Political correctness and indirect messages

Andrew D Atkin

Does political correctness promote racism, sexism and homophobia?

Indirectly, I think it often does. As follows:

The politically correct brigade seem to be trying to promote homosexuality as a "new normal". As it seems, they try to create the impression that the difference between being born either gay or straight is as natural and 'normal' as the difference between being born with either blond or red hair. This is ridiculous. Of course it's not "natural" to be either gay or straight; not in the same way that it is for typical differences in hair colour and the like.

Yes, homosexuality is natural - but a natural aberration. Homosexuality is natural in the same way that a congenital disorder or cancer is natural. No reasonable-minded person can suggest that homosexuality in humans is an innate part of our evolutionary destiny. Homosexuality is still something that happens when things don't happen the way they are "supposed to" happen.

So, what is the indirect message coming from all these PC-people who insist that we should accept homosexuality as a "new normal". Believe it or not, I think they (indirectly) reinforce the idea that homosexuality is unacceptable because they tell us "We cannot accept these people for who they are", and they do so, basically, by asking us to pretend that homosexuals are something that they are not.

So the PC-people give us the message "Accept gays - there is nothing wrong with them", but underneath that superficial message is still the more fundamental message "We do not accept people with sexual aberrations". As it seems, and curiously, we can only make homosexuality acceptable by [falsely] declassifying it from its aberration status.(?).

--So how about just being honest and realistic about what homosexuality is, and then from there maybe encourage people to accept it by having them understand that it is meaningless (if not cruel) to apply some kind of value-judgement on someone who has been exposed to either an environmental and/or genetic imperfection? It's curious that the PC-people are not interested in this sort of thinking.

Following from my example, the same kind of dynamic can be seen in the politically correct relationship that we have with gender and race. Why can't we speak freely about the differences between the sexes and races; that is, without too easily running the risk of being accused of the worst? What is wrong with differences? Is there supposed to be something to hide? You get my point...

I think political correctness leads to (and supports) indirect messages that serve to drive deeper-level values and assumptions that, in themselves, may not be rational and may ultimately only fuel the foundation of our irrational prejudice.

I think a good example for this can be seen in the way that we're not allowed to discuss the possibility of Blacks being less intelligent than Whites*. Ignoring the idea in itself, we can ask: "What is the indirect massage of this suppressed conversation?" I would say it is the idea that "Abstract intelligence defines the social (if not intrinsic) value of the man". And like my original example, the indirect message coming from our PC-relationship to gays is "We should not accept people who suffer from sexual aberrations".

Maybe it is so that the PC-movement is really just about defining our deeper-level values, and doing so on indirect levels of which are therefore protected from direct debate. Who knows...would the social engineers be that clever?

*For the record, this is not a view that I support.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Addition: 18-10-10:

Inclusiveness or Indirect Racism?

Just today I was looking at a handbook. It had four cartoon hands drawn on the cover, all joined together in a collective handshake. One of the hands was distinctly coloured-in black, the other three hands were white.

On the face of it, it looked like an 'inclusive' ideal was being promoted. But the indirect message was actually the opposite, I believe. Rather than promoting inclusiveness it was bringing attention to difference. Though it was telling the viewer to include Black people, it was simultaneously telling them to identify Black people as specifically different.

The image was encouraging the viewers to form racially-based categories in their minds.

Non-prejudice: The non-prejudice position is to take people as you personally find them - as the individuals they are. For example, if Samantha Pickles is Black, then as you get to know her her ethnicity should disappear (from your) relevance. Over time you would barely even notice her ethnicity as such, you would just come to see Samantha as "Samantha".

Prejudice: A prejudice position is one where an individual forms categories, and in turn comes to perceives people through their categories, for even when they could (otherwise) get to know them as an individual. This means, for example, that if the statistics tell you that Black people are 4 times more likely to kill you than White people (as a generalised statistical finding) then this would colour the way you perceive [and in turn respond to] my Samantha Pickles, and again regardless of who she may be as an individual.

My point is, as I believe, that the basis of racism (and many other 'isms') is rooted in the "original sin" of perceiving people through categories*. So, the more the Politically Correct encourage us to categorise people as either Black or White (or whatever), the more they lay the foundation for functional racism.

*Note: Sometimes perceiving people through categories is a functional necessity. Insurance companies, for example, base their businesses models on it. But this kind of discrimination has nothing to do with prejudice as such, it is simply professional risk-management for when you are dealing with unknown variables. Again, a chance-based decision based on statistical findings has nothing to do with judgements.

Note 2: To say, I also think that categories help to make us blind. Prejudice people are the last to see either the saint or the psychopath, I believe.

Addition: 18-10-10: Propaganda identification:

So how do you recognise the 'effect' of indirect messages, or any form of (possible) propoganda? Easy!..

Use yourself as a guinea-pig - be your own "lab rat". Look carefully at your own "raw" responses to input (and in particular inputs-components that have nothing to do with objective reasoning), and understand that in so many ways us humans are all the same (like you).

By observing your own reactions, you can choose to not let those emotive and 'impressionistic' influences get the better of you. And likewise, you will be able develop a better understanding of what will (too often) be getting the better of others.