Category: Politics

Not long ago, for the second time, I was accused of being a “splitter” instead of a “lumper.”  The first time, I figured they were just terms the guy had made up.  But no, apparently there are actually people who think like that.  As near as I can tell, a “lumper” is someone who wants to unite everyone who is against war and injustice and stuff; whereas a “splitter” is someone who wants to divide those who are against war and injustice and stuff, for reasons that remain unspecified.

My intention is not to personally mock the individuals who said that–both them appear to be dedicated and sincere, actively interested in making the world better, and one cannot help but respect that desire, however deeply one disagrees with the person’s method.  But I do intend to mock the concept, because it is well worth mocking.

The first thing that strikes one about these terms is the absurdity.  I was accused of being a “splitter” because I used a term to describe a certain group on the Left (“Stalinist,” to be exact) that members of that group would take as an insult.  I guess if you describe someone in terms that person wouldn’t like, you’re a splitter.  One can’t help but laugh at this, because, evidently, since “splitter” is a term of disapprobation, if you call someone a splitter, you are, yourself, a splitter.  While this is beside the point, it does indicate a fundamental lack of seriousness.

A second issue is that those who use such terms are always, or almost always, supporters of identity politics, the most significant element of which, in my opinion, is “splitting” the working class.  In other words, what is being said is, “It is bad to create divisions among us right-thinking people.  We should get together and make sure the working class is fighting itself instead.  Go us.”  Is it any wonder that I cannot conceal the utter scorn I feel for such ideas?

I think it is safe to say that the logic behind these terms works something like this:

1. A lot of us want to end war and injustice and stuff.

2. Therefore, all of us who want to end war and injustice and stuff should get together.

3. Anyone who says things that prevent us from getting together is working against ending war and injustice and stuff.

There are a number of assumptions buried in this logic.  These assumptions are, for the most part, never examined.  They are also, in my opinion, dangerously wrong.

First and foremost, there is the assumption that how effective a fight will be depends more on the number of people involved in the fight, than in exactly what sort of activity they are engaged in.  I believe that the Democratic Party, as much as the Republican, is working to roll back democratic freedoms and standard of living, and to support wars of aggression, and defend profit at the expense of human rights.  Those of us who believe that will never be willing to support a Democrat; we would consider it nothing short of betrayal.  How, then, can we “work together” with those who want to pressure politicians?  While you organize to send petitions to the President and letters to your congressman, I’m organizing for the overthrow of the State, and am convinced (right or wrong) that appealing to that State is to create dangerous illusions among the working class.  Just exactly what are we supposed to “lump” together to do?

Even more significant, however, is that the argument as stated above utterly removes any discussion of class.  I believe that we live in a class society, and that this economic fact, the foundation of how society fulfills (or fails to fulfill) its mission to provide basic needs to individuals in that society, is at the heart of every other relationship.  I believe that to actually fight for human rights requires mass action by the working class based on a program that puts it in direct conflict with the two bourgeois parties.  In other words, it doesn’t matter how many “people” believe that injustice should end; it matters what program the working class has when it goes into battle to defend itself.

With this in mind, I am supposed to worry about hurting the feelings of those whose program will politically tie the working class to the enemy?  The issue is not (in this discussion) whether I am right or wrong about how to defend human rights; the point I want to make is that, inherent in dividing people into “splitters” and “lumpers” is a complete rejection of any sort of analysis of society, substituting for it vague impressions and the desire to “do something.”  Laudable in itself, but, without actual understanding of the workings of society, useless or worse.  To me, there is a massive contradiction inherent in someone who puts in countless hours and boundless energy fighting to correct an injustice about which he or she feels passionately, yet dares not, in the course of discussing how best to carry on this fight, use the precise term that applies for fear of giving offense.

But, some will say, if you use insulting terms, you will alienate potential allies, whom you might otherwise convince.  Let us examine this for a moment.  What is being said here is that precision, analysis, and comprehension need to be sacrificed in order to protect the feelings of individuals.  When I’m visiting someone’s home, I will do exactly that–I will refrain from saying that the house is a pigsty and the kid is obnoxious.  In personal interactions in which nothing more is at stake than the feelings of individuals, I think it is a good thing to avoid giving offense, and I will sometimes sacrifice honesty to do so.   

But if we’re dealing with the effort to change the world, to actually create a society in which human decency is more important than individual profit, in which the full creative power of the individual is not held in check or (more often) fully suppressed by the need to simply live, in which such problems as global climate change can be addressed without concern for who gains or loses wealth thereby, then consider the possibility that, just maybe, scientific precision is more important than whether someone’s feelings get hurt.  And, to answer the argument, the person who sees that, the one who ignores personal feelings in order to fully investigate and understand the concepts behind such words as “Stalinism”, “Revisionism”, or “Opportunism” to determine if the terms are accurate and precise and what the consequences are for proceeding along these lines, this person is exactly the one who can make a contribution to solving the problems we face today.  The ones who have no reaction other than hurt feelings are welcome to “lump” together and have a good outrage session over it.  I hope they find it validating.

Ring-wing pundits drive themselves into paroxysms of rage crying out against “political correctness,” which term, when used, drives pundits on the other side into paroxysms of rage.  I propose to take a moment to consider what it means, or, failing that, what I mean by it.

If we’re going to talk about the term, we should remember, first of all, that it was coined by those it now describes, and was used ironically, as a bit of gentle self-mockery.  “Man, that is one ugly dude.  Ooops, I guess that was ‘politically incorrect.'”  It was always used (verbally at least) with air quotes and a sense of, “Yeah, I probably shouldn’t have said that” which however much I might dislike their politics, I have to describe as not only inoffensive, but charming.  On the other hand, as these tend to be the same people who want to change the conventions of  language in accordance with their ideology, and defend this with the triumphant cry, “Language evolves!” as if there were those who think it doesn’t, I have only limited sympathy if the term they coined has now come to mean something different.

The next thing to remind ourselves of is that a considerable amount of what we sometimes call being politically correct, is nothing more than reasonable courtesy toward another human being.  If you use offensive terms to describe a group or an individual (with some exceptions), you’re not being “politically incorrect,” you’re being a jerk.  (The exceptions, of course, involve individuals or groups that deserve it–I have no intention of finding nice terms to describe Dick Chaney, scabs, or the KKK).

Another aspect to the term that I think most people aren’t aware of is that it contains interesting (and chilling) echoes of Stalinism, with its “self-criticism” sessions, and desperation to make sure one was following the “party line.”  I’m pretty sure those who coined the term were at least somewhat aware of this and were making fun of it, and, seriously, I do not have a problem with anyone mocking the absurdities of Stalinism.

So, where’s the problem?  It is more subtle than that.  It involves, in my opinion, excessive concern with form over substance, with appearance over essence, with the subjective over the objective, with idea over matter.  It is a question, in the last analysis, of method, and I contend that an incorrect method will produce incorrect–and dangerous–results.

The first time I heard something that I would later identify as being part of the PC movement was when a friend explained that he hated the song “Maggie May” by Rod Stewart, because the second verse was “ageist.”  I think my mouth fell open and I stared at him, and, as I came to realize he was utterly serious, what went through my head was some form of, “That’s not even a thing.  Is that a thing?”

Yeah, it’s a thing.  So is, god help us all, “ableism.”  Because, you see, the primary concern of huge sections of the middle class “left” is with “ageism”–not age discrimination.  And with “ableism,” and not with making sure that people with disabilities are given full access to public buildings, jobs, and everything else society has to offer.  You see, what matters most to these people is the words used, the ideas they reflect; the hard realities that underlie the ideas, and the words, seems (to judge by actions) a secondary or tertiary consideration.  Is it any wonder that the Right Wing finds it so easy to mock this stuff, and, in so doing, to attempt to roll back the gains we’ve made for the elderly and the disabled?

So the question then is, what, exactly, is the relationship between how we use words to describe people, and the actual conditions in which they live?  Because I am the last person to say there is no relationship–I’m a writer, ferchrissakes.   To the supporter of what we call the PC movement, again, as judged by their activity, the relationship is, “first, make sure everyone uses the right terms.  Then we’ll be sure they’re thinking the right thoughts.  After that, conditions will change.”

To me, this is backward.   Being determines consciousness.   Ideas change as part of the fight to change conditions.  As ideas change, so the language will change to reflect it.  “Garbageman” became “sanitation worker” as part of the fight for acceptable wages and working conditions, not separate from that fight, and certainly not in place of it.  A part of the effort to unite the working class, after all, involves a tireless battle against all forms of ignorance, most especially including bigotry.   This battle isn’t fought by lecturing workers on the use of derogatory terms, but by showing that the fight involves all workers, and that bigotry only serves the interest of the class enemy.

The South St. Paul packing house strike of ’46  is only one example of this: A fight for decent living standards became a fight for the union, and prejudices (sexual, racial and especially national–the area was full of Eastern European immigrants who all hated each other) vanished in fighting strikebreakers, scabs, and cops–vanished to the point where today, 70 years later, you can still see the effects in those old South St. Paul neighborhoods.   The words “kike” and “spic” aren’t much used in those neighborhoods, and that isn’t because someone explained to them that it was demeaning to Jews and Hispanics; they learned solidarity in battle, and those lessons stay with you.

The fight against bigotry, oppression, intolerance, is a part of the fight against capitalism.  Being “politically correct,” then, means to substitute the idea for the thing, and the word for the idea; thus it helps perpetuate the illusion that these problems can be solved under capitalism, and thus, in the last analysis, it  supports the substance of oppression, if not the words that accompany it.

ETA: I changed “handicapped” to “disabled” in this post, in accordance with a comment by my sister.  Is that being “politically correct?”  I dunno.  But I’m good with it.

 

Note: In between the time I wrote this and the time I posted it, SFWA President Steve Gould released a statement to the effect that the thing the petition (see below) is designed to prevent was never going to happen. My point, however, is the nature of the discussion, so I’m posting this anyway.

 

I think to get involved in this latest SFWA kerfuffle is to demonstrate beyond doubt that one has no sense of priorities, no sense of self-preservation, and, in general, no life.  So, of course, here I go.

A petition is circulating concerning God-help-us-all the SFWA Bulletin.  Let’s start at the beginning: SFWA is the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, an organization that is the butt of many jokes focusing on how little it does, but that, like a good super-hero, does its real work in the shadows.  I mean it–the SFWA Grievance Committee, for example, has solved innumerable problems for a lot of writers, and done so quietly and efficiently.  SFWA has provided money for health care to writers who otherwise would have been stuck.  And so on.  Generally, SFWA only appears to the public when someone is doing something stupid aimed at it, or it is doing something stupid.  This one might be both.

Several things happened a few issues ago in the SFWA Bulletin, a publication no one reads.  Many people felt that a number of things in recent issues had been offensive and degrading to women, and that feeling isn’t unreasonable. SFWA responded with a discussion of What To Do About It.  The idea was to come up with a sort of review board that would oversee what went into the Bulletin to prevent things that would be offensive to groups of members.  My immediate reaction was to wonder how anyone could object: I mean, it’s our organization, do we want it spewing, for example, overt racism?  Now, something in the back of my head was wondering, “But isn’t that the editor’s job?  Why do you need a separate committee for that?”  And, I’ll admit, the idea of a review board to watch out for Dangerous Politics in the Bulletin seems chillingly Orwellian.  But then, articles that leave huge sections of the membership feeling hurt, left out, and insulted don’t seem like such a good idea either.  Hell, I dunno.  This is where I am very proud of myself for never having put myself in the position of having to decide this kind of thing.

Others differed.  A guy named David Truesdale (amusingly, as I understand it, he isn’t a SFWA member) got up a petition.  When I first heard about it, my immediate reaction was to oppose the petition and support the decisions by the SFWA board, mostly on the simple basis of, “We really don’t want to make a bunch of our members feel like the organization doesn’t include them, and many were clearly feeling that way, and we need to do something about that.”  I made a snarky comment or two on Twitter about it.  There were a couple of versions of the petition.  The first draft of it was, to say the least, problematic.  There is a discussion of that here.

And that discussion is what has gotten me involved.  I mean, my initial reaction, as I said, was something like, “I don’t know, but I’m certainly more sympathetic to those opposed to the petition than the supporters.”  That lasted until fairly late yesterday evening when I read the entire discussion.

Here are some highlights:

This from a publisher: “all parties who have signed that petition can go ahead and recuse themselves from any projects (including paying ones) that I control.”

Yes, that happened.  A publisher just said, “If you express these opinions, you can’t get work.”  Does he have the right to make that decision?  Sure.  And I have the right to feel a chill down my spine when he does.  Worse, throughout the rest of the discussion, no one mentions being the least disturbed by it.

Will Shetterly writes: ‘strongly recommend reading the ACLU’s “What is censorship?” Here’s a bit from it:’ followed by a two paragraph quote. The reply is: “@Will Shetterly: You’re not welcome here. Please do not attempt to comment further.”  Again, you get to decide who comments on your page, and for all I know there is a history there; but I get to be disturbed by this response (and no other!) to a discussion of Free Speech by the ACLU.  In fact, that’s what convinced me to make my remarks here instead of there.

Also, en passant, while those on one side of the issue often seem confused about where the First Amendment does and doesn’t apply, those on the other side often seem to believe that the concept of Free Speech and Free Expression begins and ends with the First Amendment.  Though I am far from a free speech absolutist, I take issue with that belief.  News flash: Sometimes it is possible to do something wrong without breaking the law.

But let us return to the discussion.

There is some discussion along the lines of, “I signed the first, objectionable draft, but asked for changes,” “well then, why did you sign the first draft at all?”  This one is interesting.  The reply is an entirely valid answer to the question, “Why are you mad at me?” but says nothing at all useful about, “is the petition a good idea?”  There seems to be some confusion about this.

But what made me suddenly rub my eyes and go, “What the fuck?” was this exchange among four commenters:

Commenter A:”The members complained, overwhelmingly, about lack of oversight for the Bulletin, so the officers promise to take a more active role in overseeing production while a new editor gets started.”

Commenter B:”As for the outcry by an overwhelming group of SFWA members about the original BULLETIN items, my impression, subject to correction by someone closer to the workings of the organization than I am, is that it was a vocal minority that did the complaining, rather than any overwhelmingly large body.”

Commenter C [quoting Commenter B]:’“And if anyone here thinks that my objections to the appointment of a board of advance review constitutes my support for the publication of racist or sexist material in the BULLETIN or anywhere else, that person simply just doesn’t know me. ”

We’re inferring that not just from your objection to a board of advance review, but from other things you say, like this:

“As for the outcry by an overwhelming group of SFWA members about the original BULLETIN items, my impression, subject to correction by someone closer to the workings of the organization than I am, is that it was a vocal minority that did the complaining, rathe than any overwhelmingly large body.”’

Commenter D: ‘“As for the outcry by an overwhelming group of SFWA members about the original BULLETIN items, my impression, subject to correction by someone closer to the workings of the organization than I am, is that it was a vocal minority that did the complaining, rather than any overwhelmingly large body.”’

So if I am to understand you correctly, it is all right to be dismissive of the oppression or subjugation of a group if their numbers are small?’

There.  That.  WTF?

The level of confusion and disingenuousness here is astounding.  A makes the argument that an overwhelming number of members complained. B suggests that, perhaps, it was not an overwhelming number. C and D then turn this suggestion into support of oppression on the part of B (who, for the record, deserves props for being entirely reasonable and gentlemanly while being jumped on by all and sundry).

And then there was the guy who listed all the birth years of those who signed the petition, thus establishing that it was just a bunch of “dinosaurs.”  Heh.  Nothing offensive there.

Summation: I am not, at this point, signing the petition, because my only objection to SFWA’s policy is from my gut (that “Orwellian chill” I mentioned earlier), not from rational belief; and because I feel considerable sympathy for people who were offended by some things in the Bulletin; and because I recognize that the SFWA president and the board had to do something, and I’m not convinced that there was anything better they could have done; and because, in spite of my comments above about free speech, I’m not convinced that this is a free speech issue.

But the irrationality and personal attacks by many of those opposed to the petition both disgust me and make me deeply suspicious of their motives in all of this.