"Political Correctness": a very amusing pictoral lampoon.
I am very much enamoured of the blog Unspeak. For those of you unfamiliar with the site (and the book which shares its name), the basic premise of the author’s work is that: i) many words and phrases used in political contexts contain smuggled-in assumptions about the topic they relate to; ii) this has a vitiating effect upon political discourse by discrediting (or providing specious credit to) certain positions without the requisite argumentation; iii) this can indeed circumscribe certain positions by rendering them literally Unspeakable.[1] I don’t believe, however, that Stephen Poole has yet turned his attentions publicly to the concept of “political correctness”.[2]
So, like Alex D. Linz gamely limbering up to stand in for the Culkinator in Home Alone 3, I will here try to provide something of a Poolean analysis of the term “political correctness”. As they say in the “acknowledgements” of scholarly monographs: fanks to ‘im; but if this is shit, it’s my fault, right?
We might start by observing just how voluminous the concept has become for those who like to use it. I learned yesterday, via Roger Ebert’s review of the film, that Tom Six, director of The Human Centipede, has explained his movie via reference to the fact that he gets “a rash from too much political correctness.” So here we have a new (and, to say the least, surprising) definition of “political correctness ”: ‘not directing a horror movie about a grotesque, coporomanic medical experiment.’ To label something as “politically correct”, or to observe in it the Machiavellian hand of “political correctness”, is to do nothing more than to register one’s distaste; the phrase is a ‘boo’ term of very limited specificity.[3]
Dr. Heiter: prefers the vernacular.
It has long been accepted that speech, acts and speech-acts can all be “politically correct.” Indeed, the Wikipedia article for the term notes that, in America anyway, the phrase became especially salient during the Culture Wars. The discourse surrounding the Culture Wars joins speech and action almost inextricably: the merits of various educational “theories” were debated but always, of course, with the conscious recognition that any proposed theory must eventually be prosecuted in the “act” of teaching. Merriam-Webster confirms this duality, for that which is “politically correct” is “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.” Yet this definition seems odd. Any society which does not practice Jim Crow-type segregation is most definitely “conforming to a belief that… practices which [bloody well will] offend political sensibilities (as in matters of… [‘]race[’]) should be eliminated.” Yet it seems unlikely to me that many would identify anti-segregationism as a prime example of lily-livered p.c. Linksfaschismus.
Rather, the cudgels of the anti-p.c. brigade make their marks best when applied primarily to linguistic matters.[4] This, reflects, I believe, the “common sense” theorisation of the relationship between society and language. This “common sense” theory is, roughly, that society and language are two hermetically sealed bubbles: the latter exists in order to describe or advance positions relating to the former, but cannot impinge directly upon its reality.[5] Therefore, to oppose the utilisation of certain linguistic formulations is liberal/lefty/loony nonsense, since “it doesn’t really matter” how we name things. Vernacular is good, because… well, because it’s vernacular, that’s why. It’s “our natural” way of speaking, and we won’t give it up for anybody, especially not under the force of base political arguments made by agenda-pushing liberals probably working in the race relations industry.
Emancipation Proclamation: freedom-hating, right-on, p.c. fascism in action.
Of course, this ignores the fact that nominative changes are constantly occurring, have been a part of English throughout its history, and can be effected for both ‘political’ and ‘apolitical’ reasons (a distinction which is, in any case, almost impossible to discern in many instances). Yet I think that this “common sense” position can be assailed from two further related positions. Obviously, I do not agree with this strict separation between linguistic developments, norms, etc., and political activity. But I do not think that opponents of “political correctness” believe in this Manichean separation either. This is tacitly acknowledged in the commonly heard phrase “political correctness gone mad”. This formulation concedes that there is some basis for nominative contestation[6], providing that this is conducted in a ‘sane’ manner. What’s more, most of those who assail “political correctness” do so only because they themselves prefer the political content and implications of vernacular terms. Of course, supporters of vernacular terms would deny that there is any “political” motivation for their preferring those terms, and certainly would not agree that established terms can be just as loaded and discursively noxious as newer, unashamedly ‘agenda-driven’ formlations.
And this is precisely the issue. In the scheme of “political correctness”, “political” machinations belong solely to a certain subset of the Left; vernacular terms are presumably pre-political or apolitical. Those who use “political correctness” as an analytical term occlude any substantive discussion of which terms may be most neutral. It is “just obvious” that, for example, the exclusive use of “he” as a gender-neutral pronoun is preferable because empty of political content; this is, after all, just the way things are linguistically. It is — and not just in this sphere of discourse — only our enemies who have suspicious and decidedly political ‘agendas’: politics is a “point-scoring” game, “played” by the venal, duplicitous, or uncompromisingly ideological.[7] Self-described “opponents” of “political correctness”, then, whilst claiming to inhabit a brave or “common sense” position, as against the hang-wringing idealist unreality of the multiculturalist Left, are exceptionally cringing; their stance is underpinned by a denial of the fact that political contestation is the air we breathe.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————-
[1] Proposition i) should be uncontroversial. In support of proposition ii), one only has to think about some of Unpseak author Stephen Poole’s favourite examples: “climate change” works to unspeak (discredit or silence without argumentation) the scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming; “Intelligent Design” speciously credits creationism with a new grounding that is only vaguely and implicitly theological. iii) surely depends on the principle of linguistic relativity: an idea suggesting that propagating or erasing specific linguistic formulations will actually alter the possible mental conceptions of an idea available to speakers of (in this instance) English.
[2] There is no entry on the blog for the term; and an Amazon search of the book’s contents for the word “correctness” yields no results.
[3] “Very limited”, I think, rather than “no”. The term crops up largely in discussions about censorship, “free speech” and nominative practice. It has especial tendency to appear in material about attitudes towards ethnic and other minorities.
[4] “Primarily”, but by no means “entirely”. Positive discrimination, for example, is a type of policy proposal often decried (and effectively so) for its “political correctness.”
[5] My analysis here is drawing on Stanley Fish’s work; but not in any really specific way so that I can offer a citation. But, you know: go & read some Stanley Fish. G’WARN! Etc..
[6] Incidentally, this phrase is the one that I’m trying covertly to append over the top of “political correctness”. I’ve gotten it into conversation. It’s on my Ron Silliman-syndicated blog now. Sit back & wait, jellyspoons.
[7] Nick Clegg’s public persona is, or was in the lead-up to the election, positively built upon this foundation stone.
