‘POLITICAL CORRECTNESS gone mad’. A phrase we have all undoubtedly heard and most likely have uttered a time or two ourselves. Unfortunately, this is an issue which does not seem likely to die and is refusing to leave us all alone. In our new found ‘where there’s a blame there’s a claim’ culture we seem (by the best efforts of Lawyers4U et al) to be descending further into the bland and unobjectionable. People are on high alert about what is said and done, watching themselves and others for hints of the unacceptable, to a point where expression is all too often diluted for fear of offence.
I am careful not to follow the reasoning of the above too closely. I do not propose a mode of freedom of speech permitting racism or discrimination, but unfortunately therein lays the problem. In a situation where boundaries keep moving, where do we find the line separating the acceptable from the disgraceful? In this argument there is little room for a middle ground. The side of the line on which a statement falls can make or break relationships, be the difference between lynching and applause, and determine careers (just ask Glenn Hoddle).
To follow the tenuous links, take football for example; our ‘national game’ which, although not appreciated by all, can be seen to unite the majority for the (increasingly) short spell before knockout. Over recent years British football has altered dramatically. No longer do foreign, black, or British-Asian players need fear the racist treatment experienced by those such as John Barnes in the 1980s. I do not claim that racism has been eradicated from football entirely, but one could say that as much as can be done has been done; an undoubted success for a legitimate ‘political correctness’ claim.
Despite this noble endeavour towards equality, the chant of ‘freak’ still rings in the ears of Peter Crouch. While his football skill may be questioned by some, it is not generally this which defines the abuse, but far more often the effect of his height in setting him apart. Equally, at a time when racism was being vigorously combated, Graeme Le Saux (an English international footballer, like John Barnes before him) was ridiculed for reasons of sexuality by ‘fans’ and players alike. Surprisingly, the only reason Le Saux was ever even considered gay was that, as a footballer, the obligatory stereotype of overt heterosexuality was not ever-present; an irony oddly not appreciated by Graeme.
For those less interested or willing to think in terms of football in the present climate, it may be better to consider the idea in relation to comedy. For as long as the genre has existed, stand-up comedy has been about testing the limits of suitability. The embodiment of this too-close-for-comfort brand can be found in Jimmy Carr, a man notorious for broaching any topic. Be it misogyny, disability or simple yet inevitably effective fat jokes, Carr has set the tone for political incorrectness, priding himself on the kind of comments that cause us to laugh, gasp and feel guilty within the short space of a two-minute reaction time. Hypocrisy drives the comedy and keeps it relevant and, difficult though it may be to comprehend, most of us will laugh at the expense of those different from ourselves. It seems that on the one hand, we enjoy and appreciate the drama and shock value, while with the other we wag the finger at ignorance or idiocy of such views in a different context; can the two ever be compatible?
Can we conclude that some political incorrectness is unacceptable where other guises are not? Is it permissible for example to ridicule on grounds of height where it is not for reasons of ethnicity? Unfortunately we are forced to recognise the fact that hypocrisy is rife; values are transferable and what is right and reasonable is subjective. In such a situation the need is for an element of common sense to the equation. Find the balance between banter and abuse and therein lies the secret; get the balance wrong and don’t look for excuses.
Comment
Have your say, tell us what you think...