New!

Political Correctness: You also defend your privileges by Slavoj Žižek

The well-trained champions of politically correct speaking celebrate colorfulness, diversity and the great inclusion. In truth, they merely establish a new norm of domination - and discriminate minorities who have little to say.

Political correctness is a serious matter. The noble aim of the new correct speech is to involve all individuals in the discourse and not to discriminate against anyone, or, more precisely, to give no one reason to feel offended. The world of the correct is therefore deadly, irony absolutely forbidden.

Often, however, the political correctness now produces new paradoxical effects , which show that something fundamental is wrong with it. It establishes new norms, excludes new minorities - and above all: the highly correct, serious usage of language kicks into its opposite and acts involuntarily funny.

The radiant power of love

Some time ago, I was in Vancouver and followed in my hotel room the live broadcast of the local Pride parade. "The power of love shone," as the mainstream media called it. The whole city was on its feet, hundreds of thousands of people who were either moving around (at the head of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who stole the show with all his family), or publicly chasing the parade and clapping with applause.

This great and all-encompassing demonstration of "unity in diversity" naturally required an enemy: "heterosexism". The TV commentators conjured him as skilfully as ever, as if they were part of the show. Of course, they did not attack heterosexuality as such, but merely favoring and establishing it as a universal order that reduces other sexual orientations to a secondary deviation. This critical view of heterosexism is as if he is not normative and open to all directions. But is that really true?

Thus the many groups, which included not only queer and LGBT organizations, but also libraries and bookstores, restaurants, theaters, law firms, ecological groups, industrial and agricultural companies, as well as the nightclub, "always open to gays and transsexuals" is. The official self-presentation of the organizers read: "Be ready to inspire and inspire you by the sight of the meter-high head covers, the pink fire engines, the more rainbow flags than you can count, and the symbols of hope and change. Among the unforgettable parts of the parade are the costumes, which are so elaborate and unusual that feather boa and go-go boots look old! »

More than toleration

Young men danced in tight trousers, which emphasized the contours of their penises, embraced and kissed. Overweight boys and girls exposed the fat layers hanging from their bellies, and thus overtook the sexist beauty ideals. In short, that was far from the situation decades ago, when gays and lesbians lived in the schematic underground and were tolerated and ignored at best. While they and others proudly presented their own sexual orientation, the queers not only overcame their own restraint, but also showed the audience their prejudices, which are confirmed by the discomfort with which individuals observe, depending on socialization, such an activity ,

Ironically, the past is almost mirror-inverted. Now it is the heterosexuality that is tolerated, although it is expected that the heterosexual majority will no longer show pride in their preferences. This would immediately be denounced as heterosexist. Heterosexuality is perceived not directly, but subliminally as a limitation, as a sexuality that is opportunistically satisfied with the old, existing patterns, and the risks of discovering new, liberating possibilities - as a passive submission to the ruling class which leads to social oppression leads. The label LGBT + thus provided the concrete coloration for the entire field. It forced everyone to unite under their banner.

We are all queer, even though some are even queer than others. Such a unity is, of course, an ideology in its purest form, and we should immediately ask the question: Who (or what) was de facto excluded? Many ethnic groups actually denied the participation, from solidarity with the protest of "Black Lives Matter Vancouver" against the participation of a police car at the parade. Many indigenous people are members of "Black Lives Matter" and therefore did not participate.

The queer-Muslim group "Salaam" and the queer Southeast Asia group "Trikone" also did not come. Salaam said: "Because of racist reactions [. , .] We should have our own move [. , .] The organizers of the Pride Parade do not speak to us. The city does not speak to us. "These absences clearly signal the locations of today's social antagonisms. We should also include in this picture those transgenders whose lives are full of fear and social uncertainty, and thus far from the idea of ​​happy young men who dance half naked and kiss.

"Unity in diversity"

For all these reasons, the Vancouver Pride Parade had a bitter aftertaste with me (and also many LGBT members). Here, the majority of well-educated white, privileged women and men were on the road, with high social status. The parade reminded me of so many similar marches that I witnessed during my youth in communist Yugoslavia. Parades to the day of work, in which different collectives celebrated their "unity in diversity", all under the common umbrella of the ruling ideology (brotherhood and unity of all nations in the self-governed and block-free socialist Yugoslavia).

Even the subtle boredom and the bureaucratic language of Vancouver's TV commentators with their politically correct predictability (they were always careful to call the ideological screen of the parade as LGBTQIA +) reminded me of the jargon of the Communists, in which any form of Ironization was forbidden under threat of punishment. All have to adhere to the official language rule, all have to praise and praise the allegedly subversive potential of alternative, in fact, however, privileged life drafts.

As before, the whole spectacle turned into a kind of farce before my eyes. In the end, the official language uses itself as his own ironic comment. Censored seriousness turns into involuntary comedy - and does not this necessarily happen with the Political Correctness? It claims with the best intentions to injure no one, but produces new excluded ones and establishes a new norm - only nobody can say this anymore, because it interfered with the beautiful new harmonium.