Politically Correct Torture
The debate over whether the United States does or does not torture people is but another chapter in story of political correctness.
When people use the term "political correctness" they are almost always using it in one of two ways. One use of the term "political correctness" or "politically correct" is to smear a statement or even a person. Usually the color of this smear suggests that this statement or person is authoritarian, left wing, communist, against the First Amendment, or against freedom in general. Conversely, one can wrap oneself in the banner of "political incorrectness" and, in a parody of Lennie Bruce, claim to stand for freedom and the First Amendment. Actually, now days, no one seems to want to be characterized as being "politically correct." The term, though, is used to describe "liberals" or "liberal" causes almost exclusively.
The second use of "political correctness" is as a comment about politeness and decency. Interestingly in this form, calling something "politically correct" is made in a timid and apologetic way. Interesting, because why should the person be apologizing for trying to be polite or decent?
In more robust times, using racial epithets to describe people was considered acceptable in general society, mostly because the people so named were mostly afraid to object, or at least knew that any objections would be ignored and would therefore be futile. This is the equation of "namer and named," an old equation, invented by God when he told Adam to name the animals, or even before that when "in the beginning there was the word." More recently, though, people previously excoriated by epithets have been more willing to object, sometimes quite loudly, and sometimes with significant effect. These reactions have tended to make the people on the other side of the equation, the namers, unhappy. The fought back. One way that they did so was to label people who objected to being referred to in-ways-they-did-not-like as being "politically correct."
The relationship between namer and named may not matter to rocks, and veal have little say over what they get called, but human beings tend to object if a name tends to affect them adversely. Pinning a star on someone's lapel, regardless of his qualifications, nevertheless requires that lower ranking soldiers salute and defer to him. Names define relationships between the namer and the named. Being able to name something means that one has a kind of power over it that may require that some action be taken, or abjured. Thus we get to "torture" and its definition in this country. If certain actions performed at Guantanamo or in secret prisons are defined as "torture" then we are presented with one set of options, if these actions are not given the name of "torture" then we no longer have these options. The one who gets to define torture will be the one who decided whether the actions they include or exclude are politically correct.
When people use the term "political correctness" they are almost always using it in one of two ways. One use of the term "political correctness" or "politically correct" is to smear a statement or even a person. Usually the color of this smear suggests that this statement or person is authoritarian, left wing, communist, against the First Amendment, or against freedom in general. Conversely, one can wrap oneself in the banner of "political incorrectness" and, in a parody of Lennie Bruce, claim to stand for freedom and the First Amendment. Actually, now days, no one seems to want to be characterized as being "politically correct." The term, though, is used to describe "liberals" or "liberal" causes almost exclusively.
The second use of "political correctness" is as a comment about politeness and decency. Interestingly in this form, calling something "politically correct" is made in a timid and apologetic way. Interesting, because why should the person be apologizing for trying to be polite or decent?
In more robust times, using racial epithets to describe people was considered acceptable in general society, mostly because the people so named were mostly afraid to object, or at least knew that any objections would be ignored and would therefore be futile. This is the equation of "namer and named," an old equation, invented by God when he told Adam to name the animals, or even before that when "in the beginning there was the word." More recently, though, people previously excoriated by epithets have been more willing to object, sometimes quite loudly, and sometimes with significant effect. These reactions have tended to make the people on the other side of the equation, the namers, unhappy. The fought back. One way that they did so was to label people who objected to being referred to in-ways-they-did-not-like as being "politically correct."
The relationship between namer and named may not matter to rocks, and veal have little say over what they get called, but human beings tend to object if a name tends to affect them adversely. Pinning a star on someone's lapel, regardless of his qualifications, nevertheless requires that lower ranking soldiers salute and defer to him. Names define relationships between the namer and the named. Being able to name something means that one has a kind of power over it that may require that some action be taken, or abjured. Thus we get to "torture" and its definition in this country. If certain actions performed at Guantanamo or in secret prisons are defined as "torture" then we are presented with one set of options, if these actions are not given the name of "torture" then we no longer have these options. The one who gets to define torture will be the one who decided whether the actions they include or exclude are politically correct.
posted by Godel at 7:08 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home