Political correctness—a dirty word?
The term ‘politically correct’ or ‘PC’ is like a certain brand of Scandinavian pastry: it has layer upon layer of meaning. And between those flaky strata we find a weird melange of judgement, self-righteousness, empathy and nervousness.
The term as we use it today emerged around the 1990s, when it was used to describe attempts to avoid actions and language that denigrate groups or individuals because of their race, gender, class, disability, economic status or sexual orientation. All good so far—none of us wants to be insulted or hurt on grounds that are beyond our control.
Saying ‘people with disabilities’ rather than ‘the handicapped’, for example, is common today. (This is a mild example: many of the words eliminated from everyday talk through this revision of language are now considered too insulting for me to repeat here.) One problem with ‘The handicapped’ is that it defines a person or group solely by a particular but unspecified physical or mental characteristic, whereas the alternative implies that all people are people first.
Today ‘politically correct’ is used as an outright insult. It implies a new totalitarianism, propagated by ‘thought police, intellectual elites, chattering classes, the café latte set, femi-nazis, academic snobs, ideologues, fat cats, bureaucrats and do gooders’ (from Don Watson’s Dictionary of weasel words). It brings to mind people who refuse to consider opposing views, and who want to censor debate.
So where does this leave us writers and editors who wish to avoid stereotyping and be inclusive in our language? How do we avoid accidentally insulting our readers, without being accused of denying reality or stifling discussion?
I suggest we ignore the term and idea of political correctness (or incorrectness), whether used pejoratively or otherwise, and instead go back to the original intention. If we refer to people in the way they wish to be referred to, we won’t go wrong. This demonstrates respect and courtesy.
It also means keeping up to date. For example, ‘Indian’ in referring to Native Americans has fallen in and out of favour several times. Revised terms such as ‘hearing-impaired’ have been rejected by some advocacy groups in favour of the more traditional ‘deaf’.
But just because members of a group use a particular term in referring to themselves, does not always mean that outsiders can use that same term. We must be sensitive to different contexts and points of view.
