The Corruption of Political Correctness

Have you grown tired of hearing and reading the terms “Political Correctness” and “Politically Correct” without there being any general discussion of the meaning? Those who use the terms seem sure of their meaning, but all users might not have the same meaning in mind. These are relatively new terms in their current usage (whatever that is). As newish terms, they’re still in the period of their existence where anyone can co-opt them to make whatever point they want. In fact, that is exactly what has happened.

The actual term is not new. It has shown up periodically throughout history, as if society has been trying it on as we might keep trying on those favorite jeans that haven’t really fit right since college but that we can’t bring ourselves to discard. As early as 1793, a Supreme Court opinion (Chisholm vs. Georgia) stated that it was not “politically correct” to say “People of the United States” and that should be replaced with “The United States.” That doesn’t seem related in any way to any of today’s multiple uses. Back in 1917, following the Russian Revolution, the term “politically correct” was used to describe adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party (the original “party line”). That usage bled a little into the 1960s, but only in a few obscure references to the presumed lost Communist dream. William Safire, conservative columnist and language pedant, claimed the first recorded use of the term in the modern sense was in 1970 by Toni Cade Bambara in her anthology The Black Woman. I have found none earlier, but also have not found that the term caught on widely with Bambara’s usage. By the 1970s and 1980s, a few politicians and pundits threw the term around to question what they perceived as left-wing emphasis on rhetoric over content as well as the perception (by these same few politicians and pundits) of the rising left-wing curriculum on university campuses in the United States. Phyllis Schlafly, infamous hater of equal rights for women and progress in general, noted that “the cornerstone of the political correctness that dominates campus culture is radical feminism,” thus combining two of the things most threatening to the right: decency and equality.

It would seem that this pejorative usage struck a chord with detractors because that’s the one that seems to have hung on over the last thirty years. Noam Chomsky, when asked, defined Political Correctness as “a healthy expansion of moral concern.” So, as defined by one of the world’s most prolific linguists, cognitive scientists, and political commentators, the term is not at all pejorative. Isn’t that interesting?

To me, the term has always meant use of inclusive language as well as use of the language preferred by the person being referenced. This is especially true when an inclusive term conveniently exists and the only reason for NOT using it would be to follow a convention that is no longer conventional. For example, fire fighters used to be all men, so the term, “fireman” was truthful and appropriate. When women began to participate in the profession, “fireman” was no longer an inclusive or accurate term. “Fire fighter” exists and is not a whole lot harder to say. Same with “mail carrier” and “police officer.” To me, Political Correctness means not needing to say “male nurse” or “woman doctor” (don’t even get me started on “lady doctor”) when the words “nurse” and “doctor” include both genders and the need for a gendered descriptor is only to satisfy societal expectations that no longer play out in reality. To me, Political Correctness means using the term “African American” if a person chooses to identify with that term or “black” if that is preferred. Same goes for “Native American” vs. “Indian.” Part of the meaning of Political Correctness to me is that I don’t get to choose what to name another person or group. That seems basic. What is wrong with using language in a way that strives to give the least offense and the most inclusion to individuals and groups?

One strange phenomenon surrounding the Political Correctness terminology is that you will very seldom hear anyone self-referring as Politically Correct or even the informal “PC.” It’s almost always used as an accusation. Moira Weigel, in a 2016 Guardian article, applies the term, “exonym,” meaning a term used only by those outside the group whom the term describes. It’s that characteristic that may well have given rise to the current distillation and corruption of a perfectly benign term. I say that because the term IS used self-referentially and proudly only in the negative as in “Well I’m not politically correct” or “I don’t believe in political correctness.”

Some on the right, most notably the current resident of the White House, have so corrupted the term that it will probably never again be anything but negative.

We have to divide the phenomenon of negativity into two parts: negativity toward politically correct LANGUAGE and negativity toward politically correct BEHAVIOR as manifested through language. Let me clarify.

As I’ve mentioned several times, humans resist language change when it comes from outside even while we embrace language change when it comes from within ourselves or our cultural group. Just consider the abundance of slang and jargon in any language as support of that while also considering the difficulties we’ve discussed already with, for example, a gender-neutral alternative for singular “they” or a singular-plural distinction of “you.” When the term is used derisively, it is often to criticize the idea that language can alter thought. That is, perhaps, a valid argument for discussion at another time. However, there is a big difference between politically correct LANGUAGE and BEING politically correct in today’s usage.

Ricky Gervais said, “I’m a fan of political correctness that is about not promoting prejudice. But some people in America are offended by equality because when you’ve had privilege for so long, equality feels like oppression.” There it is.

Today, there is a lot of pompous denial of being politically correct, and that denial usually comes from right-wing Trump cultists. Those who complain the most loudly about the institution of political correctness claim that it is a form of censorship and a curtailment of free speech. They also think that adherents to political correctness (usually university faculty) see politically INCORRECT speech everywhere, even where it doesn’t exist.

I am really tired of people using “free speech” as an excuse to say anything at all, so let’s clear this up. The term, “free speech” refers to the freedoms of speech as stated in the First Amendment of the US Constitution. I guarantee you that the person screaming the loudest that his or her “freedom of speech” is being curtailed would also be unable to tell you what that First Amendment actually says. Let’s review, shall we? “CONGRESS shall make no laws. . . abridging the freedom of speech. . .” If I tell YOU that your speech offends me, I am not removing your “freedom” of speech. I’m just telling you you’re a jerk. That would be MY freedom. Telling you that you are not politically correct is hardly the same as a legal punishment, which WOULD be the case if, IN FACT, being politically correct truly curtailed any freedoms. Are there exceptions? Sure, but, unfortunately, being a jerk or even spewing hatred are NOT among them. In other words, you can be as politically incorrect as you want, and the Supreme Court has told us time and time again that there’s really nothing they’re going to do about it. In fact, hate speech is legally protected under the First Amendment. Now, if you choose to exercise your “freedom” with obscenity, child pornography, true threats, or fraud, that’s another story.  But you’re free to hate all you want. If I make you FEEL bad for being an ass with your hateful language, good. However, I can’t arrest you or fine you and neither can anyone else. For some people who get this confused, complex sentences such as the First Amendment can be challenging.

It’s a convenient bridge from the easy target of language to the utter corruption of the term and the concept that we see today. The practice of deriding political correctness as the sole property of the left while declaring pride at NOT being politically correct has grown over the years, reaching its crescendo around the 2016 US presidential election where voters needed to justify voting for a person who lacked respect for minorities, women, poor people, and pretty much anyone who wasn’t him. NOT being politically correct became for many the equivalent of being “of the people.” “He’s just like one of us.” “He says what’s on his mind.” “He doesn’t talk like a politician.” These and so many other justifications for the insanity that put the US in its current situation.

In a 2016 Time article, Mark Hannah says that political correctness has been the whipping boy of the right for decades and Trump is cracking the whip with abandon. Trump is vulgar and rude, and he uses political correctness as a shield. I couldn’t agree more. When asked about his indecent and abhorrent comments toward women, Trump says he doesn’t have time to be politically correct. He says the real problem is political correctness. When criticized for his racist comments toward a federal judge, he says we just have to stop being so politically correct. Hannah points out that when Trump says things that are ugly or offensive or outright false and then claims he’s not politically correct or that political correctness is the big problem, what he’s really doing is blaming us, the public, for deciding what ideas are right for us, what ideas are good and bad for us, and not letting Trump make that decision.

Mike Pence said that Donald Trump “gets it: he’s the genuine article. He’s a doer in a game usually reserved for talkers. And when Donald Trump does his talking, he doesn’t tiptoe around the thousand new rules of political correctness.” WOW, where to go with this? Even ignoring the hyperbole of a “thousand new rules,” he’s actually telling the truth here! Trump doesn’t tiptoe; he’s the bull in the china shop of decency. It doesn’t stop with the two top elected officials (who, still inexplicably, were elected while saying this kind of thing).

One-time judge and current talk-show host, Jeanine Pirro once nonsensically said that we are so beaten down by political correctness that most of us are numb to the surrender of America. Well, sure. See what she did there? She just puts it out there that America has, in fact, surrendered, and the “obvious” culprit would, of course, be political correctness. In her world, apparently there is a cause-effect relationship between these concepts.

Steven Crowder, a distinctly UNfunny comedian and commentator said that one of his goals in life is to “watch political correctness shrivel up and die (as it should be for any true conservative).” See what he’s doing here? Not “politically correct LANGUAGE” oh no. Political CORRECTNESS! Decency. Inclusion. Equality. Lack of offending. Lack of perpetuating prejudicial points of view. Apparently, if you are a good conservative, these are what’s wrong with the world.

There are so many more who became prominent during the 2016 election period. The late “journalist,” Andrew Breitbart said that “political correctness—the rigging of politics using different rules for different groups, buttressed by the media—ensures that Democrats always have the upper hand.” Clearly, the Democrats do not always have the upper hand. More clearly, isn’t he a marvellous champion of the “real” people for crusading against the evil and insidious political correctness? That, apparently, is the real problem and not the blatant racism he tries to sublimate to it.

Anthony Scaramucci, current record holder for the shortest tenure as White House Communications Director, proudly announced that “Donald Trump doesn’t speak like a politician, and that’s made some people uncomfortable [no, that’s NOT what has made people uncomfortable]. In a world of political correctness run amok, his straight talk has been a breath of fresh air [sure, if you enjoy inhaling poisonous gas].” Corey Lewandowski, political operative and lobbyist, birther, and philanderer, also called our world one where political correctness has run amok. This was when he was defending Trump for re-tweeting an anti-Semitic meme of a Star of David atop a pile of money. Apparently, political correctness hasn’t run amok enough. Conspiracy theorist extraordinaire and one-time radio personality, Glenn Beck said that political correctness “doesn’t change us. It shuts us up.” Oh, if only that was all it took to shut him up!

Corey Stewart, minor politician, major racist, birther (seeing a pattern?), and supporter of confederate symbols, when (unsuccessfully) running for the US Senate, said, “I just think political correctness is a limitation of our First Amendment freedoms.” As stated earlier, here’s a guy who needs to go back to eighth grade civics, rather than running for national office. Apparently, the people who vote for people like this have no ideas of their own.

In an attempt to remain relevant, actor and director Clint Eastwood opined that “a lot of people are bored by all the political correctness.” This is a guy who famously talks to empty chairs and is applauded for it.

The final irony of this derision of political correctness on the part of the right is that Trump requires from his minions exactly what he and those same minions say Political Correctness is—strict adherence to a linguistic code from without. In Trump’s world, he is king and all must bow to him linguistically and ideologically, the ideology being the true main event that they proudly refuse to hide with language. To not do his bidding or to argue or contradict is cause for shunning or exactly what they falsely claim the left does to non-politically correct people. Of course they don’t call it Political Correctness. The term is reserved exclusively for derision from the right to the left. It is a one-way arrow.