Political Correctness and the Closed Society
by Richard M. Ebeling
In February 1992, the Center for Constructive Alternatives of
Hillsdale College in Michigan organized a five-day conference
on "Thought Police on Campus: Is Academic Freedom in Danger?"
Among the speakers invited to participate as opponents of
political correctness in academia were Charles Sykes (author
of Profscam and The Hollow Men), Shelby Steele (author of The
Content of Character), Midge Dector, Jeffrey Hart and Baroness
Caroline Cox.
On the other side was Stanley Fish, professor of English at
Duke University and one of the most prominent advocates of
what has become known as "politically correct thinking." His
paper was entitled, "There is No Such Thing As Free Speech,
and It's a Good Thing Too." His paper had one overriding
purpose: to rationalize the closing of the open society by
offering a justification for censorship of speech.
Every community, Dr. Fish said, possesses a set of shared,
core values. The members of the community are either born or
drawn into it; they are taught that community's core values;
and they cherish them as the basis of their sense of identity
and belief. And these core values also structure the way
members of that community think about themselves and the world
in which they live. To challenge seriously or threaten them is
something that no community can reasonably accept or stand
for. To undermine these core values is to undermine the
foundation of that society.
As a consequence, every society sets limits on freedom of
speech, and rightly so for the sake of communal self-
preservation. Dr. Fish, therefore, endorsed the case for
"local community standards" limiting freedom of speech and
action. Furthermore, he considered it quite right that there
should be a ban on flag burning, precisely because such
conduct was subversive of one of the fundamental symbols of
the nation's system of core values.
How would it be decided if a particular speech-act was
threatening to go beyond the pale? Dr. Fish warned that what
could not serve as a guide was a "general principle of freedom
of speech, in the abstract." If one were to rely on a general
rule applicable to all individuals, separate from the context
of what was being said, then no limits could ever be imposed.
Because, in the abstract, one speech-act would have to be
considered just as legitimate as any other.
Each case, therefore, would have to be judged on its own, on
the basis of the concrete particulars. Only the merits of the
specific expression of freedom of speech could serve as the
context for determining whether the speech in question should
be respected or curtailed. Concerning the question as to who
would decide the relative merits of a particular speech-act,
Dr. Fish admitted that this required judicious reflection on
the appropriate procedures to be followed.
That Dr. Fish should choose to dress his case for political
correctness in the garb of a defense of conservative
traditionalism was disingenuous. He clearly knew that the
audience which he was addressing would be hostile to his
message. That he succeeded in his tactic was demonstrated by
the fact that at least two of the conservative professors who
heard his presentation expressed agreement with the sentiment
conveyed in his argument.
But preservation of the "core values" of American conservatism
is not what Dr. Fish is all about. His purpose was to present
a rationale for what Shelby Steele, in his lecture at the
conference, called the inviolable "sovereignty" of ethnic and
gender "entitlement groups." Since the 1960s, America has
increasingly abandoned its grounding in individual rights and
shifted to "collective rights" as defined by ethnicity, gender
or sexual preference.
In the political lexicon, "entitlement" has come to mean that
any member of such a group is entitled to special political
recognition and subsidization at the expense of others in the
society, purely on the basis of being a member of that group.
Members of these groups are entitled to politically privileged
access to jobs, income and other opportunities in the society
because of some claimed past injustice committed against
others who belonged to that same group.
Once such political recognition and subsidization have been
forthcoming, those protected, subsidized and favored by the
state have demanded that the group, its ideas and its
privileges be accepted as "sovereign territory." Definition of
membership in the group, the ideological rationalizations for
the group's "collective identity" and "collective rights," and
control over the financial and political privileges bestowed
on the group may not be challenged or questioned by anyone
outside the group. All such challenges and questionings are
considered an "aggression" on the group's "sovereign right" to
define and control its own destiny.
With its "sovereign domain," the entitled group is to have
authority to determine what is politically correct speech in
discussing that group's internal affairs. Not only, for
example, would any whites questioning affirmative-action
programs be considered invaders of the black community, but
also anticollectivist black scholars, such as Thomas Sowell,
Walter Williams, Anne Wortham and Shelby Steele, would be (and
are) condemned and censored as traitors to the sovereign
group.
But who defines the group's inviolable core values? Who
determines what is an acceptable exercise of free speech
concerning the group's affairs? Who polices speech within the
group and censors dangerous talk? The answer is: the rulers of
the sovereign entitlement group. And the rulers are those who
have control over the management and distribution of the
political privileges given to those groups by the state.
Having a vested interest in the ideological rationales and
political privileges that give them power and control in their
collectivist fiefdoms, any criticism or questioning of the
assumptions that justify their right to rule is translated
into an intolerable threat to their groups' identities and
core values.
As a result, any criticism of affirmative action is censored
as racist and, therefore, unacceptable speech. Any questioning
of feminist ideology is condemned as sexist and verbal rape.
Any argument that suggests that homosexuality is not
just another lifestyle and should not be given any politically
privileged status under the heading of "gay rights" is shouted
down as homophobic witch-hunting.
It is this need to have discretionary power over what is
permissible speech that explains why Dr. Fish and others call
for the end to any general principle of freedom of speech, in
the abstract. Freedom of speech must be transformed into a
specific, content-based privilege, the bestowing of which must
be in the hands of the rulers of the respective entitlement
groups. Only in this way can they guarantee their ability to
restrict and manipulate discourse in their sovereign
territory, so as to maintain their political monopoly of
control.
If these advocates of totalitarian tribalism succeed in
imposing legal and social censorship in the arena of ideas--if
they succeed in their attempt to establish the legitimacy of
such perverse Orwellian categories as speech-crimes and
thought-crimes--we will have made a major retreat to the
closed society.
What the advocates of politically correct thinking are most
fearful of are questions and reasoned discourse. How can
groups have rights separate from and greater than the
individual rights of its members? On what authority do these
rulers presume to speak for some and impose censorship on
others? How can knowledge advance and moral standards be
raised if men may not freely say what is on their minds--if
they do not face the harsh wind of disagreement and refutation
in an open exchange of ideas--and if they are not given the
opportunity to be persuaded to rethink what may be the faulty
premises guiding their lives--by hearing the arguments and
observing the conduct of others?
The only way to defeat these advocates of the closed society
is to stand fast on the general principle of freedom of
speech. Any concession on the basis of expediency will
undercut the first line of defense against these new
totalitarians. Either speech is free, or else the debate is
reduced to whether it shall your words or mine that will be
censored.
The other principle that must not be compromised is the
insistence that only individuals are sovereign in their
rights. And the limited function of government is the securing
and protecting of those rights against force and fraud. Once
this principle is abandoned--and once the political debate
surrounds the issue of what some are entitled to at the
expense of others--society has started down the path of a
tribalistic war of all against all.
"Freedom," as Friedrich Hayek has reminded us, "can be
preserved only if it is treated as a supreme principle which
must not be sacrificed for particular advantages. . . . If the
choice between freedom and coercion is . . . treated as matter
of expediency, freedom is bound to be sacrificed in almost
every instance."
|