Political Correctness
As is often the case, one of my good friends stimulated my thinking about this term and how we approach applying it to everyday situations. She had sent me a copy of a very well written article by a college freshman whose name I cannot now recall. In this article the author challenged our concern with political correctness and the extent to which the use of these terms helps or hinders the goal of creating a more just society.
As I so often do these days I googled the term this morning. The top three hits were:
1. Po·lit·i·cal cor·rect·ness noun noun: political correctness; noun: political correctitude; the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against. (Cite source; I couldn’t really tell what this was from)
2. Political correctness or political correctitude (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is an attitude or policy of being careful not to offend or upset any group of people in society who are believed to have a disadvantage. (Wikipedia)
3. Agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people (Merriam‑Webster)
All three of these stress that the goal is to not to offend or insult particular groups of people. Although I think it is laudable to not offend others, it seems to me that the goal of not offending is very different than a goal of accepting that we are all equally deserving to be treated with dignity; we are all deserving of basic respect no matter what our age, mental status, intelligence score, size, sexual orientation or status, race, nationality, color, physical looks or ability or other factors which may superficially identify us as different than the larger group of which we are a member. The goal of not offending is, it seems to me, similar to the goal of deciding to tolerate someone who is different than I. As someone on NPR recently suggested (sorry, but I was listening in the car and did not get the name of the person who said this), tolerance normally implies someone already in a power allowing someone of a different group than the person in power to enjoy some of the benefits of the culture, place, or organization. Tolerance does not imply respect or acceptance as an equal. Tolerance to me is similar to pity or the giving of something to someone of lesser status. Many of us have experienced the receipt of the “gift” of someone because they felt sorry for us or wanted to show us that they are generous and, thus will give us a dollar of their millions. Again the gift is not given out of respect or a sense of “there but for the grace of God go I”( true compassion) which implies being willing and able to stand in their shoes; knowing that could be the case at any time.
Using the term political correctness does not seem to invite discussion, allow for the fact that growth is a slow process for all of we humans, or any disagreement about how to divide up the resources of the community. It is more like “the hammer of justice” and often, in my experience carrying with it implication that the bad person has not been politically correct in their use of language or their behavior. In other words, under the pretense of inclusion we exclude. In fact, I am sure we have all heard of people being chastised formally or informally for not being “politically correct.”
The current use of the term – at least in this country – parallels our approach to justice. In our current judicial climate and system we look for someone who is at fault and then set about punishing them. Just this morning I read an article about a parent who did something, in hindsight, really dumb. She held a child over a danger area in a zoo so the child could get a better look. The child slipped out of her hands and now she is being charged with child endangerment. (Thankfully the child is fine.) Of course, it is easy for “us” to see that this was a dangerous, dumb thing to do. We have all done dumb things with children which could have potentially resulted in them being harmed. Does the parent have a history of just not being able to make safe decision for the child? The article does not say.
Professionally, the ethics code of conduct for both of the professional organizations to which I belong has grown to a book of rules. The goal seems to be to make sure that we do nothing as professionals to allow for possible misinterpretation or for anyone to say we acted in an inappropriate manner. Despite the stated mission of these professional organizations, the goal now seems to be to protect oneself and to do nothing to offend the client. Thus, we are admonished to not touch, email, make ourselves available, or say anything which could be offensive. This is a much different goal than that of doing our best to be lovingly present and comforting while also respecting the boundaries of the client and doing our best to use language and actions which take into account their background and culture.
If we want to end racism, we will not do so by suing each other, firing each other from jobs, throwing one out of organizations, or insuring that one loses his/her professional license. Now, to be sure, I think language is very powerful. I do think that I have an enormous responsibility to continue to practice inclusive language and behavior, to work hard to identify the racism and other -isms which I have internalized. I know that I am not retarded, but if I am very honest, after 40 some years of intentionally working to identify and change non-inclusive thoughts and language, I daily notice examples of judgmental or prejudicial thoughts. Hopefully, I notice and correct them quicker than I did 40 years ago.
Let’s quit trying to legislate and punish while at the same time being clear that the goal for all organizations and communities needs to be to strive to be more of a “we.”
RSS Feed