On Political Correctness
Sep. 7th, 2004 07:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gaudiorMuch of school is splendid, particularly the Clinical Seminar. It's basically eight first-years in a room with a professor, talking about our field placements. Or theoretically talking about our field placement, but since none of us have yet started, we talked about our worries starting the year, and what we were expecting. It's that sort of class-- very touchy-feely, very much about teaching us to figure out what sort of issues becoming psychologists is bringing up for us so we can deal with it. I like it a lot, and I like the prof immensely.
See, the thing is, ordinarily when people complain about Political Correctness, it raises my hackles. Because I just don't see anything that difficult or outrageous about calling people what they want to be called, or not making jokes that might offend people (especially not when they might hear), or not acting like their culture is inferior to yours. All of that is, as Miss Manners would point out, part of a code of conduct as old as the hills-- it's just that the people being put down didn't used to have the power to enforce basic politeness. Rude is rude, and the idea of new terminology is that everyone should know what word is polite, so they can use it.
This book, however, is driving me nuts. Because it makes a lot of valid points about how therapists should be culturally sensitive, and aware that there's more than one monoculture out there, and I agree with those completely. What I don't agree with is the sort of oversimplification that seems inherent in the text.
For example:
"The changing demographics [sic] of the United States make it clear that the current ethnocultural 'majority' will soon be the minority in the United States... Thus, today, instead of ethnic minority, we more commonly hear the terms multiculturalism or diversity. "*
You know what? No, we don't. You know why? Because "multiculturalism" and "diversity" are _not_ synonyms for "minority group." Because the sentences "Members of multiculturalisms in America have often faced significant discrimination in the past," or "It is interesting to contrast the experiences of people who are born to diversities, like African-Americans, and people like gays and lesbians, who only discover as they grow older that they are diverse," do not WORK. Not that the textbook tries to use these phrases that way-- but it SHOULD. Because then the authors would realize that they need to actually think.
I mean, I take the point that by 2056, if this one theoretician is right, the majority of people in the United States will be non-white. (I'm not sure she's correct, I haven't seen the research, but I see no reason why she shouldn't be.) And in that case, yeah, Black, Asian, Latino, American Tribal, Jewish, Muslim, queer, etc, etc, etc "minorities" would no longer be contrasted with the straight white Christian "majority." But... look at the math. It's true that, if white people are 75% of the population, Christians are 76% of the population, males are 48% of the population**, and straight people are about 96% of the population, then only 26% of the population are straight white Christian males. (I'm not including disabilities and such, because the US Census doesn't count them, and I'm lazy). Therefore, they're technically not the majority. BUT. I'm queer. About 2.5% to 5% of the population, of all races and religions and abilities, is also queer. The vast majority of the population is NOT. And it doesn't matter that they're all colors of the rainbow and every religion under the sun-- they're straight. That means that straight people are a majority group, and queer people are not. Ditto with each race and religion.
More importantly, there needs to be some word for "groups of people who, not being straight white Christian males, have in the past held, and still hold, different positions in American society than people who are not members of their groups." Because all that history can't be talked about if we don't have language for it, and the mess we're currently in (while admittedly a much-improved mess) won't get any better if we can't talk about it now.
I think what bothers me most about the authors' style is this sort of fuzzy thinking which seems to claim that all right-thinking people now agree that all cultures are wonderful, and so we must embrace all of them, and then everything will be better. Never mind that all cultures are created by human beings, and therefore have wonderful aspects and awful aspects and things that work and things that don't work and things that are just there. Never mind that European cultures are just as much a part of a multiculturalism as any other. And never mind that relations between groups remain a serious American problem, and a sufficiently complicated problem that it needs much more thought than just "bigotry is bad."
It just doesn't have enough depth. And it doesn't seem to me to really respect the people it talks about. I mean, there's this other section, talking about a teenager arrested for carrying a gun, and it talks about his prostitute mother and his father killed in a drug raid and his ADD "related to ingesting lead paint and being exposed to other toxins dumped in his community," and the lack of career prospects in his area besides drug dealing and the closing of teen programs in his area so he that "his main opportunity for friendship is gang membership." It then talks about how we must "pay as much attention to the circumstances and the relationships of our clients, and to the effects the larger world has on them, as we do to their internal process." And the thing is that yes, our world affects us. But it doesn't take away our ability to make choices. That kid chose to carry a gun, just as another kid in his circumstance might not have, and a kid in different circumstances might even without these reasons. It's true that knowing his background helps one better understand why he made the choice, and why, in that situation, he saw it as a reasonable and survival-oriented thing to do. But he made the choice. His world didn't make it for him. Saying that he carried the gun because corporations dumped toxins in his neighborhood removes the key step of his free will. And if he doesn't make his own choices, then he can't change his life-- he can only have it changed for him by people willing to step in and change his environment-- which, the authors say a few pages later, is a therapist's responsibility to do.
I think that's what's bothering me most about the book. The authors act like there's one right way to do things, and if it's done that way, we'll save the world. They don't look at _why_ bigotry exists, or why cultures clash-- they just say it's bad. That means that instaed of giving arguments that might change people's minds, they assume that their readers agree with them, and charge on without justifying themselves. It's sloppy logic, and it's not a very nuanced view of the world.
In conclusion: I like cheese.
--R
*Murphy & Dillon, Interviewing in Action: Relationship, Process and Change, 2003. p 11
**http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Demographics_of_the_United_States
See, the thing is, ordinarily when people complain about Political Correctness, it raises my hackles. Because I just don't see anything that difficult or outrageous about calling people what they want to be called, or not making jokes that might offend people (especially not when they might hear), or not acting like their culture is inferior to yours. All of that is, as Miss Manners would point out, part of a code of conduct as old as the hills-- it's just that the people being put down didn't used to have the power to enforce basic politeness. Rude is rude, and the idea of new terminology is that everyone should know what word is polite, so they can use it.
This book, however, is driving me nuts. Because it makes a lot of valid points about how therapists should be culturally sensitive, and aware that there's more than one monoculture out there, and I agree with those completely. What I don't agree with is the sort of oversimplification that seems inherent in the text.
For example:
"The changing demographics [sic] of the United States make it clear that the current ethnocultural 'majority' will soon be the minority in the United States... Thus, today, instead of ethnic minority, we more commonly hear the terms multiculturalism or diversity. "*
You know what? No, we don't. You know why? Because "multiculturalism" and "diversity" are _not_ synonyms for "minority group." Because the sentences "Members of multiculturalisms in America have often faced significant discrimination in the past," or "It is interesting to contrast the experiences of people who are born to diversities, like African-Americans, and people like gays and lesbians, who only discover as they grow older that they are diverse," do not WORK. Not that the textbook tries to use these phrases that way-- but it SHOULD. Because then the authors would realize that they need to actually think.
I mean, I take the point that by 2056, if this one theoretician is right, the majority of people in the United States will be non-white. (I'm not sure she's correct, I haven't seen the research, but I see no reason why she shouldn't be.) And in that case, yeah, Black, Asian, Latino, American Tribal, Jewish, Muslim, queer, etc, etc, etc "minorities" would no longer be contrasted with the straight white Christian "majority." But... look at the math. It's true that, if white people are 75% of the population, Christians are 76% of the population, males are 48% of the population**, and straight people are about 96% of the population, then only 26% of the population are straight white Christian males. (I'm not including disabilities and such, because the US Census doesn't count them, and I'm lazy). Therefore, they're technically not the majority. BUT. I'm queer. About 2.5% to 5% of the population, of all races and religions and abilities, is also queer. The vast majority of the population is NOT. And it doesn't matter that they're all colors of the rainbow and every religion under the sun-- they're straight. That means that straight people are a majority group, and queer people are not. Ditto with each race and religion.
More importantly, there needs to be some word for "groups of people who, not being straight white Christian males, have in the past held, and still hold, different positions in American society than people who are not members of their groups." Because all that history can't be talked about if we don't have language for it, and the mess we're currently in (while admittedly a much-improved mess) won't get any better if we can't talk about it now.
I think what bothers me most about the authors' style is this sort of fuzzy thinking which seems to claim that all right-thinking people now agree that all cultures are wonderful, and so we must embrace all of them, and then everything will be better. Never mind that all cultures are created by human beings, and therefore have wonderful aspects and awful aspects and things that work and things that don't work and things that are just there. Never mind that European cultures are just as much a part of a multiculturalism as any other. And never mind that relations between groups remain a serious American problem, and a sufficiently complicated problem that it needs much more thought than just "bigotry is bad."
It just doesn't have enough depth. And it doesn't seem to me to really respect the people it talks about. I mean, there's this other section, talking about a teenager arrested for carrying a gun, and it talks about his prostitute mother and his father killed in a drug raid and his ADD "related to ingesting lead paint and being exposed to other toxins dumped in his community," and the lack of career prospects in his area besides drug dealing and the closing of teen programs in his area so he that "his main opportunity for friendship is gang membership." It then talks about how we must "pay as much attention to the circumstances and the relationships of our clients, and to the effects the larger world has on them, as we do to their internal process." And the thing is that yes, our world affects us. But it doesn't take away our ability to make choices. That kid chose to carry a gun, just as another kid in his circumstance might not have, and a kid in different circumstances might even without these reasons. It's true that knowing his background helps one better understand why he made the choice, and why, in that situation, he saw it as a reasonable and survival-oriented thing to do. But he made the choice. His world didn't make it for him. Saying that he carried the gun because corporations dumped toxins in his neighborhood removes the key step of his free will. And if he doesn't make his own choices, then he can't change his life-- he can only have it changed for him by people willing to step in and change his environment-- which, the authors say a few pages later, is a therapist's responsibility to do.
I think that's what's bothering me most about the book. The authors act like there's one right way to do things, and if it's done that way, we'll save the world. They don't look at _why_ bigotry exists, or why cultures clash-- they just say it's bad. That means that instaed of giving arguments that might change people's minds, they assume that their readers agree with them, and charge on without justifying themselves. It's sloppy logic, and it's not a very nuanced view of the world.
In conclusion: I like cheese.
--R
*Murphy & Dillon, Interviewing in Action: Relationship, Process and Change, 2003. p 11
**http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Demographics_of_the_United_States
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-08 12:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-09 07:39 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-09 02:55 pm (UTC)