So has Lindy West. And Jill Filipovic. And me. But online harassment causes real fear and stress, and for others, that has been a form of ideological censorship. Programmer and game developer Kathy Sierra , who used to write a popular blog, stopped after she was targeted with a sustained campaign of violent threats. Sarkeesian had to cancel a public speaking engagement last year after threats of a mass shooting. Conor Friedersdorf has written in the Atlantic that women often rejected his requests for articles on controversial topics, citing "an understandable reluctance to subject themselves to the vitriol that too often accompanies being a woman who writes publicly, especially on certain subjects.
But when women protest online harassment, their concerns are often dismissed as a politically-correct attempt to censor the views of people they disagree with. This dismissal is also often used to reject the premise that measures might be needed to make women safer. Describing women's goals as merely being about "social justice" was a way to dismiss their contributions, ideas, and even personal safety as superficial grievance politics.
Nor was that attitude limited to Gamergate. Blogger Andrew Sullivan wasn't part of Gamergate, and says that he "actively support[s] suspending abusive, stalking tweeters or those threatening violence.
Chait's article does not mention Gamergate, and there's no reason to believe that he's anything other than appalled at online harassment. Likewise, Sullivan did not use the phrase "politically correct. But their arguments are fundamentally the same: that marginalized people's demands for inclusion are just a bunch of annoying whining, and that efforts to address their concerns are unnecessary. They also betray the deeper concern: that listening to the demands of marginalized groups is dangerous, because doing so could potentially burden the lives, or at least change the speech, of more privileged people.
And you know what? They're probably right. Chait proudly praises the "historical record of American liberalism" for extending rights to "blacks, Jews, gays, and women," but Americans used to be able to refer to members of those groups as "coloreds," "kikes," and "fags," without fearing the consequences.
But doing so now would result in serious social censure — exactly the kind of "coercion" that Chait looks upon and despairs in his article. Likewise, it is possible that efforts to address online harassment will put some sort of burden on the Andrew Sullivans of this world.
Although at this point those efforts are so feeble that it's a little hard to imagine. There is a legitimate argument to be had about how the "freedom" of social media platforms with few restrictions but lots of threats ought to be balanced against people's "freedom" to participate in online debates without having to fear for their lives or safety.
But the way to deal with that is to actually have that argument, not to suggest that the people asking for protection are just trying to censor free speech. Think about how you relate to the people around you. Is there anything you could do to make your speech or actions more inclusive? Learn how to stand up to racism. Learn why cultural appropriation is really not cool. Explore other topics It's not always easy to find the right place to start.
What's on your mind? On social media, the country seems to divide into two neat camps: Call them the woke and the resentful.
Team Resentment is manned—pun very much intended—by people who are predominantly old and almost exclusively white. These teams are roughly equal in number, and they disagree most vehemently, as well as most routinely, about the catchall known as political correctness. Reality is nothing like this.
They also share more common ground than the daily fights on social media might suggest—including a general aversion to PC culture. The study was written by More in Common, an organization founded in memory of Jo Cox, the British MP who was murdered in the run-up to the Brexit referendum. It is based on a nationally representative poll with 8, respondents, 30 one-hour interviews, and six focus groups conducted from December to September If you look at what Americans have to say on issues such as immigration, the extent of white privilege, and the prevalence of sexual harassment, the authors argue, seven distinct clusters emerge: progressive activists, traditional liberals, passive liberals, the politically disengaged, moderates, traditional conservatives, and devoted conservatives.
According to the report, 25 percent of Americans are traditional or devoted conservatives, and their views are far outside the American mainstream. Some 8 percent of Americans are progressive activists, and their views are even less typical. On this particular issue, the woke are in a clear minority across all ages. Whites are ever so slightly less likely than average to believe that political correctness is a problem in the country: 79 percent of them share this sentiment.
Instead, it is Asians 82 percent , Hispanics 87 percent , and American Indians 88 percent who are most likely to oppose political correctness. As one year-old American Indian in Oklahoma said in his focus group, according to the report:.
Such people tend to be highly self-aware, but they were not born with self-awareness; they continuously develop it as they systematically reflect on and analyze the behavioral patterns that underlie dissatisfaction in their lives. Through self-reflection, people break out of negative patterns. People who are able to turn identity abrasions into opportunities have the capacity to radically shift their way of thinking—about themselves, their situations, and other people.
Take Richard, a white codirector of a financial services firm. One morning, Richard e-mailed a board member about his disagreement with a policy that his black business partner, Michele, supported, and he inadvertently copied Michele on the message.
Michele was understandably furious. Richard felt bad and apologized, but over the next several days, he had a more complicated reaction, including strong feelings of anger toward Michele. Increasingly, it seemed to Richard, she had become controlling, domineering, cold, and withholding.
Richard saw himself as fair-minded and progressive and felt somewhat uncomfortable challenging a black woman. He decided not to say anything. Still, Richard cared deeply about the company, and he was self-aware enough to realize that his inability to collaborate with Michele was hampering their work.
Richard decided that something needed to change, and he understood that the only thing he could change was himself. As he reflected, with the support of two trusted colleagues, Richard saw that what truly bothered him most about Michele was that she always made him feel guilty.
He had apologized about the e-mail incident—he knew what he had done was wrong—but his apology seemed to fall on deaf ears. Indeed, it occurred to him that such a motive might have unconsciously prompted the e-mail incident. With this insight, Richard was ready to try a different approach.
He invited her to a series of meetings in which they could discuss their individual agendas with an eye to better understanding each other. With so many balls in the air, she worried that something important was bound to fall.
Richard had interpreted her detail orientation as a need for control and as implicit criticism of him. Angry, he had withdrawn, which had fueled her anxiety; her reactions, then, had fueled his anger. The vicious cycle was clear.
Recognizing this pattern went a long way toward easing tensions between them. They decided to manage their workload by continuing to meet weekly to discuss their goals, task allocation, and means of supporting one another.
Richard put his insecurities aside and sought only appropriate, task-related feedback from Michele. This change made it easier for her to be supportive of him, which gave Richard the confidence to disagree with her without feeling that he was risking her condemnation. A year later, Richard and Michele were coleading the firm in an energizing rather than enervating way. In so doing, he was able to move from feeling powerless to taking effective action.
The clarity that comes from making such a shift often reveals a business problem that turns out to have little directly to do with cultural issues.
In the case of Richard and Michele, the engine of their problem was an increased volume of work, which they were ultimately able to address with relative ease.
Leaders who follow the above principles of engagement and who demonstrate personal resilience in the face of identity abrasions inspire the same behavior in others. Company leaders can support and encourage people to confront identity abrasions directly and constructively by doing the following.
People in the organization need to feel that, in questioning themselves or making themselves vulnerable, they will not be judged or punished. In other words, they need to feel safe. Leaders create safety by publicly stating their assumption that people are well-intentioned and by overtly ensuring that well-intentioned actions will not lead to punishment.
Being candid themselves, they also encourage others to be candid. Perhaps most important, such leaders acknowledge their own fallibility in cross-cultural interactions. When they describe publicly their own learning, they legitimate discussions of identity-related experiences, giving permission to employees to provide and solicit feedback, air conflicts, and learn from their missteps.
Creating a safe environment requires care in determining what kind of misconduct is punishable. Zero-tolerance policies, for example, can cut two ways.
Such incidents require swift, public repudiation, but zero tolerance does not mean zero discussion. Immediate removal of employees responsible for these acts may well be called for, but often these sorts of firings stir as many fears as the violations themselves. Leaders who support a learning orientation offer forums for discussing such incidents and for delving more deeply into questions about how and why they occurred.
Alternatively, the forums can consist of systematic inquiry, with focus groups of employees led by experienced professionals who summarize and feed back their findings to management and to groups of employees for collective review. Very often, outright misconduct is the culminating event of a long history of identity abrasions that have been occurring under the radar.
We believe leaders should model all the principles above, but the most difficult—and rewarding—is that of questioning oneself. This principle is challenging for managers because it runs counter to the image of the confident, decisive leader. As it turns out, however, leaders who question themselves and learn from others in the service of clear goals do not bespeak a lack of confidence; rather, they demonstrate humility, clarity, and strength.
Indeed, the leaders we have observed who exemplify this principle generate fierce respect and loyalty from their followers. They model vulnerability, respond nondefensively to questions and challenges, are aware of their own biases and emotional triggers, demonstrate resilience in the face of identity abrasions, and openly rely on others to test the validity of their perspective. By developing a deeper understanding of those who differ from them in gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and so on, leaders learn to anticipate how employees are likely to read situations.
That way, leaders can intervene early and respond effectively when difficult situations arise, as they inevitably will. They can also meet with networking groups composed of employees with shared social identities. Leaders who support a learning orientation in cross-cultural interactions give employees a reason to put their self-images at risk and to invest more deeply in relationships with coworkers. By taking every opportunity to link the mission of the company with the five principles outlined above, leaders reinforce the message that a learning orientation to diversity issues will promote pro- ductive and fulfilling relationships.
The five principles we have identified are difficult to enact. They entail taking risks and opening up when we feel most vulnerable and in need of self-protection. When others accuse us of holding prejudicial attitudes, we should interrogate ourselves; when we believe others are treating us unfairly, we should reach out to understand their actions.
0コメント