In Defense of Political Correctness

/
2 Comments

"In any society not totalitarian, then, certain cultural forms predominate over others, just as certain ideas are more influential than others; the form of this cultural leadership is what Gramsci has identified as hegemony, an indispensable concept for any understanding of cultural life in the industrial West."

Edward Said
Orientalism
Not Politically Correct Statue
Credit: Kevin Sr.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/44124284912@N01/

CC BY-SA 2.0
I live in a city in which it is common to speak disparagingly of politically correct terms and portrayals. Though such people are willing to use the language of the politically correct (most of the time), they are not happy about it. I've encountered these people a lot and they are never a minority and most often they are male, though there are many women who express bitterness towards the politically correct. Personally, I think the shift towards polical correctness is beneficial (overall) and I appreciate it.

Those opposed to political correctness are often upset that they can't "tell it like it is". That is, society now frowns upon the use of words like "black" and in its place favors "African American". Who gets to choose your name? Who gets to group people by there skin color and then name that group? Why can't that group name itself? This is one reason I like political correctness; it allows groups of people (whatever the criterion/a of the "group" may be) to choose and/or approve their own name. This is important because it helps prevent one of the real issues facing society: the marginalization of minority peoples.

The shift away from calling some people in our society "retarded" towards "mentally challenged" may not be something that the mentally challenged chose themselves, but the more inclusive nature of the later term is important. Not perfect, but it is conveys a notion of "us" that is wholly absent from the earlier term. The same holds true with the terms "crippled" and "physically challenged". The more we relate to each other, the less likely we are to marginalize each other.

Of the people I know who dislike polical correctness, none of them believe that non-p.c. language is a step towards genocide. They believe what they say is true: black, crippled, retarded. It's truth that they're speaking. Perhaps it is true, but it is exclusive language. These words are very nearly slurs. Even if they aren't slurs, these non-p.c. terms are one easy step away from slurs. P.C. terms are an attempt to curb the marganalization of people and, hopefully, cultivate greater acceptance within our society.

While politically correctness may change the behavior of a person, it may not change there thoughts. A person may use P.C. terms while still thinking more denigrating terms...for a while. Psychologists have shown that just as often as our thoughts motivate our behavior, so our behavorior motivates our thoughts. This is why, for example, it is not important for a drug addict to think drugs are bad for him or her. It is important that they stop the behavior. The thought will come later; it will follow suit with the behavior.


You may also like

2 comments:

Unknown said...

Of the genocidal dictators and zealots I have come across in my historical studies, every one excuses, undergirds, or defends their actions by claiming that Truth (and they assume their own direct access thereto) trumps virtue. Perhaps we should see virtue as the most direct route to truth, but we still need to deal with the fact that we have no direct access to virtue. Our access is mediated through interpretations of history, ethics, philosophy, sociology, theology, and experience.

Brian said...

That's a good thought: a direct access to virtue. That we have no direct route to virtue, is that indicative of something in us or our cultures?