Commentators

Partly Sunny with Showers 21° London Hi 22°C / Lo 12°C

Terence Blacker: Our culture is just as censorious as it ever was

It is no longer swear-words that have the power to offend but inappropriate thoughts

Tuesday, 24 June 2008

At the end of his rackety and eventful life, George Carlin, the US comedian and hero of the counter-culture, has been best remembered for seven words. In 1972, while performing in Milwaukee, he delivered a comic routine which caused him to be arrested for disturbing the peace. The monologue "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television" was later the subject of a Supreme Court judgment, upholding the right of government to prosecute television and radio stations for broadcasting material deemed to be offensive.

So when Carlin died from a heart attack at the weekend, the headlines were predictable. "Seven Dirty Words Comedian Dies, 71," read one.

Three decades on, those anxious to protect us all from filthy talk in the media are as busy as ever, but most of us are more relaxed about language. The words listed by Carlin, too predictable to list here, can be heard ad nauseam by those sad enough still to be tuning in to Big Brother.

Yet no one could seriously claim that our culture has become less censorious. Beyond the rude words, which now cause the merest frisson of surprise, there are areas which, by a more subtle process than legislation, have, over time, become out of bounds. In an age when taking offence has become a cultural pastime, a process of gentle, fuzzy self-censorship has become established. It is no longer swear words that have the power to offend, but inappropriate thoughts.

For example, when did someone last dare to suggest in open debate that feelings – the feelings of ordinary people – are often completely irrelevant when it comes to public policy? Ever since the British discovered the dangerous pleasures of shared, public emotion, reason has become suspect. Politicians, obliged to show their soft and caring side, now play down the very strengths which any decent leader should possess – the ability to think coolly and rationally. You are as likely to hear a minister or shadow minister dismissing emotion and arguing for judgement and reason as you were in the 1970s to hear one of George Carlin's dirty words on Last Of The Summer Wine. Sentimentality rules, and anyone who disagrees is a cold-hearted rationalist.

There are more specific no-go areas. Thanks to a careful rewriting of recent history, the invasion of Iraq is now treated as if it was foisted on the British people by the brutal and ruthless Blair government. In fact, it was rather widely supported at the time, although it suits us to forget the fact. Soldiers are still dying today but the debate is over; it is as if only a tiny handful of people believe in the Iraqi cause any more, and they happen to be running the country. For their part, the media are too bored or embarrassed to address the issue. The war has become a non-subject.

Television reflects back at us our deepest confusions and anxieties, most obviously in matters of race. Is the colour of a person's skin important? In the reporting of gang behaviour, it is not. When one contestant on a reality show addresses another as "nigger", she is expelled from the show amid an orgy of hand-wringing. On the other hand, an entire episode of South Park whose plotline revolves around the same word can be broadcast without the slightest worry.

Occasionally, as in the recent appointment of Paul Ince as manager of Blackburn Rovers Football Club, the awkwardness which surrounds the subject of race becomes evident. The first black manager of a Premiership team is, on the face of it, a worthwhile story but, because colour should no longer be an issue for serious people, there was a sense of uneasiness in the television reports, an embarrassment that such a thing had to be covered at all. There are other more obvious problem areas. No writer or director who wishes to remain employed will include a scene in which a character lights a cigarette, inhales contentedly and sighs, "Ah, that's better." Yet other addictions are actively and cheerfully encouraged.

A group mindset extends into the most trivial of areas. Why have newsreaders become so grand, with Sir Trevor McDonald or Huw Edwards taking on the rather peculiar role of father figures to the nation? Who was it that decided that Dame Judi Dench is the greatest actress of her generation, or that Stephen Fry is the most brilliant man to appear on television, or that Dawn French is hilariously and endearingly funny?

The group wisdom about such things, and the way certain topics and points of view become inappropriate, are part of the same faintly sinister process. The obscenity law may be marginally more relaxed than it was in George Carlin's heyday, but self-imposed controls and constraints exert a firm, suffocating grip.

terblacker@aol.com

Interesting? Click here to explore further

Comments

18 Comments

Peekon - oh the specious weasel words you come out with show you are familiar with local council policies for sure!

So, as we heard today, we must 'reflect the diversity' of society, even if that means being racist against white people and sexist against men - THIS is part of the so-called 'values' one must sign up to if working for a council, a college, the BBC etc. To 'share its views ' and values eh?

BUT those values are wrong - and if one says so one doesn't get the job or misses out on promotion - and they will try to destroy you!

So if, as a teacher, or a worker for the state/BBC, you disagree with the policy of so-called 'postive action' (ie blatant discrimination against men and white people), you will be sacked or forced out and accused of racism/sexism. If you think the diversity obsession is nonsense, you'll be called racist too. Bullying in other words.

Those values are the values of totalitarianism - they are NOT my values. THAT is the subtle fascsim of PC.

Posted by Mikey Moo | 26.06.08, 10:13 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

Following on from my earlier comment

One of the characteristics of organisations is to try and get all people it comes into contact with (employees, partners, customers, clients, friends etc) to share its views and behave in ways that compliment its own values. Therefore if you stand against this you can be criticised, ostracised, bullied and so on

But this isn't unique to views that are generally considered to be politically incorrect. The comment by dogsolitude is astute - there is a variety of dominant views depending on the situation and grouping you're in

Equally people should be comfortable with being challenged if they express a view. If you express a view that someone thinks is racist they have as much right to say so as you do to make the statement in the first place - to be accused of racism isn't by itself oppression

And, as always, context is all, hence the difference between the BB contestant and South Park that Blacker refers to

Posted by Peekon | 25.06.08, 10:28 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

Peekon - the sun, express, mail and telepraph to not express 'non-PC' views - they express conservative views, but are PC too in for example not publishing the mohummed cartoons. You do not understand what PC (or fascist) means, obviously - the opposite of PC is NOT BNP support and fascism. PC IS the fascism - because it tells you how to think and then punished you if you dare to go against the party line. People on blogs express what they are not allowed to express in the media, until the PC BBC closes its message boards of course... As a council employee you'll be wasting lots of money on diversity training and celebrating difference I presume?

Dogsolitude is correct in his recommendation to stop groupthink and welcome diversity of opinion. I agree. But if one tries thinking for oneself and going against PC orthodoxy in many jobs (eg teaching) one will damage one's career - one may even get sacked. They will try to destropy you for holding your belief. ie Fascsim.

Posted by Mikey Moo | 25.06.08, 09:44 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

Mikey Moo - after 15 years of working in Local Government and the Civil Service (the so called bastions of the PC Brigade) I can assure you that "non-PC" comments, beliefs and actions are alive and well at all levels of these organisations.

The Mail, Sun, Express and Telegraph seem perfectly capable of publishing "non-PC" beliefs every day.

The Blog discussions on the Independent and Guardian websites are full of "non-PC" comments.

The BNP is a legal party and is allwed to promulgate its views (to a wider audience than it was 20 years ago in the no-platform of fascist parties days).

Gordon Brown can promise "British Jobs for British People". David Cameron can claim that lack of money is a "symptom" of poverty rather than the cause (which are apparently alcohol, drugs, gambling and worklessness).

Just a few examples of how we aren't (yet) living in a fascist state. At least not one which only allows PC thoughts to be expressed

Posted by Peekon | 25.06.08, 09:21 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

It's funny, but I've never felt censored.

Mind you I don't watch TV or read many newspaper opinion columns, so I'm not continually being told that Political Correctness is stifling my thought. Nor do I work in the media, so if I voice an opinion nobody will usually bother to comment.

We really have to take a good long hard look at our own attitudes: to what extent do *you* censor others? A lot of the time people will fall into line with an opinion they believe will be shared by their mates down the pub, or colleagues at work.

We all contribute to this 'groupthink' in society, and we can undo it by thinking for ourselves and encouraging diversity of opinion. And most importantly perhaps: not taking it personally if someone disagrees with us!

By doing this we can start to foster open and honest, calm and rational debate about issues.

Posted by dogsolitude_uk | 24.06.08, 21:10 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

Peekon - No, you are very wrong. Having visited both communist and fascist countries I can assure you that the totalitarianism - the party-line oppressive anti-freedom-of-thought thinking - and the methods used by the PC elite and jobsworths and bureaucrats in the UK today are exactly the same as the techniques used by fascism/communism. They will hound and persecute those who disagree with their dogma - destroy people's lives by ostracising them and killing their spirit.

PC Fascism is as authoritarian and opposed to free thinking as old schools fascism (or communism - they are the same really). Gulags and concentration camps followed later in fascism or communism - the destruction of people's spirits and careers came first. I'm not insulting anyone - your precious self-righteous attitude is offending my intelligence though...

Try being a teacher/academic and having an opinion that doesn't follow the part line (eg on race and IQ) and see what happens.

Posted by Mikey Moo | 24.06.08, 16:07 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

G.L.Samson: Atrocity is exactly the word. And as you say, it is unforgiveable, but how many will prefer to "move on" so they can vote for their favoured party again? The Labour and Conservative parties should be political pariahs for any decent British person, after what they have done to Iraq.

We will soon be encouraged to think Iraq is a "success" after all, as a sectarian government establishes itself in power, out of the rubble and ruins, and built upon the ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis of Baghdad. Never mind the hundreds of thousands of innocent dead - they are in the past, now.

And watch somebody try to claim we are hijacking this article with our personal obsession, notwithstanding it was Blacker who first tried to slip through a bit of gratuitous propaganda.

There should be no forgetting and no forgiveness for the perpetrators of the atrocity in Iraq, and we should have no tolerance for those in the media who are their apologists, either.

Posted by Randal Cousins | 24.06.08, 15:07 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

Why gratuitously insert offensive propaganda on Iraq into an otherwise interesting article?

To correct Blacker's mis-direction, note that British support for attacking Iraq without a UN resolution (there wasn't one, remember?) never amounted to a substantial majority except after it became clear our so-called leaders were set upon it and the British "support the troops no matter how mis-led" mentality came into play.

And it is fatuous to consider such support as there was without taking into account the erroneous information upon which that support was, in large part, based.

As for "foisted", does Blacker really think more than a crackpot or fanatic minority of Britons would have supported the idea of going to war had it not been for the constant drumbeat of propaganda from the Blair government (endless, now almost comical, rubbish about a supposed "imminent threat" from Iraq)?

Posted by Randal Cousins | 24.06.08, 14:56 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

By the way Paul Ince is the first British black premiership football manager - that was the chief media interest

Posted by Peekon | 24.06.08, 14:29 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

Mikey Moo - to compare political correctness to fascism is blatantly preposterous. Where are the concentration camps and gulags that have been set up to imprison and torure the non-PC?

There certainly are potential threats to freedom of thought and expression posed by recent legislation and it may be the thin end of the wedge (or it may not) but to call it fascism is a gross insult to the millions of people who have lived, died and still live in fascistic regimes.

I agree that rational debate is persistently closed down by people who choose to throw irrational bile and extreme statements at a subject to disarm their opponents or are too lazy to construct a real argument. Unfortunately your post is just another example

Posted by Peekon | 24.06.08, 13:57 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

18 Comments

Columnist Comments

deborah_orr

Deborah Orr: Be afraid. Be very afraid.

But try not to forget that fear is the enemy

howard_jacobson

Howard Jacobson: Slow down. And take a good long look

Today I write in praise of what used to be called concentration

andrew_grice

Andrew Grice: Obama shows how to reconnect with the people

Cameron and Clegg seem more alive to the need to clean the Commons up


Most popular in Opinion