Political correctness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view.
Please improve the article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

Image:Unbalanced scales.svg

The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.

Political correctness (also politically correct or PC) is a term used to describe language, or behavior, which is claimed to be calculated to provide a minimum of offense, particularly to the racial, cultural, or other identity groups being described. The concept is not exclusive to the English language. A text that conforms to the ideals of political correctness is said to be politically correct.

1 History
2 Explanation
3 Political correctness as a linguistic concept
4 Critics of political correctness
5 Criticism of the concept of political correctness
6 Satirical use
7 See also
8 References
- 8.1 Against political correctness
- 8.2 Skeptical of claims about political correctness
9 Further reading
10 External links

[edit] History

The often quoted "earliest cited usage of the term" comes from the U.S. Supreme Court decision Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), where it clearly means that the statement it refers to is not literally correct, owing to the political status of the United States as it was understood at that time:

The states, rather than the People, for whose sakes the States exist, are frequently the objects which attract and arrest our principal attention [...]. Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our common, even in our convivial, language. Is a toast asked? 'The United States,' instead of the 'People of the United States,' is the toast given. This is not politically correct.

The first recorded use in the twentieth century was in 1912 in Chapter 1 of Senator Robert La Follette's autobiography.[1] Speaking of his education at the University of Wisconsin, he says:

In those days we did not so much get correct political and economic views, for there was then little teaching of sociology or political economy worthy of the name, but what we somehow did get, and largely from [John] Bascom, was a proper attitude toward public affairs. And when all is said, this attitude is more important than any definite views a man may hold.[2]

Again, this clearly refers to what, in the speaker's own opinion, are incorrect political views, as opposed to the current usage of "politically incorrect".

Another example of the same literal use of the term is from a passage of H. V. Morton's In the Steps of St. Paul (1936):

To use such words would have been equivalent to calling his audience 'slaves and robbers'. But Galatians, a term that was politically correct, embraced everyone under Roman rule, from the aristocrat in Antioch to the little slave girl in Iconium.

The contemporary use of the term political correctness is said to derived from Marxist-Leninist vocabulary to describe the Party Line. <ref>Ellis, Frank (2004). Political correctness and the theoretical struggle. Auckland: Maxim Institute. </ref>

The term was transformed and used jokingly within the Left by the early 1980s, possibly earlier. ^{[citation needed]} In this context, the phrase was applied to either an over-commitment to various left-wing political causes, especially within Marxism or the feminist movement; or to a tendency by some of those dedicated to these causes to be more concerned with rhetoric and vocabulary than with substance.

The term again became popular in the early 1990s as part of a conservative challenge to curriculum and teaching methods on college campuses in the United States (D'Souza 1991; Berman 1992; Schultz 1993; Messer Davidow 1993, 1994; Scatamburlo 1998). In a commencement address at the University of Michigan in 1991, President George H. W. Bush spoke out against administrators and academics who would "declare certain topics off-limits, certain expressions off-limits, even certain gestures off-limits" (Glassner 1999). Use of the term declined in the late 1990s, and it is now mostly seen in comedy or as a political slur with questionable meaning. More recently, the term has been reclaimed by a tiny subset of multiculturalist writers and speakers who reject (or are oblivious to) its controversial connotations and origins. It is also occasionally employed by leftists to deride what they regard as clichéd or disingenuous rightist themes such as "family values," "compassionate conservatism," or "God and Country".

The phrase "politically correct" has become popular in other countries as well. It became common in Scandinavia (politiskt korrekt=pk) during the 1990s and continues to be used, often by rightist debaters, though it does not necessarily have a strong connection to the right as in the US. For instance, it has been used to criticize how some political thinkers promote more capitalist policies as though they were inevitable and more realistic. However it is probably more commonly used to criticize the left, in much the same way has been used in the US.

[edit] Explanation

The existence of PC has been alleged and denounced by conservative, (Lind, Buchanan, Sobran), liberal (Hentoff 1992, Schlesinger 1998), and other (Brandt 1992) authors. The term itself and its usage is hotly contested. Some left-wing authors (Messer-Davidow 1993, Schultz 1993, Glassner 1999) have argued that "political correctness" is a straw man, meant to discredit what they consider progressive social change, especially around issues of race and gender.

The term PC is sometimes used in a pejorative or ironic sense to satirise either the idea that carefully chosen language can encourage, promote, or establish certain social outcomes and relationships, or the belief that the resulting changes benefit society. This satire often comments on certain forms of identity politics, including gay rights, feminism, multiculturalism and the disability rights movement. For example, the use of "gender-neutral" job titles ("lineworker" instead of "lineman," "chairperson" or "chair" instead of "chairman," etc.), the use of the expression "differently abled" rather than "disabled", or the use of "Native American" rather than "Indian", are all sometimes referred to as "politically correct". 'PC' terms are also applied to objects, such as "maintenance cover" instead of "manhole cover".

Since the 1990s the concept has often been a target of certain kinds of comedians and satirists, partly because they equate political correctness with euphemism.

[edit] Political correctness as a linguistic concept

The modern concept of political correctness arose in the 1970s-80s, sparked by an earlier New Left revival; at this time, it was becoming socially acceptable in the West for women and non-Caucasians to pursue lifestyles that had previously been held (nearly) exclusively by Caucasian men, such as a senior management position within a large corporation. It was therefore argued that the English language must change its male-centred nouns such as "chairman" to more inclusive terms such as "chairperson".

Other common examples include the use of person with a disability or preferably "differently abled" in preference to handicapped or crippled; "mentally ill" in preference to crazy.

This belief was based on the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, which states that a language's grammatical categories shape its speakers' ideas and actions. The objective was (and remains) to bring peoples' unconscious biases into awareness, allowing them to make more informed choices about their language and making them aware of things different people might find offensive.

The goal of changing language and terminology consists of several points, including:

Certain people have their rights, opportunities, or freedoms restricted due to their categorization as members of a group with a derogatory stereotype.
This categorization is largely implicit and unconscious, and is facilitated by the easy availability of labeling terminology.
By making the labeling terminology problematic, people are made to think consciously about how they describe someone.
Once labeling is a conscious activity, individual merits of a person, rather than their perceived membership in a group, become more apparent.

In linguistics, the strong form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis holds that a language's grammatical categories control its speakers' possible thoughts. While few support the hypothesis in its strong form, many linguists accept a more moderate version, namely that the ways in which we see the world may be influenced by the kind of language we use. In its strong form, the hypothesis states that, for example, sexist language promotes sexist thought.

The situation is complicated by the fact that members of identity groups sometime embrace terms that others seek to change. For example, deaf culture has always considered the label "Deaf" as an affirming statement of group membership and not insulting or disparaging in any way. The term now often substituted for the term "deaf", hearing-impaired, was developed to include people with hearing loss due to aging, accidents, and other causes. While more accurate for those uses, the term "hearing-impaired" is considered highly derogatory by many deaf people. The term "Hard of Hearing," however, is considered an acceptable descriptive term for a person who has limited to no hearing.

[edit] Critics of political correctness

Critics of political language choice argue the new terms are often awkward, euphemistic substitutes for the original stark language concerning differences such as race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, religion, and political views. Politically correct language has been compared to George Orwell's invented language Newspeak.

It is often argued that political correctness amounts to censorship and endangers free speech, as limits are placed on public debate, especially in universities and political forums. It is also often argued that politically correct terminology (such as "collateral damage") can be misappropriated to soften concepts that would be unacceptable in normal language, and as such is a key technique employed by Spin doctors to massage and manipulate the masses; this is in agreement with the writings of Noam Chomsky that describe "media lies and manipulation."

Conservatives often view many politically correct terms as being linguistic cover for an evasion of personal responsibility, for instance when "juvenile delinquents" became "children at risk" or when "illegal aliens" became "undocumented workers".^{[citation needed]}

Criticism of political correctness is often associated with the claim that the Left has lost touch with the working class and has instead turned toward such things as postmodernism and post-structuralism, which are seen as incomprehensible to the general public, or has replaced their former emphasis on social class with multiculturalism and identity politics. ^{[citation needed]}

Camille Paglia, a self-described "libertarian Democrat," argues that political correctness gives more power to the Left's enemies and alienates the masses against feminism:

"My message to the media is: Wake up! The silencing of authentic debate among feminists just helps the rise of the far right. When the media get locked in their Northeastern ghetto and become slaves of the feminist establishment and fanatical special interests, the American audience ends up looking to conservative voices for common sense. As a libertarian Democrat, I protest against this self-defeating tyranny of political correctness."[3]

Lind and Buchanan have characterized PC as a technique originated by the Frankfurt School in 1930's Germany aimed at undermining Western values by influencing popular culture through Cultural Marxism.<ref>William S. Lind states Political Correctness is a form of cultural marxism</ref><ref>Buchanan interview on Fox News</ref> Some conservatives refer to Political Correctness as "The Scourge of Our Times."<ref>Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times - Agustin Blazquez with the collaboration of Jaums Sutton</ref> The influence of the Frankfurt School on PC is further shared by University of Pennsylvania professor Alan Charles Kors and lawyer Harvey A. Silverglate, who see "Marcusean logic" at the basis of the hundreds of college speech codes formulated on American university campuses.<ref>http://reason.com/9811/fe.kors.shtml</ref>

[edit] Criticism of the concept of political correctness

Liberal and progressive commentators, however, sometimes argue that the term "political correctness" was fabricated by United States conservatives around 1980 and defined as a way to reframe the political arguments in the United States. Such commentators say that there never was a "Political Correctness movement" in the United States, and that many who use the term are attempting to distract attention from substantive debates over discrimination and unequal treatment based on race, class, and gender (Messer-Davidow 1993, 1994; Schultz 1993; Lauter 1995; Scatamburlo 1998; Glassner 1999).

According to Will Hutton:

"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....What the sharpest thinkers on the American Right saw quickly was that by declaring war on the cultural manifestations of liberalism - by levelling the charge of political correctness against its exponents - they could discredit the whole political project." <ref>Will Hutton, "Words really are important, Mr Blunkett," The Observor, Sunday December 16, 2001. online</ref>

Similarly, Polly Toynbee has argued that "the phrase is an empty rightwing smear designed only to elevate its user". <ref>Polly Toynbee, "Religion must be removed from all functions of state," The Guardian, Sunday December 12, 2001. [4]</ref>

[edit] Satirical use

The use of political language modification has a history in satire and comedy. One of the earlier and famous examples is Politically Correct Bedtime Stories by James Finn Garner, in which traditional fairy tales are rewritten from an exaggerated PC viewpoint. Politically Correct Fairy Tales, by John Hawkins, is another example [5] as is The Politically Correct Scrapbook by John and Laura Midgley.[6]

Other, uses of the concept range from Bill Maher's former television program, which was titled Politically Incorrect to emphasize its being different from other political talk shows, to the film South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut, in which the V-chip is ridiculed, culminating in a spoof of censorship and scapegoating: the famous "Blame Canada" campaign. Radio talkshow host Michael Savage routinely calls political correctness by the catchphrase political cowardice.

Avenue Q, a Tony Award winning Broadway Production, has a song titled "Everyone's a little bit racist," saying Political Correctness causes conflict between races.

[edit] See also

AFGNCAAP
Bowdlerization
Critical Theory
Euphemism
Euphemism treadmill
Hate speech
Intercultural competence
Kotobagari (a similar concept in the Japanese language)
Language and thought
Non-sexist language; see Alternative political spelling for a Spanish-language example.
PCU (film)
Propaganda
Spring Holiday
Subject-object problem
Water buffalo incident
Womyn
BCE and CE
Campaign Against Political Correctness

[edit] References

Switzer, Jacqueline Vaughn. Disabled Rights: American Disability Policy and the Fight for Equality. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003.

[edit] Against political correctness

Dinesh D'Souza, Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus New York: Macmillan, Inc./The Free Press, 1991, ISBN 0-684-86384-7
Henry Beard and Christopher Cerf, The Official Politically Correct Dictionary and Handbook, Villard Books, 1992, paperback 176 pages, ISBN 0-586-21726-6
David E. Bernstein, "You Can't Say That! The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties from Antidiscrimination Laws," Cato Institute 2003, 180 pages ISBN 1-930865-53-8
Daniel Brandt, "An Incorrect Political Memoir", 1992
William S. Lind, "The Origins of Political Correctness", Accuracy in Academia, 2000.
Nat Hentoff, Free Speech for Me - But Not for Thee, HarperCollins, 1992, ISBN 0-06-019006-X
Diane Ravitch, The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn, Knopf, 2003, hardcover, 255 page.
Nigel Rees, The Politically Correct Phrasebook: what they say you can and cannot say in the 1990s, Bloomsbury, 1993, 192 pages, ISBN 0-7475-1426-7
Kors, Alan C., Silverglate, Harvey A. (1998). The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on America’s Campuses. New York: Free Press. ISBN 0-684-85321-3.
Arthur Schlesinger Jr., The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society, W.W. Norton, 1998 revised edition, ISBN 0-393-31854-0

[edit] Skeptical of claims about political correctness

Ellen Messer-Davidow. 1993. "Manufacturing the Attack on Liberalized Higher Education." Social Text, Fall, pp. 40–80.
Ellen Messer-Davidow. 1994. "Who (Ac)Counts and How." MMLA (The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association), vol. 27, no. 1, Spring, pp. 26–41.
Scatamburlo, Valerie L. 1998. Soldiers of Misfortune: The New Right's Culture War and the Politics of Political Correctness. Counterpoints series, Vol. 25. New York: Peter Lang.
Debra L. Schultz. 1993. To Reclaim a Legacy of Diversity: Analyzing the "Political Correctness" Debates in Higher Education. New York: National Council for Research on Women.
P. Lauter. 1995. "'Political correctness' and the attack on American colleges." In M. Bérubé & C. Nelson, Higher education under fire: Politics, economics, and the crisis in the humanities. New York, NY: Routledge.
Barry Glassner, The Culture of Fear New York: Basic Books, 1999, ISBN 0-465-01489-5 / ISBN 0-465-01490-9

[edit] Further reading

Aufderheide, Patricia. (ed.). 1992. Beyond P.C.: Toward a Politics of Understanding. Saint Paul, Minnesota: Graywolf Press.
Berman, Paul. (ed.). 1992. Debating P.C.: The Controversy Over Political Correctness on College Campuses. New York, New York: Dell Publishing.
Buchanan, Patrick J.2002. The Death of the West, St Martin's Press.
Gottfried, Paul E., After Liberalism: Mass Democracy in the Managerial State, 1999. ISBN 0-691-05983-7
Wilson, John. 1995. The Myth of Political Correctness: The Conservative Attack on High Education. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press.