Historically, the first known use of the term “politically correct” occurred in the year 1936. It was not until the 1980’s, however, that it became a widely used, household term. Household, actually, in the strictest sense -- the phrase was originally applied to the realm of dating and relationships. Used ironically, a “politically correct” match was someone whose ideas and beliefs were compatible with one’s own. Was she voting for Reagan? Did he support the Equal Rights Amendment? These were the concerns of this previous version of political correctness.
Political correctness, as we know it today, is different - unironic and pervasive, permeating our “progressive” political climate. To be politically correct in 2016 is to conform to a belief that language and practices that could be considered offensive to political sensibilities (such as others’ sex and race) should be eliminated, and to impose the specific terms facilitating this elimination on others. This “PC culture” is well-intentioned, but often digresses from inclusive political ideals to a language of cultural policing. PC culture has become characterized by not only humorlessness, but hypersensitivity, intolerance and exclusivity.
Lending itself to inherent exclusivity is the semantic domain of politically correct language. Like any language-based movement, it automatically creates an in-group and an out-group, because PC terms can of course only be employed by those in the know. Out-group members are often chastised for not knowing and using an “incorrect” term. They are unfairly deemed ignorant, even sexist or racist. At a recent study break, I suggested we play the game “Indian Chief,” an old favorite of mine. A floormate of mine turned to me and said, publicly and scathingly, “The PC term is ‘Follow the Leader.’” Formerly unaware of this fact, I realized I had been unknowingly part of a politically correct out-group. The issue, in this case, was not my own knowledge of a more respectful term. Instead, the issue was the hostility with which my ignorance was regarded and the lesson delivered. Before chastising me, the enforcer of PC culture had already deemed me ignorant, and possibly racist, for not being privy to this singular term.
The politically correct agenda is often overwhelming here at Columbia University, on my floor and in the community at large. We are famous -- or perhaps, infamous -- for daily protests on Low Library’s steps. A recent debate has been over the Core Curriculum class “Literature Humanities: Masterpieces of Western Literature and Philosophy.” The cause for complaint is a lack of traditional Eastern texts featured on the course syllabus. Miraculously overlooked is the word “Western” featured prominently in the title of the class. Students are absolutely correct that yes, neglecting Eastern culture in our studies is a negative legacy, and we should work to reverse this through adding new classes and requirements. But a class focused on reading Western literature through a modern lens should not be attacked through an impractical argument about its exclusion of Eastern literature.
Political correctness is not limited to the left-wing, radically liberal sphere. According to right-wing discourse, the wealthy are “job creators,” climate change legislation is a “job killer,” and talking about inequality is “class warfare” and therefore taboo. This is eerily reminiscent of Orwell’s “Newspeak” from his science fiction novel 1984 - science fiction, that is, from 1949. Newspeak employed the same in-group tactics of an established order to make subversion not only difficult and unpopular, but illegal.
Why does our culture so willingly feed into this speech policing? Perhaps because these politically correct canons justify our impatience with those who do not share our views. “If there’s a gray line, it’s always best to stay away from it,” says student Mitchell Chen, director of a diversity effort at the University of Washington. This tunnel vision impedes productive conversation and obscures exploration of the real problems concerning race, gender and other tensions our society faces. “Politically correct” has become “a clever rhetorical phrase,” according to Professor Linda Green (University of Wisconsin Law School), turning “debate about racism and sexism into a debate about censorship.” This restructuring of the argument creates an inauthentic dialogue.
We cannot erase our country’s past of sexism and racism simply by naming and renaming demographics of people, as well as a few children’s games. The solution begins, instead, with overcoming the temptation offered by political correctness to attribute malicious motives to those with whom we disagree. The focus in issues of controversy should be intent, not word choice. Our country’s past failures have only been remedied by practicality, not by principle.
