Political correctness.
Political correctness has a branding problem. Typically, being “politically correct” is viewed as a negative, seen as pandering to a (usually minority, and usually vocal) group’s collective interests which go against the established societal norm.
Take this example, from Australia. People in Australia and the UK as well (sup, Piers [and Piers]) are up in arms about this display of “political correctness”! First, I don’t think anything that might make someone more likely to pay attention while crossing the street should be diminished. Second… why are you upset? Are you really angry that a crossing sign looks like a woman instead of a man? Are you upset that it doesn’t conform to your societal view? Why do you really care what an independent country thousands of miles away, halfway across the globe, is doing with their crossing signals in a totally innocuous* way?
Intentionally not being “politically correct,” or criticizing others who one claims are being “politically correct” is implying “I have the power and privilege to do whatever I want and not care about how my words or actions affect others.” Not only that, it says that the privilege and identity of the criticizer are more important than the inclusion that provoked the negative commentary in the first place.
In the same way good design thinking should be conscious about how to be inclusive and accessible to as many as possible when appropriate, language should be handled the same way. Who might you be excluding and why, how? There are certainly occasions where it is unavoidable, or “tradition,” but other times it comes from accidental or intentional ignorance, or worse, outright disrespect for other humans.
Why don’t we call “political correctness” what it actually is, which is inclusive thinking?
I think all it needs is a little rebranding and reframing with the right support from the right areas. Take pro-life and pro-choice as an example. Those two sides became labelled as such in order to obfuscate the argument, forcing the debate to become about emotion and belief rather than facts, rights, and freedoms associated at the center of the debate. Just like pro-life and pro-choice have become distorted and associated with simple stances that may not do one’s underlying beliefs justice, political correctness has become associated with something negative. The pushback is often swift and lamenting, and occasionally uses my favorite sentence structure to make fun of (“I’m not X/I support Y, but …”).
“I’m all for doing anything we can for gender equity, but really?” Robert Doyle, the Lord Mayor of Melbourne
Merriam-Webster defines politically correct as “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.”
Even by definition, inclusive thinking is what politically correctness often is.
*Note: I am certainly aware of the arguments for standard iconography, visuals, and other elements in signs, signals, and other uniform non-verbal indicators in regards to the Melbourne example. My intention is to not comment on the action itself, but the way in which critics have attacked it.
