In response to my sermonette, Ajit Sinha writes: >> I'm sorry I
don't understand what this is all about. Sounds more like Jorge Bush
and Denesh DeSuza led attack on "pc" even though "pc" was their own
creation and not Duke University's.<<
Ajit, I know you reject politeness as "middle class," but I don't think
such insults (or your previous ones) help anyone, including you.
As you should well know, I have nothing in common with Bush or DeSousa
(sp?), though every once and awhile (like stopped clocks that are right
twice a day) they make some valid points. Usually their valid points shrink
when compared to the vastness of their hypocrisy.
My distance from Bush or DeSousa can be seen in the following statement
from me, which you quote but then ignore: >>Sure, but is fighting on the
language front the _best_ way to empower those without power? If a
moralistic perspective that "you guys have to speak 'correct' language all
the time" alienates potential allies, is the language battle the best way?
Wouldn't fighting for affirmative action be better than insisting that
everyone use the "correct" terms?<<
The term "politically correct" seems to have arisen among the Maoists, but
really flourished among the non-Maoist lefts (especially in the San
Francisco Bay Area) as an ironic term to refer to the rigidity of the
Maoist way of thinking. It was later taken over (rather than invented) by
the Right as a way of slamming the entire left.
To my mind, political correctness is a phenomenon of the _entire_ political
spectrum (though there are also non-PC folks all along the spectrum). You
would have noticed that if you had read my references to the Pentagon and
corporations and their versions of PC. Another example was some US
veteran's massive complaints about the Enola Gay exhibit at they
Smithsonian, where they objected to the fact that some doubt was shed on
the virtue of nuking Japan.
> I don't think language politics has much to do with "pc" or
imposing anything on anyone. It is simply a critique of everyday
language that exposes the hidden, and at times not so hidden, social
power structure--vary much a similar game as Marx's CAPITAL was
about the capitalist economy. Now, if CAPITAL helps workers to
launch a revolt and attack on capitalist's exploitation, then would
you call it workers imposition on the freedom of the capitalists to
exploit?<
If you had read the prologue to my previous missive on this subject you
might have noticed that I was in favor of "correct" language in order to
fit the facts ("chair" rather than "chairman," etc.) More generally,
"scientific accuracy" is always a good reason to use non-popular terms.
I think Marx's project was part of that: he wanted to break with the
fetishized appearances of capitalism, to reveal the underlying reality. Of
course, this science was merged with (and inseparable from) his critique of
capitalism and his effort to mobilize workers for their own self-liberation.
Sure, the abolition of capitalism would violate the freedom of the
capitalists to exploit. But that violation has a lot of good
justifications, including the fact that all societies violate freedom in
one way or another. I didn't say otherwise. (That even raising the issue of
freedom evokes this kind of response from Ajit suggests that people on the
lefts need to discuss and clarify the issue more.)
In any event, this point is _way_off_the_track_ of what I was talking
about. As I said before (if you read what I said), I was talking about
OVER-sensitivity to language and its connotations. Such as the use of the
seemingly synonymous term "developmentally disabled" rather than "retarded"
unless there is some real scientific justification for the change in
terminology.[*] I was objecting to the way in which some people OVER-do the
bit about using language without negative connotations.
A lot (though hardly all) of the use of "correct" terms seems a matter of
the users trying to comfort themselves. "We're virtuous -- since we use the
correct terms."
BTW, what defines "OVER-sensitivity"? It seems very subjective, doesn't it?
I would define "excessive" in terms of going against one's long-term goals.
For me, these include the establishment of grass-roots democratic
socialism. Though the goal may be subjective, its application can be less so.
> The problem with wholesale language critique is that it creates
discomfort for all of us at one time or the other. That's why we all
need sense of humour. But it is the victimizers who need sense of
humour and not the victims, in any given particular situation. Both
you and Michael Perlman seem to be asking the victims to have sense
of humour, which is a bit troublesome.<
If having a sense of humor helps one survive life in a Nazi death camp, I
see nothing wrong with it. Jokes help with more than survival, since they
can help form solidarity amongst the oppressed (who are not simply victims
(mere objects), by the way) that can help them fight the oppressors. In
fact, the oppressed have developed a lot of humor at the expense of the
oppressors. One example is the BIG RED JOKE BOOK that includes a lot of
good jokes by workers aimed at the capitalists or bureaucrats that rule
their lives.
I must say (as I have before) I admire the use of humor as a weopon against
oppression more than the priggish insistence on "correct" terminology.
This discussion is getting too repetitive, with more heat than light. So
let's end it.
[*] I think it makes sense to drop the word "retarded" but not to replace
it with "developmentally disabled" or any of the other similar seemingly
synonymous buzz-words invented by academics and bureaucrats. Rather, the
term would be replaced (as it has been in many cases) by a variety of
different terms which more scientifically define the nature of the
disability. For example, my son's disability ("Asperger's syndrome"
according to the DSM-IV) is very different from Down's syndrome. Etc. The
terminology might even help us ask the right questions to facilitate
treatment rather than to make us feel good by avoiding negative connotations.
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://clawww.lmu.edu/fall%201997/ECON/jdevine.html
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ.
7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA
310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
"Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way
and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
