WHERE’S THIS COUNTRY THEY WANT?
If you've read this blog before you maybe aware that I sometimes have a bit of fun winding up right wingers on Twitter. And having the occasional rant about how the far right is managing to assume some form of political respectability in the UK. In doing so I have made efforts to understand the mindset of some of the people holding these views, although the levels of abuse I frequently receive make it difficult to sustain any reasonable level of discussion. They do seem to very angry people!
What is clear is that several themes keep recurring, several phrases get repeated over and over and often crop up in Twitter bios. The fact that these phrases appear to have little real meaning is no deterrent to their regular usage. There are three in particular that intrigue me.
One that I see time and again is "I want my country back". Really? Where has it gone? Did somebody move it while you were sleeping? In the pantheon of senseless phrases this one gets an A rating. How exactly is this mysterious country 'theirs'? Why do they think it's no longer there?
Well the country is still there, exactly where it was. If they were born in it, and still live in it, then it is their country. It's not like somebody can suddenly nick it, or declare that this person no longer belongs. So they must mean something else, something they don't really want to say out loud....
How about "political correctness"? I see that one a lot too. Political correctness is destroying their country (we've been here before...). Political correctness is ruining their way of life, preventing free speech, sending the country into ruin, destroying a way of life. And, once I've stopped laughing, I'm still none the wiser. What exactly is this political correctness of which you speak? The term originated in the mid twentieth century to describe the dogma of extremist left wing politics. It has morphed, as language does, into right winger speak for language which seeks to be inclusive and to replace words which have historically alienated minority groups and encouraged the persistence of bigotry. If encouraging the abandonment of a word like 'spastic' counts as politically correct then count me in as PC. Although I think of it more as human decency and common sense.
Recently we've seen the overuse of that catch all phrase "traditional marriage". It got aired a lot during the run up to the introduction of the Act which brought in (some) equal marriage rights for same sex couples. And once again I have had to look puzzled at its appearance. Because I wonder which tradition these people think they are referring to? The usual line is that marriage has always been between one man and one woman. Err.... no it hasn't.
Same sex marriages have been common practice in many societies across the ages, including Christian ones. So maybe 'tradition' isn't supposed to go back that far? Perhaps they want the eighteenth or nineteenth century traditions back? In which marriage was frequently used to cement inter family relationships, establish lines of inheritance, and where a woman was regarded as the property of her husband, with few rights of her own. Maybe that's the tradition these men (and they are almost always men) would like to stay with? The one in which even that great advocate of social reform and human rights, Charles Dickens, could treat his wife as a chattel, an object to be manipulated for his benefit, moving her out of his (and her) home to make way for his young mistress and separating her from most of her children. Yes, marriage certainly has some wonderful traditions.
The concept of marrying purely for love, as a decision to be taken by the two people involved, is largely a mid twentieth century construct. It is an institution which has been evolving rapidly, in social terms at least, with the legislation struggling to keep up with developments. Like all social structures it needs to keep up with the mores of the time, not be held back by supposed 'tradition'.
And there's the nub of this piece. All three of the phrases I've mentioned have one common theme - a resistance, indeed a fear of, change. Change in the social fabric of society, change in the language, change in our institutions. It's an attitude born of a deep cowardice, a childish desire for their own little universe to remain exactly as it was, a failure to grow up and face the world as it is.
These people get angry because they haven't managed to keep up with the rest of us. "Their" country is still there, still evolving, as it always has. Britain is, was, will be, an island of immigrants and emigrants and has always been in a state of constant flux. That's not to say that all is perfect, that all change is ultimately for the best. But progress, the word that best describes the dominant theme of human history, is not a linear process, it is not a join the dots exercise. It is many things, it has multiple strands, and it does not stand still. For anyone. Living with progress isn't easy, but who said being human should be?
Which is why language changes, alters meanings, evolves new words and discards others. That is what language is for, this is how it works, changing to match the changes in society, in beliefs, in our understanding of the physical universe. And in finding ways for human beings to treat other better. Show me the person who expresses resentment of so-called 'political correctness' and I'll show you someone afraid to recognise their own bigotry. A person who fears anything that appears to be different from them (aka 'the rest of the world'....).
Difference. Change. The stuff of life. They are the keys to interest, imagination, knowledge, wisdom. If you come across anyone who say they want their country back, complain that your language is politically correct, or bemoan the the demise of some mythical tradition of marriage, you are witness to someone who lives in fear. We should feel a little sorry for them, try to help them adapt to a world in which they feel like outsiders, in which they often make themselves the enemies of the best things in life. Help them to embrace change (whilst having a quiet laugh at the irony that so much of their moaning is conducted through that greatest of all instruments for change, the internet!), to realise that 'the country' belongs to anyone who takes part, who swims with the current of progress and doesn't want to keep their feet stuck in the mud.
Now I wonder who's going to be the first person to tell me that what I've written falls within the mysterious remit of 'political correctness'?
No comments:
Post a Comment