On Political Correctness

IMG_2869
Many Hungarians across the political spectrum dislike political correctness. For one thing, they had enough of it during the Soviet era; for another, they perceive it as a largely Western (mainly U.S.) creation. Most of all, they do not want to be forced to accept a set of political views or to speak in a certain way. Those who stay out of politics altogether still want the flexibility to assess issues on their own merits. Those who do believe in political correctness still take an independent and eclectic approach to it.

Thus, for instance, there are Hungarians who support gay rights and transgender rights but are skeptical of gender fluidity and the new pronouns (Hungarian pronouns do not indicate gender, but Hungarians are aware of new pronouns in English); who support a generous immigration policy but also believe that immigrants should integrate into mainstream society; who oppose racism but hold a negative view of Roma people; or who criticize the current government but consider it an improvement over the Gyurcsány regime. There are many other variations and combinations–but what brings them together is a rejection of political correctness, of packages of views and beliefs.

As for politically correct language, many find it too constraining; they don’t want to be watching their words all the time or hesitating to tell jokes. Many have told me that Hungarians don’t generally take jokes and light insults all that personally, and that it would be a shame if they did. The ease of rough banter and teasing would be gone.

On the other hand, this ease is not always so easy. Bullying exists in Hungary, and there have been calls for increased attention to it. Along these lines, some people justify certain kinds of political correctness: for instance, those who recognize that certain words and phrases can hurt people and who do not want to participate in that injury. Or who see issues–and attitudes toward them–as interconnected and interdependent. But from what I have seen so far, many Hungarians do not want political correctness to take over their lives and speech (whether from the left or from the right).

Viktor Orbán knows this; when he decries liberal political correctness, he knows that he is echoing a popular view. Some see his anti-PC rhetoric as a way of evading larger problems in the country. But he still portrays himself as a defender of the country against EU/liberal/Soros encroachments and impositions, including political correctness.

I find the general Hungarian resistance to political correctness refreshing. At the same time, I don’t think it’s fair of Orbán to treat it as a foreign imposition, given that he and his party, Fidesz, have their own version of it. Political correctness can occur anywhere; its terms and wielders change, but it reappears in different guises. Nor is every aspect of it bad; in some cases, it reflects a desire for consistency and unity. Its danger is that it shuts off expression, discussion, and questions and makes language terribly grim.

In the U.S., political correctness has reached an unhealthy extreme. For instance, in antiracism trainings hosted by the New York City Department of Education (and other school districts around the country), people are taught that “scientific, linear thinking” and “valuing the written word over other forms of communication” are “hallmarks of whiteness” and therefore oppressive. If you question this, you are supposedly “being fragile.” This is not a constructive way to tackle racism. When you divide personal and cultural traits among races, you reinforce racism instead of dismantling it. Racial differences exist, for historical and other reasons, but not in a deterministic way, and not in isolation.

At their most strident, the politically correct not only hold a predictable set of views (predictable at a given point in time–the combinations tend to change), but condemn those who disagree even slightly or who say things in an unacceptable way. Some views really are obnoxious, hateful, or dangerous. But a great many are simply different from what the politically correct have decided to deem acceptable.

The problem has to do with excessive certainty. Here everyone participates, not only the politically correct. All of us have situations where we act on unwarranted conclusions–when we cling to a judgment about a person, situation, or subject. The surety has its place and time, but it also needs to come down. When to be sure, and when to let go of the sureness? There is no final answer; all a person can do is keep on asking.

Previous Post
Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

  • “To know that you can do better next time, unrecognizably better, and that there is no next time, and that it is a blessing there is not, there is a thought to be going on with.”

    —Samuel Beckett, Malone Dies

  • Always Different

  • ABOUT THE AUTHOR

     

    Diana Senechal is the author of Republic of Noise: The Loss of Solitude in Schools and Culture and the 2011 winner of the Hiett Prize in the Humanities, awarded by the Dallas Institute of Humanities and Culture. Her second book, Mind over Memes: Passive Listening, Toxic Talk, and Other Modern Language Follies, was published by Rowman & Littlefield in October 2018. In February 2022, Deep Vellum will publish her translation of Gyula Jenei's 2018 poetry collection Mindig Más.

    Since November 2017, she has been teaching English, American civilization, and British civilization at the Varga Katalin Gimnázium in Szolnok, Hungary. From 2011 to 2016, she helped shape and teach the philosophy program at Columbia Secondary School for Math, Science & Engineering in New York City. In 2014, she and her students founded the philosophy journal CONTRARIWISE, which now has international participation and readership. In 2020, at the Varga Katalin Gimnázium, she and her students released the first issue of the online literary journal Folyosó.

  • INTERVIEWS AND TALKS

    On April 26, 2016, Diana Senechal delivered her talk "Take Away the Takeaway (Including This One)" at TEDx Upper West Side.
     

    Here is a video from the Dallas Institute's 2015 Education Forum.  Also see the video "Hiett Prize Winners Discuss the Future of the Humanities." 

    On April 19–21, 2014, Diana Senechal took part in a discussion of solitude on BBC World Service's programme The Forum.  

    On February 22, 2013, Diana Senechal was interviewed by Leah Wescott, editor-in-chief of The Cronk of Higher Education. Here is the podcast.

  • ABOUT THIS BLOG

    All blog contents are copyright © Diana Senechal. Anything on this blog may be quoted with proper attribution. Comments are welcome.

    On this blog, Take Away the Takeaway, I discuss literature, music, education, and other things. Some of the pieces are satirical and assigned (for clarity) to the satire category.

    When I revise a piece substantially after posting it, I note this at the end. Minor corrections (e.g., of punctuation and spelling) may go unannounced.

    Speaking of imperfection, my other blog, Megfogalmazások, abounds with imperfect Hungarian.

  • Recent Posts

  • ARCHIVES

  • Categories