Northeastern University

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

And How It Affects People’s Attitude

By Maria Sheehan

English 1004

July 2013

Political correctness affects the language people use in a society. However, sometimes it fails to change the attitudes behind the language. The term “Political correctness” is very common and widely used among people. The term has undergone many changes throughout its existence. Initially this term signified the language people used to minimize possible offence on the basis of gender, race, or ethnicity. The definition of PC by “The Collins Cobuild English dictionary for advanced learners” reflects true and original meaning of the term. “If you say that someone is politically correct, you mean that they are extremely careful not to offend or upset any group of people in society, for example with their attitudes towards sex, race, or disability.” It also implies the intention and efforts to change discriminatory attitudes. However, It could be argued that politically correct language do not translate to politically correct attitudes.
Van Boven, Dutch jurist and professor emeritus, argues that when people perceive the language they speak as having high standards of political correctness, they become more politically correct themselves (Van Boven, 2000).
This statement can be supported by the PC ideologies, which were intended to enforce and change people’s views on gender, race and other minorities. One of the major ideologies of PC is to fight and change sexist language. As a result, many words were changed to gender-neutral alternatives such as fireman to firefighter, airhostess to flight attendant, actress to actor, and many others. Other ideologies such as racism and discrimination of minorities are also key parts of Political Correctness. As result, the language was changed and became less discriminatory. The Political Correctness made people aware that the language is very unique and powerful force that can be offensive and insulting and that the words have to be chosen and used carefully. People tend to change their values and attitudes when they use Politically Correct language with awareness of the norms. Angela McRobbie, British cultural theorist, feminist and commentator, shares Van Boven’s views on how Political Correctness influences people’s attitudes and perceptions when it is used with awareness. However, she opines that PC doesn’t change attitudes of people with already formulated mindset. She gives and example how Political Correctness changes the language but doesn’t change the attitudes. She states that older and younger generations have different views and cognitions concerning people’s equality and discrimination (McRobbie 1997). Old generations were raised in the environment where they could use offensive and discriminatory language and it was a norm. For example, racist words such as ‘boong’, ‘nigger’, ‘chink’, ‘yank’, ‘hunk’, and ‘dago’ were used in the past easily and without hesitation. When Political Correctness inculcated its ideologies into American culture, most people changed the way they talk but not the way the perceive things. Younger generation, on the other hand, was raised in the anti discriminatory environment. All American public and private schools strive to conduct their business free from all forms of discrimination and inequality. Therefore, Political Correctness is a norm for younger generation, which helped to shape people’s perceptions and instilled great deal of awareness into their minds. For example, the majority of young white Americans gave their vote to Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, unlike older white Americans (Dahl 2008; Keeter et al. 2008). Another example is that younger white Americans report lower levels of negative racial attitudes than older white Americans (Smith 2011). These examples support Angela McRobbie’ opinion about different generations and their attitudes. While Political Correctness has a positive impact on how people use the language, it could be argued that Political Correctness has its negative sides. There are some extreme cases where politically correct terms deliberately highlight certain aspects of a group’s identity. Some people believe that term ‘African American’ emphasizes historical roots of a group that forms part of the USA, thus putting the name on the same level as other ethnic minorities such as Japanese Americans and Italian Americans. Political Correctness also loses it effectiveness when its initial ideals are abused or taken to extremes. The word ‘blind’ was found politically incorrect at one point and the alternative emerged as ‘visually disadvantaged’. Interestingly, most blind people prefer the word ‘blind’. It also can be perceived as being blind is not respectful and that the word ‘blind’ needs to be replaced. The word ‘deaf’ also lost it “respect” and was replaced to ‘acoustically challenged’ and most deaf people don’t like to be called ‘acoustically challenged’. And some dumb people find being called ‘non-verbal’ condescending. In some cases, Political Correctness is abused and the words or expressions that are being replaced don’t require this treatment. For example, when blind people called as ‘visually disadvantaged’, they feel more uncomfortable and discriminated in a way. In such cases, Political Correctness looses its effectiveness and purpose.
Politically correct language transforms and rephrases discriminatory language by eliminating any possible biased implications. By discouraging the use of offensive words Political Correctness has revealed the discriminatory implications of the language, which helped alter biased attitudes. However, in some cases, Political Correctness doesn’t change people’s attitudes. PC also looses it effectiveness and credibility when is misused and taken to extreme cases. To keep its original purpose PC has be used accordingly and with a full awareness.

References

1. Boven Van, L., (2000). “Pluralistic ignorance and political correctness: The case of affirmative action.” Political Psychology. 2. Davidio John R. (2001). “On the Nature of Contemporary Prejudice: The third Wave.” Social Issues. 3. Gregorich, S. E. (2006). “Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups?” 4. Hughes Geoffrey. (2009). “Political Correctness: a history of semantics and culture”. Communication and culture. 5. McRobbie Angela., (1997). “Back to Reality?” Social and Cultural Studies. 6. Urzula Okulska. (2010). “Perspectives in politics and discourse”. Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture.