Denise, January 2002
Back in 1990 I wrote an article for a Point/Counterpoint op-ed piece in the Carroll County Times on political correctness. I said I thought that those who used derogatory language or who verbally offended others deserved to be ignored and rebuffed.
Since September 11, I have had cause to question that opinion. In the days after the disaster, academics, commentators and other outspoken citizens were the subject of vicious verbal attacks and threats of firing when they made statements that were seen as “unpatriotic”. I was appalled to think that the efforts of the 80’s and 90’s to eliminate the kinds of language that demeans and oppresses vulnerable groups of people had perhaps eroded the right to express opposition to the dominant culture. Or was I just appalled that is was my more liberal side of the political spectrum that was now being punished for its opinions?
I am still rethinking this. Does the Ku Klux Klan have the right to march through our cities, as they regularly did in Westminster? It would seem to be their democratic right. But a black woman living inWestminster told me that on those days she was afraid to come downtown to shop or visit. Their right to demonstrate was curtailing her right to walk in her community without fear. Should women entering a formerly all male occupation have to put up with catcalls, demeaning remarks, and threatening suggestions? If police officers use ethnic slurs and tell ethnic jokes on their radio channels, does this not send a message to minority groups that they will be unfairly treated by these people in authority?
But if the KKK are prevented from marching today, will a peace demonstration in Washington be prohibited next week? If the police officers are demoted or fired for their language, will a government aide be fired tomorrow for expressing opposition to a bombing campaign?
Language that demeans, that demonizes a certain class of people is dangerous. The first step in genocide is to label a group of people as “vermin”, or inferior, or to mock them, as in, “The only good indian is a dead indian.” Mobs are stirred up by the use of language that suggests that the target, if not destroyed, will be dangerous. We see in the former Yugoslavia how the targeting of ethnic groups is an early step toward slaughter. The question is how to discourage such use of language while maintaining an atmosphere where honest opinion can be expressed. It is a very fine line to draw.
Certainly if one person is allowed the right to express derogatory and offensive opinions, then the subject of those opinions has the right to express his sense of being insulted and threatened. And certainly, if an individual is offended by another’s attitude, they have a right to ignore or avoid the other on a personal basis. Death threats and hate mail are another matter entirely.
But what of the public sphere? Does it threaten the majority, or the most powerful group, if the minority speaks out against it? Is it the same kind of threat to the vulnerable minority, if the majority begins to demonize them. A citizen speaking out against the government cannot be the same quality of threat to that government as the propaganda of a government is to an immigrant or minority group who may have been the subject of slavery, pogrom, or genocide in the past. We should never censor individual opinion, but we can be alert to those time when public opinion is so influenced as to become a physical threat to a vulnerable population.
There may be no definitive answer to these questions. But we who are writers, who are the admirers and creators of language, should be always attuned to the power that language carries to build or to tear down, to exalt or to trample. We need to have reverence for the fact that language is the carrier of our ideas, and words are messengers that deliver into the minds of others the thoughts that can compel action.