Is Sweeping them Under the Carpet Impeding Progress?
There is a beautiful scene in 12 Angry Men where one of the jurors engages in a racist monologue and the other men walk away from the table, one by one, in silent protest. I wondered why it touched me so much and realized that it illustrates the social pressure responsible for much change in acceptable discourse. The opinions so popular in the past, the jokes that used to be appropriate, no longer are because people refuse to listen to them. This, of course, is not true for all types of discrimination and it does not eliminate the underlying perspective... Which makes me wonder; what might we be sweeping under the carpet?
As a gay woman and a long time resident of Toronto I take certain things for granted. I know that in a professional environment nobody will question my sexual orientation or make snide remarks in that regard for fear of serious corrective action. As much as having that kind of freedom from prejudice is a right worth striving for, it begs the question: has political correctness eliminated the dialogue that can actually change minds or is throwing people together and forcing them to get along enough?
The issue of prejudice is infinitely complex. Rhetoric mostly boils it down to ignorance; a likely cause, but how do we combat ignorance? When faced with unpopular, outdated opinions what is the best way to effect change? I've always been one to debate but in North American culture I frequently get the feeling that the cheese stands alone. Is not laughing at an inappropriate joke just a form of avoidance? Could change happen faster if we were willing to privately and publicly engage in discussion of taboo issues? Exposure to other ways of life, other colours of skin or religious backgrounds might not be enough if we refuse to talk about it and really share our private experience.
Building a better society is fraught with competing priorities; what takes precedence freedom of speech or freedom from hateful speech? How do you quantify what constitutes a hate crime when dealing with ideas? It's a slippery slope when the act is measured by another's response to it. A side effect of living in a city as evolved as Toronto is the splintering of causes and perspectives. When the big things in any given area of activism have been won, the focus shifts to the smaller issues and agreement is a lot harder to achieve. I know a lot of feminists, most who identify themselves as such and some who still steer clear of the label despite their feminist perspective. Each of these women has a slightly different threshold for acceptable conversation, a different idea of what's most important in the fight for equality, and different things offend them. If something is offensive to one does that constitute hate speech? What about one hundred? Where and how do we draw the line?
While it's true that there are some things are offensive to all but the most narrow minded is that an appropriate measuring stick? There are ideas we now see as abhorrent that once had majority agreement and, it's likely, that ideas that currently offend only a few will someday become the status quo. Is preventing people from expressing the highly unpopular get us there faster, or is it likely to cause unforeseeable consequences as it festers? Personally, I believe that discourse, both private and public has gotten overly sanitized. In an effort to not offend and aware that you have no way of knowing what will be offensive, we err on the side of caution and miss opportunities for real exchange. We've all had situations where a conversation about an issue, on which we had firmly entrenched views, changed our perspective in a surprising way. We've evolved due to the discourse we're engaged in, or to which we were privy. If we shut the door on further debate, however uncomfortable, where will it lead?
Prejudice obscures the truth and, if it is borne of ignorance, then knowledge and information are our best weapons. However, we have to be secure in our truth to allow it to be challenged, to expose it to the dissent needed for meaningful dialogue. True confidence comes from seeing things clearly and that requires acknowledgement that truth isn't fixed; it's ever changing, it exists in a time and place and is highly subjective. To achieve the evolved truth of tomorrow we need to put today's to the test, stop shielding it from the elements and see if it will withstand even the most turbulent weather - only then can we be secure in its substance.
By Magda Majewska
- Related Articles:
- Movie Review: What Just Happened
- Sarah Palin's Red Shoe Diaries: The Wink Heard Round the World
- Secrets & Lies
- Financial Education, Team Building and Self Confidence in Business.
- Two Truths To Tell Your Young Ones
Add this page to your favorite social bookmarking websites
There is so much fighting in the world, people trying to talk louder over eachother...which is why it's time for change and Justin Trudeau is one of three MP hopefuls calling for change to start in Parliament.
Trudeau has quoted to the media saying the House of Commons discussion sessions are 'disturbing,' 'disappointing,' and 'harmful.' Eveyrone yells practices insults to the opposition speaking. When I watch the sessions on TV, it's sometimes impossible to hear whomever is speaking over all the heckling.
You're right in that we must have meaninful dialogue, but people must also learn to first listen and then understand, while promoting open communication and acceptance of differences in other people and their opinions or ways of life.