An Ent-at-Heart Speaks on Political Correctness

I am finally ready to say what I think of the idea of "political correctness." It has taken me decades to come to a conclusion. Entish of me, I know, but I am reluctant to speak before I am sure of not only what I feel, but of what I think.

In order to remain rational, we have to define not only what "political correctness" is but what it is not. (Which is hard, because, what the hell does that phrase mean, anyway? -- "politically correct"? It really is doublespeak in the truest sense. It's horrible, linguistically.)

Edward Hopper

At any rate, political correctness is not some system that is in place with a head office, a list of bylaws and delineated consequences. Yet, people seem to see it this way. It is not an active governmental program designed to suppress free speech. Yet, people seem to see it this way.

Political correctness is a concept. And like many other artificial social constructs, it wants to be seen as a structure of stone and steel; as something real. In the end, it is no more than an idea. Ideas are important, of course -- maybe the most important force in the world, but an idea that is seen as a rulebook, when it is not, is, at best, imperfect, at worst a virus (for good or ill, depending on your view) in the program that is the collective consciousness of a culture.

Generally, PC seeks to define what is okay to say and what is not. It is not about choosing what to say based on your values and emotional intelligence, it is about prescribing what is allowable to say. Not that there are any teeth in it, mind you....it is just an idea. 

That is what we do with language in 2016. We depersonalize and we prescribe. We move things away from personal responsibility and into some hazy entity of a program we ought to follow -- that we wind up feeling pressured into following; in this case, a program that does not exist in any official sense; a program in which broken rules have no tangible consequences.

The problem is that the more we depersonalize, the more we become empty rule-followers; the spirit is no longer behind the actions; the actions are performed just out of a vague sense that the rules simply must be followed. Don't think; do or do not. Sounds a lot like what people criticize religion for. (Though, at least in terms of Christianity, one glance at the Adam and Eve story will clearly tell you that a blind following of the rules is not what God wants...He wants voluntary good behavior, or He never would have made it a choice.) 

What was wrong with "having manners"? Think of the difference between parents and grandparents telling their beloved children what is polite and people following a list of politically correct terms. Think of the difference in tone between "having manners" and "being politically correct."

My wife and I ate brunch at a great restaurant in Philly, two days ago, but we had a waiter who depersonalized everything. Some waiters say, "I'll be taking care of you." He said "I will be your server." When he asked how he meal was, he didn't say, "I am glad you liked it." He said, "I'm glad it was enjoyable." Everything he said kept us at arms' length. A week earlier, we had had a waitress who was such a warm and witty sweetheart, that a stark contrast was all the more vivid... We engaged with her in our dining experience, but this guy basically just put the plates down for us: the difference between human interaction and mechanical action. He was doing his job; she was being friendly, for her pleasure and for ours.

Rubens

To paraphrase George Carlin -- who was referencing Vietnam vets -- if we still called the condition soldiers suffer after battle "shell-shock" and hadn't changed it to "post-traumatic stress disorder," the soldiers might have gotten the help they needed faster. Plain language is more personal; a more poetic phrase -- an onomatopoetic one like "shell-shock" -- is no+t just for the brain, it is for the heart. It begs for engagement and shared feelings. 

In the process of depersonalizing, we weaken the connection of our intentions to our words and to our actions -- and to each other. Once we lose the connection between words and sincerity, the action that follows them becomes a simple laying down of the plates; there is no shared humanity. 

As a teacher, for instance, I never have made (and never will make) a student apologize for having done something. What good is an apology that is not meant? I will ask a student if he thinks he wants to apologize. And often they do. A forced apology, however, is worthless -- an empty action. 

So, instead of giving people a list of things that are "politically correct" to say, what is wrong with stressing manners? Be nice. Treat others with respect. Old fashioned, I know. But so is sitting on the front porch and talking to neighbors on a summer night. 

One argument in favor of political correctness is that one group gets to decide what they would like to hear or to be called. But long before political correctness existed, people told me, as a child, what was polite and not polite to say -- people I respected taught me to be respectful; that every human deserves some respect for being a human. Sure, it is the lowest level of respect, but it amounts to human decency. It is simple respect for life. (Hell, I even have respect for trees.) 

I know, I know...some people don't have that kind of guidance. So what? Let's work more on developing values than on creating lists. Let's offer parenting theory courses in high schools. Let's bring our kids back to church. Whatever it takes to focus on values and the concept of respect for our fellow humans. If you roll your eyes at this, then, yes, you're right; it's too late, I guess. If you consider it possible, there's hope.

If our child-rearing concept is to collapse, then, what's wrong with sorting things out through people's reaction  to what we say? What's wrong with hearing, "Hey, could you not call me that?" For that matter, how about a nice brawl over an insult. Someone has to learn something from that, in the end.

Once, in class I taught at Rutgers, we were discussing the term "African American," which I was defending, and a black man in the class sat in the back shaking his head. I asked him what he wanted to say and he declared that he hated the term African American, because, although he is black, he was not of African descent. He preferred "black". See, I had to engage with him to find that out. This conversation hurt no one and now at least 25 people knew what he preferred. No bloody noses; 100% real human interaction; point made.

People defend political correctness and people call it the great plague of free speech. But I think that those who call it the plague of free speech are almost seeing it as something that is concrete. What that makes is a kind of gaseous cloud of language-bullying. It floats over our heads and we bow to its gloomy weight. Political correctness is only as powerful as we make it and we make it too powerful.

Manners. We need manners. We need to interact more as if we live on the same planet. Right now, political correctness is the teacher holding two kids by the backs of their collars three minutes after fisticuffs on the playground and forcing them to be friends again. If that teacher would just talk to them...like human beings...they might actually wind up seeing how silly their conflict was; they might even walk out of the room arm-in-arm.

Three Random Things

Thing the first: 

I just listened to an interview with President Obama. It was a wide-ranging interview, but, of course, the questions made their way around to the controversy over the nomination of a replacement, on the Supreme court, for Antonin Scalia.

What I found interesting is that Obama felt compelled, based on questions from the interviewer, to defend the fact that he wants to nominate a white man for the job. He went on to defend his strength in appointing or nominating of women, minoritires and openly gay men and women... So, here we have the first black president and he finds himself in a positon of having to defend the choice a white man that he thinks is the best person for the job.

That one's got to give you pause. I am not sure if there is a machete sharp enough to cut through this jungle...

Thing the second: 

The other day I heard report on the radio. This one had to do with a movement to make "automatic brakes" standard equipment on cars. (These would be brakes that would apply themselves if the driver should happen to not be paying attention when an obstruction comes up.) An expert in the field said that automatic brakes bring us one step closer to self-driving cars.

I find it quite telling that, for decades, the dream of sci-fi writers and fans alike has been a time of flying cars but that the future's reality is going to be cars that drive themselves. We dream big: soaring through the air in cars that fly...but our true nature comes out in the end: cars that drive themselves. In the sociological rock-paper-scissors game, laziness smothers ambition as paper suffocates the rock.

Thing the third: 

I will blame a time of high stress for this, even as I confess it, but, the other day, I got angry at someone and called him (under my breath) an "arrogant castrato." I say this because I think I may legitimately lay claim to being the first person ever to use that particular phrase in English. Perhaps the experts at Oxford know better...

It has been a week of most frustrating proportions, but, it, like all things, comes to an end...

Read this Genius Post -- What Happens Next Will Blow Your Mind! (LOL)

I'm not sure where it came from, but my distaste for visible and obvious trends is a powerful factor in my daily life.

I had a bout with trying to be trendy when I was a little kid. Somewhere around fifth or sixth grade, it was hip to carry a big, brightly-colored, plastic comb in one's back pocket. Both for boys and girls. For some reason, I wanted one, so I asked and I received. I brought it into school on Monday (What's that thing in my back pocket? Oh...); forgot about it on Tuesday; might have remembered on Wednesday (Why do I keep getting stuck on my chair...Oh...) and then left it on my dresser, probably for the rest of my adolescence.

That is about the only time I can remember having consciously attempted to be part of a trend. The benefits of a complete disinterest in participating in trends include not being totally embarrassed when looking at high school yearbook pictures. No "parachute pants" or "Z Cavaricis" for me. The high school me is either in jeans and T-shirts, button-downs or golf shirts. I mean, we are all limited by what is available during a time period, so there is no completely escaping trend unless you go to school dressed (literally) like a clown, but one can always avoid the trendiest of trends if one wants.

But my disinterest developed over the years into a real distaste. It makes me downright uncomfortable to see people following so methodically -- so minion-like -- every new trend. (I am glad, for that reason, that I work in a school with uniforms -- which do two things: 1) eliminate "trendy" dress and 2) [contrary to what one might expect] promote real individuality in kids: they must be individual as opposed to simply appearing to be. Our kids are originals. )

For me, language trends are the most grating of all, though. In the voice of my alter-ego (The Emperor) over at When Falls the Coliseum, I devote a lot of time to devising Dante-esque punishments for those who succumb to language trends.

Truth is, I just can't see how people can comfortably utter words and phrases like "life hack" and "shaming" and "lol" or how they can write blog title that include phrases like: "... what happened next gave me chills." I can't imagine ever using the word "genius" as an adjective -- a deed you can't escape if you spend two minutes in front of a TV.

It makes my skin crawl.  I really, physically recoil from trendy language.

Why, I wonder? Maybe it is because I am a sincerity addict. Your words should be your words. Nobody escapes trend completely, I suppose, and one could argue that cliche is the same thing (and I do use cliche sometimes -- I admit that) but maybe it is the stark obviousness of language trends that gets to me. It's like announcing, before you speak: "Hey! I have no expressive abilities of my own (lol!), so I'm going to use this genius phrase! When I first heard it, it gave me chills..."

Blech.

Vocabularious Circumstances

Last week, I was leaving school and I saw our chaplain as I was walking to my car. I gave him the usual: "Have a good weekend, Father."

Just as I said that, I wondered what would happen if word frequency counters were attached to people. We all must, by varying professions and life circumstances, use certain words with more frequency than others do.

"Father," for instance. Most people have fathers, but even out of those people, a great number rarely use the word "father." They might use "dad" or "pop" or whatever else. But, as a guy who works in a Catholic school, (and who went all of his life to public school and, therefore, still feels a need for formality when talking to priests -- a need that seems, ironically, much less urgent in those I know who went to Catholic school) I must use the world "father" with exceedingly more frequency than most people.

Or what about the word "note"? As a musician, I am sure I use the word more than most, but I wonder what the percentage of difference is... We all have passed "notes" and we all write "notes" to coworkers about things and we all have used the word "note" in reference to music, but I wonder to what degree my use of the word exceeds that of others after years of playing, composing, taking lessons, giving lessons, etc...

Well, I'll just sit back and wait for the direct-to-brain computers to come out. Once we all have ports in our heads, I'm sure we will be able to track this kind of thing with relative ease. Which would be totally worth it.

What word do you think you use more than anyone on the planet?

Shirts, Hearts and Facebook Profanity

My wife used a bad word on Facebook. I'll explain why in a minute.

But, here's the thing:

If you are going to publicly chastise a woman on Facebook (as one of her "friends" did), you should probably not do it to the wife of a guy who has a blog with a fairly decent-sized global audience.

Nah -- don't worry. I'm not a sour grapes kind of writer. I am not going to name this guy. In fact, I probably would have chosen not to write about this at all if he hadn't insisted, when I contacted him in defense of my wife, that he has "every right to speak out about things I c on Facebook." (I would have used brackets to better incorporate that quotation, but his use of "c" was just too precious to fiddle with. Uh, with which to fiddle...) And, in the end, this post is, as you might expect, not so much about him as about a concept...

By his logic, if he is offended by something in a public forum, even one like Facebook that is focused on friends and family, he can say what he wishes. He has a RIGHT. He can dispense with consideration of the pond-ripple effects of audience simply so that he can get things off of his chest. (That, to me, is always an exceedingly egocentric statement: "I need to get things off of my chest." It always has an "it is all about me" vibe; it always feels so much like a cutting off of everyone else in the interest of self-catharsis.) Here's what he said... (Hey -- he made it public... ):

How r u going to like ur kids using the trash mouth words u use? I always thought u were a classie lady not a F---ING trash mouth

So...This S'rtiv Annoys Me

A while ago, I wrote a goofy The Emperor Decrees post on this, but it bears repeating here.

I'm not sure why I keep listening to and watching things that anger me. I guess it is the trade-off when you want info.

I listen to NPR every day driving to and home from work. I don't have the same problem with NPR that most do. (Many complain it has a "liberal" bent. It might or not be true; in fact, sometimes I feel it is true and sometimes I think they are pretty objective. Either way, they do reasonably good work in presenting world happenings. I can sort out my own feelings and ideas, wherever theirs may lean.)

No, the real problem I have is what I like to call "NPR-speak." It is not exclusive to NPR, but I think it may spread outward from it...

In the "it-just-gets-under-my-skin" file, I have to mention "s'rtiv." This is a new confrankentraction among NPR-speakers. It means "sort of." It would be merely an annoyance if people threw it in in the right places, but if tends to be used every three words, in places in which it has absolutely no relevance or effect. What really took the cake, for me, was when I heard an interviewer say, yesterday, to her guest: "Now, when you were, s'rtv, growing up..."

SORT OF GROWING UP? I don't know about you, but I actually grew up. What does it mean to "sort of" grow up? Does that mean that you are 55, but you still wear Star Wars pajamas to bed? -- or that you would grow an inch and then shrink two when you were a toddler?

The Dead End Treatment

Rin Tin Tin

Forgive me my little trends on this blog, but, back to profanity again. A few days go, I wrote a lament to the death of the effectiveness of profanity. In short, I don't hate profanity. In fact, I think it was once an effective communication tool. It just seems to me that is has been rendered impotent by unfettered use. (Thanks goodness that doesn't happen to people -- BA-DOOOM, CHEE! Thank yeew!)

Sorry.

Anyway, I recently saw a post -- a thing about dogs. I started reading it and thought I might re-post it on Facebook. (It was about dogs and their silly dogness...) As I read further, it got more and more crass. By the end, I decided that it wasn't how I, a teacher with many former students as friends -- and even some of their parents as friends as well -- wanted to represent myself on social media.

The thing is, the profanity in it was simply not effective; it didn't make the piece any more funny. If anything, it took something away from the contrast of dogly innocence to the real world that would have made it even more humorous.

Eulogy for an Old Drinking Buddy

I have lost a good and useful friend. He was a dark friend, no doubt. He wouldn't go everywhere with me. But where he showed up, he was effective -- even powerful; even intimidating.

Where would he go with me? Smokey taverns, for one. He was only comfortable around gentlemen. He tended to stay hidden when the ladies were around, but when the joke was among the boys, he was a bawdy card.

"McSorley's Bar," by John Sloan

He also was a fierce competitor on the sports field, but he didn't like the umpires and referees to see him. He was a gravelly whisper between me (the defender) and the fellow I was clashing with over the ball. He was right there with me if someone came all dust and high spikes into the base I was covering and gashed my shin.

Sometimes, he was my only companion in moments of lonely anger -- those times when I skinned my knuckles, reaching in to replace a car battery, for instance. Or he would rumble out under the roar of the band when a quarter-inch drumstick splinter lodged itself into my finger halfway through a song, when I couldn't stop to take it out.

He used to be a star on the screen, too. He'd deliver some pretty dramatic moments; one, in particular, shared with the legendary Clark Gable. But he's no presence of the screen anymore. He's but a wraith. He's a strand of hay in a haystack.

Speak for Yourself

Has anyone else noticed an escalation in the use of "the second person" in common speech? It's starting to get ridiculous.

Usually, I hear it in interviews and I find it really annoying when people tell me what I would do in a given situation. For example, imagine an interview with a person who has escaped the attack of a mad gunman. Instead of :

"When it happened, I couldn't fight back. I was way too scared -- I hid."

...we often get:

"When the time comes, you just react by hiding. You don't think to fight back. All you can think about is getting away."

I don't? How the hell do you know? What a pathetic attempt head-off accusations this is. It's not that the speaker was too frightened to fight back; it is just he experienced what every human would under the same circumstances.

I understand "fight or flight" and the workings of the reptilian brain, but people do sometimes act heroically in these situations. And, by the way, it is perfectly okay if you were too scared to face down an armed maniac. Admit it, without shame, but do not insinuate what I would have done in your place. Neither one of us knows until the situation occurs.

In Defense of "Happy Holidays"

As a "word guy" I am annoyed by a lot of things people say and I have referenced a few of them on H&R. And, like a lot of you, I'm turned off by "doublespeak" and jargon and I am suspicious of anything that is considered "politically correct," not only because being politically correct seems cowardly (even though it is often kind, though more often beneficial to the speaker), but because I have learned that whatever politically correct word or phrase one picks, someone is bound to figure out a way to be offended by it; and, even if a politically correct statement is okay today, it might not be okay tomorrow.

(Think of the progress from that most atrocious of n-words (from the corrupted word "negro") to the gentler "colored" to the proudly proclaimed "black" and, eventually, to the "politicaly correct" "African American" -- a phrase, by the way, that a black college student of mine one voiced violent objection to: "If I hear one more person in this room refer to black people as African Americans, I'm going to flip." His objection was that he was black, but of West-Indian descent and that calling him African American was simply incorrect and that is was also a default disregarding of his culture. He saw, he said, no more problem being referred to as "the black guy" than he would imagine a ginger person should have with being called "the red-haired guy.")