Richard M. Ebeling
– March 15, 2021 @ American Institute for Economic Research
America has entered into a new era of thought control. Back in the
1960s, there was a determined campaign by many conservatives to resist
the free speech movement symbolically headquartered on the Berkeley
campus of the University of California. Then, the idea was to respect
people’s right to say what was on their minds, even when it was
considered crude, rude and offensive. That many of the students involved
in this effort were often radically inconsistent and disrespectful of
others’ property clouded the message. But at the end of the day, freedom
of speech was the underlying principle.
Many in the generation born in the 1990s and the early 21st
century probably know little or nothing about comedians Mort Sahl and
Lenny Bruce. Both broke various taboos in the arena of public standup
comedy. Mort Sahl took the attitude that any political issue and every
public or political figure was fair game for satire, ridicule, and
debunking. It wasn’t so much that listeners necessarily agreed with or
shared Sahl’s criticisms or satires of “the notable” in society. Often,
very much to the contrary. It was the idea that no matter what the
stature of a celebrity or a politician, there was room and a reasonable
need for those who will remind us that very often “the emperor” has no
clothes. We should not be deluded into thinking that just because they
might be “famous” or holding high government office, that made them
necessarily superior to you or me, and very often they could be even
more misguided and wrongheaded than many of the rest of us. It is just
that their positions, especially in government, make them more dangerous
due to the wider social impact of things they have the authority to
do.
Shocking Words Viewed as Part of Freedom of Speech
Part of Lenny Bruce’s “thing” was to shock an audience with the use
of words and phrases that were not considered appropriate in public
settings, even though these were things that people said and words used
all the time in the “real world” of everyday life. For instance, I was
recently watching on YouTube some of the Friars Club “roasts” of various
entertainment celebrities that were regularly broadcast on network
television back in the 1960s. Most of them were hilarious, in my view.
But they are all PG-rated, as it used to be called. But . . . there is
one for which there is only an audio recording that was clearly not
shown on nor meant for television. Here were some of the biggest names
in American comedy of that time using language and the resulting imagery
that could easily make even the most language-hardened listener blush.
Lenny Bruce’s attitude was that the use of such language in his
standup comedy club routines was not only to draw crowds due to the
shock value, but that in a free society, no matter how offensive what
may be said, it should be viewed as part of the principle of freedom of
speech. He did not stop, even though he was arrested multiple times
around the country at such clubs for public use of “obscenities.” He was
even sentenced to four months in a “workhouse” in 1964, but while out
on bail during the appeal process, he died.
Many of us may still feel uncomfortable or offended when language and
various particular words are used in demeaning or humiliating or
“vulgar” ways, and therefore in “poor taste,” as it used to be said. But
it should not be considered the duty and responsibility of government
to “police” our words and where and in whose company we might use them.
“Policing” should be considered a matter of individual choice and
decision-making concerning what to watch or listen to, and with whom to
associate and interact.
Once government is introduced into the picture, societal conflicts
and controversies are inescapably made “affairs of state,” with
political battles over the who and the how of what people may speak or
write. Better a social order in which there might be personal offense
from the words of others, but with the voluntary option to not listen or
read, rather than political dictates and coerced punishments for those
using the “wrong” words at the wrong time, in the wrong place, and to
the wrong person.
The Return of the Politically Correct Language Censors
Today, we are faced with a new campaign of censorship, accompanied
with the demand not just to ban the use of certain words or phrases but
to insist that they be replaced with other words and phrases that must
be accepted and used, if the potential “word-criminal” is not to be
found guilty of racism, sexism or any other of a multitude of created
groups and categories, and for which the “insensitive” individual may
face serious life and career-affecting consequences.
On the surface, the appeal for a greater awareness and sensitivity to
what and how we say things that, unintentionally, may be taken the
wrong way by someone who personally has had “harmful” and “hurtful”
experiences, or who comes from a family that in the past suffered from
certain words and deeds in various ways, seems not unreasonable. Jews,
in the past, were often called “kikes” or “Yids,” nor “Christ-killers.”
It has generally become unacceptable to use such terms in reference to a
person practicing the Jewish faith or having Jewish ancestors. And,
similarly, certain words used in insulting or demeaning ways in
reference to blacks in America have become unacceptable in virtually any
and all social settings, both public and private. (See my article, “The Case for Liberty Through Thick and Thin”.)
However, languages, with their meanings, connotations, and
acceptable uses of words, phrases, and terms, are always changing in
every society. Sometimes a socially demeaning word can, over time,
continue to be used without the negative implication. For instance, the
word “slave:” a number of linguistic sources say that it originated from
the word “Slav,” referring to certain groups of people living in
Eastern Europe who were captured in the Middle Ages by other invading
and conquering groups and forced into compulsory work; that is, made
into “slaves.” Whether or not this long-held etymology is correct or
not, to call someone, past or present, a “Slav” no longer implies an
“inferior” or subservient status of those who live in that part of
Europe.
It is also the case that a word that has an insulting connotation in
one language may not have such a necessary negative meaning in another.
For instance, it has become totally unacceptable for a white person to
call a black American by what has become sanitized as the “N” word. Yet,
the Russian version of this word, for instance, has not and for the
most part still does not carry the offending sense that it does in
English. It is merely the Russian word for a black person. If a Russian,
who knows nothing about the historicity of that word in the American
context, were to use it in the United States that person would have no
idea that in using it any offense had been given.
Word Bans and Speech Commands in Manchester
Times change, and as attitudes, understandings, and “sensitivities”
change through time, so do the uses and non-uses of words. But what
happens when the determination of the use and meaning of words, phrases
and forms of human interaction become hijacked by those who are
determined to arrogate to themselves the lexicon of language? Who insist
that they, above all others in society, know what should be said and
should not be said, and what words shall be imposed on everyone else as
near mandatory substitutes for the condemned and “forbidden” words?
This is the world in which we are presently existing, the “woke”
world of political correctness, identity politics, and cancel culture.
To demonstrate that this is not purely an American ideological
phenomenon, just this past week, a British publication, The Spectator (March 11, 2021) reported that, “Manchester University Scraps the Word ‘Mother.”
We are told that this respected British university has issued a “guide
to inclusive language” that all those affiliated with that institution
of higher learning are expected to follow and practice.
Some examples. It is no longer permissible to refer to the “elderly,”
or a “pensioner” or those who are members of the “mature workforce.”
These all imply inappropriate “ageisms.” No, instead, you will refer to
those “over-65s, 75s, and so on,” we are told. The word, “diabetic,” is
prohibited as it suggests a handicap. Now the focus must be on a
person’s “abilities, rather than limitations.” A person, for instance,
is not “suffering from cancer,” they are “living with cancer.”
Also, it is now necessary to use “gender-neutral” terms when
referring to people. Thus, calling someone a “man” or a “woman” or a
“father” or a “mother” is out. The preferred terms are to be
“individuals” or “guardians.” The author of The Spectator
article wonders if this means that Mother’s Day now is to be called
“Guardian’s Day?” But, wait, does not “guardian” suggest a hierarchy of
oppressor and oppressed? The Manchester “wokers” may have subliminally
fallen into the very thing they say they want to eradicate. Cancel
culture may have to come after some of the culture cancellers. (In an
earlier time, this was said to be the revolution eating some of its own
children.)
But nonetheless, following their own train of thought, at Manchester
University you may no longer say that something is “man-made,” with,
instead, “artificial” or “synthetic” as the required replacements.
Mankind becomes humankind, and “manpower” is to be deleted and
“workforce” is to be put in its place.
Training Enterprise Managers in the Ways of Identity Politics
At an American institution of higher learning with which I am
acquainted, I have been told that a proposal has been made for the
introduction of a diversity and inclusion management certificate. It
seems that learning relevant management skills in selecting and
overseeing a workforce (notice, I’m being politically correct, already!)
for product and manufacturing and marketing efficiency, productivity,
and profitability on the basis of individual employee’s education,
skills, experience and other background qualifications to fill positions
needed within the enterprise is no longer enough.
Nor is it simply a reasonable management tool to learn to treat those
hired with courtesy and respect, both as a general rule of “good
managerial conduct,” and to have employees who have a positive attitude
about the place in which they are working and earning a living. And nor
is it sufficient (regardless of regulatory requirements) to see the
ethical rightness and practical advantages of evaluating and judging and
rewarding employees in terms of their individual characteristics and
merits and value-added to the private enterprise.
No, this is no longer enough. Instead, the student entering into a
sequence of courses leading to such a diversity and inclusion management
certificate will be informed that their tasks will be for, “creating
inclusive cultures, enhancing organizational effectiveness and
maximizing the sense of belonging among diverse stakeholders.” When
completed, the certificate receiver will have demonstrated “the
capability in planning, executing, and assessing a small-scale
inclusion, diversity, and belonging-related intervention in an
organization at either the intrapersonal, interpersonal, group, or
organizational level.”
What will the student have learned along the way? He or she (or “it”)
will have “an historical understanding and fluent usage of contemporary
terms and language used in the field of diversity, inclusion, and
belonging.” They will also know how to “conceive of, plan, conduct, and
evaluate a diversity or inclusion initiative within an organization.”
And they will know how to “facilitate effective dialogue within a
diverse group of individuals holding widely divergent views.”
This will include the ability to analyze “various issues related to
diversity, equity, and inclusion;” critically “examine your background
and self-assessment . . . on how you see the world,” and “reflect on
the ways other people’s backgrounds . . . [affect] their perspectives on
the world and their behavior in teams.”
The student taking these courses will learn how to “navigate the
ambiguity and complexity that comes with multiple perspectives,” as well
as “identifying the ways that power differentials operate, are
experienced and reinforced” at different levels of workplace
interactions. This will include knowing how to provide “services” to
different groups, and especially “non-dominant populations.”
Identity Politics as the Child of Marxist Mind Manipulation
What stands out most noticeably is the repetition of words –
“diversity,” “inclusiveness,” “belonging,” and “equity.” But what do
these terms mean, and what do they imply about human relationships,
starting with how the individual person views him- or herself? For the
unreflective student, the prospectus for such a certificate, therefore,
can easily seem innocuous, as simply being “fair” and respectful in a
world in which people are different.
But it all depends upon what the words mean by both definition and
context. In the world of identity politics and cancel culture, the
lexicon of language is mostly the transference of Marxian concepts and
categories to the “post-modern” race and gender arena. For Marxists and
their practitioners in places such as the former Soviet Union, culture
and language were viewed as tools used for capitalist class oppression
of the working class through control and manipulation of what was
written, said, and educationally learned and believed. The purpose of
language and learning under capitalism was for the constructing of a
societal “false consciousness” that succeeds in getting the majority of
the population to accept their exploited status and to believe that
there is no escape from it in this life.
Or as political scientist Tony Smith summarized it in, Thinking Like a Communist (1987):
“[Social] ‘Classes’ therefore are
groups distinguished by the specialized positions they occupy in a
common economic system and by their degree of control (or ownership) of
the forces of production . . . Their ‘conflict’ comes from the fact that
these positions are dependent upon one another but are not equal in
power . . . The most advantaged class will seek to ensure its position
through political means, through control, that is of the ‘state,’ whose
primary function, in Marxist terms, is to serve the interests of the
ruling class through a stratagem that combines force, mythmaking, and
co-option.” (pp. 43-44)
Education and ideology were viewed as inseparable from each other in
this Marxian world view, because the inherent nature of human
relationships is dictated by who owns the means of production to oppress
others for their benefit, and to assure active or passive acceptance of
one’s class-determining status and place in society. The idea that
education and knowledge can be unbiased, “factual,” and objectively
logical is alien to this worldview. For the Marxist, education was
“reeducation” to raise the ideological consciousness of those living
under or threatened by capitalism; for them to know and see the “real”
power relationships in society.
Or as one Soviet leader expressed it in the 1970s: “The Soviet school
does not simply prepare educated people. It is responsible for the
turning out of politically literate, ideologically convinced fighters
for the communist cause. The school never stood, and it cannot stand,
aside from politics, in the struggle of classes.” (Quoted in, N. N.
Shneidman, Literature and Ideology in Soviet Education (1973, p. 2.)
Educating the Young in Raised Race Consciousness
This approach to education is alive and well among the warriors of
the new political correctness of identity politics. For instance,
American schooling, we are told, is saturated with the ideology of race,
bias and oppression. Thus, the National Council of Teachers of English
tells us that: “We know that racism exists in our classrooms and in our
communities. We feel that silence on these issues is complicity in the
systemic racism that has marred our educational system . . . There is no
apolitical classroom. English language arts teachers must examine the
ways that racism has personally shaped their beliefs and must examine
existing biases that feed systems of oppression . . .”
This includes “Raising Race Consciousness Children . . .The goals of
these conversations [with young students] is to dismantle the
color-blind framework and to prepare young people to work toward racial
justice . . . A historically-grounded anti-racist pedagogy, rather than a
psychologically-oriented one, allows us to see U.S. society ‘in the act
of inventing race.’”
We are told in a “primer” for Culturally Responsive Education
(published by an organization affiliated with New York University),
that it is essential to incorporate, “the indigenous critique of
colonialism and the disability rights critique of ableism in addition to
the Black critique of Western imperialism” for “fully overlapping the
position of decolonialization in education.” This all leads to,
“Culturally responsive pedagogies, by working to decenter dominant
cultures and ideologies, contest traditional ways of thinking about
policy.”
Dig through the linguistic gobbledygook, and what we are left with is
the idea that Western society is based on racist and related
oppressions of various victimized groups. That this conflict is endemic
to the historical nature of “white” society being based on the
exploitation of others. And that education in the United States is
interwoven with racist, sexist and related biases and methods of
indoctrination to maintain the status quo of white oppression of
networks of oppressed peoples.
You are Not a Person but a Race and Gender
The hegemony of white male culture, white male economic domination,
and white male social power on the basis of capitalist property
relationships permeates the society against all other peoples of color,
gender and disability or disadvantage. Marxism defined and identified
what distinguished human beings as being based on their relationship to
the ownership of the means of production – this defined your “social
class” and “interests” – and that this relationship determined and
dictated conflict in the world until the oppressed workers had
successfully overthrown and replaced the private property-owning
exploiters.
The identity politics warriors insist that you are your race, your
gender, your sexual orientation and their various intersectional
permutations. Individuals, as individuals, do not exist and cannot have a
self-identifying consciousness other than with and through the racial,
sexual and related tribal and group identifiers that distinguish one
such collective social entity from another in all their multiples of
fine gradations.
But this latest variation on the collectivist theme is even worse
than the Marxian one from out of which it has grown. At least in the
Marxist story of salvation for mankind, its ending is supposed to bring
about a harmonious unity of all people. The workers of the world will
unite, overthrow their capitalist oppressors, and then live in a common
brotherhood of shared communal ownership, common effort, and collective
sharing of the bounties of the world. A fantasy and fiction about man
and society, of course, but one that at least promised all of mankind
peace and togetherness. A communist heaven on earth.
But notice, the identity politics warriors call for an end to a
“color-blind” framework, a rejection that society is made of individuals
who should be considered the ones deserving and possessing rights.
Discarded is the American idea of individualism in all of its
philosophical, political, economic, and social aspects and facets.
Society is viewed as divided into irreducible racial and gender
collectives, each with its own sense of group identity of culture,
“belonging,” and “rights.” It is the permanent “Balkanization” of
society into hermetically sealed human group compartments whose
relationships to each other must be based on collective negotiation and
division of the material spoils of the general societal “space.”
The Balkanization of Humanity and Culture
Humanity, in other words, has no common culture, no shared
civilization of science, art, literature, philosophy or economic
cooperation on the basis of peaceful acts of exchange and association as
the individuals making up mankind find it advantageous and mutually
beneficial. You live in your tribal world and I live in my tribal world
and the most that can be hoped for is for us not to go to war with each
other.
Nor must we try to learn, incorporate, and benefit from the
achievements of other tribal cultures, since we have been told that that
is an inappropriate “cultural appropriation.” How fortunate the Swiss
were some centuries ago in being ignorant of these postmodern notions,
otherwise they might never have improperly “appropriated” and adapted
the Swedish-invented snow ski for use in their Alpine terrain. How rude
of the native American Indians to culturally appropriate the European
device known as the wheel, which they had never thought of on their own
as a useful tool for transportation. What a demonstration of acceptance
of “oppression” that many of the tribes in Africa adapted European means
and methods of medicine as opposed to the incantations of witchdoctors.
And how culturally wrong it was for Europeans to copy Chinese invented
gun-power, paper money, and spaghetti, or the Arab numerical system in
place of Roman numerals.
“Diversity” means group identity and tribal determination of every
person born into a certain identity politics category. “Inclusion” and
“equity” mean numerical quotas for members of designated groups in terms
of employment, income, and general social status. And “belonging” means
viewing and treating people as “deserving” of their collectively
determined place at the common table of distributed benefits based on
political power relationships worked out by the “leaders” of the
respective racial and gender groups.
What words we may use and to whom we may speak them. Which words are
to be banned and which ones dictated as mandatory in human interaction.
How we are to address others, and how they may refer to us. What ideas
may be offered to others and how they may be presented or prevented from
being expressed. These are not things for you to decide and act upon.
No, these will be determined for you and demanded of you. Why? Because
the assumption is that your mind and your words and your deeds are not
your own. They are owned and dictated by the collective to which you are
declared to be a member. (See my articles, “Tyrants of the Mind and the New Collectivism” and “An ‘Identity Politics’ Victory Would Mean the End to Liberty” and “The New Totalitarians” and “Save America from Cancel Culture” and “‘Systemic Race’ Theory is the New Political Tribalism” and “Self-Censorship and Despotism Over the Mind”.)
Before this new era of postmodern identity politics, that is; in the
prior “modern” Age of Enlightenment, when human beings foolishly
believed in reason, evidence, and individual liberty, all of what is
being insisted upon now used to be known as tyranny and criticized as
dictatorship. How very silly of many of us to presume that each of us
was a unique and distinct “I” separate from an imposed “We.” Well, we
all live and learn.
Richard M. Ebeling, an AIER Senior
Fellow, is the BB&T Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Free
Enterprise Leadership at The Citadel, in Charleston, South Carolina.
Ebeling lived on AIER’s campus from 2008 to 2009.
Get notified of new articles from Richard M. Ebeling and AIER.
Print