Every time I go back home to the heart of Tennessee, I am reminded not only of my pet allergy, but also of the alarming prevalence of casually offensive and offensively casual disrespectful remarks. From offhanded xenophobia to falling back on negative (and, of course, inaccurate) racial and gendered stereotypes, my hometown displays the gamut of ignorant “-isms” and “-phobias.” However, this is not to say residents of Murfreesboro, Tenn., are bad, hateful people; rather, I view much of it as an unfamiliarity with social consciences.
As I witnessed with my own grandparents, years of reinforced homophobia can be eradicated simply by befriending a same-sex couple. What I thought was an intractable internalization of institutional heteronormativity seems to be largely a fear of the unknown. The same could hold true for other instances of cringe-inducing beliefs held by grandparents and young people alike.
My natural instinct when confronted with instances racism, sexism or any other “-ism” is to react emotionally — I become angry, confused, even disgusted. I get offended. Though I do not consider this sort of response unwarranted — or even undeserved — I usually do not get very far with this line of “argumentation.” Involving strong emotions into any debate only opens the doors for incoherency and ad hominem attacks.
This is not to say that I view it as my responsibility to calmly enlighten these offenders of the errors of their ways, à la Kipling. However, we live in a society that has been plagued with decades of systematic gender norms, racism, xenophobia and the ills that come from those practices. I do not expect that to change overnight, nor do I expect it to change absent a rational dialogue, both at the national level and at the interpersonal level.
Considering the pervasiveness of disrespectful and inaccurate sentiments in the media, a national progressiveness alone will not suffice. International and national positive changes will inevitably be politicized, written off as nothing more than “political correctness.” However, social justice is not a political endeavor. It is not about right versus left. It is about right versus wrong. Creating a world where equality is a priority is an incredibly important goal that must gain traction with all people, not just those who vote a particular way.
Accusatory approaches preclude productive dialogue. Reactions usually show a mixture of defensiveness, rationalization and feelings of personal attack, all of which undermine chances of growth and understanding. Flippantly labeling someone as a “racist” (or “sexist,” “homophobe,” et cetera) ignores the very existence of the fraught history and societal structures that inculcated that racism to begin with. An unconscious offensive statement does not prove the depravity of an individual; it reveals that that speaker is a product of his or her environment, something that individual has a responsibility to work to overcome. One should not simply label someone a sexist, for example, for an insensitive remark without addressing how or why the remark is insensitive. Doing so creates a perceived gulf of understanding between the “sexist” and their listener. By allowing this gulf to persist, the listener will never understand why the speaker could believe what they are saying. On the other hand, the speaker can never understand the “political correctness” of those that they might deem “bleeding-heart liberals.” This gulf is unnecessary, and it subverts progressive attempts to change harmful misconceptions.
Though calling out offensive remarks can also function as a benefit to the audience — in acknowledging the existence and unacceptability of such ills — snap judgments that devolve into personal pronouncements do nothing to treat the underlying problem. Some people will never change. Some people are out-and-out discriminatory. However, many people are simply products of misinformation and trickle-down hatred. I in no way condone casual offensive remarks, but labeling a misstep as evidence of conscious racism (or any “-ism”) only results in a tedious combination of semantics and backpedaling in an effort to justify an unjustifiable remark.
