By DONALD DeMARCO
The philosophy of Karl Marx is simple, appealing, and insidious. It is simple to the point of being cartoonish since it denies individual characteristics and lumps everyone into either one or two categories. Thus, people are either capitalists or proletarians, members of the ruling class or those who are ruled, the “haves” or the “have-nots.” In short, people are either oppressors or the oppressed. The two sides, being mutually exclusive, clash with each other and invite a revolution.
It is appealing because it condones envy and promises the “have-nots” that they will gain a better share of the pie. It is also appealing because it speaks of a revolution that will bring about the “liberation” of the oppressed class. Its vision is utopian.
But it is insidious for two basic reasons: 1) because it robs people of their individuality and places them in a homogenous group, thereby demonstrating the ultimate form of stereotyping; 2) because, in denying the possibility of reconciliation between the two classes, it welcomes the violent overthrow of the class of oppressors. Marxism cannot imagine, for example, Paul Allen, wealthy owner of the Seattle Seahawks, donating 100 million dollars of his own money to fight the Ebola disease.
The insidious shortcomings of Marxism notwithstanding, its simplicity and appeal have been contagious. Therefore, Marxism has been adapted to explain the class struggle between men (the oppressors) and women (the oppressed), parents vs. children, whites vs. blacks, and heterosexuals vs. homosexuals. The latest adaptation of Marxism pits the offenders against the offended. Consequently, everyone is either an offender or one who is offended. It wears the mantle of political correctness.
Having originally flowered in academia, it has spread like a virus through the government, the media, and the corporate world. Currently it is enshrined in speech codes, legal rulings, and policies of the workplace. Those who seek to avoid violating the speech codes of political correctness must be ever vigilant. How far has this form of political correctness gone?
Xbox Live banned a person for violating its games code of conduct. His offensive act was listing his hometown, Fort Gay, West Virginia, on his Xbox profile. The mayor intervened on behalf of the offender, but was told that the word “gay” was inappropriate in any context. Apparently, everyone living in Fort Gay is offensive simply for being a resident of that town.
Schools have renamed their blackboards “chalkboards” to avoid offending black people. Some city councils have banned Christmas celebrations to avoid offending non-Christians. Some schools are now referring to Easter Eggs as “Springtime Spheres.” In some places, Santa Clauses are told not to use the potentially offensive expression “ho-ho-ho.” People have lost their jobs simply because they defended traditional marriage. Political correctness, given its Marxist structure, is totalitarian in nature. It represents the “party line.” It makes no accommodations to its critics.
Virtually anything can be deemed offensive these days, including green or red cookies served at Christmastime. In many cases, students have avoided “offensive” speech simply by not speaking in class. One cannot be too careful. Words such as “wife,” “husband,” “ma’am,” “God,” “sin,” and innumerable others can be regarded as offensive by the thought police.
Being sensitive and tolerant and welcoming diversity can be appealing. But the aggressive cure is incomparably worse than the alleged offense. Little sensitivity is shown to the alleged offenders who are stigmatized, ridiculed, marginalized, and sometimes fined, fired, or incarcerated for saying something that is essentially innocuous. Political correctness, then, is not about what it preaches. It is a systematic attempt to impose new norms on all people while suspending all forms of free speech and free thought.
The insidious factors of the Marxist form of political correctness, nonetheless, remain. Christianity must be opposed because it regards each individual as unique and created in the image of God. And it must also be opposed because it is apostolic and welcomes intellectual inquiry, free speech, and interpersonal dialogue. Political correctness, with its Marxist ties, must be seen for what it is. And it is not an attempt to save all people from the slight of being offended. Where a genuine offensive occurs, an apology or a chastisement may be in order, but not a systematic change of the whole world into a totalitarian nightmare.
+ + +
(Donald DeMarco is a senior fellow of Human Life International. He is professor emeritus at St. Jerome’s University in Waterloo, Ontario, and an adjunct professor at Holy Apostles College and Seminary in Cromwell, Conn., and a regular columnist for St. Austin Review. Some of his recent writings may be found at Human Life International’s Truth & Charity Forum.)
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress