Mapping Political Correctness
Don Brash, the Leader of New Zealand’s conservative National political party has created a new portfolio in his shadow cabinet reshuffle following his recent electoral defeat. Amongst the duties assigned to Dr Wayne Mapp is that of Political Correctness Eradicator. New Zealand has an enviable history of pioneering social reform. One thinks of its early introduction of universal suffrage and the welfare state. But while these are generally regarded as progressive moves by leftist governments, in the creation of the office of Political Correctness Eradicator, which must surely be unique in modern history, we find the Right conjuring up its own unique political innovation.
When Dr Brash was questioned by a newspaper reporter about what political correctness is, and what Dr Mapp will actually do, he appeared foggy on the details and referred the media to a speech Dr Mapp delivered on June 22, 2005. In that speech Dr Mapp defines political correctness as a person, institution or government ceasing “to represent the interests of the majority” to “become focused on the cares and concerns of minority sector groups” and goes on to criticise instruments like the Waitangi Tribunal which adjudicates on Maori land claims, the Human Rights Commission and the Privacy Commission which as their names indicate, were established to protect the rights of individuals and groups. Mapp’s basic argument echoes that of other right-wing critiques, that political correctness runs counter to the basic freedoms of society.
Dr Mapp’s own political convictions lie revealed in the examples of political correctness he refers to in his paper. He makes it very clear that the Maori people, for so long an oppressed group within their own country, are being given in our age of political correctness far too great a degree of favourable treatment. Thus he complains about the custom of powhiri (traditional Maori greeting ceremonials) now incorporated into much of New Zealand’s political and administrative life and belittles it by such claims as “the commencement of a motorway project should not require a 40 minute powhiri within a 50 minute event” because this leads to “private frustration” and “disregard for other cultures”. He likewise attacks the Government’s “promotion of the Maori spiritual world view” and within state documents the “recitation of Maori myths and legends”.
One of the bugbears of those who campaign against political correctness is multiculturalism which they regard as a form of social engineering aimed at giving different cultures equal standing and respect in the community. Their argument typically runs that multiculturalism is built on the premise that different cultures are compatible, but this is demonstrably untrue and those opposing multiculturalism are unjustly branded as prejudiced or racist. While one can detect elements of this position in Dr Mapp’s argument, his base line appears to be that, while Maori may have suffered injustices in the past, under the mantras of political correctness they are being too generously treated, and it is high time that the pendulum swung back in favour of the dominant white settler community’s culture and values. What his argument fails to take into account is that the racism which was for so long a feature of the settlers’ relationship with Maori, has by no means been eradicated from settler life.
Other examples he highlights are equally disturbing. He is opposed to proposed legislation on offensive ‘hate speech’, to the legislation already passed to create healthy smoke-free work and leisure environments, and the establishment of civil unions, in fact all those things which involve “promoting minority and alternative causes”. As might be anticipated, he includes within this umbrella the gay community’s lobbying against homophobia. As an example of the latter he cites the case of a right-wing Christian organization, Living Word Distributors, who were banned by the New Zealand film censors from distributing two US videos, AIDS, What You haven’t Been Told, and Gay Rights/Special Rights: Inside the Homosexual Agenda. These videos are opposed to the idea that homosexuality might become respectable and in particular to the way that countries like the US are enshrining affirmative protection for the gay community in human and civil rights legislation. What Mapp doesn’t tell us, possibly because it doesn’t suit his argument about the unbridled power of political correctness, is that four years ago the New Zealand Court of Appeal overturned that video ban on the grounds that informed public debate within a democracy requires a free flow of information and ideas.
It behoves us to remember that ‘political correctness’ emerged at a time when minority groups were subject to all manner of racial and other stereotyping. Blacks felt demeaned when they were called ‘niggers’ or ‘coons’ by members of the dominant group. Immigrants felt the same when called ‘wogs’ or ‘wops’; gays when they were referred to as ‘faggots’ or ‘poofs’; people suffering disabilities when they were called ‘cripples’ or ‘mongs’. The so-called Political Correctness Movement, which never was a movement until invented by the Right in the 1980’s, tried to change our stereotypical and often unconscious attitudes by challenging and changing our use of language and terminology. The focus became the merits of the individual rather than perceived membership of a particular group.
This linguistic approach has not been without its problems. I used a variation of the word ‘disabled’ above in order to avoid the pejorative term ‘crippled’. In this instance the terminology has undergone several changes from cripple to invalid to handicapped to disabled to differently abled to the current physically challenged. In terms of health, education and social care we tend to use terms like special needs and learning difficulties instead of earlier terms now considered demeaning to human dignity. Nor has religion escaped with the terms BC and AD now replaced by CE (Common Era) and BCE (Before Common Era) and hospital chaplains in the UK now referred to as Spiritual Care Providers (or worse, Managers).
Personally, I reject some of the overtly political and ideological manipulations of language justified under the guise of ‘political correctness’. But I don’t want to lose sight of a very basic principle: that it is not for social engineers to decide what people should be called, but for groups within our communities to decide for themselves how they prefer to be addressed. While Dr Mapp is right to raise sensitive issues about culture and language, in New Zealand’s case by leaping on to the bandwagon of a white settler backlash he is advocating a dangerous political ploy. And to me, the creation of his post as Political Correctness Eradicator smacks too much of Stalinism.
When Dr Brash was questioned by a newspaper reporter about what political correctness is, and what Dr Mapp will actually do, he appeared foggy on the details and referred the media to a speech Dr Mapp delivered on June 22, 2005. In that speech Dr Mapp defines political correctness as a person, institution or government ceasing “to represent the interests of the majority” to “become focused on the cares and concerns of minority sector groups” and goes on to criticise instruments like the Waitangi Tribunal which adjudicates on Maori land claims, the Human Rights Commission and the Privacy Commission which as their names indicate, were established to protect the rights of individuals and groups. Mapp’s basic argument echoes that of other right-wing critiques, that political correctness runs counter to the basic freedoms of society.
Dr Mapp’s own political convictions lie revealed in the examples of political correctness he refers to in his paper. He makes it very clear that the Maori people, for so long an oppressed group within their own country, are being given in our age of political correctness far too great a degree of favourable treatment. Thus he complains about the custom of powhiri (traditional Maori greeting ceremonials) now incorporated into much of New Zealand’s political and administrative life and belittles it by such claims as “the commencement of a motorway project should not require a 40 minute powhiri within a 50 minute event” because this leads to “private frustration” and “disregard for other cultures”. He likewise attacks the Government’s “promotion of the Maori spiritual world view” and within state documents the “recitation of Maori myths and legends”.
One of the bugbears of those who campaign against political correctness is multiculturalism which they regard as a form of social engineering aimed at giving different cultures equal standing and respect in the community. Their argument typically runs that multiculturalism is built on the premise that different cultures are compatible, but this is demonstrably untrue and those opposing multiculturalism are unjustly branded as prejudiced or racist. While one can detect elements of this position in Dr Mapp’s argument, his base line appears to be that, while Maori may have suffered injustices in the past, under the mantras of political correctness they are being too generously treated, and it is high time that the pendulum swung back in favour of the dominant white settler community’s culture and values. What his argument fails to take into account is that the racism which was for so long a feature of the settlers’ relationship with Maori, has by no means been eradicated from settler life.
Other examples he highlights are equally disturbing. He is opposed to proposed legislation on offensive ‘hate speech’, to the legislation already passed to create healthy smoke-free work and leisure environments, and the establishment of civil unions, in fact all those things which involve “promoting minority and alternative causes”. As might be anticipated, he includes within this umbrella the gay community’s lobbying against homophobia. As an example of the latter he cites the case of a right-wing Christian organization, Living Word Distributors, who were banned by the New Zealand film censors from distributing two US videos, AIDS, What You haven’t Been Told, and Gay Rights/Special Rights: Inside the Homosexual Agenda. These videos are opposed to the idea that homosexuality might become respectable and in particular to the way that countries like the US are enshrining affirmative protection for the gay community in human and civil rights legislation. What Mapp doesn’t tell us, possibly because it doesn’t suit his argument about the unbridled power of political correctness, is that four years ago the New Zealand Court of Appeal overturned that video ban on the grounds that informed public debate within a democracy requires a free flow of information and ideas.
It behoves us to remember that ‘political correctness’ emerged at a time when minority groups were subject to all manner of racial and other stereotyping. Blacks felt demeaned when they were called ‘niggers’ or ‘coons’ by members of the dominant group. Immigrants felt the same when called ‘wogs’ or ‘wops’; gays when they were referred to as ‘faggots’ or ‘poofs’; people suffering disabilities when they were called ‘cripples’ or ‘mongs’. The so-called Political Correctness Movement, which never was a movement until invented by the Right in the 1980’s, tried to change our stereotypical and often unconscious attitudes by challenging and changing our use of language and terminology. The focus became the merits of the individual rather than perceived membership of a particular group.
This linguistic approach has not been without its problems. I used a variation of the word ‘disabled’ above in order to avoid the pejorative term ‘crippled’. In this instance the terminology has undergone several changes from cripple to invalid to handicapped to disabled to differently abled to the current physically challenged. In terms of health, education and social care we tend to use terms like special needs and learning difficulties instead of earlier terms now considered demeaning to human dignity. Nor has religion escaped with the terms BC and AD now replaced by CE (Common Era) and BCE (Before Common Era) and hospital chaplains in the UK now referred to as Spiritual Care Providers (or worse, Managers).
Personally, I reject some of the overtly political and ideological manipulations of language justified under the guise of ‘political correctness’. But I don’t want to lose sight of a very basic principle: that it is not for social engineers to decide what people should be called, but for groups within our communities to decide for themselves how they prefer to be addressed. While Dr Mapp is right to raise sensitive issues about culture and language, in New Zealand’s case by leaping on to the bandwagon of a white settler backlash he is advocating a dangerous political ploy. And to me, the creation of his post as Political Correctness Eradicator smacks too much of Stalinism.
posted by MichaelElliott @ 8:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home