End the whining culture of complaint

Tuesday November 8, 2011

Dennis Hayes believes that the encouragement of whining is undermining academic freedom

In France they call it ‘La culture gnangnan,’ the namby-pamby culture in which people can’t cope with being challenged or offended and complain to the authorities.

Most people will be familiar with a politically correct version of the namby-pamby culture in which people complain about racist or sexist language or just general bad mouthing. People have adapted to it and become so mealy-mouthed that the language in which we express our ideas has been cleansed to an anodyne, humourless dullness.

The argument for the namby-pamby approach to language is that it protects vulnerable minorities. It is astonishing that this approach gets such ready acceptance and is promoted in all sorts of speech codes when it is entirely patronising in its assumption that minorities can’t speak back. But institutions and organisations just accept this diminished view of minorities as vulnerable victims as an unquestionable truism, and encourage complaints. There is no debate about this patronising of minorities because in Britain political correctness is the norm and has no real challenge to it, unlike in the United States.

The reason that the culture of complaint is so dominant is not really that it empowers the whining victim whose victimhood makes them untouchable, but that it gives real moral authority and power to the professionals who encourage and rule on complaints, usually in secret.

All this is familiar and commonplace to an extent. Many people want conversations and communications to happen in relatively reasoned and reasonable (but not dull) ways. But we are all capable of sorting out disagreements about what we say between ourselves without the interference of the authorities. That is what we should always do, rather than call in the language police.

But the culture of complaint now extends to ideas and arguments and is making freedom of thought impossible even in universities.

I was once quoted by a journalist for criticising human resources departments for proposing redundancy processes in which the soon-to-be-ex employee felt ‘valued’ and that their ‘well-being’ was preserved. I had argued that this was a time for a little ‘ill-being’ and those about to be sacked should not feel good about it. I heard by chance that some HR representatives complained that I should not be allowed to say such offensive things. Another article I wrote criticising primary school staff development activities in universities, such as clapping games and building Lego towers ‘to develop team relationships,’ led to a letter of complaint from a staff development officer.

I could go on, but what these examples illustrate is the avoidance of an academic response to criticism. The proper response to criticism is to argue back rather than resort to informal and formal complaints. Academic debate is open and public whereas complaints land all parties in quasi-legal procedures or ad hoc kangaroo courts. The reasons are obvious. Most of the time the complainers have no arguments to make and fear that in a public debate their ideas would be as substantial as the Emperor’s new clothes. Also, the complaints procedure ensures that academic freedom is never seen to be restricted by university authorities. They can say they are simply dealing with breaches of professional conduct and offensive ‘behaviour.’

Students have also learned that complaints about ‘offensive’ attitudes and opinions are effective. This sort of complaining used to be restricted to left-wing groups and student unions but now individual students have taken to complaining rather than doing any work or critical thinking.

A well publicised example is the case of a lecturer in the United States who was denied tenure when his students complained about his Socratic teaching methods. It tells you a lot about the infantilisation of student life. Students see little difference between school and university and complain if they don’t like lecturers’ ideas or if they are challenged too much.

The culture of complaint is creating a situation in which academics are intimidated not merely into using politically correct or ‘appropriate’ language but into having ‘managerially correct’ and uncontroversial thoughts and ideas. This is not the result of authoritarian management regimes. The new ‘thought police’ are not bodies of armed men, but academic colleagues fulfilling their duty by investigating and ruling on whether you have hurt someone by causing offence with your ideas.

The complainers can’t argue or won’t argue. They whine and don the mantle of victimhood and gain the moral high ground without ever having to argue back.

It’s time to end this whining culture by making all challenges to ideas public not private matters and if you don’t agree, don’t put in a complaint, write a reply!

Dennis Hayes is the director of Academics for Academic Freedom