In Defense of Political Correctness

Have you ever heard someone complain that nowadays, with such vast polarization in society, they just “can’t say anything?” With the shackles of “political correctness” seemingly so strong, many yearn for a drastic change… which is where the idea of “free speech” becomes so tempting. By “free speech,” I don’t mean the First Amendment right to express controversial viewpoints without censorship or diversity of belief, both of which are crucial to democracy. Rather, I’m referring to the kind of self-expression that’s deliberately insensitive and provocative, which demonstrates moral recognition of what’s right and wrong… yet still disregards it.

Many are convinced that if we could only go back to how life used to be, then the real plagues of society — emotions — would be conveniently tucked away. “Just toughen up,” this version of history would advise. By defending one’s right to say anything they want, this idea exemplifies “brutal honesty” as some banner of enlightenment that will somehow benefit everyone, but begs the question: What is it that so urgently needs to be said, yet simultaneously is so disrespectful that it challenges the basic moral codes of society?

Trying to gauge what’s “all right” now based on past precedent is deeply problematic. After adopting a view of the modern world, the faults of the past can, naturally, come as a shock. After all the understanding of others that people have picked up throughout recent generations, why try to relive the past?

Still, this doesn’t stop the endless, misguided, yearning for an era that never really existed, such as the amazingly idealized 1960’s “dream.” With national “free speech” protests as regular events throughout the decade, coupled with the “love and peace” sentiment of the anti-Vietnam War hippie population, it’s easy to view the era wistfully as a high point of interpersonal connection, with honesty truly being the best policy.

However, society today is, in many ways, more partisan than it ever had been in the 1960’s, Vietnam and social revolutions notwithstanding. Fifty years ago there was actually a “most trusted man in America” in Walter Cronkite, who was a newsperson for CBS, no less, and viewed by the majority of Americans every evening. If there was any ever any discrepancy between one news source and another, it likely wasn’t intentional and/or picked up on by the general public. Today, in contrast, with such disparate news providers as Fox and MSNBC (among others) we see one American learning a radically different version of the same story than another, building subconsciously on values already cultivated by families and close relationships. When picking a side on social issues, it’s expected that with that choice you’re also harboring resentment toward the opposition, in a way that — more times than not — reflects your political leanings.

Not to mention, the utopian “60’s “dream” itself was never a reality. Despite the free-love vibe that marked the decade or the sociopolitical advancements toward a more accepting America, it doesn’t take a historical expert to note the ingrained social intolerance that still prevailed.

In 2015, an example of just how disastrous it can be to try and reconcile past with present surfaced in a video of The Beatles performing in the mid-1960’s. John Lennon is at the mike, “[encouraging the screaming crowd to clap their hands and stomp their feet, while [speaking] with a speech impediment and [making] awkward clapping and stomping movements…” as schizophrenia and learning disability impressions. (Billboard) Meanwhile, the concert audience cheers and laughs.

While the mindset of today would expect there to have been great outrage and disillusionment among the millions of fans, or perhaps some big story to emerge condemning the band for lacking ethics or social conscience, at the time Lennon’s “cripple” impressions were simply noted as a trademark of his offbeat goofiness and irreverence.

Contrastingly, in 2015, thousands of fans on Twitter and Facebook immediately responded angrily, alarmed that a public figure as respected as John Lennon “could have these horrible views about real people.” (Billboard.com)

It’s safe to assume that if the Beatles were on tour today, John Lennon would leave the disability impressions out of the concert set. Even with the band’s loyal fanbase, the subject is clearly inappropriate, and glaringly unethical. The more resonating aspect of this story, though, is the contrast it reflects between now and then: Just as the common reaction of 2015 was to immediately defend the afflicted, as a byproduct of the increased insight and education of younger generations relating to disabled people, our ancestors naturally responded according to the lack of said awareness.

It’s true that many of the faults of the ‘60’s, such as racial discrimination, gender inequality, and intolerance toward those of “different” cultures and lifestyles carried through the 1970’s to today, met with exacerbated LGBTQIA, abortion, education, and poverty issues as well as provincialism.

Still, a lot of the ignorance over these big issues, especially those of race and gender, has lessened significantly over the years. So, the “American Dream” has perhaps manifested itself in that the national attitude is, overall, far more self-aware and enlightened when it comes to how we treat one another, and wary of ridicule and abuse. Historically marginalized groups are reminded far less regularly of what’s “wrong” with them, and have been granted more of a right to self-assurance than ever before.

However dreaded it is, it would be misguided to pretend that political correctness hasn’t largely made these blessings possible. And it seems completely natural that, in this ever-changing world in which social norms are at the focal point of everyday life, people should have some form of guideline to help know what is the right thing to say.

Now, the catch: What should be done when PC regulations seem such extreme overreactions to societal norms that they challenge the very rights to self-expression, speech, press, etc. that they’re supposedly meant to control?

Notably, in late 2017, an air force officer warned troops that words and phrases such as “boy,” “girl,” and “you people” may be interpreted as offensive, while advising soldiers to avoid such labels altogether in favor of more neutral alternatives. The glaring fault with this logic, of course, is the total restriction it places on just about every commonly accepted pronoun or descriptive word, posing the question: What is acceptable to say?

To answer that from the victim’s point of view, so as to assuage their hurt feelings, wouldn’t do the offender justice. For example, as in the above situation, perhaps one accidentally let slip a “you people,” unintentionally offending someone but without really grasping the weight of the phrase from the other’s point of view. Is it really fair to punish this lapse in communication?

On the other hand, to base moral judgement solely on the intention behind an alleged insult welcomes a variety of the self-preserving “I was just saying…” and even worse, the inconsequential “No offense.” Anyone trying to justify exactly the variety of hurtful and divisive remarks they know wouldn’t classify as socially conscious could do so with these useless expressions in tow. From a moral standpoint here, PC holds up just as well as a guidepost for recognizing unnecessary harassment.

Finally, what to do when a term is sugar-coated so heavily that it loses all of its meaning whatsoever? For example, in On Being a Cripple, Nancy Mairs discusses how, with her disability, people she meets tend to treat her as both physically and emotionally fragile. Most avoid the most distilled label, “crippled,” in favor of “handicapped,” “disabled,” and the incredibly bloated “differently abled,” which Mairs describes as “pure verbal garbage designed, by its ability to describe anyone, to describe no one.” To Mairs, the excessive political correctness of others is degrading in that it robs her of a real sense of identity. Nonetheless, she seems to understand that not everyone holds the same doctrine, writing, “I would never refer to another person as a cripple. It is the word I use to name only myself.” With this, Mairs acknowledges that aside from her own personal preference, the majority of society would, at least for now, suffer more than benefit by her opting to call every handicapped passerby “Cripple.”

Of course, the perfectly democratic way to set about regulating speech and expression would involve everyone being able to say exactly what they feel should be said, without resorting to provocation to inflate the point. However, this would rely on a high degree of integrity in all; a standard which, unfortunately, is an ambitious one to set for the entire American population.

So, perhaps, one day the moral hang-ups of human nature will iron themselves out and people can be trusted to express themselves freely. Until then, however, political correctness — in moderation — is the best we can do.