An article published in The Australian in June this year was entitled: “The church of political correctness (PC) controls national discourse” and ranted about the rise of ‘humorless zealots’ who attempt to control public discussion.
More and more this bludgeon of the ‘political correctness’ slogan has been the weapon of choice by the emerging Alt-right to downplay issues such as support for a Bill of Rights; the emergency of climate change; legal status for same-sex marriage and all the issues which supporters of human rights have struggled for ever since the emerging liberation movements of the 1970s.
The ‘political correctness’ label, it seems to me, is being used more and more to wind back and denigrate hard-fought rights for minorities and disadvantaged groups. Shouting ‘politically correct’ at every human rights advocate has become a one-size-fits-all argument, a killer blow against the rights of minority groups. It is in fact just a lazy way to win an argument.
This reaction is like some spontaneous tic afflicting mostly privileged, white, heterosexual males who see the expansion of minority rights as a loss of their own privileged positions. Suddenly they see themselves as the disadvantaged and they don’t like to see their system being challenged. They have transmogrified themselves miraculously into victims.
I would argue that the term ‘political correctness’ has actually been highjacked and misused in current contexts. The term doesn’t appear to have a fixed meaning but has been used variously to support particular agendas for almost a century. In the mid-twentieth century it was used by Marxist-Leninist groups referring to what was regarded as the ‘proper’ language to use or the ‘proper’ position for a member of the Communist party to take – political orthodoxy.
In the 1960s it was used principally in left-leaning political and activist circles, although it has always has an ironic edge. By the 1980s it was already being used as an insult by conservative critics against what they viewed as ‘feel-good’ liberal values. When President Bush in the 1990s declared that free speech was under threat by a PC culture, it was the start of seeing the term used a broad-brush insult against leftist ideology.
It was one of the favored slogans of the Trump candidacy and is becoming more and more used by the Alt-right as a one-shot multi-purpose spray to kill off any liberal, human rights argument that dare raises its head. The debate in Australia over freedom of speech and the winding back of Section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act has been reduced often to a mere case of overblown political correctness and therefore a threat to free speech. Funnily the complainers in this case are mostly white, privileged males who see their right to be bigots and racists under threat.
While nobody in Australia wants a straighjacketed forum where issues cannot be discussed and debated, we can’t use our penchant for informality and directness to be an insult to less advantaged and less privileged sections of our society. Some may argue that the PC police have ruined our opportunities to ride bikes without helmets, not have to slather ourselves with sunscreen or eat a high fat diet but there are good health reasons for these directives; they are not mere fun spoilers.
Have the PC fascists ruined our fun by pointing out the harm done to minority groups with racist, abusive names or do we now realize that each human being whatever her(PC!) race deserves respect? Unfortunately even many who sit in our Parliament today feel their rights to abuse particular groups ought not to be ruled by an overblown political correctness. As if their positions of privilege give them special permissions.
Every time we hear the ‘political correctness’ bullet fired back in an argument, we need to decide if this is fair or just a right-wing punch, without thought, merely designed to king-hit an opponent. Time to think of a better argument or ditch a term whose impact and meaning has now become terminal.
Totally agree John
and yes asking for specifics and examples does tend to take the discussion in a different direction. It even has some stopping to think about what they’re saying. What a novel idea!
perhaps we could all simply take up Pauline Hanson’s “Please explain’
John has provided an interesting history of the term ‘politically correct’ and its derivatives including ‘political correctness’ from an ‘in-house’ term among mid-twentieth century Marxist-Leninists, a little later as irony for left-leaning activists, to a summarily damning repost by conservatives today. At each stage, the term was devalued as the meaning changed, until today when it fits well into the 3-second sound-bite vocabulary for what passes as civic, and too often uncivil, discourse.
Refusal to accept the term is my preferred reaction, challenging the user to explain him/herself by elaborating in what way political? in what way correct?…anything to reject a slogan as sufficient input to a social or political discussion.
Not that I feel I ever make any headway in such discussion, but it does shift the frustration to the other.
A timely comment John.It’s a lazy way of stopping serious discussion.