Lot's Wife Edition 6 2015

POLITICS 11
The Tumblr page ‘Your Fave Is Problematic’ is a perfect
example of how political correctness can be undermined.
The blog’s purpose is to name celebrities who have done or
said something that is offensive or inappropriate. Reading
through the site, there were some outright awful things that
celebrities have done which they should be accounted for.
However, there were also cases where they called out actions
that happened while an actor was in character, which may
not be their actual opinions. There were also times where
actions are perhaps in a bit of a grey area, or missteps that
were likely to be a genuine mistake. We shouldn’t necessarily
excuse them for such missteps, but I find the concept
of labelling somebody as ‘problematic’ concerning. Sure,
someone may do or say something that is inappropriate
or problematic- does it make their entire existence
‘problematic’- not necessarily.
I also found myself asking, who are these people who run
this Tumblr? What authority do they have to decide who
is and who is not problematic? If it turns out that the 6
anonymous individuals who run the site are all cis-gendered,
white, straight, non-disabled, middle class, and otherwise
‘privileged’ people, I’d be disappointed. Despite how much
the blog stresses that they exist for the safety of minority
groups it feels more like the moderators (and followers) of
the blog are concerned more about their personal status,
ensuring that they have some moral high-ground, rather than
genuinely fighting for the safety of a minority group. And
frankly, I’m not keen on these people fighting my fights for
me.
Cultural appropriation is a highly discussed issue, and we
have a tendency to assume that there is a general consensus
on issues, when there may not be. This can certainly be
alienating for People of Colour who have ideas and opinions
may vary to the mainstream. There are certainly cases of
general consensus - Native American inspired headdresses is
a great example. However there is discourse and dissent with
many other issues in different communities- and this is not
a bad thing. An example of where there may not be a general
consensus is the Bindi. In her 2014 Huffington post article,
Anjali Joshi argues;
‘We can’t accuse non-Hindus of turning the bindi into a fashion
accessory with little religious meaning because we [Hindu’s] have
already done that... the 5,000 year old tradition of adorning my
forehead with kumkuma [coloured powder traditionally used to
adorn the forehead] just doesn’t seem to align with the current
Bindi collection in my dresser designed to perfectly complement my
outfit. I didn’t pick up these modern day Bindis at a hyper-hipster
spot... This lot was brought from the motherland itself.’
Furthermore, the debate is not just about who can and
cannot wear a bindi- there are other arguments to factor
in, and these arguments generate a range of questions;
how do we define a Bindi? Is any kind of jewelled stick-on
accessory worn on the forehead a Bindi? Is it possible to have
any accessory on the forehead, without any appropriation?
Are there different rules for non-Hindus wearing traditional
Bindis (ie, kumkuma powder Bindis) and modern Bindis?
This is not to say that the opinions of those who say that
it’s inappropriate for non-Hindus to wear Bindis are invalid.
However to say that there is a consensus on this issue, and
every facet of this issue is incorrect, and it’s important to
acknowledge that there is a wide range of issues in the
community. Dissent about issues like this isn’t unhelpful
either, these discussions are important for minority groups
to discuss what is important, what is inappropriate and so
forth. And let’s be honest- minority groups having general
consensus on these issues, any minority and any issue, only
favours members of privileged majorities who want to fit into
a moral high-ground for the sake of their own political status.
Finally, content or trigger warnings. Personally I think that
these warnings when used correctly are fantastic. Not only for
people who may have specific mental health triggers, but for
mainstream audiences these warnings are helpful for people
to choose what they want to read (if someone is having a
bad day, they might not want to read an article with a trigger
warning). However I have seen how these warnings have been
misused or overused, which unfortunately renders these
warnings meaningless.
I feel that the key issue is context and audience- if you are
sharing an article in a group that is a space for people who
are affected by particular issues, or if it’s a group of people
from a specific community, use as many trigger warnings as
you want. If you are sharing something with a mainstream
audience, use these warnings sparingly.
Overuse is dangerous. I’ve definitely had times where I
have read something that was perhaps more heavy than
I thought it would be with a warning which I overlooked,
because that warning had been overused. The issue is that
the meaning behind particular warnings can be incredibly
vague. For example, a warning for ‘murder’ could mean
anything from someone saying that they were murdered, a
vague discussion about murder the weapon and situation, or
graphic details of a murder and possibly images of the crime
scene. For mainstream audiences, the reactions to these
discussions will vary from something they are desensitized
by, to something that is completely shocking.
The other concern (usually from right wingers) is if
trigger warnings be used as a way to censor opinions; it’s
an awful thing to admit, but at times they can. It is not the
intent of such warnings, however these warnings can be
misused- which does threaten unbiased reporting. Similarly,
it’s about context and audience. It’s entirely appropriate to
warn for homophobia and transphobia in a safe space for
LBGTIQ people, or for a magazine or paper that particularly
caters to that niche, however it pushes the censorship line
a little when warnings for generally disgusting opinions
(homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism) were to be used in
the media more broadly, it would certainly threaten unbiased
reporting, even if these opinions are generally, and rightfully
rejected.
So now you can ask yourself; is your political-correctness
problematic? Political correctness done properly means
ensuring that everyone can participate in discussions safely,
that everyone has an informed choice to even join such a
discussion, and that this discussion is diverse. Political
correctness should be about human decency, and being kind
to others, it should not be about political gain, or ensuring
that you have a reputation of being a ‘nice person’.
BY JULIA PILLAI