DAVID LEHMAN
The Reign of Intolerance
Political co rrectness
has a hi sto ry: Lenini sts used it approvingly to indi ca te
proper party-lin e behavi o r, th o ugh soo n eno ugh it was used aga inst
them to deno te kn ee-j erk fid elity
to
th e god that failed . Th e return of
the phrase sugges ts that people active in the resistance to the new multi–
cultural o rder di scern in it yet one mo re vari ant o n th e o ld Marxist–
Leninist model of radical social change.
Premi se : Politi cal co rrectness is to the 1980s and 1990s what fe llow
traveling was to the 1930s and 1940s . Is thi s rheto ri c, o r is thi s truth? A
bit of bo th. T o the extent that it is an exagge rati o n , th e analogy sug–
gests the intensity of the anxiety provoked by multi culturalism. ("All of
the passions lead to exaggerati on ," said C hamfo rt. "That is why they are
passio ns.") But the analogy does have the virtu e o f logically co nj oining
two equally current academi c phenomena: on the one hand , the battle
ove r free speech o n campus; on the o ther, the prevalence o n campus of a
nostalgically sentimental vi ew o f Marxism in general and " the N ew Left"
in particular.
In retrospect, it ce rtainly seems that th e seminal te xt fo r understand–
in g th e rise o f po liti ca l co rrec tn ess is th at N ew Le ft classic, H erbert
Marcuse's
Critique of Pure Tolerance.
Acco rding to th e revoluti o nary
logic that countl ess campus cadres derived from Marcuse, tolerance was
repressive. D econstru ct ethi cal values and no rms o f conduct such as toler–
ance, open-mindedness, civility, and courtesy, and th ese wo uld be seen
not as discourse- enabling virtues but as ru ses that favor the perpetuation
o f th e status quo. A poli cy o f exclusio nary intolerance was one way to
trap th e powe rs that be. The class ic humani st wo uld feel constrained to
ac t in a manner accommodating to his adve rsa ri es ; the insurgent , com–
mitted to an adve rsa rial posture, wo uld feel no such obli ga ti on . The
former, by hiring the latter, wo uld conspire in hi s own downfa ll.
What else is politi cal correc tness but a massive case o f intolerance -
the inabili ty o r unw illingness
to
to lerate a ri va l po int o f vi ew? The reign
o f into lerance is ever in need o f th eoreti cal justifi ca ti o n . Th e latest at–
tempt has been made by th e attenti o n-grabbing Stanle y Fish , in his new
book
Th ere's No Such Thin/.?, as Free Speech, A nd It 's a Good Thillg, Too.
Upon such a rock is founded the church of political correctness.
Politi cal co rrectness stems from the dri ve
to
cast all matters of cul–
ture and intell ec t in po liti cal terms. Po liti cs has triumph ed in the
academy
to
th e prec ise degree that it is commo nl y accepted , wi thout
much dissent o r debate, that everything from sexual behavio r and the life
o f the nucl ea r fa mily to th e meaning o f poems and paintings is political.
