The place of political correctness and its caveats

The original purpose of a politically correct language was humorously and beautifully explicated by British stand-up comedian Stewart Lee during one of his stand-up routines. “What is political correctness?” Lee asked. “It's an often clumsy negotiation towards a kind of formally inclusive language,” he told his audience, setting up for his joke. “But 84 percent of people think that political correctness has gone mad and you don't want one of those people coming up to you after the gig and going “You can't do anything in this country mate, it's political correctness gone mad. You know, you can't even write racial abuse in excrement on someone's car,”” Lee said, causing his audience to howl in laughter. Political correctness continues to be a hot topic for people engaged in public discourse. Unsurprisingly, there is going to be a session on freedom of speech and political correctness in the upcoming Dhaka Lit Fest. Generally, the discussions and debates on the topic often comprise of a critique of the kind of political correctness that can potentially impede free speech. This by extension necessitates discussions on what it means to have freedom of speech. People like Bill Maher, the famous American talk show host on HBO, have generated heated reactions because of his “bigoted” remarks on Islam and Muslims. Maher, who in his own words tries “to stand up for the principles of liberalism,” seems to exemplify why opposition to political correctness is no longer a staple of the crowd that would want to “write racial abuse in excrement on someone's car.” There would be little contentions about the nature of comments Maher make regarding Muslims, had they been uttered by figures of the far right. Among numerous of his generalisations, Maher have said, “…they’re violent. Because they threaten us. And they are threatening. They bring that desert stuff to our world …We don’t threaten each other, we sue each other. That’s the sign of civilised people.” He qualified that remark by adding that the Islamic culture has not gone through the reformation that Christianity went through. Glenn Greenwald, the renowned journalist known for his groundbreaking reporting on the US government’s covert surveillance program, has noted that political correctness is a red herring, because what people like Maher and Sam Harris do, ultimately, is that they ignore facts and choose to condemn the atrocities of the “other”. While authors like Sam Harris and others from, what has become to be known as, the “New Atheist” camp, categorically dismiss opposition to their arguments as an anxiousness for being politically correct, Greenwald has countered that by saying, “When criticism of religion morphs into an undue focus on Islam - particularly at the same time the western world has been engaged in a decade-long splurge of violence, aggression and human rights abuses against Muslims, justified by a sustained demonization campaign - then I find these objections to the New Atheists completely warranted.” In the Bangladeshi context there is seemingly a lack of understanding about the purpose of an inclusive language. In the public sphere, atheists are still one of the most vilified group in the country. But interestingly, so are the followers of, what is understood to be, an orthodox or fundamentalist Islam. But in that case, it seems to originate from the cultural elites. Demonic figures wearing beard and Islamic garb with the crescent drawn ‘tupi’ (prayer cap) have regularly appeared in the media and literature books since independence. There has been little attempt in the traditional Bengali intelligentsia, which is generally staunchly nationalistic, to discriminate between what is a denunciation of the brutal Pakistani regime and the subsequent genocide in Bangladesh and the religious beliefs and symbols of the vast majority of people in the country. This leads to quite serious problems. Anyone familiar with the modern political history knows that it is a sinister development when the majority starts to feel marginalised, which is often caused by demonising of the majority. This is why another guiding principle of political correctness is to not assume that a group of people are inherently evil, or better for that matter. The Germans were not inherently evil people, but the immense unfairness of the Treaty of Versailles was what ultimately paved the way for Hitler’s insane ultra-nationalistic rhetoric, and pushed the population toward extremism. For developing a historically informed understanding of political correctness and a sensible appreciation for the concept of freedom of speech in Bangladesh, there will have to be a lot more discussions like the one that is going to take place at DLF.