Is Political Correctness Politically Correct?

The idea of political correctness has risen in recent years and has become part of the political discourse in many nations. It is a very young concept, as it appeared shortly after the Russian Revolution in the first quarter of the 20^th century. Although the term “political correctness” originally meant to evaluate someone’s or something’s congruence with a particular political idea, today, the term is used to evaluate the appropriateness of language in terms of social inclusiveness. In other words, when the term was coined, someone was politically correct when they had political ideas that were considered good by a ruling authoritarian government of that time. Today, someone is politically correct when the way they express themselves does not imply a social hierarchy. It has become a prominent concept in political discourse, but more so in social discourse. Reference to different races, economic classes and distinctive social, religious and physical groups has been transformed linguistically to adhere to a standardised frame of political correctness. For example, our reference to different biologically homogeneous societies as “races” would not be deemed politically correct, as the commonly used term now is “ethnicities”. Although expressing the same thing, one term is perceived as politically correct, implying it is the right way to express oneself, while the other is perceived as politically incorrect. Therefore, political correctness has also evolved into a labelling tool to discredit opposing views. In this article, we examine the implications of the rise of political correctness and assess it from a normative perspective.

Racial Political Correctness

Language is among the most powerful structural tools to shape and reshape realities. When treating topics that involve different biologically homogenous societies, we need to categorise human beings to keep the discourse efficient. Moreover, it is scientifically undisputed that different groups of human beings display unique characteristics, patterns of behaviour and physiological properties. Even when describing these elements without using the words “race” and “ethnicity”, it becomes clear how much more inefficient it becomes. Using the terms “race” or “ethnicity” facilitates talking about it. However, since language is socially constructed and socially reinforcing, the idea of political correctness tries to address the negative effects of language. The main difference is that race was a term that was very commonly used until the 20^th century in contexts where a hierarchy between races was implied. Especially, Europeans referred to other races as “lower races” when invading foreign territories, but also within their own societies. Additionally, human beings tend to arrogate themselves to think that they are hierarchically above animals. Since the term race is also used to distinguish between different types of animals within a species, the use of race in the human context also implies a connection between other human races and animals, which are implicitly viewed as being of lower value. Laden with these connotations, the more common use of “ethnicity” as a politically correct alternative to “race” has become more popular. The problem in theoretical terms is that race is technically the correct term. There is no normative hierarchy between humans and animals – this is a socially constructed thought. Moreover, there are profound differences between humans, biologically and culturally. The problem in the politically correct use of the words lies in our perception, bias and inability to separate connotations.

Further, there are also other examples of political correctness that are actually incorrect. In the United States of America (hereinafter: the USA), the racial composition of the society is predominantly Neo-European with a majority of Neo-Africans. Neither of these racial groups is native to the continent. However, the Neo-Europeans managed to direct the discourse first in the direction of labelling Neo-Africans in the USA as “blacks”, implying that the main property of people from that race is their skin colour. Their self-description, however, was “American”, implying a form of indigeneity. With the rise of political correctness, the term “whites” as a description for Neo-Europeans and the term “Afro-American” as a description for Neo-Africans emerged in the 21^st century. The “political correctness approach” tries to counterbalance the negative effects of prior labels by reducing Neo-Europeans now to their physiological property of their skin colour and focusing on the African heritage of Neo-Africans. Even though the intention might seem noble, it is incongruent, misleading, unfair and scientifically incorrect. Not only are Neo-Europeans now linguistically downgraded, but Neo-Africans are not elevated so much, either. “Afro-American” must be seen as a modification to the idea of a “normal American”. Naturally, people from the Cherokee, Navajo, Sioux, Cheyenne and other societies are regular North Americans, but these are not meant when referring to Americans. Also, there is a whole continent below North America with yet again very distinct societies. However, they are completely disregarded with the label of the American. Placing the “Afro” in front of it adds to the incongruence of terms by modifying the understanding of the already false perception of the American, yet again creating a hierarchy between races. While political correctness in modern terms tries to get rid of hierarchies between races by eliminating the word “race” and modifying the use of “blacks”, “whites”, “American” and “Afro-American”, it creates an even more complex hierarchy of perceptions and rhetoric. Therefore, we use the terms “race” to refer to biologically homogeneous human societies and Neo-Europeans and Neo-Africans to refer to consolidated immigrants from the African and European continents.

Social Political Correctness

The incongruence of political correctness is not limited only to the racial realm. There are several cases where current societal streams try to bend language use to fit certain ideals of political correctness. One example is the reference to obese people. Instead of describing those people as overweight, media efforts centre around euphemising the critical medical condition of such people. Reducing people to their physical properties is, in general, a sign of mannerlessness. However, the idea of political correctness only emphasises this. Instead of creating a discourse that avoids reduction to physical properties, the movement of political correctness labels overweight people as “plus-sized” or “higher-weight”. It does not address the dangerous medical condition of the affected person but rather relativises its detrimental effect by euphemising it. Also, it puts an emphasis on the physical property of excessive body weight instead of redirecting the discourse towards other characteristics of the affected person.

Another area in which political correctness in the modern meaning of the word has been very prominent is in the discourse on and around gender matters. The idea is to deconstruct perceived hierarchies between men and women by using specific terminology. Among the many examples is the use of plural pronouns to avoid framing stories using masculine or feminine pronouns. Further, the idea of political correctness avoids the use of job titles that imply that only men can do these jobs, such as policeman or fireman. The approach has extended so far that descriptions of spouses are limited to terms that do not reveal the gender of the person, or that the use of certain adjectives to describe men and women is avoided. Here, too, the idea of political correctness aims to deconstruct a perceived hierarchy, which is, in fact, only strengthened. By overly emphasising that equal treatment of the two genders is important, the concept of political correctness only strengthens the perception of hierarchy. When, for example, people stop referring to their respective parents as “father” or “mother”, as the idea of political correctness assumes, people will view the father and mother as being equal. This implies that proponents of the political correctness idea themselves believe in a hierarchy between those two roles – otherwise, there would not be a need to address this issue. Naturally, the father provides shelter, food, security, discipline, wisdom and leadership to a family. Naturally, the mother provides love, peace, education, tidiness and warmth to a family. Although those aspects are different, they are of the same value to the family. There is no normative hierarchy between what the father and the mother provide to the family. Deconstructing the roles of father and mother through the prism of political correctness implies that the person who applies political correctness views those roles as hierarchically different. Only because of this subjective perception, the person tries to counterbalance the perceived imbalance by neutralised language. Instead of developing their own incorrect views and perceptions, people adapt their language to fit their belief system. In this case, political correctness becomes especially dangerous because it reduces the motivation to develop personally while simultaneously endangering important natural rules.

Political Correctness Is Incorrect

Surely, there are many more examples of political correctness and its detrimental effects. All of them underline the main conclusion that the idea of political correctness bears many dangers that arise from the incongruencies of the idea. Not even the original meaning of the term can be considered useful, as there are no “correct political thoughts”; there are only well-developed and ill-developed political thoughts. In the contemporary context, it is very dangerous to proactively bend language to fit constructed normative frameworks. First, when the constructed ideas change, does the terminology formerly deemed politically correct become incorrect? Second, would the language not adapt itself if true hierarchies disappeared? Trying to be politically correct in the contemporary sense is comparable to the use of medication to stop the pain but not to treat the cause. In the case of the concept of the family, there is not even a disease that needs to be treated. Therefore, it is very important to underline that political correctness is detrimental to political and societal discourse. With the extensive prominence of this concept in recent years, and its one-sided application in European and Neo-European nations of this world, we would need to assume that there are also socio-political intentions involved in the recurrence of political correctness. We, as Essydo Politics, too, are carefully selecting our words and concepts; however, to achieve a productive socio-political effect. The difference between political correctness and the use of conscious political language is mainly to be found in the congruence of the applied language, as well as its descriptive precision. While political correctness wants to achieve certain effects by setting rules for how to refer to races, we refer to them as they are, in the same logic that applies to everyone. While political correctness tries to equalise men and women in language, we never treated them unequally. Therefore, it is not important to adhere to a socially constructed standard of language (which, by naming itself “correctness,” implies yet another hierarchy) but to use language consciously. This means questioning current meanings and uses and finding more precise terms that are applied consistently and congruently with the idea of expressing ourselves precisely, efficiently and effectively.