Philosophers are fond of making distinctions. For example, I am careful to point out the difference between “need” and “want” in explaining that many of the things we insist we need are simply things we want. Such distinctions can go a long way toward clarifying our thinking and helping us to see our way through a tangle of words, show the fly the way out of the milk bottle in Wittgenstein’s delightful image. Many years ago Bertrand Russell wrote an essay in which he made a distinction between “use” and “mention.” He noted the vast difference between using a word, say an offensive word, and simply mentioning that same word. Thus if I say “Judy is fat” I am using a word that many people find offensive, especially Judy. If I say “Fred said that Judy is fat” I am merely mentioning the offensive term and the difference is important and fundamental. But we have lost sight of this distinction, especially in academia where political correctness demands that we neither use nor mention offensive terms — words that might possibly be found offensive to someone else.
Some years ago I wrote an article for a professional journal in which I defended Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness against the libel of the novelist and critic Chinua Achebe who insisted that people avoid Conrad’s novella altogether because it and its author are both “racist.” He made that claim on the grounds that in the novella Conrad plays fast and loose with the word “nigger,” which is almost certainly one of the most offensive terms in our language. My defense was based on the point that when a novelist like Conrad used the term he put it in the mouth of a seaman at the turn of the last century who would most assuredly use the term without giving it a second thought. The novel is not “racist” because Conrad is simply telling a story in which the term is used by his narrator. Conrad himself is simply mentioning that fact. Again, the distinction Russell made is key here. Conrad is not a racist, nor is his novella. His narrator may have been, but the charge cannot be laid at the feet of the novelist.
But, as I have said, this distinction is lost on those who would protect victims from words they might find offensive. And while I respect the motivation that has led us to this point — to protect sensitive people and avoid hurting their feelings — it is clear that the situation has become extreme and is now putting a cramp on communication at so many levels. In addition, of course, everyone now claims to be a victim. It is especially problematic in our colleges and universities where this sensitivity to others’ feelings has become excessive. As a result, according to a recent (9/15) essay in The Atlantic, “the new political correctness is ruining education.” In addition to ignoring the distinction between use and mention and insisting that any and all uses (or mentions) of certain words must desist (or else!), officials and students themselves in a great many institutions of higher education also wave the red flag at what are called “trigger warnings.”
“For example, some students have called for warnings that Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart describes racial violence and that F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby portrays misogyny and physical abuse, so that students who have been previously victimized by racism and domestic violence can choose to avoid those works which they believe might “trigger” a recurrence of past trauma.”
Now, clearly the motivation of those who call for this sort of avoidance cannot be called into question. But this concern is clearly out of control. Those who would teach are denied the opportunity to free young minds and open them up to the world around them which, unfortunately, is a source of a great deal of discomfort. Clearly, the use of offensive language is different from the mention of those words that might possibly offend. We need to recall that distinction and move past this sort of censorship, remaining sensitive to others’ feelings, but not so concerned that we cannot say or write what needs to be said and written. However, the Atlantic article notes that concern over political correctness and trigger warnings has created a bleak atmosphere on college campuses across the nation.
“The current movement is largely about emotional well-being. More than [concern over political correctness], it presumes an extraordinary fragility of the collegiate psyche, and therefore elevates the goal of protecting students from psychological harm. The ultimate aim, it seems, is to turn campuses into ‘safe places’ where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make them uncomfortable. And more than [P.C.], this movement seeks to punish anyone who interferes with that aim, even accidentally. You might call this impulse vindictive protectiveness.”
And this despite the fact that making young adults “uncomfortable” is precisely what they need in order to become educated persons. As Jerry Seinfeld has noted in refusing to perform on college campuses because of the atmosphere of “vindictive protectiveness,” we need to keep our sense of humor. And we also need to keep our sense of balance before we fall off the edge of an increasingly small platform of politically correct terms that doesn’t allow us to say what needs to be said or read what needs to be read in order to provide students with the education they so desperately require in an increasingly confusing world.
This is an excellent piece. I am reminded of the relatively recent flack over “Huckleberry Finn” and “To Kill a Movkingbird,” two of America’s greatest novels. The N word is of vital importance to show the bigotry and racism of the times. They show in a vulgar way how we should not act. Sanitizing the vulgarity would sanitize the extremity of the revulsion.
Indeed. How will the young ever learn to deal with the real world if we continue to shield them from it and pretend it isn’t there?
Thanks for sharing your excellent thoughts here. Your point about shielding sensitive minds from possible trigger terms and words is well taken. Although I understand the good intentions, the loss of expansion of thought and vision is a high price to pay.
We continue to lose vision and scope in our thinking and understanding for a variety of reasons. My personal crusade is the reduction in those actually reading books and expanding their minds through the written word.
A very close friend’s son had a full ride scholarship to a top notch high school prep school, and 4 years at Santa Clara University on a full ride scholarship. He is very bright and graduated with honors.
But during a recent visit, he could recite the plots and criticisms of a number of current and past movies. When I asked him if he had read any good books lately, there was a stonewall silence. What a loss.
Protecting us, and I think its censorship in its worst form, from offensive thoughts and words, such as “nigger” does us harm in the long run. If we don’t understand the offense, and its context, whats to prevent its reoccurrence? I think we’ve seen a number of instances of the offensive usage just in the last 7 years in the most foul attacks on Obama.
Your friend’s son is not an exception, sad to say. This ,as they say, is the “digital” age and books are not exciting enough for today’s youth, it would seem. But it goes back to your point on a previous post: teachers (and parents) need to buck the trend and put books in the hands of the kids and demand that they read and comprehend.
To your other point, it is indeed censorship. And it goes well beyond the walls of academe.
thankyou for this very insightful essay. It chimes with many of my thoughts. I was brought up in Central Africa,mat the time closely aligned with Apartheid South Africa, and the word kafir, if anything, waa even more malignant than the term nigger is today. I was surprised to read a book written in 1914 in which the term was used merely as one to indicate the racial origin of a group of the narrators friends, and realised that words mean what you intend them to mean. A term used in a derogatory manner becomes offensive,must as I watched the word native go from a neutral word for the original Africans to become a term of abuse. It seems any discriminatory word in the wrong hands goes bad. This comes back to your point,mint is the intention, not the word that is evil. You describe it so well.
Sorry about the typos
No problem. And many thanks for the added perspective. As you say, meaning so often depends on the context.