When Is It ‘Politically Correct’ to Be Politically Correct?

EDITORIAL, 21 Oct 2019

#609 | Richard Falk – TRANSCEND Media Service

Only a day after I published ‘In Praise of Kamila Shamsie’ [posted in TRANSCEND Members today], the Nobel Committee awarded their 2019 Prize in Literature to Peter Handke, the Austrian novelist and playwright widely known for his public support of ultra-nationalist behavior, including even a veiled endorsement of the crimes of Serbian leaders during the Bosnian War. PEN America wasted no time overcoming its institutional reluctance to criticize the literary prizes given by other organizations, issuing this statement of condemnation:

“We are dumbfounded by the selection of a writer who has used his public voice to undercut historical truth and offer public succor to perpetrators of genocide, like former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic and Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic. PEN America has been committed since the passage of our 1948 PEN Charter to fighting against mendacious publication, deliberate falsehood, and distortion of facts. Our Charter further commits us to work to ‘dispel all hatreds and to champion the ideal of one humanity living in peace and equality.’ We reject the decision that a writer who has persistently called into question thoroughly documented war crimes deserves to be celebrated for his ‘linguistic ingenuity.’ At a moment of rising nationalism, autocratic leadership, and widespread disinformation around the world, the literary community deserves better than this. We deeply regret the Nobel Committee on Literature’s choice.”

Yet, this half begs the question—should PEN America mix political sentiments (that I share) with their appraisal of literary achievement? It is a question for which there are no obvious answer better than ‘it depends,’ which is never satisfactory.

I read the PEN statement as an expression of their bitter disappointment, but it contained no hint of a suggestion that the Nobel Committee should reconsider, even withdraw the prize, and returning to drawing board in search of a more deserving candidate. When rightest pressures were mounted against the Nelly Sachs Prize awarded to Kamila Shamsie for her wonderful Home Fire, the Dortmund prize jury not only reconsidered, but reversed its decision. In the Handke case, the Austrian celebrated author had supported reactionary views, including chauvinistic, anti-immigrant, quasi-fascist nationalism that is currently posing virulent threats to humane forms of political governance in many countries, as well as creating a distinctly illiberal international order.

In effect, this advocacy of such political behavior should have been abhorrent enough to color Nobel’s committee’s overall assessment of Handke’s qualification for a prize that carries a large enough monetary amount as to enable him to put the money potentially to use in furtherance of these pernicious political projects. It would seem also relevant to take account of Alfred Nobel’s intention when establishing the prize to do more than celebrate literary excellent, but also to promote cultural ideals of an uplifting character (“en idealisk riktning” – in an ideal direction or direction of an ideal; see Eli Vuillamy, The Guardian, Oct.12, 2019).

By contrast, in Shamsie’s case her sin was to honor her conscience by supporting the nonviolent BDS-Boycott Divestment Sanctions Campaign that seeks an end to the violation of the basic rights of the Palestinian people. Twenty five years ago, BDS was a widely applauded tactic of those championing human rights, credited with mounting pressures on Apartheid South Africa. It was seen as nonviolent yet effective as an expression of solidarity with those seeking to overcome the oppressive policies of a racist regime. Yet recently, the image of BDS has been transformed for many ‘good people’ into a disguised, yet virulent form of anti-Semitism, even held by some, responsible for the recent rise in violent anti-Jewish incidents in Western liberal democracies. This is absurd, yet that doesn’t mean it’s harmless. In response to Zionist activism and Israeli propaganda, BDS is increasingly being condemned, even criminalized, or used to justify a variety of punitive moves of extreme disapproval such as this withdrawal of a literary prize.

The African-American superstar Angela Davis received a taste of similar toxic medicine when the Birmingham City Council retracted a human rights award in 2018 from her birth city recognizing extraordinary lifetime human rights contributions. At least in Birmingham there was a pushback to the pushback, the award was restored and received by Davis. Yet, lots of hurt and damage done in the process. Anyone who cares to examine the realities would know that the BDS Campaign is directed at Israel and has nothing whatsoever to do with hatred or hostility to Jews or the Jewish people. BDS would disappear the day the government of the State of Israel announced its abandonment of apartheid and committed itself to respecting the Palestinian people as their legal, political, and cultural equal. I believe that day will come, maybe not tomorrow or the day after, but it will come as the tides of history will prevail over one of the last strongholds of colonialism.

My conclusion: when Dortmund withdrew the prize from Shamsie it acted shamelessly; when Nobel Committee in Stockholm gave Handke its coveted prize it acted problematically, but arguably sufficiently within its mandate to validate a decision not to reverse its decision. In this sense, American PEN struck mostly the right note. It would have been pitch perfect in my view had they condemned Handke’s view, and then explained their rejection of the Dortmund capitulation to analogous regressive forces that prompted their dismissive response to learning that Handke had been given a Nobel Prize.

In this sense, creating moral distance from Dortmund by their silence illustrates the political inadequacy of liberalism as practiced in many Western countries, equivocally acknowledged by a flippant admission—‘progressive except for Palestine, or PEP.’ Maybe PEN America would retort, what Dortmund does is too trivial to matter, but this sidesteps the prestige of an award that in the past has been given to such stalwart literary figures as Milos Kundera, Margaret Atwood, and Nadine Gordimer among others; as well, the prize honors Nelly Sachs, ironically a Jewish poet who literary work against the crimes and wrongs of Nazism, not so dissimilar to opposing the crimes and wrongs of apartheid in our era..

PEN America might have justified crossing the line of customary restraint by calling for more than criticism in this particular instance. It could have asked the literary overseers in Stockholm to reconsider, and revoke their award, and surely they should have widened their net to take account of Dortmund’s behavior. As Israel’s crimes against humanity are ongoing and severe, the moral and political incorrectness of the unwarranted slur on Kamila Shamsie’s character and reputation is particularly reprehensible. It may be that condemning BDS has become politically correct in Western democracies but objectively viewed such a posture is morally incorrect and will eventually be so judged as will the double standards. I doubt that there was any backlash against the award to Kundera despite his intense anti-Soviet perspective, certainly inconsistent with peace and accommodation during the dangerous days of the Cold War. Double standards, especially by arbiters of political correctness, are themselves politically correct in the worst possible sense of conforming to the political fashions of the moment. This sends morally incorrect moral messages.

We are left hanging with the title question: When is it ‘politically correct’ to be politically correct? My answer is that it is normally desirable to be politically correct only when it is morally correct to be so. Even such a moral criterion can produce divergent responses. Someone like Handke can produce moral rationalizations about preserving the coherence of national political communities, alleging their dependence on ethnic and religious coherence as well as on the exclusion of strangers who would dilute national traditions and identity. As Dortmund did by implicitly contending that BDS generates ethnic tensions rather than promotes reconciliation and peace.

In other words, we cannot escape from taking responsibility for our decisions and choices, an unavoidable leap into frying pans of uncertainty. To be human and humane is make that leap with eyes as widely open as possible. When we do this I am confident that more and more of us would see our human species as surviving only if we can feel, think, and act in a cosmopolitan spirit that affirms human equality and exhibits particular solidarity with all who are desperate or vulnerable. If we do this in a forthright way, I believe we will be led toward embracing Shamsie’s worldview and rejecting Handke’s. At least that is my abiding faith, my moral compass.

__________________________________________

Richard Falk is a member of the TRANSCEND Network, an international relations scholar, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, Distinguished Research Fellow, Orfalea Center of Global Studies, UCSB, author, co-author or editor of 40 books, and a speaker and activist on world affairs. In 2008, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) appointed Falk to a six-year term as a United Nations Special Rapporteur on “the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.” Since 2002 he has lived in Santa Barbara, California, and taught at the local campus of the University of California in Global and International Studies, and since 2005 chaired the Board of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. His most recent book is Achieving Human Rights (2009).


Tags: , ,

 

This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 21 Oct 2019.

Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: When Is It ‘Politically Correct’ to Be Politically Correct?, is included. Thank you.

If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.

Share this article:

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.


4 Responses to “When Is It ‘Politically Correct’ to Be Politically Correct?”

  1. Charlie Browne says:

    Thanks for the article

    I was never happy with the term ‘politically correct’ which has the feel of moral coercion

    I prefer to think about avoiding offending the sensibilities of others

    Regards

  2. Thanks a lot for this fine article and its rich information on controversial prizes. I would like to contribute one reflection, based on my work with the Nobel Peace Prize – as I interpret its purpose it should have been called the Nobel Disarmament Prize or the “Lay Down Your Arms”-prize. Some of us celebrated the 130 year anniversary of Suttner´s bestselling novel (1889) in Prague last week and I said in my lecture that a main inspiration for Nobels “prize for the Champions of peace” was Suttner´s book. In our thoroughly militarised culture I make use of the peace prize as an information tool, as leverage to get displayed in the public discourse the lost and forgotten idea of global demilitarisation

    Your reference to the PEN US statement on Handke will prove particularly useful and added in the now finished manuscript to a thorough research into the peace prize – I document the military’s political hegemony and power to suppress all ideas and discussions of an alternative. To understand the power of warmongers the Nobel prize provides great insight. The Norwegian politicians managing the peace prize have served the military forces well for 119 years by never flagging the innovative solution that inventor Nobels intended it to serve; countries must co-operate and scrap military forces – Tentative title: Shall we never get rid of war?.

    I have one more problem with Handke – my new interpretation of the peace prize includes the view that all five prizes must pull together towards all the goals of Nobel´s will. Meaning that also the literature prize should serve – or at least be influenced by and keep strongly in mind, and by no means defeat – the peace purpose of Nobel´s will.

    The physics and chemistry prizes should not be given for discoveries that can be weaponised (Nobel could not have received a Nobel chemistry prize for his special gunpowder, the ballistit, etc.).

    This means that it was wrong of the first awarders of the literature prize that in 1901 they did not honor the great pacifist Lev Tolstoy, who was a strong frontrunner.

    Fredrik

    P. S. A friend of peace and publicist will now take my new manuscript to 12 of his contacts in the German publishing industry. I believe a third party recommendation is very helpful. If anyone in the Transcend community has a good publishing contact I would appreciate very much to be contacted – fredpax@online.no – for co-operation to publish translations, already under way in several languages.

  3. MY CONCLUSION:
    This means that it was wrong of the first awarders of the literature prize that in 1901 they did not honor the great pacifist Lev Tolstoy, who was a strong frontrunner. AND for the same reasons the 2019 Nobel for literature should not have been awarded to Peter Handke.

  4. Marilyn Langlois says:

    Before everyone jumps on the bandwagon to skewer Peter Handke for attending Milosevic’s funeral in 2006, consider for a moment the value in his having the courage to challenge the toxic and one-sided mainstream narrative about the Yugoslav wars of the 1990’s. That narrative lets some of the worst instigators of those wars completely off the hook and enables them to continue sowing violence in many parts of the world today.

    In former Yugoslavia, much of the bloodshed, suffering and destruction could have been avoided, had Western powers not intentionally stoked the flames of nationalism and divisive populism. Increasing demands for IMF loan repayments created scarcity, followed by premature and illegal Western recognition of secessionist states without allowing Yugoslav peoples sufficient time and space to work through their internal conflicts over federalism, self-determination, and borders. While Maastricht in 1992 sought to unify European nations, the US and Germany aimed at tearing Yugoslavia apart: supporting certain groups of extreme nationalists and demonizing only one, enabling abuses and inciting retaliation, and culminating in massive extra-legal US/NATO bombing. As in all warfare situations, the weapons industry thrived.

    Several independent journalists and scholars provide insightful analyses:

    Diana Johnstone, Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions (New Monthly Review Press, New York 2002).

    Malte Olschewski, Von den Karawanken bis zum Kosovo: Die geheime Geschichte der Kriege in Jugoslawien (Braumüller, Wien 2000)

    Cathrin Schütz, Die NATO-Intervention in Jugoslawien: Hintergründe, Nebenwirkungen und Folgen (Braumüller, Wien 2003)

    Michael Parenti, To Kill a Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia (Verso, New York 2000)

Join the discussion!

We welcome debate and dissent, but personal — ad hominem — attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), abuse and defamatory language will not be tolerated. Nor will we tolerate attempts to deliberately disrupt discussions. We aim to maintain an inviting space to focus on intelligent interactions and debates.

*

code

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.