“Political correctness is a term used to describe language, or behaviour, which is claimed to be calculated to provide a minimum of offense, particularly to the racial, cultural, or other identity groups being described.”
The belief for employing political correct language was derived by the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that aimed to bring to awareness biases that we make in our everyday speech. The term that was originally used by Marxists-Lenists in the early 80s was used by right-wing activists that wanted to challenge communists’ dogmatism. In the mid to late 80s the term was used by conservatives who thought that by using a politically correct vocabulary democracy would be protected. Will Hutton mentions that “"Political correctness is one of the brilliant tools that the American Right developed in the mid-1980s as part of its demolition of American liberalism...”
Today the term political correctness is been used widely and brought changes in the language that we use and brought the emergence of the politically correct dictionary and many revisions on the classic ones.
Politically correctness gave birth to a constant use of euphemisms. Euphemisms are words that describe something unpleasant in the most polite way often metaphorically so as not to disturb the listener. Politics and diplomacy are full of euphemisms. Moreover, the influence for the need to use language that is politically correct has given way to a wide and many times unconscious use of euphemisms. Of course euphemisms are not stable over time; they change as what is politically correct today might not be politically correct tomorrow. For example:
negro → colored → black → African-American→ People of Color
lame → crippled → handicapped → disabled → differently-abled
Shell shock (World War I) → battle fatigue (World War II)→ Operational exhaustion (Korean War) → Post-traumatic stress disorder (Vietnam War).Observe the extreme euphemisms of People of Color and differently-abled.
I think that the use of politically correct speech is creating more problems than it is actually solving. The use of politically correct language in my opinion gave birth to a different form of conservatism that would attack anything that strays for what is proper. Also, it generates difficulties in communication and comprehension. Language is supposed to be a tool to aid communication and not to hinder it. This is what happens when you need to find the proper word in order to speak; not to mention that its also a way for the lawyers to get richer. Moreover, it is a wooden speech that is used mostly by politicians that as they speak instead of using one word they use a whole paragraph. Also for me it is a language of pretense and lie. You might call someone old because he is old, and I wonder what the big deal is. The politically correct word is chronologically gifted. For me chronologically gifted pays more attention to a persons age than old. Similarly, the term minority groups is not politically correct, the term Members of the World's Majorities now is.
I oppose to the use and evolution of politically correct vocabulary. Language should be a bridge to unite people and not to separate them by employing pretense language. My view is that one can be sensitive and polite towards ones view without using all this politically correct language that is adopted by a hypocritical society. I don’t think that is a mistake to name things as they are. I believe that it’s not the word that you use but the way you use that word.
(Art by hockeychick)
“Political correctness is a term used to describe language, or behaviour, which is claimed to be calculated to provide a minimum of offense, particularly to the racial, cultural, or other identity groups being described.”
18 comments:
This is an excellent article pixie: both the structure and the content! Bravo!
I wholeheartedly agree with you and my stance on the issue is that (good) words may cover up (bad) words but they don't cover up bad intentions. You can still be critical/racist/bad-intended and use nice words.
I am particularly frustrated by the overuse and abuse of political correctness. Let me give you an example. Because the english language lacks articles (that denote gender) no one can tell if 'doctor' is male or female doctor. Because feminism is soo strong, all books, text books and manuals refering to a 'doctor' a 'teacher' or an 'engineer' are followed by a sentence such as 'She decided' or 'She recommends' etc. The abuse of the 'she' pronoun makes so predictable and boring reading such materials and also so unrealistic since one gets the impression that men have disappeared!
The distortion of reality or ambiguity may be highly useful in politics and the art of diplomacy but certainly not on in everyday life as it creates barriers and feeling of 'fakeness' as you said yourself. Not only that, but it is often hypocritical too because far too many vulnerable groups are unprotected or exploited, even if nobody calls them this way.
In not offending others, we end up ridiculing everyone, primarily ourselves.
PS. Excellent book on how political correctness has permeated education and does not allow teaching of history or literature because it 'offends' indians, blacks, women etc is the one by Diane Ravitch.
PS2. There are critics of political correctness. (http://www.pcphrases.com) However, in formal speech and discussion one is inclined to respect political correctness because criticism (not to say defamation or criticism) follws for whoever decides not to. Dictatotorship of the words pretty much.
Anastasia,thank you so much for your warm comment and your suggestions.You described political correctness as"Dictatorship of the words";and I could not agree more.Political correctness has also dictated as you mentioned the fields of literature and art.If someone consciously or unconsciously is dictating the ways that we express ourselves through art or literature then aren't we subjected to a thought control?Aren't they imposing barriers and taboos on our thinking?
I remember that I read somewhere that they used political correctness to change some of the educational material that was supposed to be more liberal in the 80s.I am going to search the book by Ravitch to find out more as it is a topic that is of particular interest to me.Thank you!
Political correctness is essentially a 'law of politeness', i.e. forcing people to be polite, but in such an extreme way that it is ridiculous, misguided and now causes more problems than it tackles.
It is one part of a much larger campaign of control and, however much it sounds lame, it does restrict freedom of expression.
David Mamet has dramatised the elusive nature of political correctness and the confusion it may bring in his infamous Oleanna.
Thanks for the article Pixie! Kalhmera! :)
@ anastasia: For starters, the politically correct version for what you mention is s/he. But even then, have you ever wondered why the extensive use of 'he' does not bother you and what bothers you now is its replacement by 'she'? Who has decided that 'he' is the universal pronoun for both men and women?
"one gets the impression that men have disappeared!"
Until now women were invisible from every text that used a he. I am not saying we should substitute the he with the she. I am just teasing out the naturalisation that certain hegemonic discourses have solidified and it is really hard to shake them off.
@Mia
I have not seen Oleanna but I have heard that its an exploration on the issue of sexual harassment.I did not know that it refers to political correctness and censorship.Thank you so much for the reference!
So we are both online! :)
Yes, it talks about sexual harassement within the university and it foregrounds the thin line that separates an educational relationship of a professor with his student from becoming a sexually charged one. It is infamous from creating uporoar and confusion because it is not made clear who is right and who is wrong.
@Mia
It sounds controversial; I should watch it!
@mia
You cannot use s/he when you use in real-life context situation, even though this is of course the politically correct version of gender use. You have to make a choice.
My criticism is based on the fact that the abuse of 'she' is unrealistic and certainly not reflective of reality. You seem to agree with me, since you also state that we should not substitute everything with a 'she'.
But you are wrong to assume that because I condemn the abuse of 'she' I espouse the hegemonic model of 'he' that has been solidified in our cultures. I do disagree strongly and I do acknowledge the fact that the shaking off of a well entrenched habit is difficult. However I disagree with taking the issue to the extremes; American society has a tendency to do so, to the point that the whole matter gets ridiculed.
Instead, what I propose is a fair use of both, because women and men coexist in society. But then again I seem to believe that equal treatment of women will not come with a change in the pronouns but will concrete actions: equal salaries, reasonable maternity leaves. Unfortunately this is equally if not more difficult to change.
@ anastasia
Yes, I agree with you, don't get me wrong and surely the most crucial thing is to be AWARE of what we have been discussing.
I strongly support your view that it takes action and not words to resolve the problem of not equal or no opportunities for women around the globe.
As for the s/he I was referring to written work and not to real-life situations. American society has the tendency (and influential one!) to favour extreme situations and result in a dead end. I am not suggesting of course to replace he with she because again, as you say, it is unrealistic. I am just tired of taking as granted the he as a universal notion...(I am just a woman freaking out in this world...!) :)
Political correctness is self-censorship.
I must add that in modern political speech, political correctness is just a part of a more wide theory; "communicativeness".
Its true that sometimes you can be communicative without being politically correct. Many politicians (Psomiadis for example) make such a good use of political correctness (by disproving it)
There is no political correct vocabulary, just correct personal ethics.Bravo pixie!
Οops! I meant politically correct. Sorry.
stormrider @ dawkinson
thank you so much for your comments!I thought that most people will disagree with me in this article but I know that my blog friends are open minded and sceptical individuals!
I totally agree with you.
As far as I remember, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis states that if a group of people has no word for the red colour, in case its members face a red object, they would not be able to see it the way we do – correct me if I am wrong.
Now, we do have, let’s say, the word ‘abuse’. Obviously, because there is the specific practice in our world. So, we do not start from the same point as the people with no red objects in their world: we want to create a world that has red objects, so to say, but naming them differently – say, green, turquoise, whatever.
Conceptualising the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in such an opposite way, I regard it rather cynical: what we appear willing to achieve with political correctness, is: ‘out of (linguistic) sight, out of mind’.
This was rather theoretical – practically, it has been proven that the use of political correctness creates a world where the borders between values blur. If you try not to offend ANYONE, you’ll end up rather nihilistic, unable to distinguish between right and wrong.
Finally, the more complicated the language, the more distant from our feelings. I remember reading that the Victorian English, the most elaborated form of this language, had as primary aim to detach the meaning of the words from the feelings of the speaker. Obviously, because Victorian ethics did not permit the open expression of feelings. Politically correct language, may be carrying the very same task – perhaps we could call it ‘Victorian language of politics’.
(I don’t remember where I read about the detachment of feelings in Victorian English- if anyone knows any source, please inform me.)
Pixie,
Coincido totalemente contigo respecto a que el uso de lo políticamente correcto es una hipocresía, sobre todo si se abusa éste. El presidente Fox lo usó mucho durante su sexenio, sin embargo, sus palabras no siempre estuvieron acompañadas por los hechos. Por ejemplo, siempre se preocupó por incluir al género femenino en sus speeches: ellos y ellas, los hombres y las mujeres, etc., sin embargo en varias ocasiones se refiró a las mujeres con falta de respeto como cuando las comparó con ¨lavadoras de dos patas¨. En otras palabras, lo políticamente correcto no sirve para nada si las acciones de los que lo usan no son incluyentes.
Abrazos.
@yannis h
thank you so much for the information on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.I did not know so much detail.You seem to have given this topic a thought and I am impressed on your view on language and feelings, "the more complicated the language, the more distant from our feelings".And its an irony that we observe that in modern society we get more and more detached from our feelings.Welcome to the blog!
@epidia garcia
las personas en el gobierno saben usar eufemismos.El presidete Fox es un exemplo de la hypocresia que existe!
Post a Comment