What is "political correctness?"

[Sisyphus]

This is not a rhetorical question. As I understand it, it first arose as intentionally merely a matter of terminology. From the wikipedia article (which I recommend), the goal is outlined as follows:

 

1. Certain people have their rights, opportunities, or freedoms restricted due to their categorization as members of a group with a derogatory stereotype.

2. This categorization is largely implicit and unconscious, and is facilitated by the easy availability of labeling terminology.

3. By making the labeling terminology problematic, people are made to think consciously about how they describe someone.

4. Once labeling is a conscious activity, individual merits of a person, rather than their perceived membership in a group, become more apparent.

 

However, somewhere along the line, it came to be perceived as just "not wanting to offend anyone," or even more vague concepts. It's also identified with specifically liberal ideas, though I'm not sure that's justifiable. Certainly there are things politicians and public figures have to say, to satisfy some vague consensus that encompasses right as well as left. For example, what politician running for president has not tried to emphasize their "faith." They have to say it "gives them strength," or something. Certainly none would ever say "I don't think it's important to have faith." That would be just as much political suicide as "I don't trust black people" or something. Similarly with stuff like "supporting the troops," whatever that means...

 

It's all kind of suspicious, frankly. In the same article:

 

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." [6]

 

Similarly, Polly Toynbee has argued that "the phrase is an empty rightwing smear designed only to elevate its user"

 

While I don't think that's completely true (it certainly originated on the Left), I think they have a point that it's use is largely used derogitorily. For example, I know hardly anyone who even remotely resembles the stereotypical PC liberal. Most self-described liberals I know will qualify their self-description with "but I don't subscribe to that PC nonsense." Not that it doesn't exist, and not that politicians don't talk in silly ways sometimes (though, as I mentioned above, it's hardly a purely liberal phenomenon), but it's neither in the mainstream nor the intellectual foundations of mainstream liberalism. Yet, to hear conservative talk show hosts describe it, half the country is obsessed with it. It's "the scourge of our times!"

 

So, I put it to all of you. What is it? The rotten core of modern liberalism? A hopelessly misguided attempt to end racism? A basically meaningless phrase used by right to distract from what left is actually saying?

[Pangloss]

If it is the child of modern liberalism, it has long since outgrown its parent and become a monster that envelopes the modern media (political correctness is more important than other concerns, regardless of ideology), conservatives (attacking political correctness is politically correct), politicians (what is it you need me to be for this week?), and pretty much all forms of mass media entertainment.

 

Political correctness is the engine by which we are tossing individuality on the all-consuming fire of "greater good".

[ParanoiA]

A hopelessly misguided attempt to end *prejudice* - not just racism - all kinds of ism's...

 

The term "Political Correctness" may be invented and used by the right, but the concept was invented and used by the left. I'm not even really sure the right invented the term, but to refer to this concept in any discussion requires a label of some sort. Your example of the politician declaring his faith being a requirement is THE perfect example of why the term is in circulation.

 

Political correctness is plastics, cosmetics, euphamisms that hide the truth -whether it was meant to or not. We cover the proverbial terd with a layer of flower petals. This is sick and should be rejected by any sincere scientific mind. It goes against science's rigid, clinical view of things.

 

To call a cripple person physically challenged is not entirely accurate. Yes they are physically challenged, but that description is vague. Are they physically challenged because they are obese? Are they physically challenged because they can't run more than a mile? Are they physically challenged because they have a 100 lb tumor growing out of their ass?

 

However, "crippled" is more descriptive. I know it's not obesity nor an unsightly tumor. Granted, it still has it's own set of unknowns - like how exactly is this person crippled and so on, but it's more clinical than "physically challenged". Any further description is unnecessary and too narrow to apply practically in real life, otherwise we would go more descriptive than "crippled".

 

Physically challenged is a positive statement that implies an attitude a crippled person should ascribe to, to help them move on and find happiness. However, it's not an accurate label. Liberals are more concerned with the "feelings" and "emotions" of labels and such rather than the pragmatic application and necessity of labels in society.

 

Not to mention, Political Correctness is quite an appropriate term to use on politicians since they ALL do whatever superficial, symbolic gestures are required by their constituents. The right has their own political correctness BS - like playing up religion, family values...blah blah blah. So, maybe it isn't just a leftist thing anymore???

[Dak]

pc is a stupid misconception.

 

there's no-one out there trying to stop people from daring to draw attention to someone's skin-colour by reffering to them as 'black people', nor trying to make us reffer to midgets as 'differently heighted', nor reffer to fat people as large

 

however, listening to some people, you'd think that theres an elete team of invisable pc-ninjas that'll jump out of the nearest bush and arrest you if you happen to say that, say, in some areas, black people are disproportionately responsible for crime (how un-pc )

 

PC of the 'midjets should be reffered to as vertically challenged' and 'dont ever, EVER, say anything bad about a minority, no matter how justified' variety exists only in the mind of the masses. a lot of (possibly most) people belive that a significant amount of people would find, say, the term 'disabled' un-pc. most people think these people are idiots. however, you can never actually find these people, only the people who think that they exist. nor can anyone ever explain exactly why the fact that something is alledgedly un-pc actually means we shouldnt say it.

 

the stupid thing is that lots of these people actually get into positions such as tv-programmers, publishers, etc, and so we see this adherence to the (presumed) pc rules actually permete our society. I've actually seen a scientific book avoid using the term 'negros', 'differently abled' on an official document from an enployer...

 

it's silly... I suspect that they do it to avoid the 'invisable pc-ninjas' getting them, which actually adds some credence to the assumption that these ninjas exist...

 

people who actually -- heaven forbit -- use the term 'disabled' dont actually get punished atall. the pc-ninjas dont exist. we dont have to refrain from most of the 'un-pc' stuff; the majority of 'pc' is a myth. the original intent in this country, afaict, was simply to change stuff like 'postman' to 'postperson' to stop inherent/subconsious sexism, and to disallow derogatory terms in official documents.

 

another thing -- tho this is anecdotal, in my experience people to whom the term actually reffers are much more likely to be offended by the pc term (such as 'differently abled') than the non-pc one (disabled)

[ParanoiA]

another thing -- tho this is anecdotal, in my experience people to whom the term actually reffers are much more likely to be offended by the pc term (such as 'differently abled') than the non-pc one (disabled)

 

Excellent point. I'm short for a dude and that doesn't bother me, but I'd look at you funny if you referred to me as "vertically challenged" rather than "short". Vertically challenged avoids the word "short" but sounds so much worse - it sounds like the person is actually trying to offend rather than reference.

[swansont]

PC went from "try and be sensitive in your choice of words" to being an excuse for people to be offended at the drop of a hat. The onus is now on the speaker for how people might interpret his or her words, and completely removes the requirement of brain activity on the part of the listener to check for context. Which is a crock. It used to be that "sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me" to people screaming like stuck pigs, claiming to have been almost-mortally wounded by some ambiguous phrase.

 

And now PC-dom would require that I aplogize to Muslims, Jews and pigs for the using that particular porcine reference. No pigs were actually injured, nor did I mean to condone such action, and I did not mean to offend those whose religious beliefs forbid the consumption of pork. Nor did I mean to offend any potentially injured party not included in the previous apology.

[ecoli]

swansont - you forgot to apologize to people who are offended by apologies.

[Sequence]

How dare you all talk about political corectness like thatQ That's not Politically correct!

 

Anyway, In my experiances, it's a way for any minority to get pissed about things.

[Phi for All]

What is it? When the concept first came to into widespread use it was a sincere attempt to engender some respect and sensitivity and that's what it should continue to mean.

 

It morphed as people started finding more ways to promote it. Eventually "PC" started being measured and we joked about how bad it could eventually get if taken to the nth degree.

 

Then we went and took it to the nth degree and it's no joke.

[SkepticLance]

Some aspects of political correctness are good. Some are neutral. Some are bad.

 

Not being racist is a form of PC that is good. Calling a woman Ms instead of Mrs is PC and harmless - just not terribly useful either. Pushing a view that is PC but just plain wrong is bad.

 

As science oriented people, we should be mostly concerned about PC when it is not scientifically correct. For example : in certain circles, it is PC to believe that all behavioural differences between individuals is the result of conditioning, not genetics. That is not scientifically correct, and we should oppose that form of PC, and support the kind of research that will nail down the real causes.

 

There are people who believe that all criminal behaviour is the result of defects in Society. That is also something we should oppose. It is not scientifically correct (a lot of criminal behaviour is common across a wide range of societies), and is liable to lead people into 'remedial' action that will simply make matters worse.

[ecoli]

As science oriented people, we should be mostly concerned about PC when it is not scientifically correct. For example : in certain circles, it is PC to believe that all behavioural differences between individuals is the result of conditioning, not genetics. That is not scientifically correct, and we should oppose that form of PC, and support the kind of research that will nail down the real causes.

 

I think making science politically is inherently flawed to begin with.

 

So we shouldn't develop medicines targeted to African Americans because it's not PC to point out genetic differences?

 

I know you weren't making this argument, but this is what can happen if you mix science and politics (unfortunately)

[Mokele]

Calling a woman Ms instead of Mrs is PC and harmless - just not terribly useful either.

 

I dunno, I think it can be very useful, if you're single. If they don't correct you, well....;-)

[SkepticLance]

Ecoli said :

 

So we shouldn't develop medicines targeted to African Americans because it's not PC to point out genetic differences?

 

Actually, that is a perfect example of the point I was making. Dump PC if it is contrary to science. If a medicine works better with a particular racial group, then it should be used that way, since it is good science to do so. Forget the PC if it gets in the way of scientific reality.

[Glider]

PC was a way to attempt to avoid mindless labelling. It doesn't work though. Mindless labelling is a function of ignorance. Changing the terminology doesn't make people any less ignorant.

 

Mindless labelling is still a problem. A good example is where a person 'becomes' their condition. For example, ParanoiA says "To call a cripple(d) person physically challenged is not entirely accurate". This is true, but note that the term ParanoiA used was 'a crippled person', i.e. a person who is crippled. That, I believe, is acceptable because it is very different from 'a cripple'. The latter use depersonalised the individual and they become primarily their condition and how you see a person does affect how you interact with them.

 

This mindless labelling is particularly noticable in cases of mental illness. For example, a person with schitzophrenia becomes 'a schitzophrenic'. A person with a Bipolar disorder becomes 'a manic depressive'. A person with anorexia becomes 'an anorexic'. In cases of physical illness, this happens a lot less. A person with cancer never becomes 'an oncogenic'.

 

As I said, it is true that the way you conceptualise a person does influence strongly the way in which you interact with them. If you see them as their condition, then you are interacting with their condition, not them, and I can see how that could piss people off.

 

Having said that, I think PC is arse. As it was beautifully put earlier, forcing the ignorant to use flowery words is like covering a turd with petals. All that is really required is that people think about what they are saying rather than just opening their mouths and letting mindless garbage vomit forth. Political correctness can't achieve that.

 

I think PC adds to the problem because all it does is force the symptoms 'underground'. You can't say there's no problem just because you can't see the symptoms, and if you hide the symptoms, you can't adress the problem.

[Dak]

I dont see how calling someone a cripple or skitzo rather than a crippled person or a skitzophrenic person is any different from calling someone a bus-driver or a male rather than a bus-driving person or a male person.

 

In all those cases it's obvious that they're people (as, for example, potatos can't be crippled, skitzophrenic, or male, and can't drive busses), and it's also obvious that they can have more than the one quality -- cripples and skitzos can have more attributes than 'crippled' and 'skitzophrenic', same as males can have more attributes than 'penis', and bus-drives do more than drive busses.

 

in short: i dont see how using a discriptive noun rather than an adjective + 'person' makes a difference to how you think.

 

take people with, say, HIV or cancer... like you said, they aren't reffered to as an 'AIDSer', or a 'becancerd', but theres still the same potential, imo, for stigma as with 'cripples' and 'skitzos'

[swansont]

As science oriented people, we should be mostly concerned about PC when it is not scientifically correct. For example : in certain circles, it is PC to believe that all behavioural differences between individuals is the result of conditioning, not genetics. That is not scientifically correct, and we should oppose that form of PC, and support the kind of research that will nail down the real causes.

 

As an example of this, Lawrence Summers got booted (technically he resigned, under pressure) from Harvard because he had the audacity to question the assumption that there is no difference in intellectual capabilities between men and women, in the context of addressing the question of why women weren't as successful as men in obtaining faculty appointments and moving up to higher positions once there.

[Glider]

I dont see how calling someone a cripple or skitzo rather than a crippled person or a skitzophrenic person is any different from calling someone a bus-driver or a male rather than a bus-driving person or a male person.

Because a bus driver is a bus driver and a male is a male. However, a person with schitzophrenia is not 'a' schizophrenic. They are schizophrenic, but they are not 'a' schizophrenic. In the same way, someone may be retarded, but they are not 'a' retard. There is no such thing as 'a schizophrenic'. There are people who have schizophrenia, and who therefor are schizophrenic, but there is no such thing as 'a schizophrenic'. It's an incorrect and inaccurate use of the term that has resulted in people being incorrectly classified as their condition (whatever it may be).

 

In all those cases it's obvious that they're people (as, for example, potatos can't be crippled, skizophrenic, or male, and can't drive busses), and it's also obvious that they can have more than the one quality -- cripples and skitzos can have more attributes than 'crippled' and 'skitzophrenic', same as males can have more attributes than 'penis', and bus-drives do more than drive busses.

But, as I said, how you conceptualise a person determines how you interact with them. This is why people interact differently with people who are classified as 'bus driver' or 'surgeon' or 'policeman'. These lables do make a difference.

 

Unlike all these lables, when it comes to lables like 'schizophrenic' or 'cripple' the individual had no choice, yet these lables will still influence how people interact with them because these lables define them as people.

 

in short: i dont see how using a discriptive noun rather than an adjective + 'person' makes a difference to how you think.

. These lables influence your personal construct of the world and people in it. It defines your model of reality and thus, how you will interact with it.

 

take people with, say, HIV or cancer... like you said, they aren't reffered to as an 'AIDSer', or a 'becancerd', but theres still the same potential, imo, for stigma as with 'cripples' and 'skitzos'

True, so why doesn't it happen? Well, because people don't tend to define people with cancer by their condition. They still think of them as people first, with cancer second.

 

On the other hand, HIV carried with it a massive stigma. The 'AIDS patient' stigma has done a huge amount of damage in terms of mortality, spread of the disease etc.. This is because once it was known a person was HIV positive, then the AIDS lable was stuck to them and they carried the associations of 'gay' or 'drug abuser', never 'unfortunate transfusion patient' or 'needlestuck nurse'.

 

The lable applied to individuals defines how they are thought of and treated. The only thing you can say for such lables is that they are very adhesive. If we must lable people, we can at least try to make sure the lables are accurate.

 

.

[Dak]

I think you missed my point glider:

 

Because a bus driver is a bus driver and a male is a male. However, a person with schitzophrenia is not 'a' schitzophrenic. They are schitzophrenic, but they are not 'a' schitzophrenic. In the same way, someone may be retarded, but they are not 'a' retard. There is no such thing as 'a schitzophrenic'. There are people who have schitzophrenia, and who therefor are schitzophrenic, but there is no such thing as 'a schitzophrenic'. It's an incorrect and inaccurate use of the term that has resulted in people being incorrectly classified as their condition (whatever it may be).

 

see, this seems inconsistant to me... why is someone who is male 'a male' but someone who is schitzophrenic not 'a schitzophreic'?

 

'male' and 'schitzophrenic' are both attributes that one can possess... why does posessing one attribute make you an <attribute-based-descriptive-noun>, whereas posessing the other makes you an <adjective-form-of-attribute> person?

 

and, change the examples from 'male' and 'bus-driver' to something like 'a dustbin man' or 'a woman', and you start to get them used as 'labels' more... dustbin-men and women both have 'labels' and stigmas attached.

 

consider this rewording of your quote:

 

Because a schitzophrenic is a schitzophrenic and a cripple is a cripple. However, a person who is male is not 'a' male. They are male, but they are not 'a' male. In the same way, someone may drive a bus, but they are not 'a' bus-driver. There is no such thing as 'a bus-driver'. There are people who drive busses, but there is no such thing as 'a bus-driver'. It's an incorrect and inaccurate use of the term that has resulted in people being incorrectly classified as their job (whatever it may be).

 

see where i'm coming from?

 

But, as I said, how you conceptualise a person determines how you interact with them. This is why people interact differently with people who are classified as 'bus driver' or 'surgeon' or 'policeman'. These lables do make a difference.

 

Unlike all these lables, when it comes to lables like 'schitzophrenic' or 'cripple' the individual had no choice, yet these lables will still influence how people interact with them because these lables define them as people.

 

that may be true; but, if one accurately interprets the label as meaning 'a person who posesses this quality, amongst others', then it's ok. If they interpret the label as 'a person who posesses only this attribute', 'this attribue', etc, then it's bad.

 

my question would be, why does 'a cripple' encourage people to incorrectly interpret the label as 'a person who's main defining quality is that they're crippled', whereas 'a crippled person' doesn't?

 

On the other hand, HIV carried with it a massive stigma. The 'AIDS patient' stigma has done a huge amount of damage in terms of mortality, spread of the disease etc.. This is because once it was known a person was HIV positive, then the AIDS lable was stuck to them and they carried the associations of 'gay' or 'drug abuser', never 'unfortunate transfusion patient' or 'needlestuck nurse'.

 

which also illustrates my point: there isn't, afaik, a succinct labelly term for people with AIDS, yet we still have a 'label': someone with aids = aids with some skin and bones wrapped around it, usually that is gay or a junky.

 

if theres a stigma, incorrect label, or over-emphasis on one attribute of a person, then i can see that that's wrong; however, what i dont see is how calling someone 'a cripple' or 'a crippled person' would affect wether-or-not you're going to make one of those mistakes...

 

like you said:

 

Changing the terminology doesn't make people any less ignorant.

 

which is why i dont quite get why you're also saying that the term 'a cripple' is incorrect

[Sisyphus]

With regards to the "bus driver" vs. "a crippled person."

 

Just to be devil's advocate, there are a few arguments you could make. One, is that occupations are slightly different, because we usually interact with people on the basis of their jobs. As in, the guy driving the bus that you're on is the "bus driver," as far as you're concerned. But there's no reason to similarly see the guy in the wheelchair next to you as "a cripple." Second, maybe we shouldn't refer to people by what they do for a living. Marx would say that being identified as one's job is one of the most dehumanizing things you can do to a person.

[SkepticLance]

If you want to use schizophrenia as an example, please learn to spell it.

[swansont]

With regards to the "bus driver" vs. "a crippled person."

 

Just to be devil's advocate, there are a few arguments you could make. One, is that occupations are slightly different, because we usually interact with people on the basis of their jobs. As in, the guy driving the bus that you're on is the "bus driver," as far as you're concerned. But there's no reason to similarly see the guy in the wheelchair next to you as "a cripple."

 

But the PC-run-rampant solution is to refer to that "bus driver" as a "transportation professional." All that happens is that people have to take a moment to consult their mental lookup-table and equate "transportation professional" with "bus driver," and at the end you haven't gained anything.

 

But it's even more insidious than that. Because there are terms that society has deemed to be vulgar and demeaning. Some fraction of the population uses a term, and the rest don't. PC-dom berates everyone into using approved terminology, but doesn't change the underlying prejudice. All that happens is you can no longer identify the bigots (sorry; "persons of unenlightened outlook") smart enough to modify their vocabulary. They've just been driven underground.

 

Second, maybe we shouldn't refer to people by what they do for a living. Marx would say that being identified as one's job is one of the most dehumanizing things you can do to a person.

 

Groucho said that?

[Sisyphus]

Oh, I agree. It's an absurd failure. I was just trying to defend the rationale behind it.

[Mokele]

But the PC-run-rampant solution is to refer to that "bus driver" as a "transportation professional."

 

But does that actually happen? Outside of comedy and hypothetical examples?

 

What are the *real* PC terms that have been proposed, and what's just funny stuff that people have made up using the concept of PC?

 

And by the way, from now on, the correct term is 'morally-deficient intellectual'.

 

Mokele

[ParanoiA]

But does that actually happen? Outside of comedy and hypothetical examples?

 

What are the *real* PC terms that have been proposed, and what's just funny stuff that people have made up using the concept of PC?

 

And by the way, from now on, the correct term is 'morally-deficient intellectual'.

 

Mokele

 

I think this actually gets used a lot more up in the northeast part of the country. I'm in the midwest, so we don't really see that much PC nonsense except in writing. You'd have to apply for the bus driver job as a transportation specialist but everyone would say congratulations on your bus driver job.

[swansont]

How about wheelchair attendants being called "mobility assistance representatives?"

http://www.repmanblog.com/repman/2006/06/politically_cor.html

 

 

Prison guards are "correctional officers"

Stewards/Stewardesses are now "flight attendants"