Political Correctness

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS Political Correctness or politically correct, more so in its abbreviated form, PC, happens to be one such term that animates the chatterati to no end. Through overuse and diffusion to differing, even contradictory espousers of causes, the term PC has lost its original meaning and is now blown about as verbal free-forall. At some point in time, say, in the 1990s, PC was used to “describe language, ideas, policies, or behaviour seen as seeking to minimize offense to racial, cultural, or other identity groups. Conversely, the term ‘politically incorrect’ is used to refer to language or ideas that may cause offense or that are unconstrained by orthodoxy.”

Currently, the term PC and its usage are controversial, while “politically incorrect” is used to imply positive self-description.

According to some commentators, “political correctness” is a straw man or effigy conservatives devised in the 1990s in order to frighten progressive social change concerning race, religion and gender. Ruth Perry traces PC to Mao’s Little Red Book, later adopted by the radical left in the 1960s, initially seriously and later as a self-criticism of dogmatic attitudes. In the 1990s, PC was associated with radical politics and communist censorship by the political right in the United States to discredit the Old and New Left. But soon the New Left turned the tables on the political right and re-appropriated the term political correctness as satirical selfcriticism.

Although the dominant usage is pejorative, a few writers use political correctness to describe inclusive language or civility. To its advocates, political correctness denotes:

1. The rights, opportunities, and freedoms of certain people who get restricted because of their being stereotyped by dominant groups.

2. Stereotyping often is implicit, unconscious, facilitated by pejorative labels and terms.

3. If above is correct, then, people must consciously think about how they describe someone unlike themselves.

But the nature of discourse causes complications. For instance, when a group chooses a term to describe its identity and as acceptable descriptor of themselves, the so-chosen term eventually passes into common usage, reaching even those very people whose racism and sexism, orthodoxy et cetera, the new term was intended to supersede. The new term thus gets devalued, and other set of words have to be coined, giving rise to lengthy progressions, such as Negro, Coloured, Black, African-American and so on. We would recall that once Indians were referred as “natives” by the English people but now the term with its pejorative connotation has disappeared from common speech of the English people. An Indian equivalent is the commonly current usage of Dalit—from Shudra to Harijan to Scheduled Caste to Dalit. Interestingly, in the wake of OBC

debate, re-introduction of “SC” in government job application forms is being resented by Dalits.

According to some observers, there never was a “Political Correctness movement” anywhere, and the term has been used to distract attention from substantive debates over discrimination and unequal treatment based on race, class and gender. Polly Toynbee argues that “the phrase is an empty rightwing smear designed only to elevate its user”.

Some Rightist critics view political correctness as a Marxist-inspired effort aimed at undermining Western values. Peter Hitchens, in The Abolition of Britain, observes: “What Americans describe with the casual phrase ... political correctness is the most intolerant system of thought to dominate the British Isles since the Reformation.” Lind and Buchanan believe that PC is a technique originated by the Frankfurt School for subverting Western values by influencing popular culture through Cultural Marxism. Buchanan, in his The Death of the West, states: “Political Correctness is Cultural Marxism, a regime to punish dissent and to stigmatize social heresy as the Inquisition punished religious heresy. Its trademark is intolerance.”

There appears to be some justification in the argument that political correctness is censorship and hazardous to free speech as it restricts acceptable public discourse, especially in the university and political forums. Pennsylvania University Professor Alan Charles Kors and lawyer Harvey A. Silverglate, connect

political correctness to Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse and his view that liberal ideas of free speech were, in fact, repressive.

Some critics point out that politically correct terms are merely awkward euphemisms for the original, stark language and compare them to George Orwell’s Newspeak. George Orwell, the author of Animal Farm, a trenchant satire on Communism and leaders of the Soviet Union as practitioners of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Camille Paglia, a self-styled “libertarian Democrat”, argues that political correctness gives more power to the Left’s enemies and alienates the masses against feminism.

According to certain linguists, political correctness “marginalizes certain words, phrases, actions or attitudes through the instrumentation of public disesteem”. Conservatively inclined critics of political correctness look at PC as a form of coercion because, in a political context, power implies the dominion of some men over others, or the “human control of human life” which, ultimately, leads to force or compulsion. Further, it is argued that correctness is subjective, and corresponds to the sponsored view of the government, minority, or special interest group.

In our country, political correctness has been making inroads in our education system in the form of reservations and revision of text books. Particularly, history books have been subjected to all kinds onslaught from the Left and the Right, requiring court interventions. Facts of history get interpreted according to what the writer or re-writer of text books believes to be politically correct. Even the

tyrannical rule of Aurangzeb and the taxes he imposed on non-muslims now find justification, if not praise by government appointed writers of text books. Children will never know the facts of their history and will carry impressions of what has been portrayed in their text books, depending on which politically correct books, written by Leftists or Rightists, have been prescribed in their schools. These children have been deprived of the option to choose between different versions of history, thus denying them the scope for developing the ability to sift facts critically.

Evolution, global warming, passive smoking, AIDS and other like issues face a predicament as Political Correctness impedes a fair airing and hearing of these issues. In India, as in other democratic countries, all issues as have national or collective significance get lost in the dust of political correctness.

In Bollywood films, we often see highly contrived situations and characters to portray themes of secularism and other beliefs. Some of our painters also take advantage of the peculiar kind of secularism that prevails in India. Painter like M.F. Hussain portrays Hindu goddesses and even Bharat Mata in distorted and naked forms while timidly shunning from similar themes from Islam, his own religion. But, he is accepted as a politically correct painter, even by our High Courts, in the garb of politically correct secularism!

In fact, the Politically Correct are more intolerant than traditional liberals, even conservatives. They are self-righteous like the religious dogmatists. They do not accept that the voters or consumers are capable of making the right judgment for

themselves. They must impose reforms. Does Political Correctness aim to achieve its objectives without violence? If so, why the politically correct, do not come out to condemn terrorism committed by Islamic outfits as enthusiastically as they condemn other factions for even less violent acts or even threats.

Surprisingly, India’s politically correct, are vocal for equal treatment to all but highly evasive about and even resistant to any suggestion of a nationally uniform code. Not the Nation, but castes, sub-castes and minorities appear to be politically more correct in India.