The “politically correct” or PC world came knocking on my door in the late 90’s when I was getting my doctorate in critical pedagogy. Our multi-cultural co-hort full of smart and interesting people, ascribed to the notion that searching for language that would not offend was one of our critical goals. In my opinion they spent way too much time trying to figure out which group had experienced the most marginalization, instead of focusing on how to go about eliminating discrimination. One day I specifically remember that I whispered under my breath that I was disappointed that my classmate, just called on, was going to take a long time answering a question. My motivation? It was 1 pm, I was hungry. I just wanted them to hold their question till after the break. I was called out for being a racist by a white co-hort member who was trying very hard to be the most PC in the class.
The focus on political correctness has only made us less resilient problem solvers, for every story has both a small and larger focus. Every story has a history and will only have a better future if it is grappled with in the context of ethical improvement for the short and long term.
When the politically correct police silence people, they get a temporary feeling of euphoria that they have accomplished something. But it is a destructive act. They have only taken a broad judgmental brush and canceled what they determine is a ‘bad’ opinion. Making people afraid to speak their minds is not only undemocratic and even fascist, it does nothing to improve the issue at hand. It has only gotten worse in the 18 years since they put a Dr. before my name. It is now CC or cancel culture and is reminiscent of the “love it or leave it” chants of the sixties. I am learning a hard lesson. The “left” can be equally obstinate and steadfast that they own the only truth on the block. Shutting out other voices, they know to be sincere, is hurting their own cause.
Instead I would like to offer a different approach and perhaps to coin a new word: “E.C.T.” stands for Ethical Critical Thinker. We need to rid ourselves of the PC world and adopt an E.C.T approach. First, we have to be ethical which means we have to have the goal of improving the world in a way that causes the least harm. The second is that we must consider all aspects of a problem in both the short and long term. We must realize that we rarely get a perfect choice, just a better one. To the best of our ability and with the latest scientific information, we need to consider the long-term consequences of our actions for us and our rapidly deteriorating biosphere.
To be PC is like painting a rotting house with a fresh coat of paint. It temporarily may look better, but it still rots from within. If you are E.C.T. you do not rush to judge. You try to listen to everyone’s story. You ask critical questions and look out for impacts to those other than yourself and your species. An E.C.T.person also realizes that the personal and global goals can be diametrically opposed to one another at the same time and that dynamic needs a deep dive if it is ever going to resolved.
An E.C.T. person does not think quick fixes for long entrenched problems are ever a good idea. An E.C.T. person also tries to link our problems to false narratives which have to be questioned at their core. An E.C.T. person sees a lot of gray in issues yet also knows when something is intrinsically evil and must be stopped in its tracks. To truly be an ethical critical thinker is to avoid jumping on to the current bandwagon which haven’t fully been vetted.
It seemed like a great idea when Canada geese were brought into a suburban nature center in the 70’s until they did so well, they started flying into airplanes. It seemed that DDT worked well to kill off pests until its residue endangered raptors. We can’t always know the consequences of our actions, but we can try to forecast impacts before they are initiated so we can avoid expensive fixes in the future.
I have been to many ribbon-cutting ceremonies for large corporate developments with smiling officials getting whiplash for patting themselves on the back for a job well done. An E.C.T. person would wonder, what about the traffic that will bring to our area? They would question the further demand on the limited local water supply and the wisdom of the bribery of delayed taxes (TIF financing) that corporations were given, delaying any tax benefit to city coffers. An E.C.T. person would wonder where the wildlife was supposed to live and what kind of energy demand the new structure would make and add to our global emissions. A countering PC person would deny their right to even ask these critical questions, wondering why they want to stop progress and all of its “benefits”.
I may start my overpopulation talks in the future with something like this. “I am an ECT person, and as an Ethical Critical Thinker I am here today to invite you to explore a different way out of many of our problems. The issue I am bringing up has been thrown under the bus so many times by the PC police that it has deep tire treads all over it making it taboo for all but the most determined activists. But I would like to ask rhetorically, how is that working for us? Hopefully you too want to be open to a broader context of why we cannot seem to get ahead on environmental issues. If you can join me using this E.C.T. approach, perhaps we can get there together. That is what I want to say to the loud critics of the profound film Planet of the Humans. Filmmaker Jeff Gibbs has a perspective that is worth discussing in an open and non-judgmental way. His film is an invitation to rethink our assumptions, which is what all movements and cutting-edge films are trying to do. An E.C.T. person listens and asks questions, they do not accept any idea at first blush, nor do they cancel it in an act of pure cowardice.
An E.C.T. person knows how to prioritize their time and efforts. They know that debating the kind of sunscreen used by passengers on the boat deck is not as important as the fact that the boat has a hole in it. They know that it is not time to fuss over a clogged drain spout when smoke is pouring out the windows. They weigh all possible outcomes and are not trigger happy with their responses. Do protests work? There is a long history that they do. The anti-war protests of the sixties certainly helped to end the Vietnam war. But are even the most well justified protests likely to be putting our overall health and the livelihoods of so many in jeopardy in the midst of a pandemic? An E.C.T. is not afraid to answer, YES and wait to see if the data confirmed that notion.
Name the touchiest of subjects and you will see it has been ruined by the PC police. Not only do they claim to be offended but dig even deeper and they may have something to lose economically if something new comes to light. Name-calling ensues just by trying to have an upstream discussion. When looking at the US through the lens of sustainability, on all kinds of measurements it is clear we are in overshoot. Although still operating under the mantra represented by the poem on the plaque inside the Statue of Liberty, we are running out of water, open space, forest and wild habitats for the animals that need them. Life is becoming less fun and more dangerous in our overcrowded cities whose answer to growth addiction is either sprawl or high rises. Magnificent animals from the Florida panther to the mountain lion are endangered with extinction due to human overpopulation and our continued growth. But try to have an upstream E.C.T. discussion about population growth, overpopulation and its primary driver, legal immigration, and watch the accusations start to fly. An E.C.T person who wanted to have a discussion about carrying capacity on our landscapes frequently ends up discussing the value of immigrants to this country’s history. E.C.T.’s do not conflate unrelated issues, only PC people do.
There is one more thing that E.C.T.’s believe: you focus on the message, debate its merits and do not waste everyone’s time by focusing your critique on hating the messenger, unless that messenger has provable ill intent. Propagandists can certainly be scorned for both their message and intent, but someone making a heartfelt film or writing a book rarely deserve the often-heard cries of the morally offended. It’s time to start a new and more helpful era where we can build new bridges of understanding rather than spend all of our energies bashing each other just for having a different perspective.