‘Feed two birds with one scone’

PETA & the undermining of progressive language change

Last week, the animal rights group PETA released a set of phrases they believe are ‘anti-animal’ — along with their suggested replacements.

Needless to say, the people of the internet were not big fans.

I have no problem with advocating for new, more conscious ways of speaking; it’s an incredibly important engine of social change. People have the right to be spoken about in a way that respects and honors them — and language shapes every aspect of how we think.

However, PETA’s follow up tweet shows their basic lack of understanding about the history and strategy of such changes.

While I agree that many animals are mistreated and live in horrible conditions, this is a troubling and irrelevant equivalency. It’s unnecessary to invoke racism, homophobia, and ablism here — cruelty to animals is bad on its own merit.

The notion that words wielded by racists, misogynists, homophobes, words used to humiliate people with disabilities, the words of slavers and lynch mobs — the idea that these are equivalent to ‘bringing home the bacon’ is misguided and obscures some painful histories.

Political Correctness

People have strong feelings about Political Correctness. Many say it has ‘gone too far’ or that ‘you can’t say anything anymore without being labeled a racist or sexist.’ These comments often come from the privileged and powerful: rich, white, straight, male, able bodied (take your pick), who feel that life was more honest back in the good old days, and that kids these days are too sensitive.

The history of Political Correctness is complex and fascinating. To summarize it far too briefly: the term in its modern usage emerges in the late 70s from the New Left, anti-racist, progressive, and feminist movements. Some argue it was mostly used as an inside joke amongst the left to guard against political orthodoxy. In the 80s and early 90s its use widened and became a flash point over what can/should be taught at universities (not unlike the debate over ‘trigger warnings’).

In the 90s, conservatives began to appropriate the term and use it to criticize liberal policies in education, and culture more generally. Since then it has served them well by helping discredit feminism, liberalism, and anti-racism as being ‘overly sensitive’ and ‘not the real issue.’ It’s how we got ‘liberal snowflakes,’ and arguably, the Trump presidency.

Linguist George Lakoff defines Political Correctness and puts it in context, calling it

“…forms of language devised by and for, and to represent the worldview and experience of groups formerly without the power to create language, make interpretations, or control meaning. Therein lies their terror and hatefulness to those who formerly possessed these rights unilaterally, who gave PC its current meaning and made it endemic in our conversation.” (Lakoff 2001)

Muddying the waters

PETA is not wrong. Animals have rights, they suffer, and should be advocated for fiercely. But PETA’s lack of awareness of the context surrounding language changes — or more cynically, their co-opting of it — gives fuel for people to doubt the need for Political Correctness across the board.

The conservative subversion of PC has been wildly successful in discrediting minority voices. One of the simplest and most fruitful tactics has been to list *jokey* terms alongside ones that anti-racist/sexist campaigners have actually pushed for (Mills 2008).

Terms like: vertically challenged instead of short, follically challenged for bald, and person-hole cover instead of man-hole cover. You hear it also in the labored tones many people use when saying ‘LGBTQ.’ These are meant as jokes; all of which I heard in middle school. But the butt of the joke is the idea that marginalized people are advocating for themselves. It’s a clever and insidious way to get progressives to act against their own self-interest. It muddies the water and leads to eye rolling.

“This mixing of ‘real’ and invented examples of proposed reforms, together with the use of the term ‘PC’ in contexts where it is uniformly negatively evaluated, has led to a genuine confusion amongst the general population about what ‘PC’ actually is” — (Mills 2008:100)

Even writing that, I can feel the trope of the ‘humorless feminist/liberal’ hanging over me. Political Correctness has become such a charged term, that even the left feels uncomfortable embracing it. But let’s remember: this was the desired effect of undermining PC in the first place.

Consequences

The more that calls for genuine social change are mixed with frivolous or insincere terms, the more difficult we make it for minority groups to be heard.

You may roll your eyes when you hear about a new preferred term or phrase; I have. But that’s a reflection of privilege and lack of empathy, rather than any kind of thoughtful criticism.

So what’s really wrong with PETA’s new language?

By positioning these terms as an equal to other progressive changes — they have played into the hands of conservatives who want to undermine the fight against racism, homophobia, sexism, and more.

These phrases will give more reason for people to doubt (even just a little) the need for language changes and Political Correctness. It won’t be catastrophic or maybe even noticeable, but trust is hard to rebuild, and cynicism is not easy to convince.

It’s hard work to care for each other. It takes patience, effort, and a willingness to be wrong or to feel stupid. Language is the fabric of how we think and how we speak to one another — that’s why it matters so much how we use it. You may think this is PETA’s point, and it is. But actions operate within context, and ignoring that context causes real harm.

Their response?

— Carter Bellaimey is a writer and linguist based in London, originally from Minneapolis, MN.