Dan P. wrote:

<<I do not know your cultural background, Wei, but if you are not familiar
with the moralistic and political totalizing effects of the Political
Correctness atmosphere in present-day America, then nothing can help.>>

==Dan P>>

Putting my cultural background to the side for the moment, I should say that
during the last twenty years of my life, about two thirds of that time has
been spent teaching and studying in educational institutions in the US.  I
have encountered the term "political correctness"  many times before, and
have read numerous articles about so-called "PC" in newspapers, magazines,
and journals.  But I have yet to find that any two people have a similar
definition or close understanding of the term.  This is why I ask you the
question.  I was hoping you would provide your own example, in addition to
your previous definition of PC [  the  "   . . . downgrade of all elites in
favor of the always-oppressed little guy of every stripe and color."  ]

Above you refer to the "the moralistic and political totalizing effects of
the Political Correctness," an interesting phrase, which I think, presumes
agreement with an unstated premise.

A few years ago, I attended a conference at a private College below the
Mason Dixon line.    A Jewish speaker observed during his presentation that
people were singing Christmas Songs as part of one of ceremonies that
preceded his talk.  He half jokingly admonished the College for not having
any Hanukkah Carols, and proceded to recite a verse from a Jewish religious
song.   He then went on to the the main subject of his presentation.

After his presentation, I noted that some of the native southern
participants in the Conference were offended at his remarks.  “He was being
too politically correct,” said one,  adding, “I liked parts of his speech;
but he was TOO Jewish.”

What does politically correct mean in this context?  I have no clear concept
of the answer; only a vague sense that the offended participant does not
like people to be critical of the Christian mainstream.  Or perhaps the
person is an anti-semite.  It is hard to say.

My general sense is that the term “politically correct” is used by anyone to
describe any political doctrine or opinion that they disapprove of, or any
idea that they THINK is being imposed on them, by any means.  I don’t know
what the origin of the term is, nor how truly meaningful it is.  At present
it appears, in society at large, to be “politically correct” to have a high
opinion of Ronald Reagan (hence the idea of renaming Washington National
Airport after him).  In the Universities it may appear “politically correct”
to criticize Reagan, as a historical figure.

At present, it seems “politically correct” to advocate increased military
spending, among most journalists, editorialists, pundits, and politicoes
(inspite of the fact, that only 35 per cent of the population favors an
increase).  Amongst university professors, it might be “politically correct”
to oppose increased military spending (unless one is working on some aspect
of physics, or mathematics connected with “Star Wars” research ---- I had a
friend who lost his chance at an engineering degree because he refused to
follow his advisor to the end of the line, in working on the mathematical
models for “missile defense,” and because he showed greater interest in
peaceful applications.  The advisor had contracts with several defense
firms.  My friend had to change his discipline, and start his degree work
all over again).

Among some Pound scholars it may be politically correct to say, “Well, yes,
Pound made mistakes, and he did express admiration for Mussolini and Hitler,
but fascism is not integral to his thought”.  It may be politically correct
among some Pound scholars to look at Pound’s Confucianism as something
totally unconnected from his fascism (inspite of Pound’s own insistence that
they WERE connected).   Some Pound scholars might accuse those who point out
such connections of being “politically correct” in applying certain
categories to Pound which they feel are not appropriate.  The gist of all
this----POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER.

When you refer to “the moralistic and political totalizing effects of the
Political Correctness,” I wonder what you mean by “totalizing”.  Are you
speaking of the “totalitarian” effects of certain attempts to impose
ideological constraints?  And if so , how do you relate your observations to
the statements made by Pound (in the Guide to Kulchur, and other works)
about the NECESSITY for Totalitarian thought?  I recall, for instance Pound
using this phrase, intended as a great compliment to his favorite Chinese
philosopher:   “Confucius was totalitarian by instinct” (as opposed to
Aristotle, who unfortunately, according to Pound, was not).

Or when you speak of “totalizing” do you mean it in the sense in which
Sartre used the term in his “Critique de la  raison dialectique”?   I
understand Sartre to mean--- by the term “totalizing” ---an activity which
seeks to put all human knowledge into a total theory, but which does not
imply a belief in, or advocacy for, “totalitarian”, oppressive state
structures   (For Sartre the total theory was to be a synthesis of the
Existentialist and Phenomenological focus on the individual, with a social
and political approach which made broad use of Hegelio-Marxian dialectical
analytical tools).


Perhaps you mean to use the term 'totalizing' in the sense of the writer who
said,

“ We see Foucault as a profoundly conflicted thinker whose thought is torn
between oppositions such as ***totalizing/detotalizing*** impulses and
tensions between discursive/extra-discursive theorization,
macro/microperspectives, and a dialectic of domination/resistance.”

You might want to say what you mean by 'totalizing.'

But above all, I would be grateful if you could just give me one example of
what you mean when you speak of

“ . . . .the PC downgrade of all elites in favor of the always-oppressed
little guy of every stripe and color."

If you answer this, we might be greatly aided in evaluating the claim that
Pound’s attitude could be seen as a corrective to prevailing modes of
thought.

Sincere Regards,

Wei







________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com