From: prs9k@brain.med.virginia.edu (Phil Scarr)
Subject: Re: Political Correctness + Sci-fi
Organization: Neuroclinical Trials Center, University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 22:01:52 GMT

To open this discussion, I would like to ask Michael to define PC
because it is clear to me that he is using the tokenized PC concocted by
the now-defunct Republican spin-machine to talk about a body of thought
of which they had precious little comprehension.  In a nutshell, this
body of thought which has emerged over the last 10 years seeks to
broaden the literary cannon to include works by non-DWM (dead white
males) which deserve inclusion but which have been traditionally
excluded due to institutional bias, racism, or just plain ignorance of
their existance (I tend to believe the later, ignorance, played the
largest part in this non-inclusion).  Now there is also a harder edge to
this thought, a more radical side which seeks to undermine the cannon,
to toss it out as fundamentally flawed.  I don't agree with this
argument, but I still consider myself to be "politically correct."  Many
of these people like to play the politics of exclusion (something the
conservatives in this country are very good at: witness Pat Bucahannan's
speach at the Republican Convention this year for a good example), but
this practice does not define the movement.  What defines the movement
is anger and resentment by legitimate forces in the academic and
literary community who want to be heard and who deserve to be heard.
Now, to address some specific points:


In article <1992Dec27.204813.21098@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mlabossi@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael C LaBossiere) writes:
> Some brief notes on PC (politically correct, not personal computer):
>     1) The political views of an author are irrelevant to the merit of the 
>work. To believe otherwise is to fall prey to the ad hominem fallacy (the 
>fallacy is that x is false or bad, because x was said or written by A and A has
>a bad character, incorrect views, etc.). Of course, an authors political views 
>can color his/her/its work.

While you may like to believe this is true, I would argue that Mein
Kampf is a fundamentally flawed book because of its author, it lacks any
foundation for credibility not only because of the ideas expressed
within, but because of who wrote it.  We don't read books in a vacuum,
we know who the authors are and what they may stand for.  Because of
this, this will ALWAYS cloud our judgement.  Another example, I find
Jerry Pournelle's fiction odious and tiresome, a fact which is
reinforced by reading his non-fiction Byte collumn.

>     2) Literature should be judged on its literary merits and not on the basis
>on how well it conforms to the political or moral ideology of the day. This 
>applies whether the oppressing ideology is the excessive moralizing of the 
>right wing or the excessive moralizing of the left wing. Arguments can be 
>provided for this position, upon request.

Again, this is a specious fantasy.  Books, especially SF, are very
context-dependant.  SF movies doubly so.  When was the last time you saw
"Robot Monsters" or "Plan 9 from Outer Space" or even "The Day The Earth
Stood Still"?  These are all indicative of a social climate which no
longer exists (although TDTESS will always hold up because it was
critical of the Red Scare of the 1950s).

>     3) Sci-fi, as a genre, tends to be very non-PC. Complaining that Sci-Fi is
>non-PC is like complaining that war novels are not pacifistic enough or that 
>romance novels contain to much romance.

Again, you must be more specific about your terms.  "Non-PC" means very
little apart from the tokenistic method you are using.  But even in that
form, I would strongly argue the contrary.  Look at works by Zelazny,
Herbert, Anastasio, or Bruner.  And lets not forget LeGuin.  All the
best science fiction has very little to do with science and a lot to do
with society and human relations, oftentimes showing us how falacious
our own beliefs are.  Look at Gibson's _Neuromancer_, a very bleak view
of our capitalist future.

>     4) the PC dogma is internally inconsistent and oppressive, even by its own
>lights, and hence morally sensible individuals will not employ its tenets to 
>judge others.

See above for refutation of this sillyness.  Sheesh, what a tautology...

>     5) If one must judge works on their PCness, one should be fair and 
>consider the time period in which the author was writing in. After all, an 
>author that would seem to be a stodgy old conservative today may well have been
>a radical in his/her/its time.

This is the first sensible thing you have said.  Yes, contextualization
is very important (and very PC I might add).

>
>Michael

	-Phil
-- 
PHIL SCARR        \      We are Microsoft...     /          (o) 804.243.0229
 University of    /     OS/2 is irrelevant.      \          (f) 804.243.0290
 Virginia,        \     UNIX is irrelevant.      /        prs9k@Virginia.EDU
 Neurosurgery     /     Openness is futile.      \     prs9k@Virginia.BITNET
 HP-UX is my life!\ Prepare to be assimilated... /   ...uunet!virginia!prs9k