EPOUND-L Archives

- Ezra Pound discussion list of the University of Maine

EPOUND-L@LISTS.MAINE.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
- Ezra Pound discussion list of the University of Maine <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 13 Aug 2000 23:42:10 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (36 lines)
Daniel Pearlman wrote:

> At 10:51 PM 8/13/00 EDT, you wrote:
> >fanatical left PC?  perhaps you could share with us some of the more
> >objectionable expressions of that -- and let people see how shallow your
> >mercenary soul really is.
>
> I'd be delighted to share my impressions of the fanaticism of the PC
> left.  For a start, I'd just reprint all your messages on this topic
> to date.  My mercenary soul must indeed be pretty shallow, because
> I can't figure out how to make any money from this conversation.
> But the real proof of my mercenary shallowness is having chosen
> academia for a career.  No money in that either.

I would still be interested in what "PC" means in any substantive way. It
seems so far in this list to be more the equivalent of an inarticulate cry of
rage that others dare to disagree. A note of history: the phrase entered the
language as a bit of humorous self-criticism within the women's movement back
in the mid-80s. It was a take-off from the phrase "correct-lineism," also a
bit of humor within the left in the '70s. The phrase "correct line" itself
goes back to the metaphor of the bricklayer's line -- a way of coordinating
the work of many persons working independently.

As far as I can tell in most instances the phrase is merely a way to justify
boorishness as rugged independence, as in "I know it's not PC, but women are
mostly sluts." Interestingly enough, a piece of really dull academic research
I did over 40 years ago throws some light on it. I did my dissertation as a
survey of criticism of Pope in the last quarter of th 19th century and the
first half of the 20th century, and I came across an amusing academic quirk.
I came upon essay after essay which repeated received knowledge on Pope but
presented it as a daring departure from received knowledge. This desire to be
dull and conservative but to *appear* radical and against the current seems
most typical of two professions, journalism and the university: i.e., those
whose link to the world is purely verbal, with no necessary reference to
action.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2