In a society like Britain that seems to champion the rights of the subaltern, has political correctness become a token way of life? With the British government and media priding London for its cultural diversity, do people really treat the Other with respect and courtesy because they see one another as equals or is it because they feel bound by the social codes of "cultural diversity and racial harmony"?
How do we differentiate between formality and sincerity, especially in a cosmopolitan and culturally-diverse city like London? Is it really colour blind? Do we attribute the success of London's cultural diversity to the mechanisms of global capitalism, which does not seem to discrminate against people who have purchasing power, regardless of their ethnicity? Or do we really believe that global capitalism does not discriminate?
In concise terms, the "subaltern" in a postcolonialist context refers to any person or group of inferior rank and station, whether because of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or religion. For example, migrant construction workers from Bangladesh and China bullied and exploited by their Singaporean employers, working-class housewives who are unable to voice-out the domestic violence they have been subjected to, lesbians or gays whom are missing (thereby silenced) in media representations of your television channels, and if they do exist, are usually ridiculed for cheap laughs or for illustrating the perils of sexual deviance.
In a Channel 4 television documentary, a black middle-class woman commented that racism still exists in the UK, albeit in a subtler form. She feels that while people do not show it outright in your face, the person serving you can discriminate by smiling more warmly to the white male standing behind you in the queue. The same could happen to a Malay or an Indian in Singapore. And because facial expressions and body language are harder to track than the spoken, it will be difficult for one to articulate the issue of racial discrimination. The tables might even be turned against you, dismissing your feelings as being "over-sensitive" and taking it too "personally".
On the other hand, has political correctness become regimental or even oppressive for people of a privileged background? Has it become even taboo for them (read Caucasian middle-class heterosexual male) to even mention words like "black", "transsexual", "Indian", "Chinese", "Jew"or "gay"? Or is it because these words have become so historically and culturally loaded with negative connotations in Eurocentric discourse that it would actually be sexist or racist to mention them casually in a public setting? A Mexican white female friend in London told me how she found it hard to mention the words like "black" and "gay" in front of her black or gay friends, as if these are offensive terms. Another friend whom is a black middle-class female puts it directly, "Why can't people just say the word 'black' ? Why is it so difficult to say it when it's just the way I am?" Even if we appear to be as casual as possible, the slightest tinge of awkwardness we experience when articulating these terms could really mean that we do have issues. Could this uneasiness be linked to the schools and media that educate us about racial riots, the apartheid, the Stonewall incident and other embarrassing histories of mankind? Have we been socialised and over-educated with racial and religious sensitivity--the Other is always to be treated with extra care and respect--which, ironically in itself is creating more preconceived notions or prejudices about people of a different racial or religious background?
Issues of racial and religious discrimination and heterosexism are still very real and do not have straightforward solutions. Just because the civil rights of minorities are guaranteed in writing constitutionally does not mean that racial or religious discrimination will disappear from the face of the earth. And cultural diversity must always be understood in more complex terms. Just by having more employees of different racial and religious backgrounds in an organisation or institution does not mean that one has embraced diversity wholesale. Just because we dress in different ethnic costumes for Racial Harmony Day also does not mean that all may live happily ever after. And just because the Internal Security Department made Pastor Rony Tan apologise for his remarks on Buddhism and Taosim should not lead to a declaration of victory for religious harmony, believing that "peace" has been restored. The very fact that state had to intervene already means that there has long been a lack of dialogue and understanding between different religious organisations. It will be even more challenging when some religious leaders have a holier-than-thou attitude, which actually eliminates the slightest possibility of engaged dialogue and the fostering of mutual respect. Beliefs and cultural values are always the hardest to change. When we attempt to change someone's cultural attitude, does this imply that we ourselves have issues with the idea of "to live and let live"?
To conclude, I refuse to end on an optimistic tone that espouse cultural diversity or religious harmony. Because it's never that simple.
No comments:
Post a Comment