9 minute read
THINKING IT THROUGH
THINKING IT THROUGH
LIVING IN A ‘PC’ SOCIETY AS A CATHOLIC
Advertisement
IN THE FIRST OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES REFLECTING ON MODERN MORAL DILEMMAS, OUR AUTHORS DISCUSS THE IDEA OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AND THE CHALLENGES POSED FOR CATHOLICS
BY AOIFE McGRATH AND RAPHAEL GALLAGHER CSsR
What does it mean to be ‘politically correct’ in Ireland today? Is it even desirable to be ‘politically correct’? What should I do if my opinion about what is ‘socially acceptable’ differs from others’? These are questions that any citizen might ask. Another question that holds particular interest for us here: if the questioner were Catholic, should that make any difference to their stance on political correctness?
HOW MIGHT WE UNDERSTAND THE TERM?
Today, the term ‘politically correct,’ and its abbreviated form ‘PC’, have both positive and negative connotations.
On the one hand, they are used to set a (new) standard or benchmark for socially acceptable language, behaviour, customs and human relations, redressing historical injustices. By implication they distinguish and designate what is ‘politically incorrect’: PC proponents ‘call out’ words and actions that are insensitive, cause injury or exclude particular individuals and groups in society. By drawing attention to inappropriate attitudes and behaviours, proponents seek to challenge the status quo and bring about positive social change.
In popular culture, another term used in this context is ‘being woke’. This means being up-to-date, well-informed and alert to discrimination and injustice within society. Once someone has found such a level of awareness, going back to sleep is not an option. A genuinely ‘woke’ person must explicitly act to oppose and eradicate injustice and discrimination, to create a better future.
On the other hand, ‘political correctness’ can be viewed disapprovingly and used in an ironic way, as an insult for ‘progressive’ movements or ideologies that are perceived as superficial, insincere, self-serving, or officious. Advocates of political correctness (or wokeness) may be suspected of signalling support for some issue or situation as a substitute for genuine reform. They may be perceived as standing in judgement over others, criticising and finding fault, even with those who are well-meaning. Online, they may be seen as the ‘keyboard warriors’ who will only disparage, rather than engage.
In this light, at best, what is socially acceptable might seem unstable; keeping up with the latest changes, being alert to discrimination and ready to counteract injustice all the time, might seem impossible. At worst, politically correct agendas are perceived as being destructive. Engaging in activities which proliferate PC ideas or approaches that violate deeply held values are viewed as objectionable.
Tensions about what is politically correct or socially acceptable are most acute in the spheres of ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and ecology. Each of these areas of social concern is rooted in the individual’s experience of identity, even their existence and survival. When one party feels silenced by another, they appeal to the right of ‘free speech’ to bolster their own interest. When the stakes are high, tolerance of opposing positions is low.
WHAT IS AT STAKE?
Personal and social values are intimately related. The individual decides what is important in life – how one thinks, speaks, and behaves – while being influenced by family and friends, the surrounding culture and day-to-day life experience. For some, education and faith tradition also play a part. Through interacting with one another, we learn what is important for us to live well together. Social values are the group’s shared perspective about how they desire to live collectively. They provide the goals or standards for which people in the group should aim.
Arguably, this framework serves the will of the majority. We might ask: what happens to the few who do not subscribe to the common perspective of the majority? In previous generations, such individuals were certainly marginalised, ostracised or
worse from ‘mainstream culture’. While our society has changed in many ways, discrimination and injustice still linger. Today, ‘marginalised communities’ are adapting and reorganising. Such communities are no longer simply comprised of those on the periphery or margins. More accurately, they are communities of identity, formed through kinship or belief, in common experiences and shared vision.
These communities are becoming more fluid in our internet world. I can find ‘my tribe’ anywhere in the world or spread throughout the world. I may never meet someone in person and communicate exclusively online. I may never know the people in this tribe or community, and yet I can still feel I belong. Social identity groups thus offer ‘safer spaces’ within which otherwise marginalised individuals can be themselves and still be accepted.
The era of social media, and the impact of a global pandemic in particular, has facilitated the growth of communities of identity. Commentators suggest that social media has come increasingly tribal, since it leads users to gravitate to like-minded peers and separate along identity divisions. Online users often prefer information in keeping with their view of the world and ignore information that does not fit in with this. Groups become polarised. There is a real risk of ending up in an echo-chamber and of the whole group moving to more extreme positions. Social media has become a volatile space. Misinformation, verbal aggression and threats mushroom. Individuals believed to have offended, harmed or excluded others are ‘cancelled’.
In such spaces, neither the ‘majority’ or the ‘minority’ will prevail; both suffer. In September 2006, an article on ‘Rethinking Political Correctness’ in the Harvard Business Review noted:
In cultures regulated by political correctness, people feel judged and fear being blamed. They worry about how others view them as representatives of their social identity groups. They feel inhibited and afraid to address even the most banal issues directly. People draw private conclusions; untested, their conclusions become immutable. Resentments build, relationships fray….
Where political correctness is weaponised like this or used to silence and effect change in ‘them’ but not ‘us’, tension builds and relations deteriorate. Mutual trust and understanding becomes impossible, and the notion of social cohesion in the wider community seems fanciful. Hate crime increases. An Garda Síochána now have an online portal for reporting hate incidents which are perceived to be motivated, in whole or in part, “by hostility or prejudice, based on actual or perceived age, disability, race, colour, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and gender”. The Irish Department of Justice is developing new legislation to deal with hate crime.
HOW MIGHT A CATHOLIC VIEW THE SITUATION?
Some Catholics passionately seek to eradicate injustice and unequivocally support the transformation of everyday language and behaviour to safeguard the dignity and welfare of disadvantaged and marginalised persons. They try to stand in solidarity with the oppressed and contribute to a more equitable society.
Other Catholics just as passionately seek to defend the values and the teachings of the faith tradition that we have inherited. To their minds these are incompatible with the cultural mores of the present day. They believe they should challenge the cultural context with the content of the faith tradition. Perhaps, too, they are seeking the right words to translate the Gospel message in a manner that will be intelligible to people today.
Paradoxical though these positions may seem, they are quite understandable. The mission given by Christ to the People of God is to proclaim and spread God’s kingdom throughout the world. They are to be the new seeds of that kingdom, spreading and defending the faith, in word and deed, as witnesses of Christ. Catholics are also called to work for the transformation of the world from within, each one playing our own part in the mission of Christ. But how are we to do this? What happens when some emphasise the need for right action, and others stress right belief or understanding? Which should
THINKING IT THROUGH
come first? Can the two really be separated? Always, our goal is to effect real conversion in the society around us. If it is a question of which approach is most effective for the sake of mission, which should we choose?
In moral and pastoral theology, we understand the importance of healthy relationships and dialogue for effective learning and growth. Respect, trust, open communication and humility are fundamental elements. These relationships need to transcend personal preferences and initial perceptions. Obvious differences between parties are recognised, while seeking to reach a shared understanding that allows space to learn from one another. Learning by doing, through action with reflection, opens us to new horizons of learning. Such reflection consciously engages with the riches of the Catholic vision, as these relate to building a practice of faithful, responsible action.
For instance, it is a central principle of the Catholic faith – and the foundation of Catholic Social Teaching – that the human person is created in the image and likeness of a Triune God. Consequently, human persons have an inherent dignity which ought to be respected. As God is a communion of threepersons-in-one, so too are humans social beings. We are called to live in communion with others, with all of creation, and with God. In reality, we struggle in the face of so much difference. Pope Francis wrote the following in 2013:
Differences between persons and communities can sometimes prove uncomfortable, but the Holy Spirit, who is the source of that diversity, can bring forth something good from all things and turn it into an attractive means of evangelisation. Diversity must always be reconciled by the help of the Holy Spirit; he alone can raise up diversity, plurality and multiplicity while at the same time bringing about unity. When we, for our part, aspire to diversity, we become self-enclosed, exclusive and divisive; similarly, whenever we attempt to create unity on the basis of our human calculations, we end up imposing a monolithic uniformity. This is not helpful for the Church’s mission. (Evangelii Gaudium: The Joy of the Gospel, 131)
For Catholics carrying out their own part in the mission of the church in the world, to be humble is essential. As agents of Christ’s peace, we need “to devise a means for building consensus and agreement while seeking the goal of a just, responsive and inclusive society” (EG, 239). Constant social dialogue with everyone in society – and not just the majority, elite, or outspoken minority – is integral for lasting peace.
SHOULD A CATHOLIC BE PC THEN?
Certainly, the challenge of the Catholic faith to respect the dignity of the person, to prioritise the needs of the poor and marginalised, and to love our neighbour as ourselves suggests that we should strive for sound relationships with all others. Far from causing injury or harm through our words and actions, we are called to promote the other’s good. Likewise, it seems prudent to strive to participate in social dialogue from a position of humility, acting as committed and responsible citizens, for the sake of agreeing how to live well together. We do this because we are called to contribute to the common good and promote peace in society. We need to reflect on what really motivates us when we attempt to be PC and to discern the consequences (intended or otherwise) when we do not follow the protocols of political correctness.
