Nowadays, it seems impossible to work
an entire week without encountering the weasel word that is ‘diversity’. Business
corporations organize ‘diversity awareness courses’. Public sector agencies
employ ‘Diversity Officers’. My daughter’s university holds an annual
‘Diversity Week’, as do, I presume, most others. This central plank of
political correctness has become ubiquitous.
The first online definition I came
across read as follows:
‘Diversity
awareness is one’s ability to embrace the uniqueness of all individuals along
several dimensions such as race, religious beliefs, ethnicity, age, gender,
physical abilities, political beliefs, and socio-economic status.’
It sounds benign enough. Even so, such elementary
human attitudes used to come under the heading of ‘common courtesy’. Anyone
obliged to attend a ‘diversity training’ event would probably receive careful
instruction regarding tolerance of others and of their respective opinions and
beliefs.
So far, so virtuous – but let us
scratch the surface a little. Imagine participating in a ‘diversity’ seminar,
where the importance of mutual tolerance was repeatedly stressed. Now, suppose
a fellow trainee introduced him or herself as follows:
‘My name is
XXXXX. I am a racist. I believe racism forms the intellectual basis for the
concept of the nation state. Furthermore, I am proudly xenophobic; although I
do not like the word “xenophobic”, as it is a Greek word, and I cannot abide
Greeks … or, for that matter, Italians; and the less said about most other
Europeans, and more so non-Europeans, the better. Today’s young people are
largely devoid of education; elderly folk have an unwarranted sense of
entitlement; and religious devotees are delusional, possibly a consequence of
undiagnosed mental illness. I reject entirely the multicultural ideal. This is
particularly relevant to Islamic culture, which is pervasive and fundamentally
incompatible with the established Western secular way of life. Oh, and lastly,
owing to my unwavering belief in karma, it seems clear that disabled people,
and the disadvantaged in general, had it coming to them.’
This is, of course, a deliberately
controversial caricature, drawn purely to demonstrate a point. If such a case
were made, it would doubtless go down like the proverbial lead brick. Jaws
would hit the floor and eyes would pop out on stalks. Mine certainly would. We
must, however, refer back to the obligatory ‘tolerance’ of others’ views. Should
the aforesaid views, therefore, be tolerated? I would say so, however
unpalatable they might sound. Would they be tolerated
by ‘diversity’ advocates? I think you know the answer to that as well as I do.
Therein lies the inherent hypocrisy of
political correctness. It recommends tolerance of only those views that it finds
tolerable, and is intolerant of views that it considers to be intolerant. This
misguided doctrine thus eats itself, rather like the mythical ouroboros in Egyptian iconography – a
snake or dragon which devours its own tail (Figure 111.1).
Figure 111.1: The word ‘ouroboros’ is
Greek: ‘oura’ = ‘tail’ and ‘boros’ = ‘eating’. The icon even has relevance in
modern science, namely in organic chemistry. (Look up Kekulé’s dream.)
Copyright
expired
The (intentional) consequence of this
(unintentional) self-contradiction is a smothering of legitimate debate,
rhetoric and argument. In an enlightened society, it ought to be possible to
hold an unemotional discussion with someone who fervently disagrees (Figure
111.2). Much truth, after all, begins as heresy; whereas suppression of dissent
allows the perpetuation of falsehood and absurdity. Irrational arguments can be contested and demolished only if they are permitted to be aired in the first place.
Figure 111.2: PC zealots would do well
to remember the wise words of French philosopher Voltaire (1694-1778), who famously
declared: ‘I disapprove of what you say, but would defend to the death your
right to say it.’
Copyright expired
Free speech is the charlatan’s nemesis.
Sadly, it is not the norm worldwide. Most nations are run by autocrats,
theocrats, fascists or barefaced gangsters. People risk punishment by speaking
out of turn. We in the West have – for now – more rights than most. We must,
therefore, decide: do we value freedom of speech and expression, even in their
most repellent forms; or should the contemporary Orwellian ‘thought police’ be
here to stay?
So, the next time you witness
politically-correct, self-styled ‘anti-fascists’ striving to stifle debate (and
true diversity of opinion), you might wish to remind them that they resemble
the likes of Hitler and Franco more closely than they care to imagine.
Copyright © 2017 Paul Spradbery