Politically correct

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RWest (Talk | contribs) at 20:24, August 22, 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Politically correct language consists of linguistic restrictions imposed by authorities or pressure groups. The most common motive is enforce the worldview or sensibilities of these groups while preventing expression of any competing ideas or attitudes. The Nazis and Communists were the first to do this in modern times in the West, but the Japanese had their "thought police" too. George Orwell's 1984 famously incorporated the notion of limiting thought through langauge (see Newspeak).

In the U.S., some radicals advanced the notion that certain words communicated stereotypes which unjustifiably demeaned or excluded certain kinds of people. In the 1960s, feminists began to demand that the neutral pronouns he, him and his be replaced with expressions like "he or she", "him or her", "them", etc. This was part of their campaign to redefine the social roles traditionally associated with masculinity and femininity.

Other groups jumped on the political correctness bandwagon, with handicapped people dodging the kindly meant slogan, "Hire the handicapped", and insisting that their condition was not abnormal. Rather, they were to be called, "differently abled".

Political correctness or P.C. eventually came to refer to the alteration of ones choice of words in order to avoid either offending a group of people or reinforcing a stereotype considered to be disadvantageous to the group. More specifically, groups which (or whose putative "leaders" or other activists) claim some status as systemically oppressed or discriminated against will periodically attempt to change the terms by which they are referred to and demand that society as a whole change its usage of words as well. Although traditionally associated with the liberals and the political left, Political Correctness has been challenged by libertarian comedian Bill Mahr, by left wing comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, and by some noted liberals such as Nat Hentoff, Richard Lamm, and the late Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.

Examples

An example of political correctness is the changing terminology used to described handicapped people. In the past the term "crippled" was perfectly acceptable and not considered offensive. At some point, somebody decided "crippled" was degrading and the preferred term changed to "handicapped". This, too, was eventually deemed offensive and "disabled" became the preferred term. Today, "disabled" is now considered degrading and "differently abled" and "physically challenged" are now the politically correct terms. The same can be said for the changing uses of terms for Black Americans: "Negro" and "colored", once perfectly acceptable terms, were declared degrading and offensive by some activists during the 1970s and "Afro-American" and "Black" came into use, which in turn gave way to "African-American", and in broader usage, "people of color".

The distinction for example between "colored people" (1950s-60s usage) and "people of color" (today) is an important one which illustrates the basis of political correctness.

The question of politically correct language has spilled over from the use of racially descriptive words and affected the use of traditional language. In 1999, an aide to the mayor of Washington DC described a budget decision as "niggardly" (a word unrelated to the racial slur meaning "stingy"). The aide immediately came under criticism and was forced to resigned even though he had not said anything racially charged, though he was exonerated and reinstated very quickly.

As well as language, political correctness discourages the use of racial or stereotypes in fiction out of concern that these stereotypes may become self-perpetuating. For example, frequently seeing the image black gang-members decked out in gold chains, carrying guns and listening to rap may pressure young black people into seeing this lifestyle as the most 'acceptable' choice for their racial group. The common image of women-only occupations (nurses, secretaries, care workers, etc) and of men-only occupations (IT workers, military, machinery operators, etc) can discourage individuals of either gender from considering those occupations traditionally belonging to the other. Additionally films like "The Siege" and "True Lies" have been criticized by pro-Islamic groups as having Muslims portrayed as terrorists, despite the fact that most current terrorists are in fact Muslims. Thus political correctness becomes the consideration of all public statements and media for their unintentional social impact.

Differing Opinions

Demands for politically correct language usage are rooted in the notion widely promoted among left-wing academics and sociologists that Western culture promotes systemic oppression against some groups by marginalizing them and excluding them from the "norm"; the groups thus supposedly systemically marginalized are referred to as "the Other" by these left-wing academics.[Citation Needed] The implication is that these groups are systemically excluded from the mainstream. "Colored people" is therefore deemed offensive because the order of words puts "colored" first, emphasizing their difference from the mainstream, while "people of color" is acceptable because putting the term "people" first emphasizes that they are people and thus does not emphasize their difference from the "norm".

Some people allege that instead of encouraging supposedly marginalized groups to integrate with and assimilate into the mainstream of Western culture, political correctness ironically encourages them to emphasize and indeed to wallow in their marginalization from society, and to make a public display of such. This is known as identity politics. According to this view, gays and lesbians are therefore encouraged to label themselves as "queer" and make public displays of "queerness" calculated to disturb the sensibilities of mainstream people, rather than integrate into the mainstream themselves;[Citation Needed] Black Americans are encouraged to adopt Afrocentrism and convert to Islam or to conform to stereotypical black behavior, etc.[Citation Needed]

The Language Police

Conservative scholar Robert Bork has charged that the educational system is a battleground where the future of America is being undermined and ill-served. He has counseled against the troubles which will ensue as a result of anti-religious policies in the schools, permissive attitudes toward homosexuality and abortion, as well as welfare policies that have destroyed families since Lyndon B. Johnson's War on Poverty. [1]

In her book "The Language Police", Diane Ravitch documents just how easy it is to get a word, phrase or idea banned from modern textbooks and references. Textbook producers are beholden to small non-elected educational boards in a few key states such as New York or California. Few citizens know anything about these boards or who holds the seats of power on these boards. It's not a difficult for an interest group to mobilize a campaign to bombard the educational board. Meanwhile, the public is not even aware that their words or values are under attack.

Then, once a big state makes a textbook purchase, it's very difficult for a small state or any municipality to make any changes. Thus, profound changes can be inserted into textbooks and reference books by putting pressure on a handful of educational administrators. The work of textbook selection committee's is done privately, to avoid politicizing textbooks, but the reverse has happened. It's easier to pressure a lawmaker who is not beholden to community standards, but instead is enamored with political correctness. [2] Ravitch has documented "bias guidelines" for major publishers of texts and tests. These "guidelines" consist of advice to writers and editors about words and topics that must be avoided.[3]

Totalitarianism and Political Correctness

The comprehensive and detailed control of all ideas, beliefs, and statements is one of the most problematic features of totalitarian regimes.[1] This could be viewed as an argument for or against the politically correct use of language, depending on one's perspective.

Notes

  1. Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline. by Robert Bork published by Harper Collins (c) 1997
  2. The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Children Learn by Diane Ravitch (c) 2003 published by Knopf
  3. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003695

See also

External Links