Correctly Political

42 Al hough wi h a iable isibili y, he poli ically co ec (PC) inc easingly occupies ou e e yday li e, being used in a ious, mo e o less, o malised con- ex s o in e ac ion be ween indi iduals. In no mal ci cums ances o collec i e li e, he poli ically inco - ec (PI) is less and less accep ed, and o success ully na iga e in he complex wo ld o social in e ac ion – o example, in he laby in hic ield o codes associa ed wi h wo k ela ions – equi es a easonable command o he ules adhe ing o he PC no m. In ce ain “sen- si i e” con ex s, he p edominance o he PC posi ion e eals all i s splendou . We a e e e ing o pa icu- la ly delica e si ua ions in which he PI is ole a ed because i is PI o ep imand he use o PI language. In pa icula ci cums ances, a child, a disabled pe son o someone belonging o an e hnic, eligious o cul u - al mino i y is allowed o use language con o ming less o he p ocedu es imposed by he PC. As long as he in o mal, as well as he o mal, ules o PC a e co ec - ly ollowed, i is i ele an o know whe he he con- en o ou hough s is adequa e o , on he con a y, opposed o he way ou ac ions a e pe cei ed. To be accused o hypoc isy o cynicism ega ding PC only happens when he clea age be ween ou ac ions and CORRECTLY POLITICAL Nuno Falei o Rod igues 43 ou hough s is mani es ed in he o me . One o he mos common o ms o hypoc isy associa ed wi h he PC discou se comes om he pa e nalism exp essed h ough a mani es ly exagge a ed app oach. The abili- y and au onomy o a subjec o g oup o subjec s can be b ough in o ques ion by he o e zealous way in which we ollow he ules o poli ical co ec ness. In ha case, he PC becomes a ool o exp ess PI hough s. In his con ex , he e o e, he e is no oom o make is- ible he con adic ion be ween wha is said and wha is done; he e is only he possibili y o con adic ing wha is said by he way i is said. In o he wo ds, wha is done is wha is said. * The PC discou se aims o a oid o ending indi id- uals belonging o he mo e ulne able laye s o soci- e y. One o he mos common c i icisms made o he PC is ha i es ic s people’s abili y o exp ess hem- sel es in a socie y ha aspi es o be ee, ende ing i as a kind o dic a o ship o he o ended agains he e- maining membe s. Bea ing in mind ha poli ical co - ec ness wo ks by an icipa ing a po en ial o ence, in o de o a oid i be o ehand, we can say ha he “dic- a o ship o he o ended” un olds e oac i ely, om a posi ion si ua ed in a u u e o escape, i.e., i posi ions i sel om he poin o iew o he po en ial o ended (who should no be o ended). Howe e , his ges u e Poli ical co ec ness: he a oidance o o ms o ex- p ession o ac ion ha a e pe cei ed o exclude, ma gin- alize, o insul g oups o people who a e socially disad an- aged o disc imina ed agains . Google 44 o an icipa ion ells us ha we can only concei e he e oac i e posi ion o he o ended h ough he co e- sponding p ojec i e posi ion o he po en ial o ende . Fo he o ence no o ake place, a po en ial o ende is enough – one ha , h ough he p e en i e ges u e, iden i ies a possible o ended suscep ible o being o - ended by a ce ain po en ial o ence. The e o e, he dic a o ship o he o ended o igina es in he an icipa- o y sel -posi ioning o he po en ial o ende , ollow- ing a logic as i ual as i is ci cula . The o ended, in u n, is caugh in he ne o he o ence o be a oided and has li le oom o ind ano he posi ion ou side his ci cle: ei he she was no o ended because he mechanism o an icipa ion and p e en ion wo ked e - ec i ely (al hough no escaping om he s igma o he i ual o ence); o she ook o ence o he opposi e easons. The e is, in ac , a small sub e sion allowed o he o ended: o no be o ended by he o ence di ec ed a he . Bu his na ow opening o eedom will always be dependen on he dominan posi ion o he po en ial o ende . Rega dless o he nume ous cons ain s his ci cula i y may b ing o he po en ial o ende , i gi es access o a discu si e e i o y ha belongs o him. I is up o he pe son wi h he powe o speak o iden i y his in e locu o as po en ially o ended, i.e. as someone pa icula ly ulne able, and p e en he o ence om being di ec ed a he . Whe he he o ence ook place o no , he o ended is in a iably in eg a ed wi hin a social g oup pe cei ed by he majo i y o po en ial o - ende s as being pa icula ly ulne able. Acco ding o he logic unde lying he PC discou se, his g oup is en i led o no being o ended inso a as i is dep i ed 45 o a oice. Th ough he p e en i e ac , he o ende , who did no become one, is in eg a ed, in u n, wi hin he majo i y wi h access o speech. Tha no said ha could ha e been said belongs o him alone. This way, he is simul aneously he emi e and add essee o he o ence ha mus no ake place. The p e en ion o he o ence is di ec ed, he e o e, no so much a he po- en ial o ended bu o he a e nal communi y o po- en ial o ende s. I unc ions as a cue be ween pee s and, unlike wha is o en de ended, does no aim o s uc u e a mo e inclusi e discou se. I is impo an o bea in mind ha he communi y o po en ial o end- e s does no need o be physically p esen in a ce ain discu si e si ua ion; wha ma e s is ha , e en when absen , i makes i sel p esen . Mo e han he nume i- cal c i e ion, wha de ines he majo i y is p ecisely i s abili y o be p esen , e en when absen . In he limi s es ablished be ween po en ial o ende and o ended, he PC discou se d aws a e i o y o access and isi- bili y ega ding speech. S ic ly speaking, he p e en- i e ges u e does no ake us o he i ual plane o he possible – wha can bu should no be said – bu o he ac ual mani es a ion o wha was no said h ough wha is said. Wi hin he PC logic, i is no enough o an- icipa e and p e en he occu ence o he o ence; i is essen ial, h ough he use o mani es ly non-o ensi e language, o make ha p e en i e ges u e pe cep ible o he emaining po en ial o ende s. The PC mecha- nism s i es, as i we e, o make ha absence isible. * The e o e, he PC discou se implies he iden i i- ca ion o g oups in socie y ha , acco ding o he o - 46 ende , a e mo e exposed o ac s o disc imina ion and p ejudice. Wi hou a pa icula a ge , he PC posi ion lacks di ec ion and in en ionali y. In i s ela ion o he o ence ha will no come, poli ical co ec ness si u- a es i sel be ween wo sociocul u al phenomena ha a e no ex aneous o i . On one side, i can be seen me ely as a pa icula a ian , pe haps an in ensi ied o m, o poli eness cemen ed among membe s o a so- cie y ha s i es o be ci ilized and ega ds g a ui- ous o ences unjus i ied. As much as PC c i ics s ess i s o e zealous con ol o e he use o speech, hey a e always in a weak posi ion when hei c i ique is ad anced h ough he ela i iza ion o he con en o he o ence. The o ence is always ela i e, and agains a gene al pe cep ion among he po en ial o ende s abou wha is o ensi e o no he e is no much ha can be done. On he o he side, he PC discou se inds i s limi in he g owing e minological sani a ion pe - ading he con empo a y ins i u ional wo ld, om he s a e machine o labou ela ions managemen . The hygieniza ion o language is exp essed in mul iple p o- cesses o li e managemen . I assumes, none heless, wo dis inc ace s: a comme cial and a bu eauc a ic dimension. On he one hand, we ace a “so e ” sani- a y inclina ion, mani es ed in euphemis ic p ocesses o concealmen o he iolence in insic o he com- me cialisa ion o e e yday li e, pa icula ly in labou ela ions. In his ega d, no e how de egula ed and low paid wo k is inc easingly pe o med by “ echnicians, collabo a o s and consul an s” o all so s who, mo e o en han no , ca y ou epe i i e, menial, low-skilled asks. On he o he hand, we ace a “s ong” bu eau- 47 c a ic s e iliza ion o language ha does no in end o e minologically so en a gi en eali y, bu exp esses a posi ion o powe acco ding o he c uel e inemen s o he wo ld o adminis a ion. In his case, he e mi- nological a bi a iness e lec s he iolence esul ing om he a bi a iness inhe en in he s a e’s posi- ion o maximal powe , hence i s ypical penchan o s ong i ony, o e en sadism. I is p ecisely such po- si ion o s eng h ha su aces in such ype o e mi- nological dissonance. To e e o o u e as “Enhanced In e oga ion Techniques” o o designa e signi ican cu s in pensions “Ex ao dina y Solida i y Con ibu- ion” a e examples o he sadis ic-bu eauc a ic s and. In his manne , he PC discou se is enclosed by h ee dis inc domains: unde nea h, and in a mo e di use way, by he “ci ic poli eness” equi ed when dealing wi h he mo e ulne able g oups o socie y; la e ally, and in a mo e speci ic way, by he wo mechanisms o linguis ic de lec ion o iolence ha colonize ou li es. In he la e case, poli ical co ec ness is si ua ed be- ween he in o mal, bu di ec , concealmen pe ain- ing o he usual linguis ic so ening o he iolence o he commodi ica ion o e e yday li e, and he o mal, bu indi ec , unco e ing, mani es in he bu eauc a ic ma king o s a e o ce. As a gene ic and p elimina y hypo hesis, we can conside ha poli ical co ec ness pe o ms a double discu si e ope a ion, being posi- ioned be ween he in o mal di ec concealing and he o mal indi ec unco e ing o economic-bu eauc a ic iolence. * On a i s le el, he e ec i eness o he PC dis- 48 cou se esul s om he no ma i e in e sec ion be we- en wha is said and he con ex ual si ua ion (using he igh wo ds in he igh place). Linguis ic o m and con en a e a om i ele an , bu a e clea ly insu- icien o cla i y he s ages esul ing om he discu - si e p ocess. Fu he mo e, he in e p e a ion o wha is said equi es a i s , usually unconscious, eading o he discu si e si ua ion ha , as we ha e seen, canno be educed o he iden i ica ion o he po en ial o en- ded by he po en ial o ende . The di ec ion and in en- ion we a ibu e o he PC a e, hus, he esul o a sub e anean in e p e a i e mo emen ha conju es up a si ua ion, summoning po en ial o ended indi i- duals and he communi y o po en ial o ende s ( ha makes i sel p esen , e en i absen ). Be o e being a cause, he use o he PC speech is he e ec o a num- be o p eceding opical no ms and eadings. O cou - se, his is a gene ic equi emen o any communica i- e p ac ice, bu none heless necessa y o PC o un old be ween he con ex ual eading, he mani es a ion o he p e en ion o he o ence and i s ac ual pe cep ion. In he no ma i e posi ion i p oduces ega ding wha should, o should no , be said and hea d, he PC mecha- nism es ablishes a p ac ical ela ion wi h he a ailable linguis ic ins umen s, being a kind o manual on how o use language in pa icula con ex s. I s obus ness esul s, in his sense, om he consis ency o med be- ween no m and “use”. Inso a as i mani es s a se o communica ion ules ha egula e ou discu si e ac- ions, he PC discou se akes he s uc u e o a p ac i- ce ha acqui es he p edominan o m o a p ac ice o speech. 49 * In wha sense can we s a e ha he PC discou se is p ima ily a p ac ice, i we posi ion i as a se o pa ially la en no ms o ules? Is i a code o social conduc o i s p ac ice? A box o discu si e ools o a p e-es ablished se o ules? No ms and ac ions can be in e dependen bu hey a e no he same hing. When we sugges ed ha he PC discou se ope a es as a mode o use o language, we should bea in mind ha “mode” and “use” a e s uc u ed by p ac ice. The e is no o m independen o p ac ice and p ac ice is he main o - malize and o ma e o he PC discu si e “ ool”; i is he agen ha joins no m and ac ion. In his ega d, one should bea in mind ha he o mal deploymen o PC e minology in he wo ld o adminis a ion does no equi e a se o p e iously es ablished ules (e en i some imes, and inc easingly so, he igh o non-o - ence is jus i ied and g ounded acco ding o he le e o he law and he Cons i u ion). Since i is no nec- essa y o o malize he o m ia bu eauc a ic o legal means, i is no possible o make e e ence o a code o conduc wi hou he mani es a ion, h ough “use”, o i s con o ma ion. Some no ms can be in e ed om hei p ac ice (such as, o example, he g ea e ole - ance owa ds poli ical inco ec ness when oiced by a membe o he a ge g oup o PC discou se) and, a a second s age, conclude ha hey gain a li e o hei own wi hin he legal and pseudo-legalis ic sphe es. Bu no ules su i e i espec i e o hei use. P ac ice p oduces no ms ha , in u n, condi ion p ac ice. This pe spec i e p esen s he PC discou se as na u ally e- sul ing om he consolida ion o habi s and a “wo ld 50 iew” common o he socie y om which i s ems. He e, we ace an o ganic image o he ela ionship be- ween mode and use ha is, in e ec , ( e)p oduced by p ac ice. Taking such pa h does no allow us o e- duce he discu si e p ac ices associa ed wi h he PC o a speci ic mode o use o language, since he o me a e also a “mode o p oduc ion” o a ce ain pe cep ion o discou se. P ac ice p oduces he su ace h ough which he appa en na u al and o ganic dimensions o discou se shine. * The p ac ical ela ionship be ween mode and use b ings us o he co e o a second ques ion ha should no be neglec ed: he PC discou se ope a es on he su ace o pe cep ion. We had al eady sugges ed ha , wi hin he PC mechanism, he p esence o a clea age o disag eemen be ween ac ion and hough is no el- e an since i s e ec i eness equi es he con o mi y be ween ac ion and no ma i e p ocedu es, alida ed h ough he pe cep ion o hi d pa ies (po en ial o - ende s). The e o e, i is meaningless o concei e he PC discou se in e ms o ac ion, i by ac ion we mean an indi idual esponse o (ex e nal and in e nal) gi - en s imuli, i espec i e o hei in e subjec i e isibili- y. The hypoc isy associa ed wi h poli ical co ec ness does no only eme ge when he dissonance be ween PC ac ion and PI hough becomes isible; i eme ges also h ough he issu e ha can be opened be ween isible PC ac ions and impe cep ible PI ac ions, ha is, amid he isibili y and opaci y o wha is said and done. The PC discou se equi es he pe cep ion o o he s o ex- is bu i is no comple ely anspa en . The speake 57 phenomena ha , when insc ibed wi hin a gi en si ua- ion, occupy a p edominan posi ion in ou e e yday li e. Hence he impo ance o e minology wi hin he PC discou se, linking discu si e “good p ac ice” o he co ec use o he igh e m o a gi en si ua ion. The e m pe o ms he e he ole o condensa ion poin , ha is, o e ish. In a sense, he ideological e icacy o he PC depends mo e on he in isible occupa ion o a gi en discu si e space han on i s illuso y cha ac e (con e sion o iolence in o o ence). Doing away wi h class an agonisms and ela ions o iolence pe o med a he le el o linguis ic con en plays a c ucial ole, bu i is o li le wo h i ha exclusion does no also occu h ough he domina ion o he space whe e ha con en is oiced. Ideology ollows he maxim “i you epea a lie o en enough, i becomes he u h”, be- cause i s “ u h” is o ged in he space occupied by e- pe i i e u e ance. Wha is mo e, he assaul s aimed a he PC discou se p o e i s p edominan posi ion wi h- in a gi en discu si e space. The mos common c i i- cisms made o he PC, usually coming om he libe al igh , accuse he gua dians o poli ical co ec ness o being a kind o “language police” (usually belonging o he libe al le ), ha se iously hinde s eedom o exp ession. No ma e how pe inen his deba e is, i boils down o he igh o o end o no o be o end- ed wi hin libe al socie ies, excluding he possibili y o conside ing a subjec o iolence beyond he subjec o he o ence. The p emises o he deba es a ound poli - ical co ec ness a e, om he s a , in o med by he e i o y occupied by he PC discou se wi hin he pub- lic space. In his sense, hey a e an ins umen o i s 58 ep oduc ion. Likewise, we should no conside poli i- cal inco ec ness as opposed o poli ical co ec ness, bu as a de ia ion om he no m ha keeps i ali e. Thus, he occupa ion o a discu si e space does no e- sul om he slow, na u al cemen ing o acqui ed hab- i s, small i uals and ways o in e ac ing; i equi es pe sis en and ac i e ei e a ion, which canno be ca - ied ou wi hou a whole ma e ial appa a us o ci cu- la ion, dissemina ion and esonance, ha is, wi hou a ull media and communica ion machine ha p oduces, ep oduces and ampli ies i . The e o e, he opog aph- ic model men ioned be o e o does no unc ion solely wi hin he subjec i e ield, since i is en eloped by a ma e ial, objec i e appa a us ha ul ima ely gi es i a body and a soul.