A friend of mine was recently
assaulted by “the PC brigade” for disciplining his child in a parking lot. His
four year old boy had been acting up all day and on the back of several warnings
he decided to pick him up and deposit him unceremoniously in the front seat.
Apart from eliciting several glares a woman approached him to tell him he was
being “too aggressive” He later protested, quite reasonably, that as the child’s
father he was entitled to raise him in the way that he believed was right for
him and not the “candy ass” way things are done in "present day PC
America".
I can appreciate how outside interference (of the nature described) in one's own child rearing practices can be construed as 'politically correct' behaviour run rampant. There has been a palpable volte face with respect to our attitudes towards disciplining children these days with parents nowadays often obliged to restrain themselves from offering a firmer approach due to an apprehension of a shifting climate which is perennially on the look out, it seems, for instances of physical abuse. Is this the result of the aftermath of institutional abuse scandals or of the unearthing of a perceived gritty side to family life which wasn't aired in previous generations or too many episodes of E.R. perhaps? Either way, an awful lot of laundry has been aired and some find themselves cast in the role of self-appointed guardians of the public welfare. Surely, we can be attentive of the possible abuse of minors without becoming 'Nazified' Fifth Columnists springing on the slightest infraction.
Living among African immigrants for a while I encountered what I would call a refeshing antidote to this type of PC-ness. Discipline is enforced not only by the child's parents but by every responsible adult in company. It is perfectly normal and is indeed expected that a child 'will be beaten' (given a few vigorous slaps on the behind) by not only relatives but by neighbours and friends too if they are 'acting up'. It seems to me to pivot on the far greater community cohesion among Africans as opposed to the individualist lifestyles we are accustomed to in Europe and North America. The nuclear family for us is an almost indestructible bond and we carefully safeguard its integrity by monitoring carefully our children's path into the exterior world. Were our neighbour to pick up our child and beat him/her we would immediately head towards the gun cabinet or else file a law suit.
Africans would instead thank you for providing a much needed corrective discipline. There is an element of trust and belief in the sound judgement of the corrector wholly absent from our society but it also tells you that the African's conception of the family and its relation to the wider social whole is fundamentally different; there is a fluidity and porousness between one's own family and the rest of the community. It is of course the living embodiment of 'tribalism'; a word often used pejoratively and thus erased from our lexicons for fear of imputing 'primitiveness' and so recalls another example of PC type behaviour depriving us of age old 'earthy' descriptions.
However, let us not be too quick to disparage because within what you will find described as PC or in that other telling phrase 'overly PC' will be a register of all sorts of shifting attitudes that are slowly but surely changing society. To say somebody is 'politically correct' or to say something was 'politically incorrect' is to announce authority on the prevailing attitude; it is to have 'a feel' for the times - (A good example would be Seinfeld's “Kramer” dropping a clanger recently and having to make all sorts of fulsome apologies to 'the black community'). It is to announce an imminent shift in the chosen 'signifier'; 'handicapped' now becomes "physically challenged" while "African-American" it is felt more properly denotes the status of black Americans.
A changing lexicon to categorise previously marginalised groups always indicates a shifting balance of power. It may seem a moot point and it invites all manner of satire from the likes of Jay Leno and Conan O' Brien who thrive on identifying these transitions precisely because they recognise there is a sensitivity involved. In my own experience in advocacy for 'mental health patients' (read: 'survivors' or alternatively 'experients' or even 'victims of psychiatry') there is sometimes no more heated discussion than that centred on the very words habitually used by the psychiatric profession and the media to describe some of the problems encountered when 'dealing with' or 'treating' "mental illlness". Every phrase is contested and rightly so because behind each 'signifier' lies an entire battery of inherited assumptions which affect enormously how 'the condition' is both treated and perceived. Most interest groups are familiar with this type of lexical struggle and to our own credit and persistence we undoubtedly took the lead in influencing "Schizophrenia Ireland" to eventually change it's name to "Shine", thereby shedding the old moniker’s pejorative accruals.
On a separate tack, Robert Fisk for instance is constantly drawing attention to 'Washington-speak' and each of his articles from the Middle East may be viewed as an attempt to purge what he takes to be a polluting and deliberately misleading choice of lexical determinants - do you refer to the Palestinian lands as 'occupied territories' or 'disputed territories'?; there is a vast gulf of difference. So whereas we might deride the overly PC it should be borne in mind that behind each lexical shift and each tiny nuance of meaning there are often innumerable bloody and hard fought battles. In fact, it's all hard won - despite the cheap laughs from the comedians.
However, the phrase ’politically correct’ has itself become hackneyed through over usage and it may be asked what it can possibly be said to represent anymore. Even if the ideas which it was originally brought into being to promote are still with us the phrase itself has become significantly emptied of content by overuse (the 'worn tessara' syndrome). What has been drained from it is now regurgitated ad nauseum and this perhaps indicates the necessity for a new phrase.
You will notice too that when a 'politically incorrect' infringement does take place on the airwaves a simple frown or change in tone is all that is required to register disapproval much to the often squirming embarrassment of the offender (or, just as often blank incomprehension). The phrase has served its purpose; it has implanted the concept that there are myriad battle grounds within society so effectively that it's very use has now become superfluous.
I can appreciate how outside interference (of the nature described) in one's own child rearing practices can be construed as 'politically correct' behaviour run rampant. There has been a palpable volte face with respect to our attitudes towards disciplining children these days with parents nowadays often obliged to restrain themselves from offering a firmer approach due to an apprehension of a shifting climate which is perennially on the look out, it seems, for instances of physical abuse. Is this the result of the aftermath of institutional abuse scandals or of the unearthing of a perceived gritty side to family life which wasn't aired in previous generations or too many episodes of E.R. perhaps? Either way, an awful lot of laundry has been aired and some find themselves cast in the role of self-appointed guardians of the public welfare. Surely, we can be attentive of the possible abuse of minors without becoming 'Nazified' Fifth Columnists springing on the slightest infraction.
Living among African immigrants for a while I encountered what I would call a refeshing antidote to this type of PC-ness. Discipline is enforced not only by the child's parents but by every responsible adult in company. It is perfectly normal and is indeed expected that a child 'will be beaten' (given a few vigorous slaps on the behind) by not only relatives but by neighbours and friends too if they are 'acting up'. It seems to me to pivot on the far greater community cohesion among Africans as opposed to the individualist lifestyles we are accustomed to in Europe and North America. The nuclear family for us is an almost indestructible bond and we carefully safeguard its integrity by monitoring carefully our children's path into the exterior world. Were our neighbour to pick up our child and beat him/her we would immediately head towards the gun cabinet or else file a law suit.
Africans would instead thank you for providing a much needed corrective discipline. There is an element of trust and belief in the sound judgement of the corrector wholly absent from our society but it also tells you that the African's conception of the family and its relation to the wider social whole is fundamentally different; there is a fluidity and porousness between one's own family and the rest of the community. It is of course the living embodiment of 'tribalism'; a word often used pejoratively and thus erased from our lexicons for fear of imputing 'primitiveness' and so recalls another example of PC type behaviour depriving us of age old 'earthy' descriptions.
However, let us not be too quick to disparage because within what you will find described as PC or in that other telling phrase 'overly PC' will be a register of all sorts of shifting attitudes that are slowly but surely changing society. To say somebody is 'politically correct' or to say something was 'politically incorrect' is to announce authority on the prevailing attitude; it is to have 'a feel' for the times - (A good example would be Seinfeld's “Kramer” dropping a clanger recently and having to make all sorts of fulsome apologies to 'the black community'). It is to announce an imminent shift in the chosen 'signifier'; 'handicapped' now becomes "physically challenged" while "African-American" it is felt more properly denotes the status of black Americans.
A changing lexicon to categorise previously marginalised groups always indicates a shifting balance of power. It may seem a moot point and it invites all manner of satire from the likes of Jay Leno and Conan O' Brien who thrive on identifying these transitions precisely because they recognise there is a sensitivity involved. In my own experience in advocacy for 'mental health patients' (read: 'survivors' or alternatively 'experients' or even 'victims of psychiatry') there is sometimes no more heated discussion than that centred on the very words habitually used by the psychiatric profession and the media to describe some of the problems encountered when 'dealing with' or 'treating' "mental illlness". Every phrase is contested and rightly so because behind each 'signifier' lies an entire battery of inherited assumptions which affect enormously how 'the condition' is both treated and perceived. Most interest groups are familiar with this type of lexical struggle and to our own credit and persistence we undoubtedly took the lead in influencing "Schizophrenia Ireland" to eventually change it's name to "Shine", thereby shedding the old moniker’s pejorative accruals.
On a separate tack, Robert Fisk for instance is constantly drawing attention to 'Washington-speak' and each of his articles from the Middle East may be viewed as an attempt to purge what he takes to be a polluting and deliberately misleading choice of lexical determinants - do you refer to the Palestinian lands as 'occupied territories' or 'disputed territories'?; there is a vast gulf of difference. So whereas we might deride the overly PC it should be borne in mind that behind each lexical shift and each tiny nuance of meaning there are often innumerable bloody and hard fought battles. In fact, it's all hard won - despite the cheap laughs from the comedians.
However, the phrase ’politically correct’ has itself become hackneyed through over usage and it may be asked what it can possibly be said to represent anymore. Even if the ideas which it was originally brought into being to promote are still with us the phrase itself has become significantly emptied of content by overuse (the 'worn tessara' syndrome). What has been drained from it is now regurgitated ad nauseum and this perhaps indicates the necessity for a new phrase.
You will notice too that when a 'politically incorrect' infringement does take place on the airwaves a simple frown or change in tone is all that is required to register disapproval much to the often squirming embarrassment of the offender (or, just as often blank incomprehension). The phrase has served its purpose; it has implanted the concept that there are myriad battle grounds within society so effectively that it's very use has now become superfluous.
No comments:
Post a Comment