Political Correctness: Blessing or Bother?

Has Political Correctness Gone Too Far?

By Margaret

What do you call a person whose mental and physical faculties are significantly impaired due to the over-consumption of alcohol? Unfortunately, if you said ‘drunk’, you would be politically incorrect. In 2022, the proper term is ‘chemically inconvenienced’. Have fun being cancelled!

Political correctness: blessing or bother? The PC movement has been a looming presence in our society since the 1980’s. Initially, it was promoted in favour of minority groups facing discrimination and social prejudice. However, although I am happy to say ‘disabled’ instead of ‘crippled’, I am not so sure about calling an unemployed person ‘economically inactive’. It’s a mouthful, it’s hard to remember and it doesn’t really make sense. In the same way that I can’t possibly refer to a criminal as ‘behaviourally challenged’, ‘robbery’ cannot be called ‘wealth distribution’. But is there a method to this madness? Is it possible to sift through the verbal chaos to find some semblance of logic? Does rationality even exist in a world of wild linguistic inflation, rampant censorship and merciless rhetorical suppression?

First, let’s look at the inherent meaning of the term ‘political correctness’ (if there even is one). The Oxford definition is as follows: ‘the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against’. Essentially, PC is language that attempts to give the least amount of offence, particularly in relation to groups possessing certain characteristics, such as homosexual, foreign, disabled or otherwise marginalised people. The term is widely debated in political circles and has both positive and negative connotations, depending on one’s political and ideological affiliations. PC first came into popular usage in the late 1970’s and into the ‘80’s. The phrase was utilised by liberal politicians to address the perceived issue of left-wing politicians placing more value in rhetoric than in the actual moral quality of their discourse. Today, PC is ruthlessly enforced via social media platforms such as Twitter. Those who break the maxim of PC are subject to the Court of Public Opinion, which is unforgiving, particularly with the establishment of ‘cancel culture’.

Some people are strongly opposed to the use of PC, on the grounds of the right to freedom of speech. These people believe that the enforcement of political correctness limits the public’s ability to debate and act freely, imposing offensive language where it was never intended. Many argue that PC is simply a weapon used by social-justice movements to silence any objections to their cause. On the other hand, PC was originally intended for undoubtedly good purposes. Even now, the most commonly stated goal of PC is to eliminate verbal discrimination and negative stereotyping, which is, admittedly, hard to disagree with. Therefore, it is not the intrinsic properties of PC which promote this absurd pseudo-language; rather, it is the incessant demand for it, beyond reason and practicality, which makes it the object of ridicule and satire. As fun as it is to call ‘vomiting’ an ‘unplanned re-examination of recent food choices’, it is neither necessary nor helpful.

 So where is the line? What distinguishes the two ends of the PC spectrum from each other? When does common decency become daft? It is perfectly sensible to say ‘African-American’ instead of ‘coloured’, but it seems rather senseless to call a lazy person ‘motivationally deficient’. Once we delete all the words perceived as offensive from our vocabulary, we also remove all meaning and identity from our language and society. Before we know it, we will all be speaking a garbled, incomprehensible version of English where description itself is impossible and where we spend all our time endeavouring to learn whatever new terms the media shove down our throats. It is increasingly difficult to prevent PC from spiralling totally out of control, especially when the people making the rules aren’t necessarily the ones at risk of denigration. It certainly does not seem likely that perverts are campaigning to be referred to as ‘sexually dysfunctional’ or that overweight people are overly concerned about not being called ‘metabolic overachievers.’ 

However, surely there is such a thing as political correctness that is actually correct? Of course there is! Why don’t you try actually asking the person or group to or about which you are speaking which terms they would prefer you to use to describe their particular characteristic? It’s quite simple and not at all difficult. Just remember, if you overstep the PC line too much, you may end up unintentionally at leisure!*

*unemployed