User:Jaydavidmartin/We Need New Stories

We Need New Stories: Challenging the Toxic Myths Behind Our Age of Discontent

Author	Nesrine Malik
Language	English
Publisher	Weidenfeld & Nicolson
Publication date	2019
Publication place	United Kingdom
Media type	Print
Pages	298
ISBN	978-1-4746-1040-7

We Need New Stories: Challenging the Toxic Myths Behind Our Age of Discontent is a 2019 book by Sudanese-British political writer Nesrine Malik, in which the author challenges what she considers to be six regressive myths commonly told about British and American society. These myths revolve around gender equality, political correctness, free speech, identity politics, colonialism, and exclusivity in journalism.

Summary

The Myth of Political Correctness

"Political correctness is not the problem, it is part of the answer. The solution is not less political correctness, it is more."

Malik argues that the crisis of political correctness (PC)—that in society today political correctness "renders everyone hesitant to express views that could be misconstrued as prejudiced" and forces people to sacrifice "free thought for the uniformity of oversensitivity to gender, race, and sexual orientation"—is "largely imaginary" and one of "the oldest and most pedigree of contemporary political myths". She notes that this "myth" has become mainstream, observing that in Britain...However, she considers this a manufactured crisis.

Malik notes that while the term "political correctness" originated in a US Supreme Court decision in the late 1700s to describe a social convention of "good manners" and "accuracy", it has become a "cudgel" utilized by right-wingers to "beat back basic advances towards equality" and label the left as "totalitarian in its patrolling of language". They use this "myth", according to Malik, to "undermine efforts for change by presenting them as sabotage, as attacks on a society that is fundamentally good and not in need of reform", to absolve themselves of accountability for their intolerant views, and to portray themselves not only as victimised but as courageous for butting up against a tide of PC-induced suppression.

However, Malik argues that political correctness is, in reality, an "attempt...to create a framework of equality of treatment, of opportunity and of respect to all"—it encapsulates the "growing pains of a society enlarging to accomodate all its members". She contends that it has been "hugely successful in regulating how we interact peacefully", at "integrating the voices of the marginalised", at stigmatising racial, antisemetic and homophobic slurs, and more generally at creating a "safe and inclusive society for all". She asserts that political correctness should be "enthusiastically promot[ed]" and that it is unpopular only because it has not been properly defended; political correctness, Malik insists, "is not wrong, it is merely unfashionable".

PC myth lifecycle

Malik identifies three stages in the "PC myth lifecycle":

1. Grievance creation, in which imaginary injustices are invented and a sense that the status quo is under siege is manufactured.
2. Fabrication, in which these invented injustices are blown into large stories, often by "simply making stuff up", leading to a "regressive backlash".
3. Diversion, in which the backlash becomes widespread enough that attention towards a legitimate grievance can be diverted towards a false, PC-related one, forcing time to be spent rebutting false grievances rather than acting on real ones (a strategy Malik calls "Frequency Scrambling").

Malik considers the "cornerstone" of the PC myth's perpetuation—the reason that it continues to persist—is its ability to convince those at the top of the social stratum that they "are weak and threatened by those with far less political capital": their political victories, like Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, are "constantly at threat of being usurped". She alleges this is how Trump voters can continue to fear "Mexicans and Muslims" and Brexit voters can worry about the government not following through on the referendum result.

The PC myth machine

Malik argues that there is a "machine" made up of lobbyists, tabloid-level journalists, conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute—funded in part by billionaires like the Koch Brothers—that disseminates "anti-PC propaganda" and even blatant misinformation. She cites a number of examples of media coverage which she argues create "a false sense of grievance" from political correctness, including a report by the British newspaper The Sun which falsely alleged a Muslim bus driver was allowed to throw passengers off the bus so that he could pray, an article by the Daily Mail on the "A to Z[s] of politically correct madness", which Malik claims consists largely of "unverified reports, one-off incidents, and simply quite sensible suggestions", and points to articles alleging Christmas and Easter were being rebranded or local political councils in England were banning the English flag.

The Myth of the Free Speech Crisis

"The purpose of the myth [that free speech is under assault] is not to secure freedom of speech, that is, the right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty. The purpose is to secure the licence to speak with impunity; not freedom of expression, but rather freedom from the consequences of that expression."

Malik contends that there is a "conventional wisdom that free speech is under assualt...that Enlightenment values that protected the right to free expression and individual liberty are under threat. Yet, according to Malik, this assault is a myth. In fact, she maintains, "free speech has never been more free and unregulated". She asserts that this reveals that the true purpose of this myth is "to guilt people into giving up their right of response to attack and to destigmatise racism and prejudice".

Malik considers the myth to have two components: "that all speech should be free", and "that freedom of speech means freedom from objection".

The Myth of Damaging Identity Politics

Malik considers the myth of damaging identity politics to be the idea that "group behavior to secure rights denied on racial grounds is corrosive, restricted to non-majority white groups and is offensive, rather than defensive". She considers the myth "helped along by constant denial that race is relevant to how white populations behave politically"; however, she contends that, in fact, white identity politics is portrayed as natural and benign, while identity politics practised by other racial groups is portrayed as "dangerous, indulgent, and damaging". The myth of a damaging identity politics, in her view, functions to "deny victimhood to the subjugated and then blame them for the bad behaviour of their oppressors".

Malik identifies two types of identity politics:

1. Aggressive identity politics, in which there is an attempt by one group of people to justify the domination of others on the basis of identity
2. Defensive identity politics, in which there is an attempt to "secure the rights denied to some on the basis of their identity"

She considers the first type to be harmful and characteristic of white identity politics, while the second is a necessary reflexive defense in response to a "pushback against equality" and a "constant subordination of the non-mainstream identity"—a "response against the dominance and ubiquity of a white identity"—and characteristic of non-white identity politics. More succinctly, she states "white identity politics came first and is aggressive", manifesting itself via slavery, colonialism, segregation, and institutional discrimination, while "identity politics by non-whites came second and is defensive".

Yet she argues a myth has been created that it is white identity politics which is responding to non-white identity politics, rather than the other way around.

"Defensive identity politics is not the problem, it is in fact, the only way forward".

Reception

The book has received several positive reviews. Melissa Benn, writing in the Financial Times, calls it "a powerful polemic" and praises Malik for her ability to "dig beneath the surface of political rhetoric and popular culture to find prejudice, stereotypes and distorted historical narratives"—comparing her to a "mechanic peering under the bonnet of a car and triumphantly holding aloft pieces of faulty machinery for her audience to gawp at". Rachel Andrews, writing in The Irish Times, states that Malik "presents her case persuasively, with admirable clarity, and in doing so cuts through a lot of the messy, often befuddling noise". Bidisha, writing in The Guardian, labels the book a "powerful and persuasive debunking exercise", and praises Malik for possessing "an excellent nose for hypocrisy and doublethink". Robin Jones, writing in The Paris Review, selected it as his staff pick for the week of 15 November 2019, stating that Malik is "keenly aware of our moment".