In my experience there is a close to 100 per cent correlation between the stated belief that society is suffering from a decline in “civility” and a willingness to proclaim that we are all being oppressed by “political correctness”. John Howard neatly illustrates this. A week or two ago, he was denouncing public schools as hotbeds of political correctness, and the excessive concern with offending religious minorities that (allegedly) led to the curtailment of Christmas celebrations. Now he’s calling for more civility.
The common analysis underlying both demands for “political correctness” (this actual phrase was never used, except jocularly as far as I know, until critics seized on it, but terms such as “sensitivity” or “inclusive language” cover much the same ground) and for “civility”, is that offensive words give rise to offensive acts. In both cases, there’s some ambiguity over whether the problem is with the offence to the recipient or with the reinforcement of the hostile/prejudiced attitudes of the speaker, but the central claim is that modes of speech are an appropriate subject of concern and that some form of government action to encourage more socially appropriate modes of speech, ranging from subtle pressure to direct coercion, is desirable. The only difference between the two positions is that they have different lists of inappropriate words.
I don’t have a sharply defined position on any of this, except that I find people who think that being “politically incorrect” is exceptionally brave and witty to be among the most tiresome of bores. I doubt that changes in speech will, of themselves, produce changes in attitudes. The obvious evidence for this is the rate at which euphemisms wear out and become as offensive as the terms they replaced (for example, ‘handicapped’ for ‘crippled’). On the other hand, I think there’s a lot to be said for avoiding offensive words and forms of speech and can see a place for (tightly drafted and cautiously applied) laws prohibiting or penalising various forms of collective defamation.
John Quiggin 
John,
Howard has a point on schools. Several kids of my friends are amazed that a) I could support the war in Iraq and B) have a sympathetic view of Israel and blame the Palestinian leadership and Arab leadership for the plight of the Palestinians. In other words, their teachers have not even attempted to point out that their might be another side to the argument. In fact, the bias against Israel in schools, in Universities, in human rights organisations such as Amnesty International, and in the supposedly quality media (including or especially the BBC) has reached poisonous levels. This is more serious than bias on talkback radio etc which is not taken as seriously. Israel, it seems, is in the wrong when it takes action after suicide bombers have destroyed the lives of its citizens and after numerous others attempting similar destruction have been stopped. The fact that since the second war the Palestinian leadership and Arab countries have on several occasions rejected the offer of a continuous Palestinian state and have sought to destroy the Jews instead is blithely ignored. In fact, they are ignored to such an extent that I am no longer, in many cases, prepared to put it down to ignorance but rather down to anti-Semitism. From a left perspective, the anti-Semitism of many academics, intellectuals and social activists combined with their past ideological allegiances (to Marxism, etc) has made it far too easy for the right to claim the moral and intellectual high ground.
I plan a post on the substance of the Israel/Palestine issue sometime soon. But as regards kids’ opinions on the subject, I’m doubtful that these are derived predominantly from school. I don’t get the impression that this kind of issue is discussed much in class. (The same is true of universities, except for subject areas like international relations.)
Rather I think, opinions have been formed by watching the news on TV, biased or otherwise.
given that this decline in manners has happened in recent times doesn’t this mean it has occured under his watch?
Michael are you down on Amnesty because it continually provides evidence of torture under Israel’s government?
you should also differentiate criticism of Israel because of anti-Semitism which is essentially that of the Islamic world and also parts of europe and criticism of Israel in general.
One of the problems you have today is that anti-semitism is always thrown back at anyone who criticises Israel.
As soon as some republican lardass says “forgive me for not being politically correct” I know I am about to presented with both nonsense and the thoughts of someone who really, really wishes he could say something like “Nope. Killed a nigger” when asked if anyone was hurt in a steamboat explosion.
And let the record reflect that Twain would never say “let me be politicallty correct.”
Everything you say about political correctness is right. The term itself is an American import and may have been used seriously there. But Australian lefties used it only in self-parody if at all (‘ideologically sound’ was the original phrase), until the right incorporated it into their jeering lexicon. And the ‘brave and witty’ remark is spot on. How often the anti-PC warriors use the words ‘temerity’ and ‘audacity’, implying that their opponents, to compound their errors, are attempting to censor them!
But I don’t get the point about civility at all. Does it, as the post’s title suggests, just means manners? I myself am one of the world’s greatest bores when it comes to ranting about people who: answer mobile phones in meetings or classes, try to get on the train before others get off, put my phone call through to someone’s answering machine, type on their computer or attend to their paperwork when I’m talking to them…
I guess I don’t know what you mean by civility. Can you give an example?
My understanding of politically correct language is different from John’s. My experience, particularly at school and university, is that it is a form of political coercion through control of language and acceptable topics of discussion. Steps outside the bounds of these clearly defined limits, and vilification quickly follows.
Continuing.
For example, the insistence that you say salesperson, policeperson and actor. I was taught a number of times that this was correct and salesman, policewoman and actress were incorrect and should never be used. This was common during my student days, and I assume still is.
This is clearly politicisation of language, and I’m surprised that a respected academic like John would appear to support it.
John, re universities. The issue is not, I think, whether the issue of Israel is a formal part of the curriculum but the general attitude of left-leaning academics which is generally appalling. In Department of Middle Eastern Studies it is genrally down right disgusting. On politically correct language in general I have to agree with PK. In the Department I was in at University, I was actually banned from casual teaching work in environmental politics courses for being too biased after two students complained that I had criticised David Suzuki. To no avail, I pointed out that other members of the department frequently criticised both the Labor and Liberal parties. One of my honours thesis markers described me an uncritical supporter of the dominant orthodoxy as espoused by the IMF because I criticised the views of Indian environmentalist Vandana Shiva who, among other things, calls for a complete rejection of western science and technology and return to pre-colonial modes of production. These are not isolated or trivial instances (in my case they have effected my career) and are indicative of a wider problem. This is not to suggest, of course, that similar stupidity does not take place on right of politics or even in economics departments.
Homer, I am down on Amnesty (of which I was a member for many years) because it a) gets far more excited when a Palestinian terrorists gets killed than it does when Israeli’s get killed and b) it and Robert Fisk’s lies about Jenin and c) the fact that it currently spends more time criticising the US than it does the likes of Sudan – The US got rid of a dictator how terrible.
Homer, not all critics of Israel in general, or the current Israeli government in particular, are labelled as anti-semitic.
If the critics are Jewish, they are labelled as self-hating Jews. An Israeli friend of mine, temporarily living in Australia, was, in all seriousness, labelled a self-hating Jew by an Australian Jew he met, who had himself never set foot in Israel, for making critical comments about Ariel Sharon.
PK, I can see the argument against using a clumsy term like policeperson. But what’s wrong with actor for both males and females? Would you call a female medical pactitioner a doctress, or a doctor?
“I am down on Amnesty … because … it currently spends more time criticising the US than it does the likes of Sudan”
Is that so? Here is the headline item on the Amnesty web site (www.amnesty.org)
“Sudan: End the human rights crisis in Darfur
The international community should have the courage of its convictions and apply the strongest pressure on the government of Sudan to end human rights violations in Darfur.”
Michael, have the considered that your academic career suffered because you didn’t check your facts before bursting into print? I hope for the government’s sake the quality of the work you do for the industry department is better than the arguments you have presented on this blog.
Policeperson? WTF? Who uses that term?
I one wants to refer to the police in a gener neutral form ppl usually use ‘police officer’, ‘Jack’ or ‘Pig’ (depending on how civil you are).
ricardo: burgess said that amnesty spends more time criticising the US than Sudan. so from the current count, as long as the criticise the US more than once, his statement is factual.
regarding political correctness, i dont know whether this term was ever used, but the new fashion is to say anyone who criticises political correctness is a right wing bore. it wont be long before that gets boring.
there is a real problem here though, whether you call it political correctness or not, there exists “poverty of pluralism”. that is, nearly everyone my age and younger (i am talking 90%) thinks their own form of dogma and closed mindedness is actually open-mindedness. when presented with alternative views, they cannot psychologically handle the thought that someone is presenting an argument.
an example: while discussing the nelson education reforms at uni, a fellow student got quite irate and could not believe that i supported the universities raising fees. when i presented the fact that these increases could not be made up front, she simply denied the fact. (i was correct incidentally)
my peers simply cannot engage in a discussion. this i think is due to the indoctrination they have received through the education system.
Regarding political correctness, as in regards to language in general, context is everything. I find it grossly offensive, as has happened at Central Station, but perhaps not frequently, when people of Australian background, as in the example that I was witness, make loud comments, and feel entitled to much such comments about the ethnic origin of people who are going lives and who should not be subject to such intimidation. In my belief, the people who take such license do so on the pretext of the anti-political correctness ideology espoused by John Howard and others.
Ah c8to – I assume you hark back to the good old days when there was never indoctrination as uni, professors were kindly old men who had your best interests at heart. Back then any one could discuss anything and get a polite and civilised hearing, and not be hounded to death because of their sexuality (like Alan Turing). Or even sacked from their jobs because somebody had identified them as once joining the communist party. Where Aboriginals were respected in the dean’s rooms and never refused entry to a course.
Hogwarts U was it?
‘THE FACULTY OF Arts at the University of Sydney is a disaster-area, and not of the merely passive kind, like a bombed building, or an area that has been flooded. It is the active kind, like a badly-leaking nuclear reactor, or an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in cattle.’
– David Stove, A Farewell to Arts
http://www.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/arts.html
I never cared much about the political correctness I saw at high school/university (I thought it was trivial and irritating), what I disliked most and found puzzling was that it had so many defenders who would deny it, say it was insignificant, or that it compensated for the right-wing nature of the rest of the world (popular newpapers and television, big business etc.).
Intellectual dishonesty from people supposed to be dedicated to intellectual honesty.
I know of no greater intellectual hypocrisy.
Mark Burgess says: “In the Department I was in at University, I was actually banned from casual teaching work in environmental politics courses for being too biased after two students complained that I had criticised David Suzuki.”
This is at least the second time you have brought this up, Mark, and I’m afraid it stretches my credulity. It’s the only incident of its kind I’ve heard of in fifteen years in academia, so it’s hardly representative of any widespread practice of dogma enforcement. Did someone from the department actually say they were dispensing with your services because of your heretical pronouncements on Suzuki, or was this just the inference you drew? Course coordinators and department heads are usually thankful if a casual lecturer is competent: his opinions are of little consequence, the students’ reactions thereto are of no consequence whatever.
Michael, sorry.
PK harks back to a time when we all discussed the history of mankind and the use of feminine words was used to describe someone of lesser worth and value. Just because there was no analysis of the language did not mean that there was no political agenda. That those who lectured and described the language were all men was not something even worth mentioning.
Then stroppy feminists thought that language should be descriptive rather than prescriptive and started changing words such as Chairman to designate the person presiding over a meeting. Even when a woman was a Chairman it was seen as an aberration and of course the organisation would of course go back to a man so that the term was no longer ludicous.
Christopher Pyne was on Lateline bemoaning the lack of civility in society this evening. He supported the Prime Minister calling for us all to be nicer to each other. He then proceeded to call Mark Latham names and interrupt Tania Plebersek every time she started to say anything. Once upon a time this would have been seen as rude and ungentlemanly behaviour. His hectoring manner shows that we have a long way to go before we will regain a mannered society which rests on respect for others.
It is certainly mind boggling to have the same Prime Minister who has presided over children overboard where he castigated “illegal Immigrants” as somehow less than human, who says nothing whilst allegations of torture on an Australian citizen are made, and who has been brutal in in the incarceration of children should then lecture others on behaviour. Let’s not mention the illegal war.
Not a lot of respect shown there – I fear that a more civil society will be a long time coming and it won’t be on Howard’s watch – after all he is the man who has given our cities beggars and stressed the individual only has to worry about themselves. Naturally this leads to a more selfish and harsher Australia where divisions are becoming entrenched.
Complaining about terms like “policeperson” (!) brings me back to the 70s. Two Ronnies anyone?
“On the other hand, I think there’s a lot to be said for avoiding offensive words and forms of speech and can see a place for (tightly drafted and cautiously applied) laws prohibiting or penalising various forms of collective defamation.”
With reference to your conclusion above John, how would your civility versus carefully crafted laws of collective defamation differentiate among the following statements:-
1. University professors are wankers.
2. Muslims are wankers
3. Muslims are psychos
4. Americans are infidels
5. Labor voters are communists
6. Liberal voters are fascists
7. Boongs are pack of bludgers and pissheads.
8. White Australians are responsible for genocide
8. Footballers are a pack of rapists.
9. Feminists are a bunch of lesbians
I believe civility and manners are a matter of leadership rather than law. I would suggest we would need the wisdom of the Almighty to ‘carefully’ craft laws for this and all of us would have different views about the crafting. Jill’s statement about “illegal immigrants” is a case in point. The govt may rightly believe in applying such terminology to boat arrivals, whereas Jill may prefer an ABC’s “refugees” or “asylum seekers”. Much argument may ensue about such terms, with the govt using the UN charter on refugees, to refute Jill’s claims as really country shoppers and hence illegals. The last thing we want is lawyers and HREOC units prosecuting citizens over such disputed claims and terminology. The only way around this IMO, is to stick rigidly to the right to free speech, however unsavoury that may get from time to time.
I believe civility and manners are a matter of leadership rather than law.
This may seem like a silly question, but who should provides the leadership?
Observa – that is idiotic as well you know. Law is constantly defined by carefully considered and calibrated decisions about every type of issue under the sun.
Why does one rapist get 3 yrs – another 5 years?
Because of a judge’s carefully considered judgement. Yes, if you reject all attempt at civility unless the variables can be reduced to maths equations, then this is unsatisfactory. But for those with the spiritual temerity to live in the world as we find ourselves, such ambiguities and uncertanties are only one of our many worries.
The black and white crowd, as represented here by Observa, are a fearful bunch. Life is too pressing for us to give such people a hearing.
Dare to go a little further with your list, Observa. Dare to put down what you find unspeakable. Interesting the things you found Ok to play with but.
Mein Kamp was also only a collection of wordy defamations. But as any child knows very well, words are a powerful source of injury.
Freedom has become an obsession in parts of the USA. We do not want to import this infected belief system to Australia. Freedom has become a one word ideology. And as damaging as many other ideologies. Freedom is a dangerously hallowed word in many quarters. Freedom is not the final word when it comes to these issues.
“Dare to go a little further with your list, Observa. Dare to put down what you find unspeakable. Interesting the things you found Ok to play with but.
Mein Kamp was also only a collection of wordy defamations. But as any child knows very well, words are a powerful source of injury.”
wbb, I have heard such statements and worse. We can all make endless lists. It may be that to a ProfQ, ‘University professors are wankers’ is simply water off a ducks back. Another professor may also take the same view with ‘Muslims are wankers’ BUT he may take humbrage at ‘Muslims are psychos’ and want the careful defamation police to act. We have already experienced the Vic HREOC Act in action in this regard. Firstly a pentecostal minister was hauled up before the tribunal for defamation of muslims. All very civilised until the christians started attending muslim gatherings and taking notes. Then the chief from the Islamic Council started having serious second thoughts about Pandoras boxes.
Just imagine the sorts of bile and defamation that goes on at street demonstrations at WEFs. Imagine the field day you could have with a camera and sound recordings, to pop down to your local HREOC office later that day and lay the complaints. Wouldn’t some of the uranium miners and loggers have a field day with some of the greenie defamers at the demos too.
Forgive me for thinking adults were responsible for their own actions under the law. To read Mein Kampf and then go out and murder a Jew or two, would not be a valid defense of my actions. Of course I accept special rules for minors, like film classifications, but basically for adults it must be a case of sticks and stones. Manners and leadership are of course imperatives.
Pr Q includes:
Presumably the Grand Unifying Theory of Right Wing Ideological protocols is that they want to have it both ways:
Allow the Politically Incorrect Right to be as insulting to its opponents as it likes
Prevent the Incivil Left from returning fire in kind
wbb: Was it mein kampf that killed all those jews? Did the book physically jump up and start herding them into concentration camps?
I invoke godwin’s law.
John: You might think people complaining about “political correctness” is boring, but the fact is that the left have increasingly tried to silence debate on certain topics under the guise of “tolerance” or “inclusiveness”.
Examples: Windschuttle, Lomborg, Pipes or “The Bell Curve”. THAT is what right-wingers are complaining about when they talk of “political correctness”.
And the problem IS very marked in public schools. Witness the experience of one school student when he tried to put forward an “unacceptable” viewpoint at his high school.
Im not that long out of school myself and I remember very well what I was taught in primary and junior high school. Let’s just say that Carson, Caldicott, Ehrlich and Suzuki would have had very few arguments with any of the curriculum.
In fact, if it wasn’t for the internet, I would never have had any idea that those sort of theories were even in dispute. In school curriculum, they are presented as objective fact and there is no such thing as “differing views”.
It’s probably true that it’s too complicated to teach concurrent competing theories to primary and junior high school aged children, but let’s not pretend that they are choosing a side at random.
Yobbo,
I’ve commented on all the people you mention and followed the debate fairly closely. I certainly did not mention tolerance or inclusiveness in my criticism and I’m not aware of anyone who did. Feel free to search my site and the links there for counterexamples.
The complaint I’ve made against Lomborg, Windschuttle, Pipes and Murray/Herrnstein is that they are factually wrong and intellectually dishonest.
It is, however striking that you should include Pipes (who maintains a site aimed at silencing academics with differing views on the Middle East) on your list. The idea that attempts to silence/initimidate those with opposing views are confined to one side in the policy debate is exactly the kind of fallacy I was pointing out in my post.
andrew,
i dont hark back to any time. im merely stating that my peers cant handle reason because of the failings of their education.
furthermore, the difference is, previously were closed minded but at least they didnt think they were open minded, progressive types…thats poverty of the pluralism…
as an aside, i can have slightly more interesting conversations on average with people about ten years older than me, but theres plenty of dogmatic idiots of any age.
while i enjoyed your satire, it didn’t really add anything to the discussion, and wasnt very apt.
It struck me reading the posts mentioning Israel and anti-semitism how few people understand that anti-semitic also means anti-arab, as Arabic and Hebrew are both Semitic languages. Ethno-linguistically, the Jews and Arabs have more in common than many people appreciate.
Its also surprising how many people think they’re brilliant for bringing that falsehood up. “Anti-Semitic” has never meant “anti-arab” even though the word “Semitic” refers to both jewish and arab people. It’s always been a synonym for “Jew Hatred”, nothing more or less.
yobbo,
That was a fiery response to a rather tame (I thought) observation. It was also illogical of you to state that “anti-semitic” does not mean anti-arab, when you agree that arabs are a semitic people. If one is anti-semitic, then one is anti-Jew and anti-arab, the term “semite” being inclusive of those people belonging to the “semitic” language group. My statement wasn’t a falsehood, and you’ve just lived up (down?) to your name.
I’m glad Observa brought up the disgraceful case of Pastor Daniel Scot being taken before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal for running an anti-Islamic seminar. That Daniel Scot is a Pakistani who was forced to flee his homeland when violent mobs sought to murder him for refusing to convert to Islam, is completely lost on the luvvies and their friends in the statutory commissions. Apparently, “root causes” are not important anymore.
“And the problem IS very marked in public schools. Witness the experience of one school student when he tried to put forward an “unacceptable” viewpoint at his high school.”
Oh yeah the woman being strangled by a chain – nice – I can’t understand why anyone would object to that being put up in a school.
“Dare to go a little further with your list, Observa. Dare to put down what you find unspeakable. Interesting the things you found Ok to play with but.”
wbb makes a comment here which largely illustrates the point I was making. For example I deliberately used the term boong, which most would agree is definitely uncivil and could well be ‘classified’ under a carefully crafted defamation act, probably alongside coon or nigger. In other words could these terms be proscribed as unusable, lest the user face serious legal penalty? This begs the question as to whether my use here, should render me liable to prosecution under such a law? Should ProfQ also face prosecution for allowing the word to stand in his blog commentary? Some may take the strict view that we are both culpable and answerable at law. Notice that such a term may in fact be as culturally vile as a muslim calling another human an infidel. A professor of Islamic culture may well agree that the terms boong, wog, slope and infidel are all similar in vitriol. In other words we may have to be strictly, culturally fair with such laws.
This brings me to another major defect in such carefully crafted laws. Suppose we did outlaw disparaging or racist terms like boong and infidel? Well the now law abiding observa and indeed the watchful profQ might have to see to it that boong was perhaps replaced by a more legally acceptable word like aboriginal. So now we have-‘Aboriginals are pack of bludgers and pissheads.’ Somehow I feel the thought police would have to add bludger and pisshead to their all powerful search engines and laws. Then we get-‘Aboriginals are pack of dole recipients and alchoholics.’ Of course I have a feeling this may still not assuage those fighting the good fight. The author might have to prove this statement, so he may water it down to- ‘Many(must avoid most of course) aboriginals are dole recipients and alchoholics.’ Now that should keep Michael Brander and his National Front mates out of the clutches of the law, when they use it on their banners when they join in the next aboriginal tent embassy or reconciliation march.
To wbb, all I can say is I find these things a little greyer than you imagine I do. I agree words can hurt, but being left with so few words or phrases at all, after the lawyers and thought police are finished with our language may hurt even more. To wbb I can only say that Hitler’s scribblings have of course been as freely available as the scribblings of Marx and others. How we choose to act on them should be the precinct, of as wide and open discourse and vocabulary, as humanly possible. If not always civility, then certainly civilisation depends upon it.
Fyodor: You also lived up to your name by rushin’ into an argument you weren’t equipped to handle.
Since it’s obvious you won’t consider my argument on the basis of my socio-economic background, I have provided a link to an actual linguistics expert who will debunk you on my behalf. Enjoy.
yobbo,
Thanks for the link – it was an interesting read, though there was nothing in it that “debunked” me. This was my original observation:
“It struck me reading the posts mentioning Israel and anti-semitism how few people understand that anti-semitic also means anti-arab, as Arabic and Hebrew are both Semitic languages. Ethno-linguistically, the Jews and Arabs have more in common than many people appreciate.”
Everything in that comment is factually correct, as your expert agrees. The point that you (and the expert) make in contrast is that “anti-jewish” is the accepted meaning of anti-semitic, and that is also correct. I simply found the origins and logic (and sometime illogic) of the term interesting. If you think that rumination was a pointless waste of time, fair enough, but save your aggro for something a little more important than philology.
I didn’t rush into an argument. From my comment, you created an argument all on your own and proceeded to call me a liar. I obviously did consider your argument, because I responded to it logically, and that consideration had nothing to do with your socio-economic background (of which I’m ignorant – your name is all I have to go on, and it seems to be an accurate descriptor of your behaviour so far).
As a final note (from me, that is. I get the feeling you’re the type who always has to have the last word), I find your rude and aggressive style ironically amusing given the subject of this thread is “Manners and political correctness”.
Cheers,
Fyodor
Thanks for your reply and point taken. However I believe that using a term “indoctrination” in terms of our school system is a little overwrought, therefore deserved a (rather snarky) reply.
The substance of my thoughts is that there is far more pluralism and far, far less indoctrination in the past 30 years than there was previously. Things have improved markedly over the decades in terms of freedom to think unpopular thoughts (out loud of course).
I have no desire to return to the old days and little respect for those who let nostalgia’s golden glow let them forget how bloody awful social attitudes were.
quashing dissent
Because sometimes it’s fun to be an unhelpful smartarse, I will now simplify the “political correctness” versus “shocking decline of civility” positions for the edification of passers-by. Those who advocate “political correctness” are worried a…
Political correctness in Australia
The term is American, and in Australia, suggests John Quiggin, it’s used in boorish ways. His comments section is quite interesting.