1 - Last Rites
- Member
Offline 
- From: Iowa
- Registered: 10/27/2015
- Posts: 23
Political Correctness: Why?
A couple of other guys here encouraged me to start this thread. I posted one with a similar title on another forum over a year ago to highlight all of the insane things over which people express outrage in modern Western society, how little it takes to get fired these days, and how things like proper grammar (e.g. pronouns) are now considered inappropriate.
This site is significantly more high-brow than that one, so instead of just posting a bunch of examples of how PCness has gone off the tracks maybe we'd do best to discuss the merits and detriments of political correctness from a more intellectual position.
What's the value in adhering to stringent political correctness?
"Rule 110: Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience."
--from Master George Washington's Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation
- Last Rites
- Member
Offline
- From: Iowa
- Registered: 10/27/2015
- Posts: 23
Re: Political Correctness: Why?
Alexander wrote:
My own reason has always been: Manners cost nothing.
Maybe it's different in the UK, but adhering to accepted political correctness standards in America is something far beyond basic manners. On a basic level, sure, PCness is about not being overtly sexist or racist, but the spirit behind this thread is to go deeper. "Not being racist" used to mean something like "treat everyone with respect and don't use slurs." Right now, I couldn't tell you how not to be "racist" or "sexist" or "homophobic" (itself a clever misnomer) because those labels are abused so flippantly.
Perhaps some examples are in order.
"Rule 110: Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience."
--from Master George Washington's Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation
- •
Thread Starter- Greg
- Moderator
Offline
- Registered: 6/27/2015
- Posts: 516
Re: Political Correctness: Why?
What's the value in adhering to stringent political correctness?
There are two distinctions to which we ought to attend: decency/indecency and political correctness/political incorrectness. My suspicion is that the decent acts are not coextensive with politically correct acts, though there is some overlap. My contention is that adhering to political correctness is valuable only incidentally, when being politically correct is the decent thing to do. This is to reject a thesis that you sometimes find expressed in popular defenses of political correctness; sometimes, in response to critiques of political correctness, a defender will say something like, "Being politically correct is just being a decent human being" or "Being politically correct is just showing respect to other people".
I think a lot of people will recognize the distinction and may understand the sort of things that fall under the different categories; I expect people of more conservative political persuasion will agree that there are decent but politically incorrect acts. It's harder to lay down criteria for what is involved in being decent. In part that may be because decency is an Aristotelian virtue, and the proper exercise of a virtue cannot be reduced to the following of some decision procedure. But it should be possible to say something more.
One attempt would be to think about the relationship between decency/political correctness and the truth. It's sometimes thought to be politically incorrect to point out correlations between, say, being a member of some minority group and negative outcomes of whatever sort. That is not necessarily indecent, I think. If the generalizations are true (and reasonable to believe) and are being articulated in the context for "pure" motives, then it might be decent to articulate them, even if today's social justice warriors would accuse you of participating in a structure of oppression or what have you. There are other cases where it might be indecent, though, even to state a true "stereotypical" generalization, and there might be cases where stating such generalizations is not even politically incorrect. So drawing the distinction precisely is a bit complex.
- Jeremy Taylor
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 6/25/2015
- Posts: 792
Re: Political Correctness: Why?
My own reason has always been: Manners cost nothing.
I see no reason not to be "politically correct" in day to day conversation. Usually the phrase means little more than "not being racist or sexist", and since I do not wish to be either, I am more than happy to go along with it.
When it comes to religion, the waters get muddier. If political correctness means treating people of all creeds equally, I support it. If it means treating all creeds equally, I do not support it (and neither does anyone who really believes a creed).
Obviously there is such a thing as "political correctness gone mad", but I think this is related to political correctness as shooting up an abortion clinic is related to the pro-life movement. It's the madness people point at to discredit the larger (saner) movement.
I'm not so sure. Political correctness does include just plain good manners, but it also tends to mean being overly sensitive. It means, that is, seeing racialist or sexist or whatever slights in places where they don't exist, as well as those that they do, and inflating each slight, real or imagined . Political correctness means thinking that any racialist or sexist or what have you slight is some major incident. The true political correct man sees the favoured categories of political correctness as the most important ways of dividing up reality, and the constant looking for victims and villains according to these categories as the centre of morality and politics. You only have to turn on a completely political correct TV news channel, like BBC News or CNN, and you can see they spend much of their time reporting on heroes and villains according to the political correct doctrine. Old fashioned morality and social interactions fade away and the only struggles and causes talked about are politically correct ones, except occasionally when poverty and the poor are mentioned.
I would also add that it is not apparent to me that all sexism, for example, is always wrong. In its widest definition, sexism is any position that sees differences between the proclivities and capacities of the sexes. I would certainly argue that it is okay to inquire if men and women, for example, have the same intellectual capacities, as David Stove famously did. I'm not sure Stove is correct, but I am sure most of the political correct responses to claims like his begin and end with assuming they are wrong.
- Jeremy Taylor
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 6/25/2015
- Posts: 792
Re: Political Correctness: Why?
I think one reason political correctness succeeds is because it disguises itself as good manners. I think another reason is it tends to rest on an implicit philosophical vision that supports it claims, for example of the interchangeability of men and women or overwhelming importance of rooting out all prejudice and discrimination and bigotry, which is seen as the very centre of all true morality and a truly moral society. And it is this philosophical vision that provides many of the basic assumptions of modern Western societies. Those opposed to political correctness can mock its extravagances but in the end they can only rely on appeals to intuitions that something isn't right here - institutions that must always battle against ingrained ways of thinking in modern society. They have been singularly ineffective in drawing up an articulate opposing philosophical vision, or at least one that commands any widespread support.
The opponent of political correctness can mock, for example, the claim that the use of the term guys in the workplace is symptomatic of institutional sexism (as was recently claimed by the Australian of the Year). But the opponent will grudgingly admit that, yes, men and women are interchangeable and that anything that seems to discriminate against women is not just wrong but a serious matter; and so he wins the battle but looses the war, and the inexorable march of political correctness continues. Another reason for the success of political correctness is its capture of important institutions like much of the media and academia. I don't left-liberalism's capture of important institutions can be emphasised enough.
- Etzelnik
- Member
Offline
- From: New Jersey
- Registered: 6/28/2015
- Posts: 337
Re: Political Correctness: Why?
I've no objection to daily political correctness; it may be an unnecessary frill but it's still just manners. The problems arise when PC begins to hamper political and academic discourse, which it most certainly has. Fortunately, though, Israel has yet to be hit by the disease, although God knows we've got an awful amount of other problems that need sorting through.
Noli turbare circulos meos.
- Greg
- Moderator
Offline
- Registered: 6/27/2015
- Posts: 516
Re: Political Correctness: Why?
A friend once told me he is voting for Donald Trump because of political correctness. That has always struck me as overkill. But if Donald Trump is elected, and anyone wonders why, I think the reason is perfectly distilled in this article.
- Timotheos
- Electoral Prophet
Offline
- From: Texas
- Registered: 7/13/2015
- Posts: 78
Re: Political Correctness: Why?
My own reason has always been: Manners cost nothing.
I see no reason not to be "politically correct" in day to day conversation. Usually the phrase means little more than "not being racist or sexist", and since I do not wish to be either, I am more than happy to go along with it.
When it comes to religion, the waters get muddier. If political correctness means treating people of all creeds equally, I support it. If it means treating all creeds equally, I do not support it (and neither does anyone who really believes a creed).
Obviously there is such a thing as "political correctness gone mad", but I think this is related to political correctness as shooting up an abortion clinic is related to the pro-life movement. It's the madness people point at to discredit the larger (saner) movement.I'm not so sure. Political correctness does include just plain good manners, but it also tends to mean being overly sensitive. It means, that is, seeing racialist or sexist or whatever slights in places where they don't exist, as well as those that they do, and inflating each slight, real or imagined . Political correctness means thinking that any racialist or sexist or what have you slight is some major incident. The true political correct man sees the favoured categories of political correctness as the most important ways of dividing up reality, and the constant looking for victims and villains according to these categories as the centre of morality and politics. You only have to turn on a completely political correct TV news channel, like BBC News or CNN, and you can see they spend much of their time reporting on heroes and villains according to the political correct doctrine. Old fashioned morality and social interactions fade away and the only struggles and causes talked about are politically correct ones, except occasionally when poverty and the poor are mentioned.
I would also add that it is not apparent to me that all sexism, for example, is always wrong. In its widest definition, sexism is any position that sees differences between the proclivities and capacities of the sexes. I would certainly argue that it is okay to inquire if men and women, for example, have the same intellectual capacities, as David Stove famously did. I'm not sure Stove is correct, but I am sure most of the political correct responses to claims like his begin and end with assuming they are wrong.
I'm not even so sure Political Correctness even includes good manners; there is some loose overlap, but they really are quite distinct.
For instance, it is perfectly PC for someone to say something like "hey, did you here about what [insert somebody we don't like] said about LGBTQRSTUV politics; f*ck that bigot" and it's perfectly PC to do so, yet it is obviously not very polite or good mannered. Conversely, it is perfectly good mannered for a man to open a door for a women, but there was at least a time when it was not PC to do so.
Hence, one should not take PC to be all that close to good manners; there are many [most?] times when PC dictates you do the exact opposite of the polite thing to do, and vice-versa.
- iwpoe
- Member
Offline
- From: Knoxville, TN
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 1,080
Re: Political Correctness: Why?
I am going to want to draw a strong distinction between decorum and political correctness.
Decorum is semi-voluntary so that we can get along immediately, political correctness would aim so far as to be law or to achieve some general "political" purpose. I mean to get along with my boss and "be polite" because we both share the immediate purpose of accomplishing some present task. Say my coworker is a woman, I mean to avoid most sexual interaction and be polite because, again, this impairs our immediate task. I would never dream of doing any of this to show solidarity with fellow workers or because I support the liberation of women. These are not, on my understanding, tasks for which decorum is kept.
Moreover, these are tasks which would seek to make decorum something other than semi-voluntary. It's not that I'm not to proposition a co-worker because this disrupts our task (or what have you); it's that I'm not to do so because this is supposed to be some kind of exercise of class power over her, and moreover because it's against some law or moral imperative.
The politically correct parasitize on and pollute decorum. In a context of pure decorum it is, for instance, perfectly easy for a woman to see which men are cads- they break decorum badly and take excessive liberties. In the context of political correctness, there is no way to break decorum well, and cads are hidden behind strictly enforced standards, which they will find ways around in other contexts.
Moreover the effectiveness and even the purposes of political correctness are always presented as if they are pragmatic and moral certainties, but this is by no means obvious and brings into ill repute social rules generally. That I shouldn't be able to criticize Islam- a religious ideology -because if I do I'm "racist" (what "race" is Islam?) or think that border security and immigration is important for national sovereignty and safety for the same reasons, is plainly absurd.
That racism itself is of supreme political importance is highly dubious, and I say that form a leftist position. It is ridiculous that I should be made to pretend that a dubious political purpose, with absurd restrictions concocted to fulfil that purpose, which are themselves against the spirit of a true decorum, are in fact obvious parts of being polite and getting along, and etc. This is a kind of manipulation and bad faith that parasitizes and confuses people with genuinely good wills, and it needs to be driven out of any community that will permit one to do so.
In any case, decorum itself, as a mere instrument to good ends, is only important insofar as it doesn't conflict with other goods. Police, for instance, are right to not be polite when they are pursuing enforcement duties
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
- Last Rites
- Member
Offline
- From: Iowa
- Registered: 10/27/2015
- Posts: 23
Re: Political Correctness: Why?
In regards to the discussion about whether or not being politically correct (even on an elementary level) is simply to adhere to proper social decorum, I side heavily with iwpoe and JT. We've reached a point in American society in which even engaging in the mere discussion of items having to do with race or sex or gender can be construed as racist/sexist/whatever, which is absurd.
An example from work 3 weeks ago:
I live in Iowa. There aren't many non-whites in my town, which is small and rural. Typically, the organization that employs me has 1-2 black people on staff at any given time out of 30-40 positions. I made a comment the other day about how our current token black guy, a pal of mine named Thomas who is currently serving his second stint with our org, was originally hired post-JJ and pre-Erica, two of our other black former employees. A young coworker of mine immediately interjected sarcastically, "that isn't racist at all."
This incident says to me that political correctness has become so important and so grave that I can't mention in conversation two former employees who happen to be black without being accused of making a racial slight. Taken further and applied to the political sphere, we observe the same phenomenon when conservatives are branded as racists for not supporting welfare expansion, amnesty, or education funding because of some racial connotation with those issues.
Sometimes I feel as if I exist in a world in which everyone around me has been brainwashed.
"Rule 110: Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience."
--from Master George Washington's Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation
- •
Thread Starter