Provide a philosophically robust and coherent definition of "political correctness" first. Otherwise I have no idea what I am possibly agreeing/disagreeing with.

Comment 1 by John_Geeshu :

Provide a philosophically robust and coherent definition of "political correctness" first. Otherwise I have no idea what I am possibly agreeing/disagreeing with.

"Political Correctness" - Buzzword used to express the absurd notion that the majority is being dominated by the minorities.

Comment 2 by foundationist :

"Political Correctness" - Buzzword used to express the absurd notion that the majority is being dominated by the minorities.

Yes.

Not political correctness again.

The term has a long and complicated history, but to save time I'll deal with the meaning it has not, which is the one it has had for decades.

Political correctness is formalised good manners. It has been a benefit to society. Before it became influential it was common to see overt racism, sexism, homophobia, jokes about the disabled and so on. Fortunately a culture of respect for diversity developed and with it a culture of disrespect for rudeness - political correctness. So far, so good. However, nothing is perfect. A rather nasty right-wing revolt against political correctness 'gone mad'. There was a libertarian attitude that there was no real harm in calling coloured people 'darkys' or 'pakis', and what's the problem with mother-in-law jokes, or calling poofs 'poofs'? Why is the nanny state trying to tell us what to think? This was all a bit pathetic really, like a child ranting because it had been told off for being a bully.

The more serious problem was a version of political correctness which insisted that ANY diversity should be respected. It was mixed up with cultural relativism. That is the danger.

As is usual with such things, there is even more confusion. The term 'political correctness' can be used as a verbal weapon by those who want to do extreme things, things which would attack equality and human rights. When others complain, the response 'that's just political correctness' is supposed to be a conversation stopper, because political correctness is supposed to be wrong.

Complaining about political correctness is as absurd as complaining about good manners. The response 'that's just political correctness' usually translates as 'that's just being polite'.

In my view, if you are complaining about political correctness, I assume that you have run out of real arguments to support your position, and you are instead resorting to emotional button-pushing.

Comment 4 by Steve Zara :

In my view, if you are complaining about political correctness, I assume that you have run out of real arguments to support your position, and you are instead resorting to emotional button-pushing.

Exactly, Steve. I can't take someone's argument seriously if they use the term "political correctness", even if I know they're using it to mean "cultural relativism" and I agree with them. If you use the term at all you WILL sound like someone who whines about not being "allowed" to make offensive jokes or use slurs.

please provide a philosophically robust and coherent justification for this dogma

Being nice to people and being considerate of their feelings.

I don't see anything dishonest or unworthy about that. When I was little people o n the street called me 'Paki' without second thought. It really upset me. Now no-one does. I have no inhibition in saying that Political Correctness is a GOOD thing.

'Political correctness' is not a term that I use to describe myself. However, given that I do make a conscious effort to be civil and respectful about and towards other people who do me no harm, no doubt that makes me a member of the raving loony PC-Brigade (©TheSun). Oh yes, I joined the PC-Brigade after renouncing my membership of the 4th division of the United Peoples Front For PC Unity (slogan "We're PC And We've Gone Thoroughly MAAAaaaad")

In his opening post David says: "The crux of my opposition to "political correctness" can be easily summarized. Firstly: it makes every thought, feeling, word, expression, every form of discourse, both public and private - political!"

Every? Well, actually, no. When I am in bed with my partner, or with a very close friend there is little or no 'political correctness' in the language used, or the thoughts expressed. Of course when I am with relatives I employ different language and express subtley different views. And my language and expressions change even more markedly when at work with colleagues. And so on and so forth. 'Poltical correctness' is therefore simply a relatively new term to describe something that is as old and inate as humans themselves: Diplomacy of behaviour, moderated according to the circumstances in which one finds oneself. A world in which absolutely everyone, expresses their innermost thoughts, however truthful they may be, in absolutely every situation is not likely to be a very pleasant one. Which explains why as a species, every civilisation has evolved these (admittedly elaborate) and mostly informal codes.

Comment 2 by foundationist :

"Political Correctness" - Buzzword used to express the absurd notion that the majority is being dominated by the minorities.

Gosh how far back does your memory go, folks?

The original term was coined by people wanting to be the gatekeepers of what was well... Politically Correct in their environments or to the groups they thought they represented, championed, controlled etc. I recall how it was even used at one point at my alma mater to justify dissing underrepresented groups when they had the wrong politics or at its worse, enrolled into the "wrong" majors!!!

It had nothing to do with "Polite Courtesy" or any of the apologetics that's sent to defend the term. It's right up there with "Ersatz Black, Woman, etc" and far worse ones that were likewise defended not as being polite, but as being... Politically Correct. PC was a shield behind which to demonize a black libertarian, not to create a more tolerant language that would include "herm" into the university dialog.

It's [rightfully] evolved into a pejorative and I was delighted to see the backlash. The only downer is that it only applies to "Left-wing idioticy," not the right wing kind (which I guess has it's own tern, Wingnuttery - but at least there is honesty in that moniker.)

I reserve the right to call a spade a shovel. Good manners is good manners. Professional courtesy and Professionalism is polite and professional courtesy and Professionalism. "Political Correctness" is bull hockey. It certainly wasn't mannerly, it sure as hell wasn't courteous or professional.

Gosh how far back does your memory go, folks?

That's not relevant. The original meaning of political correctness has long been abandoned.

The only downer is that it only applies to "Left-wing idioticy,"

Yes, because not calling Asians 'Paki' is idiocy.

not the right wing kind (which I guess has it's own tern, Wingnuttery - but at least there is honesty in that moniker.)

I reserve the right to call a spade a shovel

Good for you. Why do you think anyone using the term 'political correctness' is going to stop you? Are words that frightening?

The main use for 'political correctness' these days is a rather crass attempt to try and make rudeness seem cool, as in "I'm not bothered by political correctness". If your intentions are honourable, you won't care about the phrase. It tends only to be used by those who are guilty about their politics and want to fend of left-wing criticism with a 'conversation stopping' criticism.

In my view, anyone who uses the phrase 'that's just political correctness' has usually lost the argument and knows it.

I think "Political Correctness" started off as an attempt to be polite for diplomatic reasons. Now, it's little more than a weapon used by those who would portray themselves as "victims" for their own gain to beat the fearful and cowardly.

Too many kiss the religious ass for fear of being sees and bigoted. I personally know quite a few people who kiss the asses of many black people for fear of being called "racist". We, as a society, cannot continue to make concessions to those who would abuse these terms and buzz words simply for fear of "what the neighbours would say"

Did you read this dear, it says we've become even more polite! Oh, that's just wonderful darling. Don't patronize me red. Who you calling red, you Harry Potter lookin' mother fucker. What are you laughing at Jose? It's Carlos. You look like a fucking Jose, Jose. Let me catch you squinting at me again, man! Oh, you're going to roll your eyes like a bitch now, huh?

It is a wonder how we survive each other, isn't? So, I guess I like a bit of political correctness.

I don't know though, whatever it is, it seems impolite for polite folks to talk about it. -meh, maybe that's just me.

edit: added the eye roll, trying to get everyone in there, balance 'n all.

There's an annual contest at the University of Arkansas calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term.

This year's term was: "Political Correctness." The winning student wrote:

"Political correctness is a doctrine -- fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rapidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media -- which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."

Comment 9 by Steve Zara :

Gosh how far back does your memory go, folks?

That's not relevant. The original meaning of political correctness has long been abandoned.

See my new comments below, the founding indefensible connotations for term PC have been devalued. But its legacy continues.

The only downer is that it only applies to "Left-wing idioticy,"

Yes, because not calling Asians 'Paki' is idiocy.

(I hadn't realized that the "P" word was ever something other than the equivalent of the "N" word. Such explicitly Reasonable-Person-Test flunkings of racist language were never part of the PC-re-lexicon or newspeak.)

I reserve the right to call a spade a shovel

Good for you. Why do you think anyone using the term 'political correctness' is going to stop you? Are words that frightening?

Hey, I could get written up when I was in school of saying the above catch phrase, and maybe I still can! Heck, we still have "red flag" words for otherwise innocuous phrases (no longer as ridiculous as "individual" which was one of the earlier strawmen for "PC run amuck") but they are still there, and I'm not talking about legitimate avoidance of gender limiting language. I still hear the phrase "Inauthentic XXX" in environments where you can't say Uncle Tom or Gussano or Apple or Twinkie which have the same function -- to delegitimize underrepresented contrarians.

In my view, anyone who uses the phrase 'that's just political correctness' has usually lost the argument and knows it.

To some degree now, you're right. The term PC has been lost as a term usable by the left given the its dishonest origins and its abuses. And "PC run amuck" has hair growing out if its ears, and it is invoked to do things that don't pass and have never passed the R.P.T. Unfortunately when the old school PC rears its head, what word are we supposed to use? What is the modern PC term for old school toxic PC, eh? I really don't want to bring up yet another new term (though there's some stern contemporary HR verbiage that would do nicely in some, but not all, of its circumstances!).

But its legacy continues.

Does it? Can you give me a example of someone saying "don't criticise Muslims, it's not politically correct"?

Almost the only time I ever come across the term "political correctness" these days is in shallow and defensive attempts to justify bigotry or bullying or simplistic politics.

My reaction to that is to embrace the term "political correctness".

People who are easily offended by some line just because it may sound “politically correct” can be just as dogmatic and controlling in what one can say as those who use “political correctness” dogmatically.

Well this is a loaded issue obviously, and no absolute position of truth is likely to exist.

To me, political correctness, and this may not be true for everyone here, is about suppressing and silencing points of view because they are likely to cause offence and hurt feelings rather than fairly dealing with the contents and merits of those points of view. It's about dealing with the surface rather than the foundation of those points of view and condemning or praising them for their actual contents.

A good example is the debate in the US about Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn". Often cited as the first great American novel, and significantly, a powerful argument against racism and slavery. But the politically correct brigade don't appear to be aware of that. They notice that the word nigger is used in the novel in a realistic manner to convey how people actually spoke in those days, and they would like the book banned and censored because of it. They lose the underlying message of the novel in the process, by focussing on the surface, and that's my objection to political correctness. It doesn't do a thing to reduce bigotry or racism. It's merely about the words used, not what those words represent and addressing that, and it creates a climate of fear and resentment which is actually counter-productive.

This was obvious in the simpler days of my youth when we actually read novels like Huckleberry Finn for pleasure and understood them when we weren't outside playing Cow Persons and Native Americans.

When PC becomes law, then we have serious problems (See Hate Speech legislation).

Comment 12 by Sensible :

There's an annual contest at the University of Arkansas calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term.

This year's term was: "Political Correctness." The winning student wrote:

"Political correctness is a doctrine -- fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rapidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media -- which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."

That is worth remembering.

Comment 14 by Steve Zara :

But its legacy continues.

Does it? Can you give me a example of someone saying "don't criticise Muslims, it's not politically correct"?

Of course not, the term "PC" has been rightfully devalued due to its past abuses and invokes Orwellian restrictions on speaking ones mind because that's one of the most egregious ways in which it was abused. It's since been "rebranded" by those who still favor its more abusive applications. It's no longer about saying "he" in a generic contract; that fight was won and didn't need "PC" to win it. What you WILL hear is "don't criticize religion" (or to be specific, the religion of underrepresented groups). And rather than cite fake "manners" of PC, quote university speech codes (which are also being rebranded into equally indefensible "civility codes"), or hate speech legislation, or other over-broad or selectively enforced rules made and enforced by the local happiness patrol who decides who can and cannot be offended or merely made exempt to even sober inquiry and critical review that applies to everyone else.

I see no need to bring the term off the shelf just to torque bigots by "embracing" it. If you're using it to promote progressive (or even "classical liberal") views you're just playing into their hands and validating their use of it. I think it's more appropriate to let the term rot and when confronted with someone crying "PC" like crying wolf to simply point out (as undiplomatically as you wish) the boorish behavior they're trying to justify shouldn't (and wouldn't) have flown back then either... Of course back then before PC, we called trashy pr!cks who did blackface frat parties, racists and... well a few other colorful words that would not pass the current "civility code" or back then, "the dinner table" (you know like the one I just bowdlerized). As far as I'm concerned, I still can. But then, I'm not that PC, eh? :-P

Comment 9 by Steve Zara :

The main use for 'political correctness' these days is a rather crass attempt to try and make rudeness seem cool, as in "I'm not bothered by political correctness". If your intentions are honourable, you won't care about the phrase[emphasis added]. It tends only to be used by those who are guilty about their politics and want to fend of left-wing criticism with a 'conversation stopping' criticism. In my view, anyone who uses the phrase 'that's just political correctness' has usually lost the argument and knows it.

The presumptuousness, duplicity and self-righteousness of these remarks is truly astounding. Who needs moral and political philosophers, historians, sociologists, or psychologists to understand the origin, intentions, and effects of this phenomenon? Apparently it's all about politeness and respect, recognising the innate humanity of all people. Only idiots or the maliciously inclined could possibly find fault with it. As the exemplary Polly Toynbee says:

"The phrase "political correctness" was born as a coded cover for all who still want to say Paki, spastic or queer, all those who still want to pick on anyone not like them, playground bullies who never grew up. The politically correct society is the civilised society, however much some may squirm at the more inelegant official circumlocutions designed to avoid offence".

The first thing to note about these claims is that the actual label "political correctness", the actual meaning of these two important words, and their ominous juxtaposition, is ignored, implying that the actual terminology is not important, and that, whatever you call it, it translates as "decency, respect, fairness, and justice". It should be obvious how problematic this (implicit or explicit) claim actually is.

"Decency", "fairness", "respect", and "justice" are highly contested terms, they are not the exclusive property of this current generation, as all moral and political history testifies. To argue that modernity is more "polite" than previous epochs is transparently absurd.

"Political correctness" is not "cultural relativism", it's worse than that. It's not the view that value judgements only gain validity and authority with reference to the consensual communities within which they arise. Anthropologically speaking, that is, I think, a perfectly respectable rule of thumb, but it begins to break down when, on closer inspection, these "consensual communities" are seen to be not quite as homogeneous and uniform as one presumed, or when incompatible "consensual communities" share the same discrete geographical location.

"Political correctness" is quite different. In theory and in practise it endorse hierarchy and actually deems "cultural egalitarianism" illegitimate. It decrees that certain forms of being shall not be permitted without penalty (hence the 'political' component). It's prejudices it does not conceive as such, it dresses them up in the absolutist language of "correctness", as if language, thought, and feeling were things that its proponents had some privileged conception of.

The fact that "political correctness" is not in the least about "mutual respect" can be easily observed by the fact that some, but not all, opinions, groups, cultures, economic classes, ethnicity's, nations, and histories are afforded the same protection from offense or criticism. How difficult is it to admit this very obvious fact?

Still waiting...

Comment 1 by John_Geeshu :

Provide a philosophically robust and coherent definition of "political correctness" first. Otherwise I have no idea what I am possibly agreeing/disagreeing with.

Comment 21 by John_Geeshu :

Still waiting...

Comment 1 by John_Geeshu :

Provide a philosophically robust and coherent definition of "political correctness" first. Otherwise I have no idea what I am possibly agreeing/disagreeing with.

Then let me have a bash at it. Political Correctness is the doctrine that values sparing people's feelings and preventing them from taking offence higher than freedom of expression in the mistaken notion that it alleviates and prevents bigotry.

That's nowhere near it, but it's a start

I guess it's politically incorrect to burn a Qur'an, then.

PC in the U.S. has become the slogan for half the social parasites of the nation who honestly believe they have the right or authority to dictate to everyone what can and cannot be said and done in public. We already have laws against assault, battery, slander, libel, murder, arson, robbery, extortion, etc. We do not need another set of "special" laws to protect the "special" groups. We simply need a society and legal system which will defend the rights of the minorities within society the same (with equal pride and prejudice) as they defend the rights of the majorities.

In my opinion, the PC "lobby" has become as despicable as the lobbies of the foul little bigoted maggots infesting public space and airwaves which are, collectively, the favorite target of "PC".

Back "in the good 'ole days" (TM) (which, by the by, weren't so damned good), polite society was perpetuated and enforced by the double-edged razor of reputation and dignity. Although often confused one for the other, reputation was that feeling or opinion others had for a person, while dignity was that feeling or opinion a person had for himself or herself (also often confused with the concept of honor). People fought, died and killed one another in appeasement and defense of reputation and dignity during the "Good 'ole Days" (TM).

Arguably, polite society died when the code duello was abolished (and then made illegal), however I don't believe I am alone in wondering if a society which permits individuals to murder one another over perceived public slights could possibly be considered "polite", much less civilized. I also don't believe I am alone in wondering if people realized that their petty bigotry or unwarranted intrusion into the lives of others could result in their immediate demise, would their propensity to voice that which occupies the mind be, at least occasionally, curtailed.

Comment 22 by Scruddy Bleensaver :

Comment 21 by John_Geeshu :

Still waiting...

Comment 1 by John_Geeshu :

Provide a philosophically robust and coherent definition of "political correctness" first. Otherwise I have no idea what I am possibly agreeing/disagreeing with.

Then let me have a bash at it. Political Correctness is the doctrine that values sparing people's feelings and preventing them from taking offence higher than freedom of expression in the mistaken notion that it alleviates and prevents bigotry.

That's nowhere near it, but it's a start

It's a good start.

The above shows part of the old-school PC idea.

Yet as the discussion shows, it is (and was) a moving target, good luck hitting it! That was especially so as mask came off.

Other parts of it included "assignment" political and personal views, sometimes based on group identity, and the unofficial and occasional official enforcement, thereof. (And don't tell me that the above didn't happen, I had a free-thinking african-american friend in college who was called "everything but a white woman" by people who claimed to live by Scruddy's definition because he didn't read off of his assigned script -- which is why I'm so p!ssy on the subject.)

The stuff about being polite and civil and not saying "he" when we may be dealing with a "she" are easily filed under best professional practices and other established, mutually accepted, and "politically neutral" language. If that were indeed the core of PC the term would not have been so easily discredited by reactionaries and there would be no need for "reimagining" it.

It almost sounds like PC is a hopelessly inept referee.

KenChimp

I also don't believe I am alone in wondering if people realized that their petty bigotry or unwarranted intrusion into the lives of others could result in their immediate demise, would their propensity to voice that which occupies the mind be, at least occasionally, curtailed.

Unfortunately, amongst other problems, that does nothing to protect the weak and even confounds their efforts to secure some comfortable spot. The strong may still do and say absolutely any damn thing they like.

This is the curse of living languages. Words and even phrases change meaning or sometimes even have dual meanings and it is sometimes difficult to know exactly what is meant. The term "political correctness" certainly falls prey to this problem. But the key is, it is always possible to say what you mean in a manner that is polite... but by the same token it is NOT always possible to say what you mean and be guaranteed of giving no offense. I have often seen a retreat into "political correctness" to such a degree that, while certainly no offense was given, neither was it at all clear what the speaker or writer was saying. Politicians are especially adept at this and I think it is the chief reason I find them all so contemptible. That sort of "political correctness" is nothing short of cowardice and duplicity and I'm no fan of either. The world would be a better place if people would just say what they mean, WITHOUT deliberately being an ass about it, and then be prepared to stand by their words. In such a world there would be no need or use for "political correctness."

But we might have to bring back the code duello. ;)

Unfortunately, amongst other problems, that does nothing to protect the weak and even confounds their efforts to secure some comfortable spot. The strong may still do and say absolutely any damn thing they like.

I disagree.

So long as unreasonable and unscrupulous people exist, there will always be a need among the reasonable and rational to resort to self-defense, even violent self-defense. This is especially true when it comes to the perceived weak against the perceived strong.

Yes, I'm one of those barbarians who agrees with Heinlein's proposition:

"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."

 -Robert Heinlein, from "Starship Troopers", Chapter 4

Comment 27 by Alexandreina :

But the key is, it is always possible to say what you mean in a manner that is polite... but by the same token it is NOT always possible to say what you mean and be guaranteed of giving no offense.

Very true, but increasingly, it's not even about what's intended anymore, but how others might perceive what you meant. For example, using the word 'niggardly' got a man sacked recently, even though it isn't, nor is it any way related to a racial slur. But that's no longer a defence. It is enough, apparantly, that it's perceived as such.

The curse of modern political correctness is the constant self-sensorship that it leads to, out of fear of saying the wrong thing even without intending to. It's Orwellian.

Alexandreina: Excellent, cogent post.

David2: You are certainly worked up about something - cultural relativism taken to an extreme, perhaps? I don't think it's clear PCness must mean cultural relativism, just as it does mean more than just polite sensitivity.

"PC" has at least two meanings - one for those who try to live by it, and one for those who complain about those who try to live by it (and oblige others to as well).

But gaining a consensus on its meaning is essential before we can discuss it.

And that's not easy, as those who follow PCness won't admit they push it to extremes, and those who complain about PCness won't admit they just want to be able to tell Paki jokes. Neither caricature applies to everyone on either side, which makes it hard to nail down exactly what it is.

EB