0

Yes, I am aware of the insanity in the question. However, that is precisely why I am asking. The insanity stems from the popular idea, especially amongst academics or the type of people you might find on this site, that political correctness is overall harmful because it compels speech, such as on US college campuses (which are institutions and places, of all places, meant to explore ideas freely and need almost complete free speech) and harms free thinking in society.

I do not where I read (or heard) it, however some living person in the field of philosophy or psychology made some brief, side comment defending political correctness and it's utility. In fact, they even mentioned a philosopher from the past whose ideas aligned with political correctness (trust me, I too am not happy with the amount that I remember >:( )

At a very superficial level (such as the first paragraph on Wikipedia), political correctness seems beneficial to the discourse of ideas because clearly it is to make things more inclusive, and protect those who are implicitly oppressed on a day-to-day basis by making such acts explicit (either by awareness of the concept, or calling out, or legitimate policy changes [1, 2]). Is that not great?

Also, there is some fallacy or adage that one should attack what the opponent means, not what they literally said or could mean (again, can not find this either..) which I think is extremely relevant to political correctness. More often than not, people do not mean the things that others find offensive. With that being said, by attacking what one literally says or could mean, is that not more logical and rational? That way, for example, definition creep (similar to mission creep, but only for singular words) does not occur. Furthermore, people would be very direct and concise in what they say (ie, they would mean what they say and not be cryptic).

Lastly, for whatever reason and however irrelevant, I am viscerally reminded of this particular image and how perhaps political correctness is a symptom of the middle stage.

Okay, to summarize the point of my scattered thoughts and to arrive at the gist of my question(s):

  • Is political correctness a result of a society that values (thinks and acts in accordance to) reason?
  • What are the benefits of political correctness in regards to thinking freely and/or logically? (Are the benefits I mention in the fourth paragraph legitimate ways of increasing logic/reason in thought and discourse?)
  • Is there really a philosophy/philosopher whose ideas align with political correctness being good or bad? (or perhaps any concepts circulating the practice of journalism or news?)
  • 1
    Is the question about rationality of political correctness? It is hard to understand what "more rational society is" and what is the "insanity in the question"? The first three paragraphs seem to be arguing some point but again, what the point is is very murky. "Philosopher/philosophies that expand on this", what is "this"? – Conifold Apr 29 at 8:52
  • @Conifold Per your cues, I elaborated more. Hopefully it makes more sense now. I think I will keep the question title the same though, and the more detailed version of the title thereby being the first bullet question in the body. – Holiday_Chemistry Apr 29 at 9:48
  • 1
    Not deleted, but closed. Note that despite its perspicacity, your post has already received one down vote. I shall up vote it, to get you back to 0. – gonzo Apr 29 at 16:45
  • 1
    You say in your 4th paragraph that "...there is some fallacy or adage that one should attack what the opponent means, not what they literally said or could mean... which I think is extremely relevant to political correctness." It is. What you are describing is or is akin to the straw man argument, sometimes thought of as an informal fallacy. see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_. Compare it to the more noble and honest steel man tactic: lifehacker.com/…, which also involves what one "means." – gonzo Apr 29 at 17:05
  • 1
    @PaulRoss: Academic work on political correctness would be the purview of social scientists, not philosophers. The philosophical roots of political correctness, by contrast, are fairly deep. – Ted Wrigley May 11 at 15:53
2

I will try to be brief, on concern that this question will ultimately be closed, though that is going to prove difficult...

'Political correctness,' as the term is commonly used, is a practical, real-world implementation of some fairly esoteric philosophy. Unfortunately, all practical implementations of philosophy are given to misuse, incoherence, conflation with other real-world interests, and strong tendencies towards dogmatism. It's just a fact: people attach to ideals the like even when they fail to understand the depths of the ideal, and the results are often less than perfect.

C'est la vie...

The idea behind 'political correctness' is pervasive in social and critical theory, going back at least to late Existentialism — 1940s and 50s — and expanding dramatically through the 70s. In short, it starts with the recognition that all of our modern language in the West (both common and philosophical usage) is infused with the structures of Colonialism: the superiority of white European males and the inferiority and 'exoticness' of women and 'foreign peoples'; a fetishistic devotion to the principles of capitalism; an invidious classism... It's not that people go out of their way to invoke such language intentionally, but more that people are blind to such usages because they are so familiar with them. Think about the classic feminist observation that women are socially forced to reveal their marital status because they must refer to themselves as 'miss' or 'missus', while men are always an ambiguous 'mister'; think about the complaint deep South whites frequently made that the N-word wasn't meant to be offensive, but was merely the word they and their culture used to refer to black people. All of this understated language use comes straight out of a long history of oppression and dehumanization, and every use of it subtly reinforces that history.

Now, one critical/social theory approach to this problem was consciousness-raising: getting people to realize the ways in which their mere language use becomes a tool for subtle domination. This means calling out people on their more problematic language fumbles. Thus someone who makes a stereotyped comment about (say) blacks and watermelons might not realize that they are making a reference to the post Civil War period when newly freed blacks were forced into difficult tenant farming situations where watermelons were one of the few cash-crops they could raise, and that the stereotype invokes some painful history. The hope, of course, is that people will realize that their language-use is treading on other people's toes, and thus — social creatures that we are — people will back off such language for the sake of harmony, and gradually weed that Colonial mindset out of society. That is clearly rational in structure and intent, though it might be accused of naïveté.

Of course, this critical, consciousness-raising approach might have a sound core, but it collapses at the edges. Some on the Left use this mindset as a tool for attacking disliked groups; some otherwise neutral corporations invoke strict PC standards as an anti-lawsuit tactic, or as a form of social control; some on the Right have learned to intentionally commit linguistic attacks of these sort (turning the unconscious productions of people trapped in language into a conscious abuse of language to assert power). Each case is actively consciousness-lowering, in that it seeks to reify language above meaning, and to sow dissent rather than encourage reflection. 'Political correctness,' as often as not, has become a reference to these collapsed edges, where people stop trying to negotiate the boundaries of civil language and start using language as a means of dominance.

The critical-theoretical idea behind political correctness is valid and sound; the implementation often leaves a lot to be desired.

| improve this answer | |
  • This is all very nicely put @Ted Wrigley, I even concur with most of the plethora of impeccably well intentioned assumptions and presuppositions you put forth. However, listen closely to this argument between Sam Harris and Ezra Klein: youtube.com/watch?v=i-VF4KCylKI. cont... – gonzo May 11 at 18:49
  • Both are card carrying "progressives", smart, articulate, and ostensibly asserting their positions in good faith. Accordingly, I have never encountered a better articulation of the ineradicable gist, As Shakespeare says, there's the rub. While your responses here and in the politics stack make clear where your inclinations and alliances are, II would love to here your take on the discussion. – gonzo May 11 at 18:49
  • Also, if you feel so inclined, have a look at my post here: philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/72876/…; which aroused the ire of a couple of members, one of which to such an extent that he may even have as a result actually been suspended from the site for a year. Of course I am assuming that the suspension was related, it may have pertained to some unrelated matter. And the person, though brilliant, was somewhat of a hot head in his previous incarnation on this site anyway. – gonzo May 11 at 19:02
  • @gonzo: Tread a little carefully, please... If you want to debate with me, you should debate with me, not with the image of me you've built up in your head. I'm a philosopher, not an ideologue; they are like water and ice. I'll go through the links you provided, at least as much as I can stomach of the first (Harris is a bit dogmatic for my tastes). We'll see... – Ted Wrigley May 12 at 15:29
  • My apology. But do not lose sight of the issue. Which is, IMO, to what extent are we disenabling ourselves from dealing w/ and possibly even solving certain pressing issues/problems by forbidding ourselves from considering certain "facts," then justifying our failure to consider them by explicitly/implicitly arguing/assuming that because all "facts" are theory [and value] laden, we are free to ignore them since they really do not really exist. This is how the two comment threads tie together. – gonzo May 12 at 18:13
1

I have no comment re your first two queries, but as to the last, “Is there really a philosophy/philosopher whose ideas align with political correctness being good or bad?, have a look at the Frankfort school and critical theory, which to some extent would seem to be the philosophical foundations of political correctness. See: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/, https://www.iep.utm.edu/frankfur/

| improve this answer | |
1

I say no. Political correctness stems from cowardice. I can be politically correct all day in public with my words and be totally racists and mean and nasty by my actions. Political correctness falls squarely into Orwellian doublespeak. A politician could easily use every politically correct term to describe all of the "undesirables" his policy will now be persecuting. A man named Frank Lutz coined "climate change" amongst others. I find this kind of thing to be like changing "gang rape" to "team building exercises " just to avoid triggering someone. While the latter may be true, it nullifies the horrors of the former. Therefore, political correctness undermines the information necessary to have "rational society". Think " Inglorious basterds " and the carving of the swastika into the foreheads of Nazis. While the act and evidence may be pretty horrible, what it tells us about the person with this mark is far more important by letting us know it was THAT person was part of. Mark Fuhrman is a perfect example. With his failure to be politically correct showing that he was a liar and a racist who handled the blood evidence during the O.J. Simpson trial. He was accused of using blood drawn from O.J. after his arrest to plant evidence at the crime scene. He committed perjury and that got him hired by fox news as a crime scene analyst. Yikes.... I'd better leave it there. This subject is rather upsetting as i consider the stupidity of political correctness to be incredibly obvious. To me it is a synonym for big fat liar. The first word is "political "after all.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.