals are born into groups with such. Therefore, embracing social science and empathy will not allow you to argue that political correctness has gone too far. Perhaps, the science and empathizing have gone too far?
Again, the consequences of being politically correct are to embrace others from different groups, which have different believes, practices, and traditions. They might interpret history and current events differently. They will have different agendas and likewise desire and resolve social issues and social problems differently. They will define these in their own terms, and in fact they may or may not see a problem where we did. In short, by acknowledging such politically correct positions, we are allowing others to fully engage socially, economically, and politically, despite their differences. That is the consequent of being politically correct.
Before I go farther, however, what could challenge such a position? What I describe seems almost the paradigm of liberalism. And please do not confuse my reference with how we today treat the term. What I refer to points to liberty, equality, and tolerance. It is a concept originating in the Enlightenment. Again I ask, if all this is true, how can those challenging political correctness achieve their goal. How can they persuade that political correctness has gone too far, or in fact is actually illiberal?
The response is that you need something of greater consequence. You need something that would justify denying a group access to our markets, to our social and political institutions. In short, political correctness becomes a problem, it has gone too far, when it challenges the very institutions, which allow for it.
Two obvious ones, which we have little tolerance for are the Ku Klux Klan and Nazis. Even then we allow these to have rallies within certain parameters. Even these are allowed to exercise their freedom of speech. The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is another group that we have little tolerance for, yet their website appears to be up and running. All of these run on ideas that are foreign to us. Regardless of how much empathy we have, how much social science we apply, we, or most of us at least, have little toleration for such groups or individuals.
It could be said that the Klan, Nazis, and NAMBLA, are easy ones. Everyone hates them. No one is really arguing for their inclusion into our system, our culture. Yet, there are people in the U.S. that support such movements and ideas. Those people are few and far between, but they are here or there. Those people, those individuals share the values and beliefs of Nazis and Klansmen, and NAMBLA. They just do not act on those beliefs today. So one can argue that they exist, but does that mean they are entitled to inclusion into our culture?
I think it is here that we find that political correctness, if it were to defend such groups, has gone too far. Why is it politically correct to embrace the feminist or the transgender individual, but not the Nazi? What is the difference between these these groups? For me it is the fact that the Nazi challenges our institutions, our traditions, our beliefs. Nazis and the Klansmen do not believe that all men are created equal. NAMBLA challenges the law, asserting that it is acceptable and appropriate for men to be sexually involved with boys. Not only do these groups challenge the law, they challenge our cultural norms and mores. In each case these groups offer up and embrace something that we consider taboo. No argument can be made for their inclusion. They threaten the very cultural traditions and values we hold dear.
This becomes the beginning of a test for the politically correct. Does the group in question, with its own beliefs, and behaviors, it's own norms and customs, challenge our institutions, our beliefs, our customs, and traditions? The Nazis and NAMBLA are easy here - they do challenge our norms. The problem is, however, that in every case, with almost every group, the answer will be yes. All groups in the end challenge our traditions, customs, and our norms.
The question becomes are we willing to tolerate that challenge. Can we tolerate a hijab in our public or private school? Can we accept that a transgender individual requires a public restroom just like the rest of us, and further, can we figure out how to accommodate such needs? Can we accept that the Muslim, or the Black Lives Matter advocate, or the gay or transgender individual will challenge our own faith, our own practices and traditions, our own cultural norms regarding church, state, and family. What are the American people willing to tolerate and not? With 320 million plus of us in the US today, answering that question might take awhile, but that is the line beyond which, political correctness goes too far.
Now let me again return to the idea of consequences. The consequent or the result of political correctness is to the protect the cultural identity of the other, of minorities. We have already seen that to embrace the individual and science is to largely arrive at the politically correct. Social science argues for the existence of cultural identity and that most individuals are born into groups with such. Therefore, embracing social science and empathy will not allow you to argue that political correctness has gone too far. Perhaps, the science and empathizing have gone too far?
Again, the consequences of being politically correct are to embrace others from different groups, which have different believes, practices, and traditions. They might interpret history and current events differently. They will have different agendas and likewise desire and resolve social issues and social problems differently. They will define these in their own terms, and in fact they may or may not see a problem where we did. In short, by acknowledging such politically correct positions, we are allowing others to fully engage socially, economically, and politically, despite their differences. That is the consequent of being politically correct.
Before I go farther, however, what could challenge such a position? What I describe seems almost the paradigm of liberalism. And please do not confuse my reference with how we today treat the term. What I refer to points to liberty, equality, and tolerance. It is a concept originating in the Enlightenment. Again I ask, if all this is true, how can those challenging political correctness achieve their goal. How can they persuade that political correctness has gone too far, or in fact is actually illiberal?
The response is that you need something of greater consequence. You need something that would justify denying a group access to our markets, to our social and political institutions. In short, political correctness becomes a problem, it has gone too far, when it challenges the very institutions, which allow for it.
Two obvious ones, which we have little tolerance for are the Ku Klux Klan and Nazis. Even then we allow these to have rallies within certain parameters. Even these are allowed to exercise their freedom of speech. The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is another group that we have little tolerance for, yet their website appears to be up and running. All of these run on ideas that are foreign to us. Regardless of how much empathy we have, how much social science we apply, we, or most of us at least, have little toleration for such groups or individuals.
It could be said that the Klan, Nazis, and NAMBLA, are easy ones. Everyone hates them. No one is really arguing for their inclusion into our system, our culture. Yet, there are people in the U.S. that support such movements and ideas. Those people are few and far between, but they are here or there. Those people, those individuals share the values and beliefs of Nazis and Klansmen, and NAMBLA. They just do not act on those beliefs today. So one can argue that they exist, but does that mean they are entitled to inclusion into our culture?
I think it is here that we find that political correctness, if it were to defend such groups, has gone too far. Why is it politically correct to embrace the feminist or the transgender individual, but not the Nazi? What is the difference between these these groups? For me it is the fact that the Nazi challenges our institutions, our traditions, our beliefs. Nazis and the Klansmen do not believe that all men are created equal. NAMBLA challenges the law, asserting that it is acceptable and appropriate for men to be sexually involved with boys. Not only do these groups challenge the law, they challenge our cultural norms and mores. In each case these groups offer up and embrace something that we consider taboo. No argument can be made for their inclusion. They threaten the very cultural traditions and values we hold dear.
This becomes the beginning of a test for the politically correct. Does the group in question, with its own beliefs, and behaviors, it's own norms and customs, challenge our institutions, our beliefs, our customs, and traditions? The Nazis and NAMBLA are easy here - they do challenge our norms. The problem is, however, that in every case, with almost every group, the answer will be yes. All groups in the end challenge our traditions, customs, and our norms.
The question becomes are we willing to tolerate that challenge. Can we tolerate a hijab in our public or private school? Can we accept that a transgender individual requires a public restroom just like the rest of us, and further, can we figure out how to accommodate such needs? Can we accept that the Muslim, or the Black Lives Matter advocate, or the gay or transgender individual will challenge our own faith, our own practices and traditions, our own cultural norms regarding church, state, and family. What are the American people willing to tolerate and not? With 320 million plus of us in the US today, answering that question might take awhile, but that is the line beyond which, political correctness goes too far.
