With the ongoing clamor surrounding the idea of “political correctness,” the question has been begged; does “political correctness” exist?
First, a distinction between political correctness and “political correctness” must be made.
“Political correctness” symbolizes speech codes and censorship. It is largely a myth propagated by the conservative right. The belief in a monolithic and fascist politically correct culture that preys on conservatives and conservative ideology is often accompanied by delusions of persecution, as well as paranoia.
Charges of “political correctness” apply exclusively to the left. Readings of the invocation of “political correctness” would suggest there is no equivalent of “PC culture” on the right. Common examples of groups identified as perpetuators of “political correctness” include democrats, progressives, liberals, or any one of the myriad epithets for those who generally sit left of center; as well as minority and LGBTQ groups. Institutions, such as “liberal” universities or government entities, are also accused of failing in their duties as a result of “political correctness.”
Then there is political correctness. To define political correctness, the assumptions of “political correctness” must be set aside. What results in much more simple and practical definition of what it actually means to be politically correct.
At a very basic level, political correctness involves what is perceived to be correct, politically. What is considered as acceptable political discourse varies depending on the subjectivity of groups and individuals. Much of what is perceived as correct by conservatives is rejected by liberals. Much of what is accepted by liberals is shunned by conservatives. As such, political correctness is simply a facet of political ideology, rather than a grand leftist conspiracy.
Defining political correctness in this way allows us to move past the one-sidedness of popular (conservative-defined) conceptions of “PC culture” and the associated illusion of authoritarian liberal control. Leftists have no monopoly on the media, the manufacturing of outrage, public shaming, or demanding the firing or resignation of public officials or those in positions of power.
Lastly, this definition’s simplicity and practicality are required to combat the bias inherent in poor operative definition of “political correctness.” It allows us to refocus on the nuance of political ideology, instead of using a colloquialism to blanket partisan allegations. Ultimately, it allows us to address the central framing of “political correctness,” that conservatives are the victim of a vast liberal plot.
In closing, I’d like to point to some examples of “political correctness” to show how popular conceptions are flawed. Language and thought policing knows no party line.
This Infowars listicle highlights 19 examples of “political correctness.” Certainly, some of the issus are more debatable than others, but I will only discuss a few that best demonstrate the point.
One such example of “political correctness” is the alleged intolerance of “climate deniers” in the U.S. Department of the Interior. The author quotes an official stating they hope their aren’t any climate deniers in the department. However, just this year the conservative government of Florida banned any mention of term “climate change.” If “political correctness” operated objectively, certainly such language policing would be an example of it. The failure to recognize both instances as “political correctness,” something I assume is common among anti-PC crusaders, displays the inherent bias in the definition and application of the term.
Another example of “political correctness” is the firing of a substitute teacher for giving a student a Bible. This case is interesting. The teacher was a member of a group called Gideons, a group that distributes Bibles worldwide. It seems to me that they are similar to those guys who stand on the corners near public schools and hand out bibles. It appears they should understand the separation of church and state, seeing as they’re not allowed to do this inside of public schools. The only issue I take with the teacher’s actions is the fact he used his government position to promote a religion.
Aside from this, what could we expect conservatives reaction to be had the teacher given the student a Koran, or even a Bhagavad Gita for that matter? While there is not much to gain from pointing out this hypocrisy, it does serve to highlight the double standard inherent in many conceptions of “political correctness.”
A final example of “political correctness” consists of the Obama Administration’s efforts to unlink Islam and terrorism in official documents. Wired calls this an “Islamophobia Probe.” The administration removed any statements that reflected an anti-Islam bias, including ideas like the more devout a Muslim is, the more likely they are to become violent, or that “mainstream” muslims are terrorist sympathizers and “violent.” This is a clear example of how allegations of “political correctness” can serve as coded appeals, in this case directly advocating for anti-Muslim government policies.
I hope this serves to open the debate on “political correctness.” I appreciate any and all comments.
