The abandonment of traditional language usage has also upset many people. Many seemingly inoffensive terms develop negative connotations over time and become dated or go out of style as awareness changes. Members of a group may use terms freely that would be considered offensive if used by non-members. For example it may be acceptable for male homosexuals to call each other ‘queer’ or as ‘old poofters’, but the use of such language by the general population, would have negative connotation by those who believe in the protection of minority groups by insisting on the use of PC terms. Historically the adoption of the word gay to denote homosexuality has caused discontent at the apparent hijacking and neologism of the word but the natural evolution of language has taken the word back to give it a new meaning still farther removed from its original, pleasant denotation of happy and carefree.
What is considered acceptable changes constantly as people become more aware of language and its power. These changes have angered others, who decry what they see as extremes of political correctness in rules that alter language to the point of obfuscating or even destroying meaning.
The rapid change of recent times has also left many people afraid of unintentionally insulting someone.
On attending a recent work related course on equality I inadvertently referred to a course observer whose arrival was awaited as male when in fact the observer was a woman. When I stated that I supposed I would get a ‘black mark’ for making such a gender assumption I was told, ‘No, now you have two.’ The immediate effect on me was to make me withdraw and subsequently not contribute fully to the remainder of the course.
Without the opportunity for free speech, in effect the creation of a safe learning environment where issues can be raised and commented upon, how will the underlying issues ever be addressed?
The debate can be broken down even further and we can look at the differences perceived between those who hold an ideological viewpoint against those influenced by discourse.
The New Right view is currently the Dominant Ideology. The strength of this opinion is that it can be seen as common sense and is what everyone knows and accepts is true. It is a mixture of conservative and liberal opinion. Political Correctness is attacked as tyrannical, extreme and without common sense. Those who champion the cause of PC are labelled as radical, dictatorial and stupid.
A prominent British Conservative politician, Ann Widdicombe, speaking at party conference in 2004 said she was offered a cup of coffee recently on a visit to a school,
‘Yes please I'll have it black and they said 'you can't say that anymore'. Now hang on, if you see a cup of coffee and it's got no milk in it what colour is it? What is it you are supposed to say? Can I have something that's not white please? Can I have something that is darker than dark brown please? That is an example of political correctness gone mad.’
The more extreme view, argued by Anthony Browne in his writing, The Retreat of Reason, is that political correctness, which classifies certain groups of people as victims in need of protection from criticism and allows no dissent to be expressed, is poisoning the wells of debate in modern Britain.
He states
'Members of the public, academics, journalists and politicians are afraid of thinking certain thoughts. Political correctness started in academia, but it now dominates schools, hospitals, local authorities, the civil service, the media, companies, the police and the army. Since 1997 Britain has been ruled by political correctness for the first time. 'The Labour government was the first UK government not to stand up to political correctness, but to try and enact its dictates when they are not too electorally unpopular or seriously mugged by reality, and even sometimes when they are'
(2006 p.34).
Although less extreme in my views than Anthony Browne I can understand his philosophy but it is hardly a new phenomenon. U.S. statesman Benjamin FRANKLIN c. 1730 said, ‘if all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed."
Those influenced by conservatism see it as an attack on tradition. Those influenced by liberalism see it as an attack on freedom of speech. Those liberally minded would also argue that the whole debate about language use is almost irrelevant, as it doesn’t deal with the underlying issues. To support this view, a significant amount of improvement has been made in eradicating inappropriate language but racist and sexist attitudes in society still remain.
The Left Wing supporters of the Counter Ideology are likely to be influenced by social democratic, reformist or Marxist views. They believe the new right have successfully labelled those who support minority rights as extremists or naïve do gooders. Regardless of this they believe social inequalities need to be addressed and that language change or sensitivity in our language use is needed to achieve it.
Critics argue that political correctness has to imply censorship and poses a risk to free speech by limiting what is acceptable in the public discourse. The supporters of language change are then placed in a difficult position because of perceived negative connotations of extremism, and silliness. It is this prescriptive use of speech and insistence on what can and cannot be said that leads detractors to ridicule those who hold the counter view.
Supporters of the counter ideology also see the New Right view as false, reflecting the interest only of a dominant group or groups.
Supporters of the Concept of Discourses cannot reconcile the outlook that certain views of reality are either true or false. They argue that all views of reality are one sided but wish to retain the link that the way we use language is linked to power. Individual societies have different ways of viewing the world, each of which is linked to individual interests.
Michael Foucault, in his work Knowledge and Power, explains his theory of how power is created and transferred throughout an ‘economy’ of discourse,
‘it shows how power is transferred along conduits of dialogue according to the knowledge one has. Therefore, knowledge does not necessarily have to be true, but it only needs to be passed on as true for the statement to have an effect on the speakers in the discourse.’
(1980)
George Orwell in his book, ‘1984’, explored the theory that if you can control language you can control how people think. That thought is determined by language is debateable but language use certainly shapes our thoughts.
The way we use language is particularly relevant, when we do so in the context of Political Correctness. We can look at the work of anthropologist, Edward Sapir and his student, Benjamin Lee Whorf and what became known as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. This theory has two parts, the theory of Linguistic Relativity and the theory of Linguistic Determinism.
Linguistic relativity states that different cultures see the world in different ways but more importantly, Linguistic Determinism, states that not only does our perception of the world influence our language, but that the language we use profoundly affects the way we think. Language can be said to provide a framework for our thoughts, and it is then very difficult to think outside that framework. This theory would therefore compliment the views expressed by Orwell.
Jones and Wareing In the book, Language, Society and Power, say
‘If we accept that the kind of language we use to represent something can alter the way in which it is perceived by people, then you might wonder whether, by controlling the discourse, one can control how another person thinks.’
(2004 p36 3.3.2)
Perhaps the real agenda, the hidden conspiracy, behind the Political Correctness movement is an attempt by those in power to manipulate the way we use language and thereby control the way we think.
In conclusion I consider that viewing any situation from only one side is wrong.
Marxist, social reformist, liberal and conservative biases, will influence ideologies across the spectrum and therefore there will always be divergence between majority and minority groups in society. Those holding the power will always be able to hold influence over those who do not.
The language we use will in large part facilitate that control. If we look at the strong influences held by the media in all its forms we can see how easy this is. As an example, although perhaps an oversimplification, those people who read newspapers such as the Guardian and Independent will surely be influenced by the papers social democratic leanings, ergo those reading the Daily Mail will absorb some of its conservative political bent. The Times and the Sun communicate a liberal stance. Newspaper circulation figures taken from the ‘Retail Newsagent’ magazine, (February 2007), indicate that the number of mainstream newspapers sold each day currently has a 75% - 25% bias in favour of conservative/liberal publications against those with a left wing/socialist view. The BBC claims to try to adopt impartiality but also has self-confessed liberal and left tendencies. Add this to the Political control exerted over these entities by the power holders and we can see how our lives can be shaped, almost subconsciously by the Political spin-doctors of our society.
Today the exponents of PC are labelled in a derogative way and by default the opponents of the efforts of these people against oppressive behaviour, have gained the advantage. Perhaps to redress the balance those supporters of PC could do to distance themselves away from the term, which has itself become what can be euphemistically described as an irrelevant ‘white elephant.’
The dominant and counter ideologies may be true or false but the actual conflict and the most credibility for me rests with the view that the ‘Political Correctness’ debate involves a variance between all social and economic interests, all of which are by designation biased, towards self interest.
Des Coop (1800 Words)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Browne, A, (2006) The Retreat of Reason, Political Correctness and the Corruption of Public Debate in Modern Britain © The Institute for the Study of Civil Society
Cameron, D, (2006) Verbal Hygiene: Politics of Language, London, Routledge,
Fairclough, N, (2000) New labour, New Language, London, Routledge.
Fairclough, N, (2003) Political Correctness': the Politics of Culture and Language Discourse & Society, Vol. 14, No. 1, 17-28.
Foucault, Michel (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews & Other Writings 1972-1977. Ed. Colin Gordon. New York: Pantheon Books.
Johnson S, Culpeper J, and Suhr S, (2003) from ‘politically correct councillors’ to ‘Blairite nonsense’: discourses of ‘political correctness’ in three Newspapers, Discourse & Society, SAGE Publications London.
Miller, C and Swift, K, (1988) The Handbook of Non-sexist Writing New York: Lippincott.
Orwell, G. (2000) Nineteen Eighty-Four Penguin books: London.
Stanton, N. (1996) Mastering Communication Macmillan Press: Hampshire.
Thomas L and Wareing S, (2004), Language Society and Power, London, Routledge.
Politically Correct (2006) Encyclopedia of American History. Answers Corporation, Answers.com. http://www.answers.com/topic/political-correctness Accessed 13 Feb. 2007
Politically Correct, (2001) WordNet 1.7.1. Princeton University. Answers.com 27 Feb. 2007. http://www.answers.com/topic/political-correctness. Accessed 27/2/07
Political Correctness, BBC website http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=all&edition=d&q=political+correctness&go=Search. Accessed 12/2/07