A chess tournament may seem an odd place to find a cautionary tale about political correctness and appeasement, yet the World Chess Federation’s upcoming tournament in Iran offers just that.
Since Iran requires all women, including foreigners and non-Muslims, to wear hijabs in public, female chess players participating in the tournament would be required to do so. Several have indicated they’ll boycott the tournament rather than comply. Good for them. Some are imploring these players to reconsider, because they feel the tournament will help advance women’s rights in Iran. Herein lies the parable.
The premise that others’ beliefs and behavioral preferences should be respected are found in the precepts of liberty, in those of common courtesy, and in the demands of political correctness. The first two embrace a golden rule consistency in that such expectations are placed on everyone equally. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Respect others’ ways and expect reciprocal respect.
Political correctness, however, dispenses with golden-rule parity. In its stead, beliefs and behavioral preferences are ranked according to a grievance hierarchy, with those at the bottom (typically, those considered to be the “majorities” in society) expected to subordinate their own beliefs to those higher up. Concurrently, those at the top of the hierarchy are given a “bye” when it comes to their intolerance for others’ beliefs and behavioral preferences. So, PC informs us that we should be tolerant of the hijab, and respect the culture and religion that mandates it, and that we should tolerate those that demand women not of that culture or religion to wear it. PC also informs us that no such consideration be given to religions (e.g. Christianity) that rank low on the grievance hierarchy. Don’t like the religion angle? Apply this disparity of expectation to any other identity group pairing and see what you come up with.
The argument in support of this disparity is that minority and oppressed groups deserve compensating consideration, but consider what happens when this consideration becomes expected.
Richard Dawkins observed that, in a group of considerate and altruistic individuals, those who are slightly more selfish will, over time, achieve a position of superiority. When we excuse and support that selfishness by failing to expect behavioral parity, we reinforce it. When we take what we think is the high road by tolerating others’ intolerance, we don’t move the intolerant in the direction of tolerance, but rather away from it. When we think of ourselves as the “better” persons for accepting unacceptable behavior from others, we harm rather than help the pursuit of true social justice. And, when we tell others that they need to be accepting without being accepted, we feed a resentment in those others that breeds backlash.
It’s always been cool to be tolerant and enlightened when it comes to others’ cultures and beliefs. The social impetus that this “coolness” has fostered over the decades has moved society in a good direction. But, as is so often the case, as things get better, the original aims start to get foggy, and the more extreme voices start corrupting the message. When our tolerance becomes an appeasement of intolerance, we really do need to take a moment and realize it’s making things worse, not better.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters