What do we mean when we talk about political correctness?

[David]

Here is an excellent brief history of where the phrase "political correctness" comes from and what it means to the right.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/23/political-correctness-has-no-meaning-thats-the-main-appeal

Having said that, I do disagree with one of Sparrow's central contentions: that the phrase "political correctness" is inherently meaningless. As much as it's misused both by the right (as described in the article) and in popular culture (to describe nearly any non-traditional constraint on society), I feel like it still has a useful definition.

Political correctness can be roughly defined as the concept (emerging from postmodernist/post-structuralist academic traditions, but also present in earlier Marxist traditions) that words and symbols shape the way we view the world, and that politically conscious people must therefore strive to use the right terminology (or clothing, or symbols) and actively discourage usage of non-ideal words or phrases, and so on. Invariably, it is viewed that there is only one right approach and many wrong ones, which makes the description "political correctness" fairly appropriate.

This, I think, is what most people understood the phrase to mean in the '90s; and while its definition has been muddied since, the phenomenon it describes is still a prevalent one. If we choose not to use the phrase "political correctness" to refer to that approach, or claim that it is a phrase without meaning, then we need to at least recognise the existence of the phenomenon described above and be able to weigh its pros and cons.

The most positive interpretation of political correctness is offered by the identitarian left: specifically, the oft-heard expression that "political correctness means simply being a decent human being". The argument goes that, as language and other symbology can be oppressive and cause harm to disadvantaged groups, monitoring one's language demonstrates basic respect and empathy.

There is a lot to be said for this approach, but there are nevertheless valid criticisms of it, and not just from the right. Personally, I believe that the '90s post-structuralist left greatly overestimated the ability of language and symbology to construct reality. This can be seen in the fact that politically correct terms never seem to stick around for long and sometimes even end up being 'reclaimed' as slurs themselves, thus necessitating new terminology (a partial example of this phenomenon being the once-popular derogatory expression "that's so gay"). If anything, I would argue that words and symbols are mostly at the whim of cultural norms, not the other way around.

Not only is a fixation on language often ineffective, I feel that it can be problematic, too � leading to the creation of in-group enforcing shibboleths, use of terminology to signal virtue, a preoccupation with self-correction and even a reluctance to engage with entire ideas for fear of saying the wrong thing. Furthermore, it becomes a stick to beat progressives with; not just from the right, but from mainstream society as a whole � where the suggestion that, say, one should avoid addressing a mixed-gender group as "you guys" is immediately seen as an absurd, reified and (perhaps most importantly) oppressive form of language policing. That is necessarily alienating, and affects the broader credibility with which left-wing discourse is held. And that can be, as the election of Donald Trump in the US has demonstrated, a politically potent form of alienation.

Of course, much of what Trump and his supporters call "political correctness" has little if anything to do with what I've written above, as Sparrow's piece points out � it's mostly a grab bag of misplaced nostalgia for the good old days, resentment that hardcore racism and misogyny are no longer socially acceptable and belief in silly conservative myths like the supposed "war on Christmas". But there is a real phenomenon there underneath all the right-wing culture war debris, and it is one that we need to be able to recognise and discuss on its merits.

Political correctness cannot be glibly dismissed as something dreamt up by right-wing ideologues. It is a real, complex phenomenon with both useful and counterproductive aspects. We can pretend it doesn't exist all we like, but others will continue to recognise it; and while they can, it will remain a powerful rhetorical tool of the right, no matter how much they misunderstand it.

[watt price tully]

^ I don't think that's ideologically sound.

[Pies4shaw]

Language will always be contested politically. The important aspect of the debate at the moment appears to me to be that "challenging political correctness" is an expression the bigot-right uses to give itself poetic licence to pronounce hideous and unacceptable views that would have been rejected by fair-minded conservatives as objectionable and obnoxious. Thus "We've got to end all this political correctness" is frequently code for "I don't like people who aren't white".

[Pi]

For decades the Left and progressives have been able to stifle discussion by intellectual laziness through simply labeling someone a racist, a misogynist, a fascist for just about anything; this was an easy way to win debates. Like diving for fee kicks, it works until it doesn�t work.

[Pies4shaw]

So, when is a person racist, misogynist or fascist?

[think positive]

So basically it's an excuse for bad manners, shitty morals, or difference of opinion

[London Dave]

[stui magpie]

[Pies4shaw]

Conservatism stifles debate by labelling every idea it rejects as "political correctness". It's a right wing pu(t)s(c)h.

[stui magpie]

^

Ok, so for an unusual turn of events, we have the outer fringes in direct conflict and the average punter the meat in the sandwich.

[Mugwump]

[HAL]

Oh I get an historical movement with clear characteristics .

[Mugwump]

Good OP, David.

It is indeed many things. Some things (such as the prohibition on the N word) are simply politeness and a desire to avoid words which carry a strong freight of oppression through history (and imply approbation for it). That is unproblematic and pretty reasonable.

The more sinister roots of political correctness, however, lie in the view that certain value judgements are actually matters of fact, and people who disagree with a certain �party line� are actually morally bad, mad or treasonous to progress. This is the Sovietist/Maoist origin of the phrase, where it justified sending people to various �re-education� (torture and death) camps. We have not reached that stage of institutional collapse (yet), but the mindset seems to be the same � my opponent is not acting in good faith but is actually wicked or sick.

If one is on the moderate right (ie like about 55-60% of the population, I suspect), one gets used to dissent from the standard Left view being characterised as racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, Islamophobia, fascism, imperialism, etc. This battery of pathologising terms comes from people on the quite mainstream left, who really cannot believe that those with different views might have the wellbeing of humanity in their heart as well. This characterisation of one way of thinking as healthy, and the other as pathological, is how Sovietist political correctness has infiltrated our culture and discourse.

[Pi]

another article on the subject

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/chris-kenny/memo-to-the-politically-correct-you-have-failed/news-story/925fd2bb1787662b0329e269cab731b4

[watt price tully]