In Defence of Political Correctness
By Emma.
Every single day, some idiot somewhere declares that “political correctness has gone mad”. Whether it’s because someone was upset by their use of racist or sexist language, or because they are too stupid to tell the difference between political correctness and health and safety (also important but vitally NOT THE SAME THING).
PCGM is a regular outcry of both the conservative press and the libertarian left. It’s a debasement of our freedom of speech not to be able to say it as we see it both sides cry. Well fine. But actually all that’s happened is that we have made a concerted attempt to consign hate speech to the dustbin of history where it belongs, and have tried to make it so that hateful images are not seen as examples in the popular press that go unchallenged, and hateful words spoken in a threatening way allowable in public discourse. At least without challenge. And what’s wrong with that?
There are two stages in any campaign, and we in the political correctness movement have really taken our eye off the ball. We won the legal war – the anti-discrimination laws in this country are good and about to get better. The UK is great example of how to be a free society while respecting difference. But we never carried on with the hearts and minds stuff. Why not? Why have we allowed the idea that political correctness is wrong to be so all pervasive? Why have we not challenged this assumption at every turn?
I for one have had enough of keeping quiet about it: I’ll say it loud: I’m PC and proud!
Thursday, March 11th 2010 at 02:02
Love it!
Tuesday, March 16th 2010 at 22:34
“the anti-discrimination laws in this country are good and about to get better.”
About to get worse, in my opinion. It’s all very well legislating against incitement to hatred, but unless they’re tightly defined, it leads to unintended consequences, like a pensioner being warned by police for writing an outspoken letter in opposition to a gay pride march.
The House of Commons attempted to remove an amendment from the recent Coroner’s and Justice Bill, which, had it not been reinserted by the Lords, would have made the legislation even more wooly.
At the end of the day, these measures are all very well, but they can only go so far, as they impose legislative controls from the centre. Real change can only happen, as you point out, from the battle for hearts and minds being won.
Tuesday, March 16th 2010 at 22:39
First time to your blog and I have doubts whether I’ll return after reading your post.
For you to focus on PC as being the opposition to racism and sexism is to highlight the distance between yourself and the rest of us.
Case in point: I am currently looking at teaching and in so doing am spending time in schools. On several occasions I referred to the ‘Head of School’ as the Headmistress without even a second thought to it. You can perhaps guess that I was ‘corrected’ (reluctantly I might add) and told she was the ‘Headteacher’. This is what drives people “mad”, this is the kind of needless interruption to daily life that both infuriates and attempts to admonish normal decent people.
Political correctness for most of us is not confused with health and safety as you suggest, nor is it liberating anyone who might be singled out by any minority status. It acts as a pseudo-language to control peoples behaviour. The PC brigade wish to exact ‘their’ (your?) morals on others rather than being more accepting of a genuinely mixed society with all its use of descriptive detailing. PC is conformity by any other name which is no better than suppression.
If you really want to be proud of being PC, then I would advise that you try and understand why others aren’t.
-Simon
Tuesday, March 16th 2010 at 23:34
Welcome to my blog. I hope you do come back as arguing with articulate people I disagree with helps me to sharpen my thinking.
If a woman’s job title is Head of School, who are you to correct her, or to willfully ignore her wishes? I don’t ask that everyone be called by a gender neutral term, but that the option of gender neutrality is availabe to all. This woman has taken it and you don’t have the right to take it away from her. That would be you supressing her use of language.
We surpress our language all the time to suit the society we are in. I don’t swear in front of my Grandpa, I don’t tell sex stories at work and I don’t shout fire in a theatre. I know that there are rule governing my behaviour in society and as such I conform to them. All I want is for the same respect to be afforded to me and to those who agree with me, and I don’t beleive mutual respect is too much to ask.
Tuesday, March 16th 2010 at 23:37
Well my point was that both are important, and that as such, both need to be pursued.
I think that there has been some real over reliance on just getting the legislation and a beleif that the hearts and minds would automatically follow without any real attempt to make that happen in a meaningful way.
Wednesday, March 17th 2010 at 01:25
I’ve obviously not explained this well enough.
The person I spoke to was not the Head, it was another teacher and we merely referred to the Head as they weren’t present. There was no offence caused by “Headmistress” but the teacher was clearly unused to hearing it at that school. Their ‘correction’ was a product of having to walk on eggshells created for them by moralisers.
Swearing to your grandpa, sex stories at work and alarming in a theatre are hardly comparable considering the topic is Political Correctness and not decorum or safety. I wouldn’t describe that as suppression either but rather as showing standard judgment.
I’m sure you’d agree mutual respect should not be confused with personal demands. Mutual respect is exactly that – mutual – common ground – a shared understanding by society at large. Your preference for gender neutrality is no greater than that of mine for gender specification, yet I won’t place demands on you if you choose your preference, but reciprocation seems to be ever lacking. “Headmistress” is not a derogatory term and the accusation that it can be insulting, demeaning, belittling, etc., is simply creating a problem society doesn’t need to entertain. One of the main points you undoubtedly don’t recognise is that PC tells people when to be offended, it wants to reengineer communities. You may never have thought of asking others to disregard your gender but suddenly you’re told you should be resentful if they don’t. It’s bogus and divisive serving only to create barriers.
If someone named Robert asks me to call him by Bob, I would do so. However, if he wasn’t around and in conversation to others it was convenient to refer to him by Robert, I would do and I wouldn’t have any compunction about it. Who would disagree with that? Surely not Bob, I bet. I would like to think you could see how this is applicable with Headteacher/Headmistress. Ones preference does not, nor should not, alter technical fact.
Arguments for PC are more valid when say, people describe another as an “idiot”, a subjective term, instead of determining they actually had Cerebral Palsy. However, PC is invalid when it stops the usage of objective or qualified terms such as ‘spastic’ – a once widely used and honest word for those of Cerebral Palsy. Retard and Moron are others, PC wishes to dictate what is acceptable because it wishes to correct society’s behaviour. Correct = Control. Sure enough when Cerebral Palsy is used in the playground by children as a derisive slur we will no longer be ‘allowed’ to use that term either.
…passed my bedtime. – Simon
Wednesday, March 17th 2010 at 03:05
While I agree with your premise (that people who complain about political correctness usually don’t know what they’re talking about), I don’t agree with this bit:
“hateful words spoken in a threatening way [are not] allowable in public discourse. At least without challenge”
But here’s the thing. Most hate speech has been made illegal since Labour came to power. And while such speech is disgusting, it should still be legal. The best way to challenge views you dislike (whether that’s racism, or more political views) is to attack it with all your vigor in the marketplace of ideas.
After all, if an idea (like anti-racism or anti-hate speech) is so obviously right, it should be trivially easy to show it to be wrong in your own words, without having the government stop the opposition from even playing the game.
This is (paradoxically, for all the media’s hysteria about “multiculturalism”) something that New Labour (and their neoconservative friends in Washington either) has never understood: pluralism . Allowing views to be put forth no matter how offensive or intolerable they might be. Fighting the vocal war against evil views on a level playing field. And winning.
Wednesday, March 17th 2010 at 12:48
As I understand it, the law doesn’t prescribe hate speech, but speech intended to stir up racial hatred. It’s not the best written law, but I would amend it to make it clearer, not throw it out altogether. I think anti-incitement laws have a place, but should be very clear, which I admit these aren’t.
I’m a great fan of pluralism (and nice try, but I ain’t biting on the neo-con nonsense). I also believe that my values and morals are the right ones – why would I hold them otherwise. So yes I will try to challenge people who offend my values. As is MY free speech right.
Wednesday, March 17th 2010 at 13:12
I think PC is about decorum. It’s about behaving in the appropriate way in usually a professional circumstance.
I would and regularly do happily reciprocate. I deal with people everyday who refer to themselves as Mrs or Miss or as Chairmen or Chairwomen. I don’t ask them to change thier titles for my benefit. That is reciprocation.
Headmistress may not be derogatory, nor is Teacher, Caretaker or Managing Director, but they aren’t the woman’s job title.
I think your Bob arguement is a red herring tbh. But it does lead me on to moving out of a professional context and into private conversation. If you were to say something to me in a private conversation that I found offensive, that would be your right. It would equally be my right to tell you that I found what you had said offensive. That again is parity.
I think PC is less about controlling than education and also allowing the freedom for people like me to say “actually I find that offensive” without being branded killjoys. I don’t want to control but to convince.
Finally on the subject of Cerebral Palsy, you might find this interesting: http://www.scope.org.uk/downloads/publications/scopename_change.pdf