// essays //
Fall 2014
Please Offend Me:
Deconstructing the Liberal Orwellian Lexicon of Propriety
Winston Mann
Today, ideology and art are defined and judged mainly by the degree to which they have the potential to offend. This is a dangerously oversimplified method of analysis, one that silences subversive opinions on the basis of offense before they are given the opportunity to be explored in an open forum. The trend of discouraging and even banning potentially offensive material is detrimental to free speech, particularly on college campuses. In many cases subversive views are not even present in the classroom, as educational institutions have bizarrely pioneered a move towards monolithic thinking. Yet we can never identify and certainly never resolve that which goes unsaid, and censorship can lead to a harmful form of ignorance. NYU professor Irshad Manji says it best when she reminds us, “Offense is not the problem to be avoided at any cost. Offense is the price of honest diversity. In order to liberate thinking, we have to risk it.” Therefore, offensive material in art and conversation must be recognized as a vital aspect of a truly free society. In order for intellectual diversity to thrive, we must become comfortable talking honestly about uncomfortable topics.
Political correctness is, at its core, intellectual laziness. It is employed as a cop-out, so we can pass judgment without really understanding what is being said. When we dismiss an idea before analyzing it, we dismiss our responsibility to examine history, understand comedic intent, or interpret narrative nuance. For example, purportedly offensive language used in a recent episode of RuPaul’s Drag Race triggered enormous outcry from online activists, who claimed that certain puns used on the reality drag competition show such as ‘She-Mail’ were offensive to transgender women. In one recurring segment of the show, the words “You’ve Got She-Mail” herald a message from RuPaul for the contestants, which ignited frustration concerning the overt and tongue-in-cheek use of such terms. The controversy arose because drag queens, considered cisgender by the current definitions of gender politics (because their gender experimentation is temporary) are not entitled to reclaiming any words like ‘shemale’ or ‘tranny’ that are often used as epithets against both drag queens and transgender women.
Contrary to the relatively new perspective held by these activists that drag queens and transgender women are entirely separate from one another, the reality is that these two groups often work together, and these identities can blur and overlap. Transgender pioneers and activists who have survived the most historically difficult periods for transgender individuals have cautioned against such divisions and oversensitivity, but in the online-activist culture of call-outs and indignation in which we live, this sage advice has fallen on deaf ears. These “activists” are really only looking for a pat on the back, a booming economy of meaningless sensitivity points earned at the expense of any actual progress within the community.
Had the intent of the activists been education and the eventual development of rapport, instead of the meaningless culling of apologies from public figures, discussions and research into the matter would have resolved the controversy: the words they were upset with originated when drag queens and transgender women were seen as existing on a continuum, a view that many within the community (like RuPaul or transgender pioneers like Andrea James or Kate Bornstein) still hold. Here, the desire to ‘call out’ perceived offensive behavior won over both unity and freedom of expression, and the only true victor was the fragile ego of political correctness.
Offense is often fallaciously employed as a kind of trump card, used when a controversial topic comes up and the offended party is unwilling or perhaps unable to defend their position. But calling a statement politically incorrect is not an argument: it is a cognitive stop sign, substituting indoctrination for education. Groups like the online activists who were upset with RuPaul should not automatically win the vocabulary turf war on the basis of outrage and offense alone. Common ground on sensitive issues will remain elusive if public conversations are dishonest and indirect, undertaken with the evasive argot of ivory-tower newspeak. Sociology departments are now dedicated to the generation and cyclical regeneration of this bloated lexicon of propriety, a set of words that are ‘okay’ for people to use to define their identity or lifestyle. Deviation from these acceptable words—even by people within the community being discussed—is met with virulent opposition.
The arbitrary delineation of which descriptors are “offensive” and which are not is policed with an unparalleled ferocity, and often only serves to further divide communities that were once unified. Many people identify with and use words that are deemed ‘offensive’ by others, and unilaterally declaring any concept, word, or topic off-limits will no doubt leave some people out of the conversation altogether. This was exactly the case in the RuPaul debacle, where the need to adhere to the arbitrary and ever-changing rules of identity politics split a once united community. The diverse perspectives on this issue is an indication that offense is not universal but personal, and therefore a rather poor reason to dismiss or censor something outright.
The impulse to demand an apology for a perceived slight is a product of the victim mentality, the idea that the world should conform to your own perception of yourself as the fragile victim of an insurmountably oppressive society. This worldview is a trap: your status as a victim is not something to embrace as an identity, but something to reject and overcome. You should seek to strengthen yourself and become more secure in who you are, so that eventually almost nothing can offend you. In doing so, you reclaim the power that was once in the hands of anyone who, in the past, might have easily disturbed or offended you with a simple remark spoken in ignorance. This is not to suggest that people should be able to make any inflammatory remark with impunity, but that all ideas should be freely presented and just as freely challenged. Indeed, the use of any word or rhetoric against any person in particular to deliberately hurt their feelings is a needlessly cruel thing to do, but various perspectives on identity and vocabulary should be respected. In this way all parties are heard, all viewpoints are on the table, and nothing gets swept under the rug.
If I speak to you evasively, constantly afraid to challenge your perspective, then I don’t truly see you as an equal. I see you as some fragile thing beneath me, not a person but the inevitable punch line of a terribly inappropriate joke that I’m trying desperately to avoid. Ask the offensive question, have the uncomfortable conversation, let the dissident speak, publish the radical book, and then have a conversation afterwards if you disagree with what was said or done. Let freedom of speech win, for everyone.
In a truly free society, one cannot expect to never be offended. This is precisely how we learn, how we challenge and better ourselves, how we integrate new information into our worldview. After the aforementioned episode of RuPaul’s drag race aired, debate raged across the internet among young fans of the show, who, in order to take part in the debate, educated themselves in drag and trans history. Unfortunately, the offending segment of the episode has been removed from future broadcast to avoid such debate and controversy, stopping this valuable discourse in its tracks.
The world needs transgressive art for precisely the productive education and conversation in which it can result. Sometimes lines are crossed that have no real intellectual value, poking fun at those who have already suffered enough. But the reality is, for people to truly respect one another, sometimes they also need to offend each other first. This is the price of free speech and—dare I say—it’s not as steep as it has been made out to be.
Political correctness is, at its core, intellectual laziness. It is employed as a cop-out, so we can pass judgment without really understanding what is being said. When we dismiss an idea before analyzing it, we dismiss our responsibility to examine history, understand comedic intent, or interpret narrative nuance. For example, purportedly offensive language used in a recent episode of RuPaul’s Drag Race triggered enormous outcry from online activists, who claimed that certain puns used on the reality drag competition show such as ‘She-Mail’ were offensive to transgender women. In one recurring segment of the show, the words “You’ve Got She-Mail” herald a message from RuPaul for the contestants, which ignited frustration concerning the overt and tongue-in-cheek use of such terms. The controversy arose because drag queens, considered cisgender by the current definitions of gender politics (because their gender experimentation is temporary) are not entitled to reclaiming any words like ‘shemale’ or ‘tranny’ that are often used as epithets against both drag queens and transgender women.
Contrary to the relatively new perspective held by these activists that drag queens and transgender women are entirely separate from one another, the reality is that these two groups often work together, and these identities can blur and overlap. Transgender pioneers and activists who have survived the most historically difficult periods for transgender individuals have cautioned against such divisions and oversensitivity, but in the online-activist culture of call-outs and indignation in which we live, this sage advice has fallen on deaf ears. These “activists” are really only looking for a pat on the back, a booming economy of meaningless sensitivity points earned at the expense of any actual progress within the community.
Had the intent of the activists been education and the eventual development of rapport, instead of the meaningless culling of apologies from public figures, discussions and research into the matter would have resolved the controversy: the words they were upset with originated when drag queens and transgender women were seen as existing on a continuum, a view that many within the community (like RuPaul or transgender pioneers like Andrea James or Kate Bornstein) still hold. Here, the desire to ‘call out’ perceived offensive behavior won over both unity and freedom of expression, and the only true victor was the fragile ego of political correctness.
Offense is often fallaciously employed as a kind of trump card, used when a controversial topic comes up and the offended party is unwilling or perhaps unable to defend their position. But calling a statement politically incorrect is not an argument: it is a cognitive stop sign, substituting indoctrination for education. Groups like the online activists who were upset with RuPaul should not automatically win the vocabulary turf war on the basis of outrage and offense alone. Common ground on sensitive issues will remain elusive if public conversations are dishonest and indirect, undertaken with the evasive argot of ivory-tower newspeak. Sociology departments are now dedicated to the generation and cyclical regeneration of this bloated lexicon of propriety, a set of words that are ‘okay’ for people to use to define their identity or lifestyle. Deviation from these acceptable words—even by people within the community being discussed—is met with virulent opposition.
The arbitrary delineation of which descriptors are “offensive” and which are not is policed with an unparalleled ferocity, and often only serves to further divide communities that were once unified. Many people identify with and use words that are deemed ‘offensive’ by others, and unilaterally declaring any concept, word, or topic off-limits will no doubt leave some people out of the conversation altogether. This was exactly the case in the RuPaul debacle, where the need to adhere to the arbitrary and ever-changing rules of identity politics split a once united community. The diverse perspectives on this issue is an indication that offense is not universal but personal, and therefore a rather poor reason to dismiss or censor something outright.
The impulse to demand an apology for a perceived slight is a product of the victim mentality, the idea that the world should conform to your own perception of yourself as the fragile victim of an insurmountably oppressive society. This worldview is a trap: your status as a victim is not something to embrace as an identity, but something to reject and overcome. You should seek to strengthen yourself and become more secure in who you are, so that eventually almost nothing can offend you. In doing so, you reclaim the power that was once in the hands of anyone who, in the past, might have easily disturbed or offended you with a simple remark spoken in ignorance. This is not to suggest that people should be able to make any inflammatory remark with impunity, but that all ideas should be freely presented and just as freely challenged. Indeed, the use of any word or rhetoric against any person in particular to deliberately hurt their feelings is a needlessly cruel thing to do, but various perspectives on identity and vocabulary should be respected. In this way all parties are heard, all viewpoints are on the table, and nothing gets swept under the rug.
If I speak to you evasively, constantly afraid to challenge your perspective, then I don’t truly see you as an equal. I see you as some fragile thing beneath me, not a person but the inevitable punch line of a terribly inappropriate joke that I’m trying desperately to avoid. Ask the offensive question, have the uncomfortable conversation, let the dissident speak, publish the radical book, and then have a conversation afterwards if you disagree with what was said or done. Let freedom of speech win, for everyone.
In a truly free society, one cannot expect to never be offended. This is precisely how we learn, how we challenge and better ourselves, how we integrate new information into our worldview. After the aforementioned episode of RuPaul’s drag race aired, debate raged across the internet among young fans of the show, who, in order to take part in the debate, educated themselves in drag and trans history. Unfortunately, the offending segment of the episode has been removed from future broadcast to avoid such debate and controversy, stopping this valuable discourse in its tracks.
The world needs transgressive art for precisely the productive education and conversation in which it can result. Sometimes lines are crossed that have no real intellectual value, poking fun at those who have already suffered enough. But the reality is, for people to truly respect one another, sometimes they also need to offend each other first. This is the price of free speech and—dare I say—it’s not as steep as it has been made out to be.
\\ WINSTON MANN is a graduate student in SEAS and a Staff Writer for The Current. He can be reached at [email protected]. Photo courtesy of www.patheos.com.