One of the most frightening bits of social science/philosophy I heard
came from Slavoj Zizek, because it's about harbingers of big change.
I have tried in vain to find a written reference. It's buried within
some of his often tediously tangential talks - but I would love to
know if any former Yugoslavians can attest to the truth or falsity of
it.
Zizek said that the former Yugoslavia was a tense but stable amalgam
for decades in which good humour and brutally free speech - including
"edgy but acceptable" racism - was permitted and even celebrated.
Sometime before the 90s that changed, and a chilling taciturnity
overcame the nation. The "politically correct" atmosphere was a lead
up to civil war.
It's possible Zizek completely misreads cause and effect. But I always
take his point to be - as elementary psychoanalysis - that when people
stop talking about how they really feel, it's the start of a road to
trouble; jaw jaw jaw being better than war, war, war. The culture of
faux "offence" created by Social media had definitely done the same to
online discourse.
> Escalating racial and ethnic hate was lead up to war.
That's exactly what I'd think. And historically I'd wager
every well documented example shows it.
And yet Zizek gave that as a first hand account (that's where he is
from please correct me if I am wrong), and it's an intriguing
hypothesis. Certainly an unpopular one judging by my immediate
down-vote for even mentioning it (as an open question no less)
I don't think he was talking about "hate". He was talking about open
acceptance of difference. That's what it seems is getting ever less
permissible - and that's what I find concerning.
Can we no longer make that distinction? Are we too timid to even
discuss that? Is that what social media has done to us?
In 90 ties is when the nationalist movements grew. Serbian nationalism became Army ideology. That won't happen woth political correctness. The other nationalities build own separatist movements.
All of that involved a lot of talking. The run up to genocide was also not some kind of politically correct gentle talking period, not for everyone anyway.
When a country with by your characterization full of edgy race insults eventually descend into genocides and crimes against humanity, maybe some intellectuals refusing to engage with race insults in the run up to genocide are not the cause. Maybe they are people who realized where this is going and did not wanted to contribute.
I don't know about the specific case of Yugoslavia, but I'd be incredibly wary of drawing any broader conclusions, even if it were a factor in that specific case.
The US Civil War certainly had plenty of "jaw jaw jaw" before it, there was no "political correctness" at the time, and that didn't prevent it.
Similarly we've had something like three and a half decades of "political correctness" in the US without any civil war yet (Jan 6 notwithstanding). While you'd think that if political correctness really had such a strong effect, there would have been a second civil war by the late 1990's.
Not to mention that "jaw jaw jaw" can be the horrible hate speech that works to incite war.
If you look at history, the counterexamples seem incredibly more numerous. So hopefully we can feel less frightened by political correctness. :)
January 6th is a significant data point and shouldn't just be handwaved away. I've watched political correctness erode the dynamic of my own family, it's continuously sewing resent between people who have different angles of non-PC opinions.
It is freaking ridiculous to blame political correctness for actions of people who were literally at the opposite spektrum of politics for years. These are people that lived in opposite kind of bubble and listened to hard-core right wing media for years.
I have tried in vain to find a written reference. It's buried within some of his often tediously tangential talks - but I would love to know if any former Yugoslavians can attest to the truth or falsity of it.
Zizek said that the former Yugoslavia was a tense but stable amalgam for decades in which good humour and brutally free speech - including "edgy but acceptable" racism - was permitted and even celebrated.
Sometime before the 90s that changed, and a chilling taciturnity overcame the nation. The "politically correct" atmosphere was a lead up to civil war.
It's possible Zizek completely misreads cause and effect. But I always take his point to be - as elementary psychoanalysis - that when people stop talking about how they really feel, it's the start of a road to trouble; jaw jaw jaw being better than war, war, war. The culture of faux "offence" created by Social media had definitely done the same to online discourse.