I find it disheartening that people use the term "politically correct" as a pejorative, or claiming that it has "gone too far." Like any movement, it has its ardent adherents who have more extreme takes on it, but the purpose of the concept is pretty straightforward: To consider people in their own terms.
Here's my problem with refusing to be politically correct: It assert that the speaker's position is the default one, the correct one, the only one. "Why can't I call [insert minority group] a [term that is hurtful to the same group]? I've always called them [repeat the inappropriate term]! It's honoring the past of the [hurtful term]." Because there are people on the other side of that term, and what's being used is a linguistic reminder of disapproval. Native Americans, for example, are of manifold types, histories, locations, and experiences. If one must use a term to describe an enormous swath of the human experience, why insist on calling them what a white man mistakenly called them five hundred years ago? They aren't "Indians"--that would indicate someone from India. The best that a person could do is ask the Native American from which tribe they come; that way, the Native American could be seen as representing part of her own truth.
What's interesting is how PC is unappreciated until it isn't reciprocated. This is an analogy, and therefore fraught with gaps, but I have seen occasions of this in my experience as being part of a minority religion--though where I am it's a majority religion, so that makes for a very bizarre tension.
Some years ago, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released a style guide for how it would prefer to be referred to in publications. There's a lot of reasons--some practical, some religious--as to why members of the Church (and the Church leadership specifically) prefer those terms. The style guide indicates areas where common vernacular, while not preferred, is acceptable (calling members "Mormons", for example).
Abiding by the request of the Church is politically correct. It acknowledges that the group has terms that have been unhelpful in the past, the group wishes to be recognized by terms that the group identifies with, and it gives leeway in areas where cultural expectations and desired behaviors fail to mix.
I read a comment once that was discussing the Church--I don't think the article itself was particularly critical, but the comments section (of course) was. One of the respondents took pains to address the Church in the way the style guide requested. I venture to say, based upon the tone of the response, that the commentator was a member, so it isn't really a surprise to see one inside the community using the terms correctly.
No one jumped down this commentator's throat for being "politically correct" in his (?) nomenclature--they did because he was defending the Church. They argued with his ideas, not his verbiage. And yet that is exactly what the counter-politically correct movement takes umbrage with: Not the ideas discussed, but how they're conveyed. "It's my right to call [minority group, usually] whatever I want! You can't censor me!"
No, but I can say that it's inappropriate, hurtful, damaging, and lessens the quality of the world. I do, as a matter of fact, have the right to say that.
Here's my problem with refusing to be politically correct: It assert that the speaker's position is the default one, the correct one, the only one. "Why can't I call [insert minority group] a [term that is hurtful to the same group]? I've always called them [repeat the inappropriate term]! It's honoring the past of the [hurtful term]." Because there are people on the other side of that term, and what's being used is a linguistic reminder of disapproval. Native Americans, for example, are of manifold types, histories, locations, and experiences. If one must use a term to describe an enormous swath of the human experience, why insist on calling them what a white man mistakenly called them five hundred years ago? They aren't "Indians"--that would indicate someone from India. The best that a person could do is ask the Native American from which tribe they come; that way, the Native American could be seen as representing part of her own truth.
What's interesting is how PC is unappreciated until it isn't reciprocated. This is an analogy, and therefore fraught with gaps, but I have seen occasions of this in my experience as being part of a minority religion--though where I am it's a majority religion, so that makes for a very bizarre tension.
Some years ago, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released a style guide for how it would prefer to be referred to in publications. There's a lot of reasons--some practical, some religious--as to why members of the Church (and the Church leadership specifically) prefer those terms. The style guide indicates areas where common vernacular, while not preferred, is acceptable (calling members "Mormons", for example).
Abiding by the request of the Church is politically correct. It acknowledges that the group has terms that have been unhelpful in the past, the group wishes to be recognized by terms that the group identifies with, and it gives leeway in areas where cultural expectations and desired behaviors fail to mix.
I read a comment once that was discussing the Church--I don't think the article itself was particularly critical, but the comments section (of course) was. One of the respondents took pains to address the Church in the way the style guide requested. I venture to say, based upon the tone of the response, that the commentator was a member, so it isn't really a surprise to see one inside the community using the terms correctly.
No one jumped down this commentator's throat for being "politically correct" in his (?) nomenclature--they did because he was defending the Church. They argued with his ideas, not his verbiage. And yet that is exactly what the counter-politically correct movement takes umbrage with: Not the ideas discussed, but how they're conveyed. "It's my right to call [minority group, usually] whatever I want! You can't censor me!"
No, but I can say that it's inappropriate, hurtful, damaging, and lessens the quality of the world. I do, as a matter of fact, have the right to say that.
Comments