A Theoretical Framework of the Politics of Politeness

Alright - I think I bit off more than I could chew in the last update. I had a very complicated context and in my efforts to explain that, I think I lost people on what the real focus was. So I'm going to try again, approaching this time from a theoretical perspective. If you haven't read my previous blog, read this one first!

The "Politics of Politeness" is a phrase I utilize to describe the way that an individual (the Moderate) invokes ideas of being "nice" or "polite" as a way to silence or shame someone (the Agitator); as well as the structures of power which create and guide such an interchange. This Politics is usually invoked when the Agitator is questioning some system of oppression, which could create feelings of unease or defensiveness in the Moderate. The Moderate then makes a point to justify why the action the Agitator has taken or the statement they have made is inappropriate and violates the Politics of Politeness.



Ultimately, the Politics of Politeness gets its power from the status quo of oppressive structures and from silence. By not challenging, interrogating, or questioning these structures, they can remain intact. People who benefit from these structures - those who hold some sort of power - are protected by this Politics when they make some sort of oppressive statement. To question or challenge them is to question or challenge the underlying structure that supports them, and therefore violates the Politics of Politeness.

The most egregious example of this can easily be found by watching a show on Fox "News". Religious fundamentalists, for example, become the victims of religious oppression when people challenge their bigoted actions. Or as Rachael puts it, this explains "why bigots feel that calling someone a 'bigot' is as bad as calling someone a 'tranny' or taking away their rights." This also is not strictly personal; questioning or challenging someone who has an identity similar to yours threatens the power structures which give you authority. In order to protect those structures, the Moderate can invoke the Politics of Politeness on the behalf of someone else, effectively protecting your own oppressive viewpoints or the power you derive from systems of oppression.

However, I do not think that this phenomenon is limited strictly to far-right talk show hosts. There are many people who are oppressed in some ways but also have structural power in other ways. I believe these people may also engage in the Politics of Politeness (perhaps even unconsciously) in order to protect the power structures which do benefit them. For example, in my own personal experience, those who have invoked and utilized the Politics of Politeness against me almost exclusively consist of older white gay men.

Here are some of the ways that I have seen the Politics of Politeness invoked:

• Asking for moderation (hence "The Moderate") in any sort of discussion which deals with identifying and calling out oppression. This tactic specifically can materialize a number of ways:
• Accusing the Agitator of being angry in their response, which therefore discredits it.
• Accusing the Agitator of over-reacting in some way to the oppression.
• Making pleas to general sentiments like "can't we all just get along?" or "maybe you should agree to disagree".
• Invoking ideas of "freedom of speech" or other similar arguments as a reason why the Agitator should not have responded in the way they did to something oppressive.
• Defending the oppression in some way, usually by appealing to some hypothetical quality of the oppressor ("they're really a nice, reasonable person"; "they didn't mean it the way you think they did"; "I'm sure if you just talked more calmly they would listen").
• Invoking issues of safe space in ways that suit their own systems of power.
• One way this can be done is the idea of public v. private; private oppression becomes acceptable because it's someone's personal space - their home or a particular private business. Their right to privacy and to control their private space supersedes any perceived oppressions.
• Constructing spaces which create safety for one oppressed characteristic by oppressing a different marginalized group. For example, creating gay-male organizations which prohibit women, or creating women-born music festivals which prohibit transgender people.

This list is by no means exhaustive, but should help to provide some tangible examples of the way this Politics can be invoked. Items on the list can also be used in combination, of course.  Some of them may even be utilized in non-oppressive ways within other contexts, where there is another goal outside of the Politics of Politeness.

In my experience, when the Moderate invokes the Politics of Politeness it is particularly insidious because it appears so reasonable. Who wouldn't want people to be polite, to treat each other nicely, to be moderate in their approaches? In fact, there may be quite a number of situations where an approach like this would be the most effective one, perhaps even the best choice for an individual.

The problem is that this Politics isn't concerned with effectiveness, it's concerned with power, control, and silence. Supporting an Agitator while also providing alternative methods for confronting oppression is one thing. The Politics of Politeness, however, are specifically designed to use the concept of "politeness" as a weapon to first shame, then silence an Agitator. This Politics doesn't propose that emotions like anger are ineffectual, but that they are unacceptable. And as many other bloggers have said (especially women of color), anger can and should be a perfectly valid reaction and response to oppression.

The Politics of Politeness is not an identity - it is a structure that can be invoked as an action. As such, I don't propose that any single person acts as the Moderate in every single situation, nor even to every single person within the same situation. Someone may be the Moderate against an Agitator they view as particularly disquieting - perhaps the one who is the loudest, or the most angry, or the one who has questioned oppression before in a way that offended them - while at the same time supporting others who confront oppression in a different way. Perhaps when the oppression being confronted affects them more personally (and their own structures of power) they revert to the Politics of Politeness, but are supportive of an Agitator when the oppression is something that doesn't trigger their own power structures. In fact, I am sure that I, myself, have participated at times within these Politics in ways that were silencing to others.

In order to combat something oppressive, you first need to name and define it. I hope that this blog helps people conceptualize a theoretical framework for the Politics of Politeness so that we can identify when it's happening, circumvent its effects, and eventually eradicate its existence. (I know, I like to make easily attainable goals!)