What's Wrong with Political Correctness

It’s safe to say that political correctness (PC) and its new-wave advocates have taken things too far. Contrary to popular belief, the once laudable movement played a critical role in tearing down many of our nation’s deeply rooted systemic and societal obstacles. PC once encouraged treating other cultures with dignity and, for it, our society has made tremendous strides in the past several decades alone. Despite this, PC has managed to upset many people since its awakening in the 90s.

Political Correctness in America

In a 2018 study, “Hidden Tribes: A Study of America’s Polarized Landscape,” which consisted of over 8,000 people and took a year to complete, determined that around 80 percent of Americans view PC as in issue in this country (Hawkins, Stephen et al). Between moderate liberals and radical leftists, it can be difficult to pinpoint exactly when and where political correctness went awry. While PC appears to understand and meet the needs of society and its individuals, it’s very important to look past this facade and recognize the dangers.

Political correctness’ campaign for less-offensive language, a gender-balanced (GB) society, and equity for all resemble noble ambitions; unfortunately, the results of PC culture are causing a divide in our nation and producing a fragmented and polarized society. PC is a respectable push for what appears to be fairness and equality for all; therefore, the name itself should not be used as a weapon or tool in an argument. It should not be taken out of context and used as an excuse to get offended for somebody else; conversely, opposing it should not be used as an excuse to be rude to somebody.

Get quality help now

KarrieWrites

Verified

Proficient in: Free Papers

5 (339)

“ KarrieWrites did such a phenomenal job on this assignment! He completed it prior to its deadline and was thorough and informative. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

To outline this often-misrepresented expression, Oxford Dictionary defines “Political correctness” as “The avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against” (“Political Correctness”). To summarize this blanket term, the aim is to avoid putting people in groups; specifically, groups that have been overlooked or assigned negative labels in the past.

History of Political Correctness

Historically, acting in PC manner has been done via societally adopted euphemisms, voluntary inclusivity, and merely being polite to others. Based on this definition and as previously mentioned, it is difficult to see why PC is such an ugly expression. To figure this out, we have to realize how the term political correctness came to power. The common misconception draws a logical conclusion in assuming that modern-day PC developed on the liberal-left and kept expanding; this is far from the truth. The term political correctness actually traces back to Leninist and Stalinist era of the early-1900s (Azeez). In a 2016 Claremore Institute journal entry, professor emeritus of International Relations at Boston University, Angelo M. Codevilla describes communist society’s usage of PC: when one was ‘politically correct,’ it didn’t mean they were ‘factually correct;’ it meant that they were stating what was in the best interest of their political party (Codevilla). Meaning, one could lose their life if they spoke in opposition of their communist party/ ruler.

Taking this into account, during the late 80s – early 90s, as means of discrediting their political opponents, right-wing conservatives would successfully re-invent the term ‘political correctness’ in a battle that has been going on for decades: university curriculum. Conservatives began using PC to connect dots between university fields of study (e.g., gender studies) to Lenin’s and Stalin’s regimes. By tagging left-wing liberals with the term associated with communism, conservatives now had a platform to attack. Ironically enough, political correctness was never intended as a left-wing movement for fairness and avoidance of discrimination. Even so, the left took ownership of the term conservatives forced on them and made it into what is seen today. While the term is broad and debatable, most could find a middle ground on the core beliefs today’s PC: avoid offending people, equal gender representation, and equity for all. These are all attainable in theory but, when put into practice, they pose a larger problem.

No sane person goes about their day with intentions of offending or making fun of other; that said, the push for less-offensive language is typically in reference to things like gender, race, sexuality, disability status, etc… In short, the words we use have the potential to profoundly impact people’s lives. Also, our reality is shaped through the language of others. Labeling people by derogatory titles (e.g., fag, retard, chink) or expressions (e.g., females belong in the kitchen, Asians are good at math), can be demeaning or belittling. This is understood by most, but part of the issue lies with who gets to decide what’s offensive and what the ‘politically correct’ phrasing or terminology is. Changing terms and expressions isn’t a new thing. For centuries, society has been using euphemisms in order to change the sound of something undesirable.

For example, words like ‘fat,’ ‘stupid,’ or ‘disgusting’ could be phrased ‘plump,’ ‘slow,’ and ‘unpleasant,’ respectably. Or even expressions like “He died” and “She cheated on him” could shift into “He passed away or “She was unfaithful.” It’s likely that we use this everyday without even realizing it. It’s common to take a euphemistic approach if one is uncertain of the reaction that they might receive back. Therefore, it’s simply a form a sensitivity to lighten the effects or certain words. Things become problematic when Political Correctness tries to alter language using the same approach; however, Euphemisms aren’t the same thing as being politically correct. A contributor on Quora’s online Q&As explained this well: “euphemisms take the sting out of something intrinsically unpleasant, PC terminology refuses to add a sting to something not intrinsically unpleasant” (Brady). Essentially, PC and Euphemisms use the same tactic to solve two different problems; this won’t go without resistance in today’s day and age. Many of today’s arguments involve facts versus feelings and often result in each party withdrawing deeper into their own set of beliefs. Furthermore, labeling people racist bigots or accusing them of hate speech isn’t a convincing argument on why certain words shouldn’t be said; these types of comments discredit the entire push for less-offensive language and appear to be a form of censorship. It’s no mystery why those of the right call out their right to free speech so often. The idea of condemning certain words and forcing people to say alternatives is pure naivety, especially when there’s no valid justification.

Along with less-offensive language, the PC campaign also aspires to create a gender-balanced society (GBS) and, to broaden that scope, provide equity for all. There are some close similarities between the two. That said, creating a gender-balance is exactly what it sounds like; it is an equal representation of women throughout a traditionally patriarchal society. As for equity, this is best described by The Society for Diversity, the U.S.’s largest organization for diversity and inclusion training: “Equity is trying to understand where people are coming from and give them what they need to be successful” (Smiley). This is not to be confused with “equality”, which is where everybody is afforded the same rights and opportunities.

Goals of Political Correctness

The goal behind both gender-balance and equity is to essentially level the playing field for all. In relation to political correctness, if we are not allowing the playing field to be leveled, we are ‘excluding’ and ‘marginalizing’, which is discriminatory against the ‘socially disadvantaged’. The main concern for creating and maintaining a gender-balanced society stems from what is known as “Cultivation theory”, which suggests that our reality of society, cultural norms, or commonalities between cultures is represented by what is seen on TV (Gerbner, George, et al 17-19). For those who watch a lot of TV or submerge themselves in social media, the world around them may appear to be engulfed in chaos.

Cultivation Theory

The cultivation theory would explain why injustices like police brutality or the number of rape cases appear to be exponentially rising. With these things in consideration, representation leads recognition, and recognition leads to prevalence or importance. If women are underrepresented and misrepresented, then primarily represented in stereotypical roles like the stay at home mom, dumb blonde, drunk college girl, etc… it could lead to a false perception or reality of what and who women actually are. This not only affects the perception of who the ‘typical female’ is, but it could also impact the standards others hold for them or how they’re treated. The gender-balance push would suggest that the aforementioned is problematic for the image of women, considering the competitive meritocracy that we live in as well as society’s expectations of what is or isn’t respectable. The image of what and who women in the early-mid 20th century were somewhere around dressed-up housewife to secretary working a calm desk job, both of which were inferior to her male counterpart.

Today women want to be treated with the same amount of respect that men receive, and there is nothing wrong with that. The issue with gender-balanced, and here’s where it gets tricky, women want to be seen or at least shown equal levels of respect that men receive; this is done altering the way women are represented on TV and mainstream media. In order to alter their image or ‘create social change’, activists must emerge and, with activists, come radicals and radical ideology. Activism and radical protesting lure in the attention of media who, in turn, make it news. The news is only concerned with showing drama; the epitome of drama is being conducted by radical protestors screaming from behind their signs which read things like: “Men are Rapists!” or “I am a woman, Not an object!” Consequently, this turns into the representation and recognition women receive.

Returning to cultivation theory, what people see being perpetuated by mainstream and social media becomes the perceptual reality of who or what a group actually is. Some men’s reality is that all women think that “Men are Rapists.” Others might conclude “I’m a man, and I’ve never raped anybody – women are liars.” In any event, this causes a divide; it creates a constant loop of feeling the need to defend one’s position, tread cautiously, or just avoid the situation as a whole, which often results in further polarization. When we become polarized, we with withdraw from other groups and cultures and stick closer to our own for protection against ostracization. This sort of tribalism inevitably results in an ‘us versus them’ mentality, turning to rivalry.

Groups Rivaling and Equality

When there are groups rivaling, one of them always end up on top; when a group or groups end up on top, the rest of society will seek to create balance again, and this is where equity enters the constant loop. There’s one problem with equity: in order to provide people with it, it must be taken from someone else; that someone else is typically the group that ended up on top. In conclusion, polarization, tribalism, and group rivalry aren’t the result of a single politically correct goal; instead, it is a culmination of endeavors geared toward forcing equality where it does not exist. Men and women do not hold the same capabilities; that’s not to say that one is superior to the other. People are born into wealth and privilege; this doesn’t mean that they will be happy.

People are born into poverty; that doesn’t mean they grow up miserable. People are born with super intelligence; that doesn’t mean they will grow up to be successful. Point-being, people are not created equal, and that is part of what makes life what is it. People out there are a lot better off than you, but there are more people who aren’t, and that’s okay. If diversity, equality, and inclusivity is something we seek, it’s important that we figure out how to have to have that discussion without condemning others for their views.