14
PART ISAN R EVI EW
brutal . Thi s is a vas t subj ec t. I understand that se ri ous resea rch is being done
on it, I'm glad to say, because I think it is extremely damaging
to
our young
peopl e.
1'111
just go ing to menti on politi cal correctness in passing because
there's nobody here, I'm sure, who hasn't been invo lved in th e debates about
it. I don't want
to
talk about the ac tual " party lin e," as it we re, but w hat it
derives fro l11 . Politi cal correctness, to m y mind, stems straight from the old
Communi st Party. T he mere wo rds "correc t," " in correct," th e "correct
approach," the " incorrec t approac h," and so on . It is Party language, and it
is bullying. 13ut what has happened is that yet aga in we have eno rmous
nUl11bers of peopl e all over the wo rld sharing a readiness to accept a parti c–
ular dogma, as if they have no criti cal fac ulti es. I'm well awa re that I'm
skati ng over some dange rous ground , but thi s is how I see it. I think it's
probably the mos t as to ni shin g phenomeno n of our time, that from one end
of the world to the o ther you will hear peopl e murmuring, " It's politi cally
correct" or " It's no t po liti cally correct." Who o rdered th em to do thi s?
And w hy? Why does everyone fa ll o n th eir bac ks and wave th eir littl e paws
in the air? Why do we do it? Why don't we say
to
these bullies, "Go back
and to rment your fri ends with thi s nonsense and leave us in peace"? The
whol e wo rld is now mouthin g th ese littl e cli ches. I do not understand it. I
think it is utterl y as tounding that thi s should have happened . We los t one
dogma, the Communi st dogma, the Party line in Ii terature-whi ch went fa r
beyond the Party and the Left and affected all kin ds of peopl e fa r removed
from th e left wing-but we so love o ur chains that we instantl y drag on a
new set. Thi s is how I see it.
Ano ther thin g that lowers standards generally is the way that literature
is taught, whi ch is part of politi cal correctn ess. It is itemi zed. It is pull ed
apart. It is di ssected . I do no t think any autho r w ho has ever written has
imagin ed hi s o r her work being di ssected in thi s way. T hey see it as a w hole.
Very often j ournali sts come to me and th e first qu es ti on goes like thi s.
They say, "Mrs. Lessin g, do you think a wri ter ought to... ?" Now thi s near–
ly always has to do with taking a public stand o n something and I say to
th em , " Do you know where that ques ti on comes from?
1)0
you kn ow what
your antecedents are? No?" T he antecedents are the Communi st Party and
left-wing rh eto ri ca l language. Writers should be out on th e barri cades. I
mean, I don't have
to
belabor thi s to thi s audi ence. I say, " I think every
writer is diffe rent and every writer should have their private conscience and
it's no t a ques tion of wri ters having
to
do anything. Why are you ta lking
like thi s?" But thi s is so fa r removed from the way they have been taught
that th ey literall y don't unders tand what I mean. 13ecause of course they
believe wri ters ought to be o n soapboxes of some kind o r toeing some
party lin e, poli tical co rrec tn ess amo ng th em .
