Modern Australian society is infected with imported terms. The list includes political correctness, identity politics, culture wars, woke and virtue signalling. They are not used in a neutral fashion, but to denigrate the legitimate views and opinions of others.
Over the past thirty years their use has grown so much that some of them, like political correctness, have become commonplace. Most are not traditional Australian terminology but, as often happens in a global era, have been imported from the USA. Our language has been corrupted by terms which have grown out of different social conditions and are then applied without thought to quite different Australian circumstances.
These terms may originally have had a carefully delineated meaning, but they are often used politically in a lazy, shorthand way. They are also often used in a way which serves the political purpose of shutting down conversation and trying to undermine alternative points of view.
A term currently in great favour among conservatives is identity politics, defined as a political approach wherein people of a particular gender, religion, race, social background or class develop political agendas to advantage themselves by calling attention to their systemic disadvantage.
Scott Morrison condemns identity politics as a modern disease and a trick to advantage some social groups over others. He may see it as demonstrating the traditional distinction between the two sides of Australian politics (individualism versus collectivism), but so-called 'identity politics' language has been widely used in the past by conservatives as well as progressives. Menzies’ famous appeal to the forgotten people of the middle class could equally be criticised as identity politics just as could the approach of the rural politicians who formed the Country party (now the Nationals) to advocate for those suffering systemic disadvantage because they lived in rural and regional areas.
The only difference now is that identity politics is being utilised by other groups who perceive they are subject to ingrained social disadvantage, including women, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and the LGBTQI+ community.
'We should engage in it openly, using clear language which we all understand not imported terms which, when used in a lazy fashion, only disguise what is going on.'
Political correctness (PC) is a related but older term, defined as an approach chosen to avoid offense to members of particular individuals and groups, on the basis of their race, gender and/or sexuality. Critics condemn so-called political correctness as an unreasonable restriction on their freedom of speech, preventing them using certain language in public.
The reality is that the use of inclusive language and the avoidance of derogatory terms is both sensible and essential for inclusion and equality in modern society. Offense is real not imaginary and those sensitive to the legitimate feelings of others should keep their language within bounds.
Political correctness has now been replaced by the term ‘woke’, which is not generally used as a compliment but a put-down just like PC. Woke is defined as an awareness of issues that concern social and racial justice, in particular,which could be seen as a positive. Critics use it to put down someone who is perceived to have an over-awareness of such issues. Another put down is the term ‘virtue signalling’, defined as publicly expressing sentiments intended to demonstrate one’s good character or moral correctness. Whatever its potentially positive meaning it is often used to condemn someone as being hollow or hypocritical when they show compassion for the vulnerable.
Even the Australian military is now accused by ministerial critics for being woke or virtue signalling, meaning allegedly too soft, compassionate and inclusive.
The politics of language is part of cultural conflict within any society. Whoever wins the language battle is on their way to winning the larger war about the dominance of some individuals and groups over others and the distribution of economic benefits within the society. Consequently language is the bread and butter of spin doctors and the marketing profession.
These terms are mainly, though not entirely, used to delegitimise the concerns and attitudes of certain individuals and groups, mainly those found on the Left. But the Left can be guilty of the same tendency. The term 'culture wars', for instance, is often used as a wrap-around term to dismiss arguments about particular issues by lazily describing them as predictable conservative responses by so-called 'culture warriors'. The use of the term does not advance rational argument but tries to preclude it.
Such cultural conflict is an inevitable part of any society. But we should engage in it openly, using clear language which we all understand not imported terms which, when used in a lazy fashion, only disguise what is going on.
Australian debate can do without the loose use of each of these terms. If terms like identity politics, political correctness, wokeness or virtue signalling are used then they should be explained and their appropriateness to Australian conditions defended. The use of them in a brief, offhand way should be called out by the media. This applies both to the media itself and to those they report.
Criticisms and allegations should be made in plain-speaking language rather than using terminology which masks their meaning. The language should be as neutral as possible. Then the matter in dispute, whether refugees, racism, gender, freedom of speech, poverty or vulnerability, can be debated on its merits not by innuendo.
John Warhurst is an Emeritus Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University, the Chair of Concerned Catholics Canberra Goulburn and a delegate to the Plenary Council.
Main image: Stylised speech bubble (Volodymyr Hryshchenko/Unsplash)