Political Correctness and a call to respect of the humanity of the other

There are times when one must make their selves heard, and as such, make their stance on positions known. These days I consider “Where I Stand” more important than ever. This post about political correctness emerges after watching a debate on political correctness and the various intersections of grievances which have become fertile ground for discussion whether on the political left or right.  There seems to be so much grievance these days I wonder will the republic survive. This is my response or input on the topic of political correctness.

Political correctness is fundamentally about respect.  That is respect for people, considered the other, whose humanity was disrespected, trampled, neglected and in many cases murdered for over 300 hundred years and even today suffer amidst systems of oppression. The children of those who perpetrated such violence and vitriol still to this day have difficulty and are exercised by the need for them to respect, unconditionally, the humanity of the other. Political correctness is an imperfect means, as all means are, of somehow giving respect due black and brown bodies. It is an acknowledgement that the country was founded with a birth defect at its foundation. Political correctness is one means to address the birth defect, to engage in a process of healing. Healing, in this case, becomes a moral obligation as the soul seeks the light of justice, as love in the public square. It is effectively building a more inclusive and healthy society which imparts its best. Mindful of Micah 6:8, political correctness is a means to love our sister and brother and to do justice and to walk humbly with God.

It would seem, based on the rhetoric of the President of the United States, AM talk radio, Fox and Friends, and many of the supporters of Make America Great Again, that the moral obligation which political correctness seeks to address, as one interpretation of Micah 6:8, is antithetical to their position, whether in a religious or secular context. To respect the humanity of the other is tantamount to heresy. To acknowledge the humanity of the other would be a rejection of their believe system which is rooted in the denial of the other and their humanity to avoid an all-consuming apocalypse.  Charles Blow, a brilliant American Journalist, commentator, and current visual op-ed columnist for the New York Times commenting on the cancellation of the Roseanne Barr show by ABC, in response to her abhorrent racist tweet about Valerie Jarret, said that “racism is a part of a believe system present since the founding of this country. He further says, stop being astonished!” Van Jones said, in response to Charles Blow, “It does seem that there’s been a moral collapse in our political center.” This moral collapse is a consequence of a believe system which rejects outright the call of political correctness.

Even now fans of Roseanne are attacking ABC for canceling the show. It is clear from the sitcom’s ratings that many, not all, of middle America felt affirmed in their biases and in many cases racist tendencies. It allowed them to feel comfortable in expressing their views and perspectives of disregard for a society and culture more and more diverse. It is unfortunate that for many, free speech, is about their freedom to disparage a person or community they don’t understand or don’t like. This type of “free speech” is detrimental to society making it more and more coarse and as such dangerous and divisive on many levels. On the other hand, “I get it.” Political correctness regarding free speech, should not be about protecting anyone from the harsh realities of life in America.  It should not be used to stifle dissent or controversy, more so, it should enrich serious debates on social and cultural matters which lead to a mature and pragmatic discourse. But should it be used to stifle the racist, the sexist, the homophobe, transphobe, etc., or intimidation, those who practice what is considered immoral and indecent? No, but there must be a robust pursuit of just language which overcomes a language of intimidation and the indecent.

Amidst a cultural and civil war raging, its proxy being social media, politics and religion, Jordan Petersen, Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, and a Clinical Psychologist, is against political correctness seeing it as a part of a failed postmodernist intellectual regime hell bent on resentment against those and their systems who oppress. It is the oppressed getting back at the oppressor which, for Peterson, is detrimental to society and the grievance of the oppressed.  While I see his point and I, myself do not believe in revenge, I do want respect for my humanity. This is the question, “Can those historically oppressed and disenfranchised ever attain respect from the dominant group?” It is clear that the dominant group represented by the Trump supporter has a serious grievance as they feel disrespected, marginalized and made to feel less than, and their grievance should be addressed, yet, to be clear, their grievance comes nowhere near the grievance held by First Nations People, African American’s, Mexican Americans, Chinese Americans, Korean Americans, women, and people who identify as LGBTQIAP, etc., but I don’t want to get into what aboutism, a term used by those on the political right these days as an excuse for deeper more psychological issues rooted in displacement regarding entitlement and privilege.

In a debate involving Michael Eric Dyson, Michelle Goldberg, Jordan Petersen and Stephen Fry, Michelle Goldberg, blogger, author and New York Times columnist, commented that in her interviews of people at Trump rallies she found that many people were upset that they couldn’t say what they wanted to say about women and by implication black and brown people. They feel their voices are marginalized for the sake of political correctness. Goldberg’s interviews are a reminder that many people, particularly those who support Donald Trump and his Make America Great Again agenda, demand freedom to disrespect the other anytime they please without hesitation, to discriminate, to return to a time, reflecting here on the Dred Scott v. Stanford Case of 1857, when black people, i.e. slaves had no rights that should be respected by the United States.  

From a Christian perspective, and this is my theological point, political correctness is a discourse on justice, as a means towards morality, which expresses ones love for God and the other. The other, many times in sacrifice, struggles to live this sacred call out daily amidst certain injustice which looms over their humanity. In this, the other transcends a believe system which marginalizes and denies their humanity and the humanity of others. Emanuel Levinas, a precursor of James Baldwin and Cornel West, engages the other as an authentic, even a sacred presence.  The other, considering a mindset which denies their humanity must be the resistance as they develop certain strategies which combat a mindset reminiscent of Nazi Germany and America’s Jim Crow South. Their actions must be of a morality courageous as they remain steadfast in their just convictions. Many times, this may be a protest against a legal policy which reflects desires to protect ideologies of injustice such as the current U.S. Immigration policy.
Political correctness is not about shutting down the rhetoric of those haters and people discontent but it does seek to call those who would be such to show respect for the other even in their hatred and discontent.  Is this a bridge too far?  Only time will tell.

We have a lot of work to do and we will get through this.

Rev. Monica Joy Cross, Christian Church Disciples of Christ