has blown open the hegemony of politics over all other kinds of public discourses.
There was a time when people’s relations were regulated not by what was “politically
correct”, but by something far more basic, that looked almost like a vague memory
of “pre biblical” times when happy human beings freely roamed in Paradise.
And by this “ something”, I mean tactfulness, and by extension, good taste.
Today , in view of all the post-modern laws that regulate our social behavior, that “
vague memory,” that remnant of the “ true thing” looks to us actually as good and as
awesome as a utopic reality. For there is not even the smallest effort to coat the
crudeness in our discourses with polite conventions, those little implicit signals between
human beings that imply that we can still find a common ground and that we can still be
friends.
There is no doubt that erecting that Muslim community center in downtown is politically
correct . Everything in the US constitution guarantees that right. But the question
remains: Is it in good taste? If the majority of the people who live in those quarters feel
awkward , wouldn’t it not be tactful to shelve the project for a while, until people feel
more comfortable with it? Of course it is. And insisting on the project seems to me
quite impolite and in bad taste.
On the other end of the spectrum, every time I hear the president called a “Muslim”, I
bristle at the slur and want to hold the Qur’an high over my head, the way a Jew would
brandish the “yellow star” every time he hears the word “ dirty jew".
And I have to hold my tongue not to shout on the rooftops and remind
everyone that the SS who guarded Auschwitz went to church every Sunday and cried at their dogs funerals.
For even if one were to think that all Muslims are worthless bastards, shouldn’ t they
shut up, if only because there are scores of Muslims who are enlisted in the US Army
and fighting and dying everyday defending this country?
Human communication based on conventions and politeness is what Kant would call
a “non conceptual” communication, as opposed to a “conceptual” communication
based on knowledge and sciences. Whereas the latter remains restrained within
the circles of specialists and scientists, the “non conceptual” communication is the
basis of a universal communication. To keep such exchanges within the confines of
international diplomacy instead of spreading it throughout all communities would be the
death of a meaningful and purposeful dialogue.VBJFNCN84B9U
