Photo by Hasibul Haque Sakib
With increasing political correctness in both intellectual and online spaces, how can opposing opinions be heard?
In his most recent podcast with Douglas Murray, Sam Harris asks a timely question: “Something is very strange on the left right now — what the hell is going on?”
It’s no secret that universities are growing increasingly politically correct. By and large, I believe this to be a good thing. As a society, we are producing healthier and safer language, and thus less violent environments in which students can learn. In fact, it’s sort of trendy to be PC. It’s becoming the norm, and people — especially young people — are quick to point out when someone is falling out of line. Using homophobic slurs to insult someone is not just uncool now, but is often met with expulsion. The same trend is occurring in terms of current news, particularly surrounding the terrorist attacks in Paris.
You can see it on Twitter, on Facebook, and on Reddit: if you are not apologetic about terrorists who also happen to be Muslim, you are a racist. In this sort of macabre social media echo chamber, there are only two option available to us: you are either for Islam, or against Muslims as people.
We need to honestly ask if any ideas are sacred? This is a complex question, and one that I hope an answer to can be obtained with serious and earnest thought. Can a non-Muslim question Islam? Can an atheist critique Christianity? Within this framework we can work to separate truly racist and stereotypical thought, and one that is more interrogative, more scientific, and more skeptical.
If the only thing known about a person — whether or not the claims are true, and the consequences are much more dastardly if they are not — is that they are a racist, they quickly become ostracized. A person is suddenly and wholly damned by that label. This is not to say that I condone racism by any means, but it’s unfortunate that labelling someone a racist is just about as effective, socially, as that person actually being racist. It’s enough just to potentially be a racist, even if your ideas are only questions.
“We should eagerly accept moral and intellectual nuance into our conversations, even — perhaps especially — if the remarks offend.”
The recent trouble at Yale University comes to mind. As Harris recounts: “These [Yale students] are among the most privileged kids in human history and they became moral and psychological invalids in response to a polite email about Halloween costumes.” Here, we see a case of the liberal bias essentially folding in on itself. Often, these PC packages are bought wholesale with little critical thinking within the framework of the liberal progressive compendium. This is unfortunate for many reasons, not the least being that Professors Erika and Nicholas Christakis were unfairly ostracized for daring to bring a little more nuance into a heavily policed conversation. What they were hoping for was more dialogue, and what they were met with was bullheadedness. We are applauded for reaching the same conclusion without even knowing the premises. They were merely echoing ideas they had heard again and again and again. To be fair, they appear to have misunderstood the email, but that poses a problem too: should we not be taught how to think, instead of what to think?
Almost always, we need an opposing voice. Not simply to take up the role of devil’s advocate, but because if we are not able to hold a contrasting view in our mind, how are we even able to confirm that our views are right? It is a necessary and vital practice to hold debates, whether on the micro or macro level, otherwise we perpetuate a circle that sometimes collapses into itself.
We should allow and, arguably, eagerly accept moral and intellectual nuance into our conversations, even if the remarks offend us. The same revolutionary thoughts that make one generation gasp are often the very same ones that the next take for granted. So I encourage us to stay curious, open-minded, and critical of everyone’s ideas, including our own. Let us not box any one idea off as sacred or untouchable, because not being able to talk about something is a frightening society to live in. We must permit ourselves to be upset.
Someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali can contend that Islamophobia is not real, but her voice will not be heard because it does not match the dominant cultural rhetoric. This is unfortunate not because she is necessarily right, but because she is not allowed to be publicly wrong. This phenomenon creates an odd and boring conversation in which we all caw and sneer as we label others “bigot” or “racist” at the first wrong word.