The main essence of political correctness is that you have to be like me or you are wrong! The main actor here is ‘me’. Who is this ‘me’ we all have to please?
We live in a world of extremes - extremes in wealth, extremes in ideologies, extremes in technology, extremes in sports, extremes in our climatic environment. Now we have extended this extremism to our language. It is called political correctness. It simply means that we should not avoid any language or action that might offend or harm an individual or group of people. At its face value it means that we should be polite, which is what we were taught as a child but we have gone much more than just being polite.
We are now unable to speak words and phrases that we grew up with. Let us start with the most common word MAN. It is defined in authentic dictionaries as a person belonging to genus Homo or species H sapiens irrespective of race age or sex. It is supposed to be a generic word as in the ancient sayings such as ‘when the wind is in the east, it is neither good for man nor beast’; ‘cheerfulness in the face of death is an expression of man’s courage’; ‘man is not only a working but talking animal’; and so on.
The expressions we are used to such as human being, mankind, humankind and human race are believed to be (gender) neutral. But people (feminist? rights activists? politicians?) seem unhappy with the word MAN to be tagged with any word or expression that involves a female being. We are supposed to ask how is your partner, instead of, how is your wife or girlfriend or boyfriend or husband? Should a name ending in man such as Zimmerman be feminised to become Zimmerwoman, while naming a female being or do away with the MAN all together and simply call Zimmerwo?
We now have to identify the gender wherever possible such as, a TV cameraman becoming a camera person and so on. And even when the word Man is not involved there are changes such as - housewife is a term which has been in use for centuries. Now the housewife has become a homemaker. Gay, again a common word in a dictionary is now ‘men having sex with men’. There is no change in the role in any of the above. Since when and how have these words become an insult? How and what did we benefit by changing the word but not changing the role? Did you know that Facebook has classified human sexuality into 71 genders? It is a total farce. Should Facebook be awarded a Nobel Prize for literature? What purpose does it serve? We do recognise diversity but not by creating artificial barriers.
A more troubling ones are: an individual without a sense of sight is referred to as blind (by birth or due to an accident). It is not only in an English dictionary but also in medical dictionaries. But we have to call this person visually challenged. Similarly, other regular English/medical terms we have altered are; deaf become a person with hearing challenge; mute become a verbally challenged person; mentally retarded become intellectually challenged person; any form of disability become physically challenged and so on. All these words are medical terminology in addition to being common English words. How does an ophthalmologist describe a one-eye blind person – partially visually challenged person? How do you describe a congenitally blind child – a child visually challenged by birth? The words blind or mute or deaf or disabled are not derogatory in any way. These words denote certain health conditions. It does not actually correspond to the word challenge. The word challenge is best described as to confront or contest or encounter. It does not express reality.
A particularly touchy one is the use of the word Negro. This word has been in use for more than two hundred years when the anthropologists classified people into broad races such as Caucasian (White race), Mongoloid (Yellow race) and Negro (Black race) and later added Malayan (Brown race) based on skin pigmentation and other morphological characteristics such as shape of nose, head, etc. This was also backed by gene pools in population genetics. There are different shades of colour within each race. If you turn to any anthropology book you will find the word Negro which is sub divided in to sub-races such as Hottentots, Bantu, Tutsi, etc. There are similar classifications for other races as well, including based on language people speak.
What makes it offensive to use the term, Negro? One may say we call them Blackman rather than a Negro as we call a Whiteman. But Blackman is more derogatory than Negro as we associate Black with most negative expression such as blackmail, black death, black market, black list, black sheep, black lack eye, etc. What is the purpose of all these meaningless changes? Are we supposed to feel morally superior if we use these meaningless words?
Whichever way these ideas came about it punishes the people who don’t stick to these changes as racist with the idea that if you are not like me, you are wrong, where the ‘me’ is an unknown entity with unknown origin. What has been said for decades if not centuries is now a taboo. What changed?
The use of political correctness can also be a threat to the concept of ‘freedom of speech’ by controlling people’s thought process. Political correctness reduces people’s tolerance even in minor issues such as jokes, which are useful in breaking a deadlock during difficult negotiations. Politically correct will create a very uptight society, devoid of any humour and may even breed ignorance by not calling spade a spade. It is not a contradiction to say what it is. It is a question of how you say it without being offensive.
The idea of political correctness is even more dangerous in political amphitheatre. The idea of politically correctness encourages self-censorship by not speaking out the truth or by agreeing with the majority no matter the reality. It is to be on the side of the constituencies or on the side of the majority, or on the side of the BOSS, even if the BOSS is wrong. It is also a way of creating alternative truth, truth based on the other side of ‘you’.
Democracy and liberalism taught us to be free which includes freedom of speech. It allows us to express our thoughts and ideas without hesitations and without fear. Freedom of speech can be a menace too if practiced to insult or dehumanise others. At times speaking truth costs dearly for individuals as in the case of journalists who are targeted and killed. It thus makes people fearful of retribution. The Messenger becomes the victim and truth is buried forever. Ironically. In many such cases perpetrators are protected by those who advocate transparency and accountability. The idea of political correctness at times pulls us back from what we are supposed to be, the bearer of truth. With self-censorship to remain politically correct is a sure way to kill the truth.
Voltaire: ‘I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’
Can there be a balance between freedom of speech and political correctness?
Ramesh you always make very interesting points. Appreciate your writings. Be well
ReplyDeleteThanks Sharad. Now I know that I have at least one reader! Cheers...
ReplyDeleteVery thought provoking!
ReplyDeleteFacts cannot be politically incorrect.
What is politically correct depends on your audience and the occasion. There is no universal authority that defines what is politically correct.
It may require some effort, but it should be possible to exercise free speech and speak the truth, while not inadvertently offending or discriminating against other people.