It's true Gregory. The first people to embrace that expression in Australia were the right-wing press who wanted to reserve their right to express hurtful bigotry and defend cruelty. I heard them use the words "political correctness" to attack anyone who expressed views which were tolerant or humane.

But Greg, that is the very point I'm disagreeing with. When someone says they're trying not to give offence to someone else, that "offence" is often defined by a particular political agenda, and quite often taken to ridiculous lengths. In Australia recently a biscuit-maker was forced by political correctness to withdraw the name "Creole Creams" from a biscuit product because the word "Creole" is supposed to have racially offensive connotations. Supposed by whom? It certainly doesn't for me, and for any Aussies I've heard opine on the matter. That's not what we used to call courtesy, and I don't think it comes from a desire for courtesy. It's someone imposing their own whacko agenda on someone else. Courtesy seems to have very little to do with it. The very good reason that the term "PC" DOES have negative connotations that so many manifestations of it are silly and, often, heedless of others' rights and beliefs. The term "political correctness" is self-evidently about politcal control. That's not courtesy, which I'm all in favour of. So many of the PC agitprops are patently discourteous.

But Paul, there are always going to be people who take unnecessary offence. We don’t always have to see a sinister political agenda behind such things. And the things that give offence undeniably change in different ages and different societies. I am unlikely to be offended today by many things that would have shocked Jane Austen. Or, to use an example not quite so removed in time, I remember reading somewhere that Evelyn Waugh was disgusted to receive a letter from a stranger beginning “Dear Evelyn Waugh”. Not something that would shock me – but then again, I am still old-fashioned (and perhaps British) enough to be surprised (though not necessarily offended) to receive e-mails from students that begin “Hi…”. All this is just to say that obviously it is not easy to define what gives offence. But we can always try to bear in mind other people’s sensitivities and not trample on them unnecessarily

In particular, it is perhaps not surprising that, after a century marked by such horrors as Auschwitz, apartheid, Jim Crow laws etc., we are today unusually sensitive on the question of racist offence. Obviously this can be taken to ridiculous lengths, as in the example you give; I can understand when people fall back on such slogans as “political correctness gone mad” in such cases. But I would distinguish between a political agenda and stupidity. On the whole it seems to me that the term PC (always said with a sneer) is all too frequently used just as a convenient way to dismiss as irrelevant the rules of courtesy that should govern behaviour in a civilised society – sometimes, as Janet says, to justify blatant bigotry.

Obviously, Paul, I wouldn’t dream of accusing you of any such thing; I’m just trying to explain why I find the term “PC” so little help in such discussions.

But come on, when someone says, as Eliot did, that it's really bad for society if there are too many Jews about, is it really just "PC" to condemn such a remark? I mean, when the "PC Police" yell at a woman for calling herself Mrs instead of Ms, isn't that just a bit different from complaining about the negative effect Jews have on the rest of "us"?

At what point does criticism of any view become PC overreaching? What if someone expresses the view that people with bad eyesight should be castrated so they will not be able to pass along the myopia gene? Would Mark or anyone else pounce on me as a fusty old PC-nik if I were to object?

I doubt it. I think "PC" is a word that applies at the borderline of the clash between progressive/conservative culture. But not everything is on the border. Wouldn't it be absurd for a murderer to say, "Don't impose your PC anti-homicide views on me!"?

I duly note that Mark has not been able to meet the challenge of finding anyone here who suggested that Eliot's views should affect our reading of his poetry, so it's apparent that his whole speech about dilettantism was aimed at a straw man. I wonder though, let's say I disagreed with Mark's view that you can and should separate the man from the poetry if you are not a dilettante . . . would it be proper for me to tell Mark that I just don't buy his PC view that poems should not be regarded in light of what we know about the poet? After all, I think Mark's view is widely held. Why isn't it suitable for the PC rubric? Is PC just a term that applies to those who disagree with us? Or is there some other distinguishing factor? Might the PC condemnation actually be reserved for liberal or progressive views? If so, isn't it just a conservative rhetorical device to try to win arguments by trying to climb upon the high horse of free speech and free thought?

Well "politically correct" was originally meant to refer to terms of identity, the idea being that one should call people what they wished to be called (African-American instead of Colored, for example). It was expanded to include the idea that one should avoid terms that exclude others (Chair or Chairperson instead of Chairman). These were, it seems to me, reasonable and defensible notions. But the term was then taken by conservatives to apply to all aspects of progressive political positions in order to project the false image of a slippery slope by which if you began to consider how others wished to be treated, you would soon find yourself obliged by jackbooted enforcers to adopt potical position antithetical to your own, and through a series of tortuous and inexplicable twists, civilization would quickly crumble. "PC" is nothing but a strawman. One test for that is that for the most part no one but those who oppose it use the term. Its supposed referents are not a very homogenous group, and the term does nothing to identify or clarify positions or arguments.

And that's what I think of Eliot.

David R.

Re. Larkin's porn interests:

http://books.google.com/books?id=cDM...larkin&f=false

OK. I'm NOT saying that many, perhaps most of the things that PC requires us to do, say and think are not the right thing to do anyway. Obviously they are, and I say think and do them.

I'm NOT saying that we should not take Eliot or anyone else to task, in appropriate venues, for views and behaviours of his that we find problematic. He treated his wife appallingly too, it seems: that was not in the public domain and yet clearly should be censured at some point. But I don't think we should jump up and protest when the chap is reading a poem to an audience or at a ceremony to award him the Nobel Prize or whatever. That will just provoke sympathy for Eliot, and anyway it is discourteous. Criticise in proper venues.

What I AM saying is this. Courtesy springs from generosity of spirit. In courtesy I treat someone with respect and honour because I choose to do that, from a sense of sympathy and fairness.

Political correctness springs from a particular group demanding that people speak, think and behave in a restricted way that the particular group defines. It is, say, a bunch of activist eggs saying "YOU must not use the word 'egghead' because our group finds it offensive, and if you do use the word, we will harass you whenever and wherever we choose until you stop!"

Courtesy is a gift given. Political correctness is a conformity demanded. One flows from free will and generosity, the other from demands and coercion.

So all I'm saying is that however desirable PC might be, and it mostly is desirable, it is by definition NOT courtesy. That's all.

As for racist offence: I would like to see the definition of what constitutes racist offence broadened somewhat. I am partly of Koori ancestry on my father's side. The Koori have been victims of genocide in Australia, which genocide was denied by the government of John Howard, backed up by intellectual institutions like Quadrant magazine, edited by Keith Windschuttle, of which Les Murray is the editor and in which many formalist poets publish. I put a post on this situation ('History Wars') in General Talk to which so far not one person has responded. Are some forms of racism so much more significant than others, some forms of genocide-denial much more important than others? The only completely successful genocide recorded by History was that of the Tasmanian Aborigines -- a distinct racial group -- by the British soldiers and settlers. Windschuttle denies that even happened, and says it was all jolly peaceful. Again I wonder why we are so selective in our outrage. I wish we could extend our sympathy for victims of racism -- from courtesy and loving-kindness, not because it is politically correct -- to a wider field of examples.

I don't think courtesy is a gift that we have no right to demand. If someone is named Bill, and you insist on calling him BamBam, Bill has the right to demand that you call him Bill, and if you don't, and you own a store, Bill has the right to refuse to shop at your store and ask his friends to do likewise. He is not asking for the gift of courtesy and respect. He is demanding it as his due.

I agree about selective outrage, though. In some circles, you would suppose that the Palestinians are the only refugees in the world, and that no other oppressed or threatened people deserve attention or special emergency UN sessions. I do not mean to argue Mideast politics. For present purposes, I am willing to concede the full justice of the Palestinian cause. But unfortunately, there are many equally just causes that do not command the same attention although the number of victims may be greater.

It's very appropriate that there are so many straw men noted in this TS Eliot thread :)

Sam, very interesting link on Larkin -- thanks. I wondered why he continued writing those lesbic schoolgirl novels. Google books is great value, isn't it? Most books there are almost complete, and it makes it easier to assess whether you want to buy a book or trek to the library to borrow it. But in nine out of ten cases I find the bit I want in the Google books version. Plus you can have your own little list of favourites to conveniently go back to.

Roger, if Bill forces you to call him whatever, that's not courtesy, it's coercion. It may well be just, assertive of Bill's rights, correct etc, but it's not courtesy. Courtesy is when Bill says to me "Look here, old chap, I don't like being called BamBam, I want to be called Bill" and I say (and think) "Sorry, Bill, I didn't realise. Of course I'll call you Bill. Please correct me if I absent-mindedly forget". But if I say "Rack off BamBam! I'll call you what I blithering-well like!" and he says "OK -- me and my friends gonna harass the bejasus outa you and send you broke till you do what we want!" and I say "OK OK! Bill! Bill it is! Please don't punish me! I'll be a good boy!" -- well, that does not seem like courtesy to me. It might be just, but it's definitely not courtesy. It's forced compliance.

I don't think Palestinians have been mentioned a single time so far in this thread Roger until you brought them up. Are you referring to the Goldstone report on War Crimes, commissioned and adopted by the United Nations, supported by Amnesty International and Human Rights watch and anti-racists around the world, so cravenly rejected by the US Congress? Well, I daresay we will hear a lot more about that in the media (outside America, anyway) since it concerns such a flagrant humanitarian and racist injustice.