Sophia Wushanley | Real change is uncomfortable

Another Look | Worthwhile political discussions don’t exclude the possibility of difficult emotions

By Sophia Wushanley 03/01/15 11:05pm

In Jonathan Chait’s recent article for New York Magazine, he criticizes what he calls “p.c. culture”: the new left’s tendency to take offense and its preference for censorship over open debate.

Pieces like this often assert that “p.c. culture” poses a threat to freedom of expression in society as a whole. While I find the claim that this cultural phenomenon is a threat to our First Amendment rights to be fear-mongering at worst and hyperbolic at best, I can see why critiques like this one capture the public’s attention.

Articles that denounce political correctness strike a chord because they identify a troubling attitude that exists among certain pockets of social activists online and on campuses — an attitude that that tells us we have a right not to be distressed, that sees offense and discomfort as a kind of violence.

With the internet as a political platform, the emergence of this ultra-sensitive attitude makes sense. It’s increasingly possible to avoid exposing ourselves to viewpoints that oppose our own. It’s easy to frequent only the news sites you agree with, to find a community of people online that shares your niche political view, to block your racist relative’s Facebook posts from your newsfeed.

Just as we have the ability to tailor the images we project online, we also have the ability to tailor the information we see. And if you’re surrounded only by opinions you agree with 90 percent of the time, that other 10 percent that leaks in can feel like an assault.

We even use this kind of language to describe it. When someone is criticized on social media, we often say they’re “attacked.” The commonly used term “safe space,” which forbids the expression of certain offensive attitudes, contains the implicit assumption that some words and ideas are unsafe — that being exposed to them is tantamount to suffering a kind of harm.

But why is it a problem to have this kind of mindset?

It asks us to avoid the kinds of substantive discussions that allow us to question our views, influence our ideological opponents and move the discussion forward. Steering away from discomfort and offense when it comes to controversial issues tends to bring meaningful debate to a screeching halt.

This is because, in general, debate about issues with as much gravity as sexism, racism and homophobia evokes strong emotions. When we attempt to keep these emotions out of politically active spaces, we’re required to ban the dialogue that gives rise to them. Ironically, it seems to have been decided that these issues are too serious for us to seriously debate them.

People who believe that it constitutes a real harm to be exposed to an opinion they find bigoted will never feel safe in the sort of conversation that needs to be had the most: one that actually engages with the opposition.

The result of this attitude is division, not change. Smaller and smaller “safe” bubbles of ideological homogeneity are formed, and everybody shouts in the general direction of other people’s bubbles without risking the danger of stepping outside their own. No one is convinced to change, only to identify which side they’re on.

People inside these groups may feel more secure because they won’t be forced to defend their viewpoints to the people who disagree with them the most — the offensive-belief-holders on the outside — but this makes it seem like there’s been progress where there has more likely been a regressive shutting down of the whole discussion.

It creates an illusion of a safer, more tolerant world, when in reality it’s simply a more polarized one. The rest of the world is still out there, the only difference is that we’re not engaging in a dialogue with it.

And that’s a shame, because pretending an idea doesn’t exist, or refusing to acknowledge it, or dismissing it as unreasonable doesn’t stop people from having that idea, and it certainly doesn’t stop that idea from having an effect on the larger world.

Real progress requires doing the opposite; it requires shutting down the idea rather than shutting out the people who espouse it. It requires the uncomfortable work of trying to change people’s minds rather than asking them to leave.

SOPHIA WUSHANLEY is a College senior from Millersville, Pa., studying philosophy. Her email address is wsophia@sas.upenn.edu. “Another Look” appears every other Monday.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.