More stupid dreck about how clever and original and rebel-like it would be to use more sexist and racist epithets to liven things up. Annalisa Merelli preaches a sermon on the gospel according to Žižek.
Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek isn’t one to shy away from provocative observations. In a video published on the portal Big Think, he takes on something that is commonly employed as a sensible cultural practice: Political correctness. The academic calls it a form of “cold respect.” He argues that giving space to an occasional exchange of “friendly obscenities” allows for more closeness and gives way to honest exchanges.
If it’s genuinely friendly, then maybe so, although obviously there’s always the risk that the recipient of the friendly obscenity won’t see it the way the sender sees it. We know that can happen, right? What you intend as a jokey insult comes across as a real insult? It’s not “cold respect” to be aware of that, and to think the risk might not be worth it.
There’s also the fact that real aggression can hide behind pretend joking. We know that can happen too, right? I frankly don’t think the risk is worth it.
Žižek reports several episodes in which his lack of politically correct boundaries has served him well, from dealing with the ethnic tensions in former Yugoslavia to becoming friendly with two black Americans after jokingly making a racist remark: “You blacks, like the yellow guys, you all look the same” he reports saying to them, adding, “they embraced me and they told me, you can call me nigga.”)
And I can report a great number of episodes in which I’ve seen that kind of thing go horribly wrong, and another great number of episodes in which I’ve seen non-joking racist or sexist remarks made with dead seriousness. I don’t think the world is suffering from a shortage of people who lack politically correct boundaries. That would be a nice shortage.
Merelli gives her analysis of the idea:
Political correctness stems from the understanding that racism and inequality exist, and that in lieu of fixing those problems, prettier language will do the trick—as if by using inoffensive words and avoiding crass jokes we are to paint over the filth of reality. Politically correct expressions, to Žižek, become patronizing because they actually highlight inequalities. As the philosopher notes, “one needs to be very precise not to fight racism in a way which ultimately reproduces, if not racism itself, at least the conditions of racism.”
No. That’s wrong. Nobody thinks “prettier language” will do the trick all by itself. That’s a canard. It’s a very familiar stale tedious canard, and I’m sick of hearing it.
And it is not just race, of course, that Žižek talks about. Gender, disability–anything that diverges from norms presented in society or media–are all coated with neutral words and behaviors, by the very people who claim to be accepting of it. This special language, despite its intentions, serves to reinforce certain conditions as special, fragile, and weak.
Can we dare to see differences for what they are—nothing else than differences? And can we ever safely name them, perhaps even with the occasional offensive joke?
Perhaps adopting a little of Žižek’s attitude would indeed result in what he refers to as a “wonderful sense of shared obscene solidarity.” It might generate misunderstanding, but if a more light-hearted approach is adopted in a genuine way, that would reflect a profound belief that the other isn’t weaker, doesn’t need anyone’s protection, and is at our level—hence can openly be made fun of, just as we do of ourselves.
Yeah. You know all those ugly people you know? Start telling them how ugly you think they are. That’s the way to a better world. Clumsy people? Boring people? Short? Fat? Old? Disabled? Foreign? Working class? Poor? Badly dressed? Start telling all of them that. Do it “light-heartedly” and that will reflect a profound belief that the other isn’t weaker, doesn’t need anyone’s protection, and is at our level.
God, people can be so fucking stupid sometimes.
If Annalisa Merelli were here in front of me I wouldn’t tell her what she said is fucking stupid, but it would be very hard not to.
I cannot understand how presumably intelligent people could get something so simple this horribly wrong. One of the aspects of the debate about pc culture which annoys me to no end is how people like Žižek utterly misidentify the very thing they seek to critique. Being politically correct is not about using prettier words to obscure reality but rather about avoiding the unnecessary use of certain terms which more often than not serve no useful purpose but to reproduce a reality of inequality and racism. It is about not employing terms and tropes which perpetuate racism and perpetuate inequality.
I was in an interesting conversation with a friend about a year ago. She got in a total uproar when someone made a similar argument, that it was OK to use racist jokes. Then, not too much later, when the conversation turned to women and the abuse they receive online. she shrugged it off with “oh, well, it’s just because people have been forced into political correctness, so they’re just exercising their free speech.”
She can see the benefits of political correctness applied to people of color, but not when applied to women. Which is odd, because she was very definitely a feminist.
Not to mention that Žižek’s story is probably unadulterated bull plop.
What is the moral to this story? That it’s not only ok, but admirable, to talk to people this way because they like it and that’s how we make friends? Can’t think of a better way?
But, everyone who approves of the notion of ‘PC’ defines it differently. Let’s see Žižek try it on Islam, or Putin.
(content note for group-identity-based epithets used as examples of group-identity-based epithets without any self-censorship; hopefully the reason for the lack of censoring is made clear by the context and content)
So once upon a time, back in the late 80s or early 90s in USA, people were getting radical. Queer deconstructions of binary gender and sexuality were gaining traction, medical interventions to fuck with biological gender were becoming more numerous and increasingly accessible, and people were pushing back against USA’s recent (and ongoing) experiment with a baseless economic theory (it was tax cuts + privatization and became known as “neoliberal economics”) that was actually a thinly disguised means of enriching the already-wealthy at the expense of workers and the public sector. This led to a broad rejection of cultural tropes associated with the normative old guard, like corporate suits, polite language, coercive reverence for the Christian god, and gave us the Grunge and Riot Grrrl and (more generally) punk DIY movements. “Political correctness” refers to demeanors or statements that are considered broadly politically tenable (indeed, it’s mostly a pop culture buzzword for “normative”), and at that point in time, when the phrase was initially gaining popularity, disrespecting the coercive politically correct norms was mostly an act of radical, progressive, pro-social transgression (though of course there were even then racist and misogynist assholes complaining about how the fact that they couldn’t use group-identity-based epithets without pushback). A lot of PC transgression was satirical, decrying the common practice of pretending institutional racism, classism, sexism, cissexism, heterosexism, etc. didn’t exist by trying to dress existing and persistent prejudices up in nice language. (Re)claiming words like “nigger” and “faggot” and “dyke” and “tranny” and “bitch” as self-descriptors was part of this – it was an attempt to embrace the Othering language in order to force the recognition that many still considered the slurred group to be the abject Other, insistently forcing the persistent marginalization to consciousness instead of letting people ignore the problems and paper over them with nice-sounding language (calling something “ethnic” instead of “non-White” serves to disguise the inherent racism of whatever distinction is being drawn, for example). The blandly-PC terms were part of the push for colorblind racism (and comparative discursive phenomena with respect to other marginalizing categorizations), and rejecting them was (mostly) about demanding that people continue to see the persistent institutional problems that were not only not being solved but might even be exacerbated by bullshit euphemisms.
However, over the past twenty-plus years, we’ve actually made a bit of social progress. Homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, racism, etc. are less acceptable than ever – not just in overt language, but, importantly, in deed as well, as we have an ever-expanding recognition of persistent systemic problems that people were wont to claim were solved in the late 80s and early 90s and we’re even managing to strengthen legal protections for gender/sexuality-based discrimination – while criticizing institutional power is no longer automatic political suicide (see Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and even candidate Barack Obama). So while “political correctness” still denotes the same thing, it can have very different connotations these days. As feminist ideas, for example, become more mainstream, they stop being transgressive of political correctness and instead start being politically correct, while anti-feminism switches places. It turns out context is rather important when it comes to meaning (shocking, right?). The meaning of “political correctness” has changed quite simply becasue the political context has changed, and this really ought to be fucking obvious. Sadly, plenty of people, either ignorantly or disingenuously, conflate PC-then and PC-now and wind up not making the slightest bit of sense as a result. Being politically correct or not is not inherently good or bad, effective for achieving some end or ineffective – it simply refers to whether one is acting within the bounds of present norms. What those norms are – and, of course, what the impacts of violating those norms are – defines whether being politically correct is good or bad. It’s also complicated by increasing political fragmentation and polarization, leading to a lack of a single cultural norm or set of norms one might be transgressing in the first place. What’s PC for social democrats is very different from what’s PC for right-wing authoritarians, and a lack of widespread agreement with certain norms of discourse leads to a less cohesive conception of “political correctness” generally.
Mister Fancy Philosopher appears to have forgotten one very basic truth about us social animals: we have different boundaries and behavioural tolerances based on our different social interactions with different people. I can call a friend a dickhead without him batting an eyelid, because both of us know through familiarity that there is no rancor in that comment. A stranger on the other hand might see it the same way… but then again, might not.
P. Jordan Howell (#1) –
On the contrary, I think he and his ilk know exactly what they’re doing. He’s claiming that criticism of discriminatory and hateful language is itself a form of hateful language. It’s akin to labelling anti-war protesters “terrorists”.
It’s all very Orwellian especially how the public won’t think about the arguments. The majority will simply agree with whomever they align themselves with politically.
@John Hortsman, I don’t think you’ve got the timeline right. “Liberal academic” and “PC culture” have basically been synonyms in the US discourse since the early 1990’s. The wikipedia article is actually pretty thorough about sourcing its use in that context. See for example The Official Politically Correct Dictionary from 1993. It’s been used in that context consistently by the right wing up to the present day.
I completely agree with the author of the piece that Zizek is wrong to advocate light-hearted racist, sexist, etc. jokes. For me what his analysis is lacking is recognition of PC-language as a means of creating inclusive spaces that don’t alienate others for being outside of the mainstream. Normative language is inevitably alienating to those who don’t fit in, and so for me PC-language is about being open to difference and diversity. In this respect, I believe PC-language absolutely does make an actual difference, and does not perpetuate oppressive power relationships.
On the other hand, PC-language is often the official language of elite, upperclass, mostly white institutions, which may “talk pretty” but when push comes to shove don’t back up their words with actions. For example, despite its veneer of political correctness and sensitivity, it recently took a lawsuit to get Harvard to comply with Title IX protections for assault victims. Even more recently, our president shamed a trans woman for speaking up in defense of trans rights at a White House celebration for marriage equality. In this case, the White House’s veneer of political correctness was utilized for erasing the continued oppression of trans people, particularly trans people of color. I feel this is standard practice for many supposedly inclusive and multicultural institutions in the U.S..
So while I don’t agree with Zizek’s analysis of discriminatory humor, I do appreciate that his intention is to get liberal, white Ivory Tower academics and politicians to question their privilege and complacency with oppressive regimes. If only he had left out the defense of racist humor.