EXPLORACIONES COMPLEMENTARIAS

This chapter has explored how PC discourse is produced through the reporting and circulation of unfolding news stories and events. It demonstrates how the language of PC informs the way in which topical events are discursively performed and understood more broadly. Using broadsheet newspapers as data, the first part of the chapter described how the meanings attached to PC are informed by political differences or affiliation. Perhaps unsurprisingly, in the data sample used, the right leaning Telegraph draws upon anti-PC discourse and rhetoric, unlike the left leaning Guardian. The sample includes a small number of articles, and a larger sample (incorporating additional journalists and a broader range of topics) might be expected to produce a greater variety of positions within as well as between each newspaper. However, in the data obtained, The Guardian’s cautious approach towards free speech in some circumstances is suggestive of a trend whereby liberal-left politics has emerged as less assertive in its commitment to free expression than its ideological opponents. In both of the Guardian articles examined this reticence arises from a broader concern with social inequalities and with forms of speech or representation which appear to reinforce these inequalities. The cartoons appearing in Charlie Hebdo, therefore, are accused of reinforcing anti-Muslim prejudice whilst the sale of golliwogs is viewed as reinforcing racism. Both cases are also embedded in contemporary fears about the giving of offence and highlight how discourse deemed as ‘offensive’ towards particular groups is also increasingly felt to constitute discriminatory behaviour towards that group. However, whilst the Guardian articles reveal a liberal-left aversion towards offence giving, this case study does not claim that a ‘liberal orthodoxy’ has taken hold across the broadsheet media. The data obtained from The Telegraph demonstrates how the expression of anti-PC rhetoric may also be accompanied by a perception that individuals are fearful or unable to express particular viewpoints. For example, in his discussion of Islamist terrorism, Mullen refers to how his views have ‘long remained unsayable’ and he criticises the ‘euphemisms’ of the BBC and ‘Guardianistas’. However, in this instance, the presence of PC censure is asserted rather than demonstrated, as both Telegraph articles include frank discussion of contentious arguments

and ideas111. In the small sample of articles used in the case study the Telegraph does not, therefore, adhere to the rules or diktats of a ‘liberal orthodoxy’. Finally, if PC is viewed as an idea or movement which has inculcated a propensity for the excessive taking of offence, it is also worth considering how both of the Telegraph articles used as data take offence in strongly voiced terms against what they regard as ‘political correctness’. For example, Mullen describes the ‘politically correct’ media coverage of the 9/11 terrorist attacks as ‘propaganda’ involving ‘euphemistic orthodoxy and the fatal disease of appeasement’. The taking of offence, therefore, is not confined to any single political perspective or position and instead forms a part of the wider discursive environment in which political commentary and the exchange of opinion takes place.

The second part of the chapter recalls the parliamentary debate in the House of Commons in February 2013 which led to the legalisation of same sex marriage. It therefore addresses a key milestone in the struggle for equality based upon sexual orientation. The data analysis demonstrates that those MPs opposed to equal marriage rights were simultaneously careful to distance themselves from accusations of bigotry or homophobia. In this sense, the linguistic, political and cultural change which is typically attributed to PC112 can be described as having entered the rules governing discourse within the institutional setting of Parliament. Undoubtedly, the very discussion of the bill in the House, together with the efforts on the part of those opposing it to distance themselves from accusations of homophobia, illustrate that a real cultural shift has taken place over recent years. However, rather than having inculcated a ‘liberal orthodoxy’ in which dissenting views are stigmatised, this chapter asserts that the language of PC has contributed to a less readable discursive environment. Today, mainstream politicians are less willing or able to engage in overtly homophobic, racist or sexist statements. However, this also means that the expression of arguably non-PC viewpoints (such as opposition to equal marriage rights) may be articulated, ironically, through ‘PC’ language or rhetoric. (For example, the Labour MP, Michael McCann opposes same sex marriage whilst simultaneously claiming to ‘not agree with the comments from people who are clearly steeped in bigotry or hatred’ (Hansard, 05/02/2013, Column 179)). Significantly, those MPs opposed to the same sex marriage bill also adopt a language of victimhood to support their position. This is suggestive of a culture of competing rights in which different

111 _{In her article, Edwards also discusses at length the feedback she has received from Telegraph readers}

regarding her ideas.

112

Of course, the changes described here are more directly a consequence of LGBT activism although gay liberation has become one of the many forms of activism which is subsumed or categorised under the PC label.

groups, identities or positions appear as pitched against one another within a broader arena of political or social activism. It also encourages us to begin to explore some of the matters raised by the third research question, including whether our preoccupation with the taking of offence has facilitated a culture of ‘competing rights’113

. This is important because it also forces us to consider how we should respond to the demands or sensibilities of different groups, particularly where these may be in conflict with one another. For example, as the bill was introduced in Parliament, Maria Miller MP sought to accommodate religious rights and beliefs with equality for same sex couples. Secondly, it forces us to also recognise the lack of homogeneity within particular groups (or those sharing common identities) as well as between different groups. (For instance, during the House of Commons debate different MPs cite their Christian beliefs as grounds for both opposing and supporting same sex marriage). The data, therefore, points to an increasingly individualised dimension within the politics of identity in which the beliefs or feelings of the individual are elevated and prioritised. The evocation of group rights, therefore, may be used to foreground the feelings of the individual rather than the entire group. (For example, in the parliamentary debate Toby Perkins MP gives his support to the bill whilst Ian Paisley MP opposes it whilst claiming to be a victim of ‘Christophobia’. However, both politicians use their identity as Christians as justification for their personal views).

The third case study follows the Paris Brown Twitter Storm of 2013 and explores the relationship between our preoccupation with the giving and taking of offence and the emergence of new media technologies. The BBC coverage of Paris’s tweets lends weight to the assertion that particular viewpoints are precluded or stigmatised within some forms of contemporary discourse. In this instance, the precluded viewpoints include tweets deemed to be racist, sexist and homophobic. That her ‘offending’ tweets were initially published and denounced in The Mail on Sunday - the sister paper of The Daily Mail, a paper also known for also decrying ‘political correctness’- suggests that sensitivity towards the giving of offence on grounds such as racism or sexism has become entrenched broadly across society. Using Goffman’s (1959) dramaturgical model of social interaction the case study illustrates that it has become increasingly difficult to disentangle our ‘backstage’ selves from our ‘front- stage’ selves, and that what may once have been confined largely to the ‘backstage’ (such as one-to-one interactions or people’s everyday thoughts and rituals) has now acquired a

113 _{The idea of ‘competing rights’ is raised by research question 3.2 and explored in greater depth in the cartoon}

presence and permanence within a wider public domain as a consequence of the emergence and use of social media. One consequence of this has been our broader exposure to the prevalence of politically incorrect discourse within everyday social interaction114. This exposure has also contributed to an intensification of our preoccupation with disputes concerning the giving and taking of offence in recent years.

The analysis of the source material largely echoes the claim by Fairclough (2003:21) that “Political Correctness’ or being ‘Politically Correct’ are, in the main, identifications imposed upon people by their political opponents’. The Telegraph accuses ‘Guardianistas and the BBC’ of ‘euphemistic orthodoxy’ whilst the Minister responsible for introducing the same sex couples marriage bill to Parliament warns against its supporters adopting a ‘misguided sense of political correctness’ (Hansard, 05/02/2013, Column 132). This chapter also rejects the idea that a PC or ‘liberal orthodoxy’ pervades our media and uses source material from the Telegraph newspaper to support its position. However, the source material examined here also demonstrates that there is a general unwillingness on the part of people to be labelled as bigoted or prejudiced in any way. This is particularly observable when following the substance of parliamentary discourse within the formal setting of Parliament. It is also evident in the apologies of Paris Brown, and in her decision to step down as youth police and crime commissioner. Furthermore, although both articles used as data from the right-leaning

Telegraph lambast ‘political correctness’, the paper also points out the ‘obnoxious’ nature of

the anti-Islamic trailer for ‘The Innocence of Muslims’ in its editorial of 13/09/2012.

In summary, despite the largely negative signification of PC, the discursive environment which is examined by this news discourse is one in which individuals are generally reluctant to be viewed as endorsing racist, sexist or otherwise bigoted attitudes or behaviour. The chapter also observes how our understanding of what might constitute ‘homophobic’ or ‘offensive’ attitudes remains contestable and is increasingly dependent upon personal or individual proclivities or beliefs. The subjective and contestable nature of offence, therefore, contributes both to our ongoing preoccupation with ‘offensiveness’ and our uncertainty as to where the parameters of acceptable discourse lie. Finally, as this chapter focuses upon the (re)production of news it generally observes how our ‘formal’ selves are encouraged to

114 _{Instances where individuals have been subject to scrutiny or censure over their use of politically incorrect}

language have become a staple feature of news reporting in recent years. Often, these instances involve comments made using ‘new’ media technologies such as Twitter, Facebook, email or texting. Prior to the emergence of such technologies many ‘incorrect’ utterances (such as the Paris Brown tweets) are likely to have remained free from wider public scrutiny and within the domain of our ‘backstage’ selves.

adhere to certain codes of behaviour (such as non-racism or non-sexism)115. However, the third case study also begins to consider how this sits alongside our ‘informal’ selves and how we form and negotiate codes of behaviour in a world in which the distinction between ‘informal’ and ‘formal’ spheres is becoming less clear. In view of this, the following chapter will consider the less formal field of comic discourse as it begins to examine how the enduring appeal of ‘political incorrectness’ within some forms of discourse should be viewed.

115 _{For instance, Paris Brown steps away from public office because of the controversial and ‘politically}