Political Correctness and Charlie Hebdo

In response to my Naked Emperors and Jousting Knights post, I received a thoughtful comment about the importance of continuing to challenge the precepts of political correctness while guarding against hate speech.  This came from one who has read widely, has studied philosophy deeply, and whose opinions I value, so I took the comment quite seriously.

On its face, no one could fault the message the statement carried.  After all, who would support hate speech?  When I tried to define political correctness as I see it, it came to be expressly about preventing speech that some listeners find hateful, or, at least, irritating.  Merriam-Webster defines political correctness thusly: “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.”

Again, it would be in very poor form to disagree with the notion embedded in the definition.  Who would argue that offending groups is in the best interest of the general good?

At the same time, the obverse questions raise interesting concerns.  Is it a good idea to eliminate language and the ideas from which it stems to ensure that no one is offended?  Which political sensibilities require such protection?  And, of course, are there limits to the extent of this language elimination?

Last January, Elaine and I were in the Caribbean when upset Islamists slaughtered members of the staff of Charlie Hebdo for the “crime” of producing satirical drawings of Mohammed.  This is harsh retribution for hate speech as viewed through the eyes of these Islamists.   They had very clear ideas about what is approved expression and what is not.

“Je suis Charlie” t-shirts became popular on the French islands throughout the Caribbean, as the world seemed to rally behind those who had lost their lives in the defense of free speech.

If you’ve seen Charlie Hebdo, it’s easy to suggest that its vulgarity and broad irreverence make it a natural target for many, and that its woes are unrelated to our simple political correctness discussion.  I see the two as occupying different points on the same continuum.  Perhaps the continuum extends from unfettered free speech to tightly controlled expression as is common in repressive countries and religions.  Where we should reside on that continuum and how we best get there are the basis of the discussion.

Perhaps the most articulate discussion of these questions that I’ve seen was pointed up by another reader of the earlier blog.  I recommend it as thoughtful reading.

Charlie Hebdo no longer drawing Mohamed cartoons.