Cat Sanding
Many years ago, I volunteered a few hours after work to help the wood shop teacher at my son’s school. The children had carved various hardwood animals that all needed edges honed with a belt sander the kids were too young to use. I was just supposed to smooth out the marks left by the gouges and create clean lines, but in a few instances, particularly with the smaller figures, I became a bit zealous and over-sanded some of the forms into rather vague, wooden blobs. One moment the object in my hand was very clearly a cat, and the next moment, it was more like a Brancusi abstract. At that time in my life, I was writing a new series of magazine articles and had shared a few drafts with my best friend, who referred to my ardent cat sanding as an apt metaphor for what I had done to one particular revision. I had over-thought and over-edited the edges clean off the original, resulting in a less interesting experience for the reader. Fortunately, one can un-edit written work in a way that one cannot un-sand a wooden cat.
One of the essential, if not most essential, social habits required to preserve the right of free speech, at least as it is presently applied in the U.S., is a universal tolerance of all the uncomfortable, imperfect, even offensive edges that speech can produce. Not only does the right of speech depend on a culture that upholds this principle, but so does diversity of speech from a creative or intellectual perspective. And if we agree that this condition is ideal, then any form of collective intolerance of those edges will presumably have the opposite effect. For instance, we see some evidence of intellectual cat sanding in contemporary academia with efforts to improve upon tradition by, say, de-racializing the works of Mark Twain or demanding that college faculty provide some form of warning label prior to covering material that might “trigger” unpleasant emotions or thoughts among students.
In Part I of this topic, I used the term orthodoxy of tolerance, and it is these phenomena I had in mind. Because when this kind of intellectual cat sanding becomes collective, ideological, and militant enough, it produces a new orthodoxy that oddly enough claims tolerance as its foundation. In turn, this orthodoxy then demands policy that trims the barbs and smoothes the jagged edges from various forms of expression, and apparently this has happened in some institutions. Meanwhile, it is fascinating that these mewling sensitivities in academia have manifest coincident with evidence of “free speech fanaticism,” to quote Doonesbury cartoonist Gary Trudeau from his article The Abuse of Satire for The Atlantic. In this Op-Ed largely focusing on Charlie Hebdo, Trudeau offers his own perspective on the difference between satire and rank provocativeness; and he criticizes the speech absolutist who is blind to such distinctions. “Indeed, one of the nicer things about youthful cluelessness is that it’s so frequently confused with courage,” writes Trudeau.
That’s an interesting way to put it. And for the sake of conversation, we could say we’re seeing the rise of the speech Wimps concurrent with the rise of the speech Bullies, neither of which has anything to do with speech courage. The Wimps don’t want any unpleasantness, regardless of context, while the Bullies are such zealots about speech, that they act as though unpleasantness is the only thing keeping speech alive. “At some point free expression absolutism becomes childish and unserious. It becomes its own kind of fanaticism,” Trudeau writes, summing up, for me anyway, both the Wimp and the Bully in one sentence.
But does any of this answer even part of the thesis question, which is whether or not speech itself is best preserved by more speech alone? When I began these essays, the hypothesis was that the mechanisms that either preserve or threaten free speech function entirely independent of the Internet as a mechanism for more speech. For instance, if a young person is never taught to think about the emotional paradox of embracing uncomfortable speech, it won’t necessarily matter if he and 100 million of his friends all have networked devices or, for that matter, never have them. But it is admittedly difficult to stick to that inquiry alone without considering the effect of the network itself. For instance, if the aforementioned Wimp perspective and Bully perspective become dominant points of view, and social media then provides the platform for each to attain mass and advance an orthodoxy, what happens to tolerance of all the great forms of expression that exist between a sanitized Huckleberry Finn and the mean-spiritedness of bad satire that “punches down?”
Do we fail to produce the next Doonesbury because it’s too edgy for the Wimps and too tame for the Bullies? Not necessarily. But I find these cultural shifts interesting because I suspect the increase in the raw tonnage of speech via social media has had something to do with fostering these views, which do not inherently promote a greater diversity of speech. As suggested in Part I, it is probably more valuable to pay attention to how speech might be changing in the digital age than it is to simply buy the premise that speech is “freer than ever” thanks to networked devices.
I don’t disagree that social media has fostered these views to some extent, but I still think digital technology and the proliferation of social media are, on net, an unambiguous good when it comes to keeping speech free.
The forces of “political correctness” (to use a term that’s less nuanced than I’d like, but probably captures what we are talking about) have been at work since the 90s, long before the popular embrace of the Internet. I have spent most of my life and career in environs that embrace PC to an excessive point that I find distasteful and definitely threatens free of speech.
And throughout this time, my safe haven has been the Internet. On the Internet, you can interact outside your immediate social and professional circle with ease and, even more crucially, you can be pseudonymous or anonymous.
David, you have said things on this blog that would probably get you fired from many elite universities (e.g., comparing copyright infringement to slavery and refusing to acknowledge racist implications of same; refusing to apologize for your use of the word “slut” as a straight cis male). You can say these things under your real name now, but in ten years? Maybe not. And while you could argue that the internet makes it easier to monitor such statements, or dredge up old statements and weaponize them, the internet for many people would represent the only opportunity to make such statements in the first place.
PC culture would exist and, IMO, would be progressing inexorably. with or without the internet. The internet can fan the flames but may also offer our only escape.
Thanks for your thoughts, Ivyundercover. Posts like this one in particular are meant to provoke questions, not draw solid conclusions. Of course political correctness predates the Internet and would exist without it. This is true of many social or psychological phenomena. Still, the Internet changes how these activities are conducted — “fan the flames,” as you say. Though I suspect it’s more profound than simply adding speed and volume to phenomena that would otherwise progress more or less in the same fashion. Maybe several universities would fire me, but what a sad state of affairs that implies about the use of language and context. After all, political correctness itself is very often a politically correct way of saying “dumbing down.”
“Slavery” means forced labor, which means the word itself frequently has no relationship to race in the United States. To believe otherwise is to accept illiteracy in the service of politely bowing to ignorance. In such a climate, is it any wonder I just read an article by a college professor advocating for abandoning paper-writing because general literacy and writing skills have fallen so far below the mark? Meanwhile, for all the lip-service paid to such sensitivities (and the Internet is rife with lip service), what is the state of race relations in America? But no matter what, I wouldn’t apologize for my use because it was neither careless nor insensitive. Though purposely provocative, the context in which it was used in that post was to call people out on their own supposed sensitivities to knowing whence their goods come (i.e. who’s being exploited) while ignoring this aspect of media piracy. People can call that hyperbolic, if they like; but to call it racist is just madness.
Likewise, “slut” is a word that literally refers to a woman in the dictionary and in common usage, and I think it’s unfair that we don’t have a proper masculine equivalent because men are certainly capable of acting like “sluts,” if you will. Again, I made clear in that post that the comment was both lighthearted and gender-neutral, but if context doesn’t count, there’s only so much one can do.
I love language and try pretty hard to use it to convey ideas. I believe very strongly that if certain words are off limits or can be used only by certain groups, this does not make for a society in which it matters much whether or not speech is free because we negate context and connotation, which is where language actually means something in my opinion. Without a population that can tolerate nuance, the powerful win through blunt populism every time. After all, the primary reason we have free speech is to arm the electorate with information and the freedom to exchange ideas in order to hedge against aristocracy and monarchy. To that end, I honestly do not see the “more” of the Internet helping very much — at least not without introducing new hazards worth noting.
You project a possible future in which even my own contextual statements might be subversive enough to be dangerous, at which point the Internet and anonymity will be the only escape route for my thoughts. Perhaps, but wouldn’t that be a free speech disaster? That somehow the only country in the world with the First Amendment, managed to drive its most sacred right underground?
I sincerely appreciate your comment.