"Politically correct censorship is dulling our minds by emphasizing what to exclude from our cognitive thinking processes and discussions. Notice how politically correct expressions are expressions of “what is not.” It is not a hut. It is a small house. He is not an old man. He is an older person. Children are can never be disobedient. Men are not lawyers, doctors, or plumbers. There are no mountains. Cake does not exist. There are no jungles. There are no widows, or house wives or senile old people. And so on and on.
This is thinking in deficit. Notice how careful and hesitant our speech has become. We are extraordinarily careful to make sure the words we use cannot possibly be construed to offend anyone. Consequently, we are constantly thinking of what not to say, what words cannot be used, and what expressions should be avoided. We spend our time thinking of what we cannot say instead of thinking about what we should say. It has become safer and easier to talk about what things are not, or not to talk at all."
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/creative-thinkering/201206/political-correctness-run-amok
Not sure what I think about this, but a few thoughts. This might be controversial as it is a complex and sensitive topic.
- It is almost hilarious to read about this from a third person perspective, but imagine growing up in a politically correct environment and then listening to a benign comment from a person from outside the US who never intended harm. For example, in Chinese, there isn't really a "politically correct" term like "African American" or "Caucasian". You can say "Black" and "White" and even refer to yourself as "yellow" because they are the common terminologies for people of certain races - no hard feelings intended. Yet immediately, that Chinese person will be accused of racism, sexism, and all the isms in the world. Is it truly a reflection of morality, or is it more of a reflection of socialization? Just because someone is brought up in a "politically incorrect" environment doesn't mean someone is intentionally trying to hurt someone's feelings - and if he/she recognizes the negative impact of his/her words when told, and is willing to accommodate and tone down his/her unintended harm, do we still have the right to judge him/her for being inherently immoral? Do we have the right to blame people for being insensitive when we're not sensitive of the environment they were brought up in? After all, not everyone is exposed to social justice focused education - at least not in certain countries. If you asked me two years ago what I thought of social justice I would probably sound like a racist and a sexist person - just because my education in Hong Kong never taught me that, and I was not socialized to act in that manner. Does it mean I became a saint once I came to the US just because I learnt all the right ways to portray certain issues? I don't think so. My personality just channeled into different outlets, and it found social justice here - doesn't mean I'm more or less of a good/evil person.
- How much of it is a cultural thing anyway? For example, some Asian values tend to be very sexist in American standards. I personally don't agree with a lot of these statutes, but does it mean that all Asians are immoral and deliberately suppressing women? What if we take into account cultural values that are deeply ingrained in their tradition? Can we use the same moral ruler to measure all behaviors of the world? Can we judge actions on a superficial level without considering the belief system driving these actions? Can we understand a person by looking at actions and not words? To take this argument further, wouldn't it be outrageous to use one universal moral ruler across history, and across species too? If we can laugh at this, why do we still act "culture-ist"?
- As someone involved with social justice work and research, I find it difficult to gauge whether I am overreactive in certain sensitive situations - whether something is for social justice, or simply political correctness. How do we balance between freedom of speech and all these isms of the world? Do we have to sacrifice our mental capacity and creativity, among other things, to be politically correct? Will we become too afraid to talk one day? Initiating important changes and making outrageous discoveries require risk taking. When we become too careful about our speech and actions, will we lose the mental space, courage, and ability to take risks ever again?
- People criticize religiously-based education for censoring knowledge of the real world. For example, evolution might not be taught in some Christian schools, which, according to some people at least, distorts reality. Can we fall into similar traps by censoring all political incorrectness? Must we say things CONTRARY to stereotypes in order to portray reality? By focusing on contradicting stereotypes, do we PROPAGATE stereotypes by increasing its salience in people's minds? Try telling yourself to suppress the thought of a white bear for 3 minutes - you simply can't stop thinking of a white bear as a result.
And linking it to my research...
My current research directions point towards the benefits of being consciously aware of the threat of being evaluated as racist, because one would then exert more effort into trying to be non-racist - so that no one's feelings get hurt in the process. I understand this might be beneficial in this current political environment in the US, but I wonder how things would unfold in other cultures where social justice ideas are foreign to most people. Perhaps in less politically charged environments, conscious reminders of race will build unnecessary barriers that are non-conducive to comfortable interracial interactions. And even within the US, I wonder how this effect will generalize to populations outside of the college campus - where people care much less about social justice.
In addition, what are the pros and cons of exerting conscious control over one's speech and actions? I would imagine that if my friend becomes way too concerned about how she acts around me, I would feel rather distant and uncomfortable. Perhaps, my hypothesis would only work in a context where the two people are strangers to each other, since first impressions are probably based on superficial characteristics, such as race? In a close interracial friendship, boundaries of race are probably already eliminated, and dancing carefully around political incorrectness would probably be less important.
In addition, what are the pros and cons of exerting conscious control over one's speech and actions? I would imagine that if my friend becomes way too concerned about how she acts around me, I would feel rather distant and uncomfortable. Perhaps, my hypothesis would only work in a context where the two people are strangers to each other, since first impressions are probably based on superficial characteristics, such as race? In a close interracial friendship, boundaries of race are probably already eliminated, and dancing carefully around political incorrectness would probably be less important.
That is perhaps one of the reasons why we feel tired when interacting with a lot of strangers for an extended period of time, but can talk to a close friend for hours and hours - because we let go of these conscious efforts needed to maintain political correctness.
What are your thoughts on this?
Political correctness is definitely a tricky subject. We of course shouldn't try to unnecessarily offend people by using terms that have degraded into slurs, but in other cases it seems that the truth does get lost behind a cloud of euphemism. I'll just let George Carlin do the talking:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYE_unBFxuU
I think of most issues around political correctness as questions of genre. There's nothing that you can never say - this is what freedom of speech is about. But there are times and places (genres if you like) where different kinds of speech are appropriate, mostly meaning useful and effective, and times and places where they are not.
ReplyDeleteBecky, I think you might think about your research in this context. The intergroup situations you are focused on are places where tacit agreement about genre cannot be assumed. In these cases, a lot of cognitive effort goes into deciding what can be said and how it will be received. Experience with one another leads to comfort around these topics, an assumption that what you say will be taken 'in the right way'. In fact this tacit acceptance of linguistic style is one of the central ways groups of people knit themselves together. You might all think about whether you speak in different ways with different groups of people, perhaps inserting 'like' often when you're out in the evening, but avoiding it in class.
A lot of the choices described in the article you quote are really straw men. Sure, someone made these rules, but that doesn't mean they aren't silly.
My friend Anne Curzan (who will visit with us in a few weeks) has been involved in a number of language disputes about topics like the use of the singular 'they' as a gender neutral pronoun. Is this politically correct, or just a sign of a changing culture of language?
I do agree that the article I quoted is too extreme when discounting all censorship. Yet I think the issue is also a question of personal motivations behind being politically correct. Rules are only silly if they don't have a basis to begin with.
ReplyDeleteIf political correctness is a standard upheld solely for the sake of conforming to social norms, it seems almost too arbitrary. On the other hand, if political correctness is an outward extension of a communal commitment to social justice, then it becomes meaningful.
If we adopt the latter mindset, we can also stop ourselves from jumping to false conclusions about people's "prejudices" based on overt behavior. Just because their language norms might not be the same doesn't mean they're intrinsically unmotivated about respecting others. An introspection into inner motives behind actions allows us to buffer against overemphasis on actions alone.
The problem is, I think many people are just conforming to social norms of appearing egalitarian because of the fear of appearing prejudiced, without examining what they really believe in. Perhaps that's why implicit biases continue to influence behavior regardless of outward behavioral/verbal censorship. I think the next steps to social justice is to challenge people to examine motives behind their actions on a deeper level. It's alright to begin with actions, but education should not end with actions. A baby learns how to vocalize without meaning, but it doesn't stop there, it has to acquire definitions of words in order to produce coherent sentences and actually use language effectively.
In a university campus, we're often asked to carefully examine our thoughts on these issues, but I'm not really sure how often society in general inspects thoughts behind politically correct actions. When actions are disconnected from intrinsic motivation, they also tend to disappear over time, or in anonymous situations.
Anne sounds like a great person to talk to!
Perhaps another way to think about cognitive efforts in speaking to outgroup members is how to achieve an optimal level of effort while continuing to facilitate a healthy intergroup relationship? True, conscious control of our interactions help us become sensitive to each other's needs in a situation where genre cannot be assumed, but hypervigilance attached to particular ambiguous genres may be demotivating and harmful. For example if intergroup interactions elicit threat in some people because they're too scared of appearing racist or conscious control is too tiring, they may avoid interacting with outgroup partners, decreasing intergroup contact and understanding. There is a need to encourage a respectful but natural form of interaction across social identities.