Mutually Assured Cancellation II: Andrew Doyle meets the Circular Firing Squad
Let other people choose their words
When I reviewed ’s The New Puritans for Law & Liberty, I noted his sympathy for the “political correctness” campaigns of the 80s and 90s, and took issue with it.
Doyle defends the 80s/90s “political correctness” movement. He thinks it did help women, gays, and blacks. He argues that the use of casual slurs was pervasive and that women were routinely dismissed. […]
I don’t, however, think the 80s/90s political correctness movements were benign or polite. Not only did I experience a PC-inspired 90s attempted cancellation, but it was already difficult to question the theoretical nonsense in humanities and social science disciplines when I started university in 1990. People were lying to get good marks as a matter of routine, something I admit I did. That period was also when feminism went feral, destroying male freedom of association.
At bottom, I think political correctness promotes a milder version of the same verbal unreality that characterises Wokery. It suggests that if you call the “Chairman” a “Chairperson” more women will want to be Chairpersons. That little Helen never wanted to be a chairperson because she saw the word “man” and thought “I can’t be that.” This isn’t mere politeness. It’s a belief that words can change reality.
It’s long been my view those old school 80s and 90s word-use controversies set the stage for new regimes of blasphemy, and worked in much the same way: social opprobrium and ostracism followed by state sanction. Blasphemy has long been a religious concept. Muslims used it against Salman Rushdie in 1989 and, in time, many many others. However, this more traditional form of speech policing re-emerged in enhanced form alongside new forms that, nonetheless, started to look weirdly similar.
That feminism has always had an interest in speech-policing came home to roost on Andrew Doyle in particular this week. As he explains here, his crime (along with that of print journalist Janice Turner) was to evince too much kindness towards transsexual high school teacher Debbie Hayton, who has written a book.
Both Doyle and Turner used “she/her pronouns” for Hayton, which resulted in Doyle (especially) turning into Twitter’s Main Character.
For many, the issue of pronouns has become a red line in the gender wars, and Turner’s efforts at compromise are seen not only as wrongheaded, but traitorous. It is widely held that trans-identifying individuals must never be described as anything other than their true biological sex, and cries of “hold the line” are often heard. Not only are the likes of Turner demonised for attempting to find a middle ground, but they are also told that they have been “groomed” by the men who are insisting that other people’s language must be modified in deference to their sense of self.
I’ve been Twitter’s main character a couple of times before, and I’ve also experienced a genuine cancellation attempt. So has Doyle. This sort of thing really isn’t fun, even when it turns your books into bestsellers. All you can do is sit there, grit your teeth, and hope the pay cheque—when it comes—eases the pain. I don’t blame Doyle for deactivating for a bit.
On his return, he announced a move to Substack and a desire to see rather less of Twitter.
I have come to the realisation that conversations about important topics on Twitter are impossible. There’s something about the site that brings out the worst side of humanity […] I will only be using Twitter very sparingly in the future.
Above and beyond the minutiae of this particular dispute—Doyle really was the victim of a circular firing squad—I’d like to make one point clear: attempting to control how one is portrayed or spoken of by dint of speech policing is creepy and totalitarian.
Literature and the creative arts are now hemmed in on all sides by hectoring misanthropes who would choke us on our own pens while mandating we portray them only as they wish to be portrayed. Note, here, I’m not talking of campaigns to include more women and minorities in literature or the arts or the “canon” (if the latter can even be said to exist anymore). While I think this wrongheaded—I don’t care about representation for the simple reason that literature isn’t a democracy—my concern is for writers to be able to choose their (our) words.
Offence is like alcohol—intoxicating only if you drink it. Writers cannot be responsible for their readers’ emotions; this requires the ability to mindread. The attempt to make us so stands behind all the sensitivity and authenticity readers, people who seem furiously, emotionally labile quite apart from evincing an inability to appreciate good writing.
A close analogy (and one which keeps the writer-reader dyad intact) is with writers who attempt to control how their work is reviewed, a phenomenon Rushdie calls “the trap of wanting to be loved.” Neither this nor making writers responsible for reader responses is possible; both require entering other people’s minds to control their thoughts, “opening windows into men’s souls”.
I hope, when it comes to this sort of heckling, Doyle takes his cue from the Queen Mother. She was once visiting a war memorial when a group of radical students began singing songs and throwing loo rolls at her. They’d hold on to one end like a streamer.
She picked one of the rolls up and followed it to the student who’d thrown it, then said, “oh, does this belong to you? Could you please take it for me?” The student did—and stopped singing. It was her absolute refusal to be flustered or shocked that caught them off guard.
Doyle continues to try to be measured and reasonable and also funny, and refuses to be anything other than himself. Maybe the people who persist in throwing ideological toilet paper at him could learn something from that.
In the meantime, Andrew, welcome to Substack.
Brilliant piece, Helen. It shouldn't be surprising but it was truly depressing to read about the circular firing squad Andrew found himself in the middle of.
I have no problem naturally changing language to something more "inclusive" or sex-neutral purely for accuracy, not because I necessarily think it would encourage more women or (insert other minority) to participate. I don't think words can necessarily change reality, but as realities change, a change in language can describe a new reality better. But I can't figure out if the "old" terms were simply neutral terms that could encompass both sexes anyway - in the way that "mankind" uses the word "man" in it but obviously includes the female half of the species too.
For example, with the old school PC wars, I am happy to say "firefighter" instead of "fireman" in genral terms because women can now become firefighters (though, they do so in vanishingly rare numbers compared to men), same with "chairperson" instead of "chairman". But this assumes that "chairperson" wasn't already inclusive of both sexes. It doesn't make much difference to me either way and I certainly don't find it misogynistic to use the "old" term. The point is, either "chairperson" or "chairman" / "chairwoman" can describe the role accurately.
The interesting and, I think, different thing about the new language wars is the demand to neutralise or change words to the point of inaccuracy. In my view, "chairperson" is a naturally sex inclusive role, but "woman" and certainly "female" is not, nor are words around pregnancy, motherhood, breastfeeding etc. These are sex specific and so exclusive to women. This is why I think activists need to police them much harder, because they need to control your thoughts to try to change the way you actually perceive reality. Whatever language you choose to use, we can imagine chairpersons of both sexes and firefighters of both sexes (even if that is rare), but most of us cannot really perceive of a woman of both sexes or of a man as a woman. So, the language and tactics must become even more totalitarian. But also, it's become some sort of weird power grab too, and the "correct" words keep changing - "women" isn't inclusive enough so must become "womxn" but apparently this is now problematic too, and so it keeps on shifting.
Having said all these, I do still remember the dogma of some feminists growing up in the 90s around the language we should use to describe women, girls, and positions of power. And you are certainly right about all the precursors - the Salman Rushdie affair should have taught us that blasphemy was already a deadly affair in the old school days.
I loved the anecdote about the Queen Mother. Would love to see Andrew channel this haha.
Anyway that's the end of my long and rather endless ramble. Thanks as always for the thoughtful commentary, Helen.
Political correctness has always been tyranny disguised as manners.
I remember when I was a kid, I ran across various people who were, for lack of a better term, "hippy" type people. I always felt uneasy around them and at the time I didn't know why. Now I realise they spoke "love", "openness" and "freedom" from their mouth, but they constantly came across as very passive aggressive. In my life I have come across very few truly open-minded people who are willing to discuss anything.
I like a quote from Jordan Peterson when he was interviewed on the BBC, "In order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive...you're certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth"
I really resonate with this thinking. It is simply not possible to have opinions and to say things out loud whereby not one single person gets offended in one way or another. It's not reasonable to hold the whole world hostage in order to prevent one person, or a minority of people from being offended. It also comes back to personal accountability as well. At the end of the day you, and only you are responsible for the way you feel. This tyranny simply ends up in a chilling effect, where even those sympathetic to the "cause" become afraid to speak out.