In a new, widely reported nationwide poll, a startling 80% of Americans say “political correctness is a problem in our country.” Objections to political correctness, somewhat surprisingly – or not – are even stronger among racial minorities. High-income college graduates, especially those with advanced degrees, are the Americans most likely to think political correctness is not a problem.
Perhaps this makes sense in a society where over the last 60 years we’ve been taught that self-expression is the key not only to personal happiness but the welfare of our nation and world.
Post-WWII fears of a soul-sapping cultural conformity, as well as the even darker specter of totalitarianism, led to a widespread movement away from what was deemed uniformity of thought. Besides, the intrinsic value of the individual, or so it was argued, was as American as apple pie.
This meant, among other things, that the societal “we” was now viewed as illegitimate, whether it be the “we” of nation, local institutions, religion, or even family. Tradition, and all that it entails, was to be eschewed.
And while this may have made some sort of sense during the postwar era, we are now reaping the fruits of what was a decidedly shortsighted effort. As Russell Reno puts it, “The crisis of our time is one of loyalty, fraternity, and solidarity, not collectivism and totalitarianism.”
The contemporary maximization of individual freedom has led us to a curious place. For several generations now we’ve been told to “do your own thing” (to borrow an overused but relevant phrase). The trouble with this radically atomized approach is that it cares little for society as a whole. Its focus, after all, is entirely on the Self.
With the loss of tradition, of communities and organizations, not least family and church, we have lost not only the wisdom these used to impart but their essential role in the formation of character and virtue.
The current #METOO movement is instructive. It purportedly seeks to address the problem of sexual assault on women. Yet for decades now both sexes have been encouraged to express their sexuality, to liberate themselves from the coercive, unhealthy, repressive norms of the 50s (and earlier).
This project, among other things, jettisoned the time-honored ways in which society has traditionally channeled and curbed the male libido. There were rules of courtship. In untold ways these “repressive” rules protected women and directed sexuality toward the healthy confines of marriage, family, and the rearing of children. (Admittedly, this was hardly a perfect system – we’re humans after all – but, by and large, it was reasonably effective.)
In our current “hook-up” culture, however, such rules are deemed paternalistic, antiquated, ridiculous. Women, in fact, are urged to conduct their sex lives just as men supposedly do, freely and indiscriminately, just for fun. We’re equals, after all. There simply are no formalities, much less commitments. It’s just sex.
Yet the very existence of the #METOO movement suggests that all’s not well with the sexual revolution. People are being hurt. Lives are being destroyed. Even masculinity itself has now been deemed “toxic.”
As a result, a variety of new rules has emerged. On college campuses, to cite but one example, strict codes involving consent have developed. Such rules are often fluid, confusing, and ineffective. (Then again, once the genie’s been let out of the bottle, it’s almost impossible to force him or her back in.)
In all sorts of arenas involving human behavior, politically correct rules have sought to solve the innumerable problems born of decades of self-absorbed libertinism. Yet the real problem, at root, remains largely unexamined.
There is no recognition, in other words, that this “liberation” from traditional norms of discipline and social propriety, as well as from the very communities and commitments that previously shaped and molded social behavior, has gone terribly and predictably awry. Thus, we are left with an incongruous mix of two polar opposites: unbridled freedom AND repressive, stifling rules.
C.S. Lewis, in The Abolition of Man, pointedly outlined what happens when a society rejects traditional truths of morality and virtue:
“We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.”
Social commentator Kim Hirsch draws out the implications: “So we suffer from a culture filled with these men without chests. And as a reaction to this suffering, we pass laws – endless laws. Hate crime laws. Laws to limit speech and expression. And when they don’t work we move to even more onerous edicts which we think will protect us from ourselves.”
Safe spaces, Halloween costume do’s and don’ts, consent rules, speech codes, etc., etc., all hope to quell our anxieties and fears. Yet, as I say, such laws fail to attend to the underlying problem – how do we protect ourselves from ourselves?
As has been said in previous posts, Alexis de Tocqueville presciently named the problem almost 200 years ago. The strength of America, as he saw it, was its mediating institutions, family, church, and local institutions. These effectively produced self-governing citizens capable of handling the freedoms once denied them in their former homelands.
But Tocqueville also foresaw a danger. That if Americans lost the foundations that had effectively enabled them to handle their freedom, freedom would become antithetical to the very notion of freedom itself.
When a people abuse their freedoms and pursue their own separate desires, they effectively cede self-governance to others. While they are exercising their freedoms indiscriminately, others are required to impose alien rules from above in an attempt to curb the chaos their pseudo-freedom has produced. Thus, they become as dumb mules who must be bridled by the bit.
In this period of “shocking conformism and punitive political correctness,” what is needed is a renewed sense that we are all in this together, that the freedom of the lone individual is really no freedom at all. Only within the context of genuine community can we hope to find the necessary commitments and natural limitations that alone produce true human flourishing.
I often think of Emile Durkheim’s term “Anomie,” roughly translated “Without norms.” Paradoxically we as individuals oppose norms and then in turn try to impose rules or conventions to control our own worst instincts. I so appreciate your perspective and the insights you continue to provide. Thank you!