The Futility of "Politically Correcting" a Language

Mike Selvy

INCO 101

The Futility of "Politically Correcting" a Language

This must be done first: to beg the readers forgiveness for "…any sexist, racist, culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, ageist, lookist, ableist, sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist …" (Garner, 1994, introduction page) remarks that are made under this topic. Yes, this might seem somewhat ridiculous, but nowadays it is necessary to protect everyone’s Politically Correct posterior.

It is impossible (and therefore futile) to be completely Politically Correct due to the corrupted and contradictory perceptions of those attempting to correct language. Additionally, once the association is made between the old word and the new phrase, the old connotations and stereotypes are automatically transferred to the new phrase, making any word or phrase corrections to minimize negative connotations a futile waste of time.

It has been established that words have no meaning by themselves, but have denotations assigned to them by everyone’s common agreement. Additionally, there are connotations that individuals assign to those same words based on experience and upbringing. Sometimes these connotations are held by larger groups of people, and often carry negative implications (DeWine, Gibson, Smith, 2000, p. 26). In an attempt to reduce these negative connotations, efforts are being made to re-structure the grammar of the English language. This is not bad or wrong, in and of itself. However, the necessity of correcting the way people think might be misguided (and therefore inappropriate) because of the corrupted connotations of those making the corrections. In fact, it is suggested that "proponents [of Political Correctness] neither understand the implications of what they say, or why they are saying it" (Atkinson, 2000). This observation came into light during a discussion of American Sign Language, and the apparent sexist references therein (DeWine, et al, 2000, p. 37). The author’s biased connotation(s) should not be the foundation to force the correction of the reader’s connotations (which are assumed similar to the author’s, or at least negative in some manner). Although the rest of this discussion is limited to gender issues, the concepts and examples follow the same pattern for all of the other issues under the general heading of Politically Correct. So let the reader beware, or at least aware of the subtle coercion towards only thinking the Politically Correct way.

Every language has gender in it. In fact, as one learns a new language, some of the first things that are explored and identified are the differences between male and female. An interpretation of the Sapir-Worf Hypothesis of Linguistic Relativity shows the relationship between language and a culture’s perception of the world around them (Parks, 2000). In other words, a culture will generate a larger vocabulary (and the denotations and connotations associated with that vocabulary) around any subject or concept important to that culture. For example, the Eskimo peoples have 15 different single-word conceptions of snow (Woodbury, July 1991), whereas English has only one, with several adjectives, to describe the same thing. The Sapir-Worf Hypothesis is further demonstrated by even a casual glance at the gender specific vocabulary of many languages. And, unfortunately, part of that vocabulary often includes derogatory humor at the expense of the opposite gender. This derogation also extends to Mr. Garner’s catalogue of "…racist, culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, [etc.]" (1994, introduction page) biases mentioned above. Please understand that everyone should be sensitive about slurs and insults, whether they are about gender or anything else. But the history of attempted compliance with that sensitivity has been futile, at best. Consider the history of attempted gender neutralization at least in the English language, and the lack of success in doing so.

As early as 1789, the English pronoun: ou was recorded. For the next 200 years various circles make various efforts at Gender Neutral Pronouns (GNP’s), with each effort dying out shortly after its beginning. This became an irregular cycle, with things becoming quiet after 1891 for almost 20 years, then erupting again. The cycle kept repeating itself until the rise of an international feminist consciousness in the 1970’s. This uprising seems to have died out in the 1980’s backlash, however the ideology has carried over into other attempts at Political Correctness, and produced some interesting neologism. A lengthy but non-exhaustive list of neologisms includes such GNP’s as nim (from the 1850’s) to dudu (in 1993). The GNP h'orsh'it (circa 1975) should well describe why none of these terms are accepted today. (Williams, 2000)

But where does the impetus for these changes and the suggestions for correction come from? Both the instigation and the suggested replacement come from the group or culture that perceives it is being oppressed through language. This perception has taken hold of the masculine gender pronoun, the usage of which has been accepted for almost 100 years. Nowadays some feel that the other half of the population is being under-represented (DeWine, et al, 2000, p. 27). This misrepresented group takes offense, citing cultural insensitivity, and submits their politically correct phrase for describing and viewing themselves (DeWine, et al, 2000, p. 36). This process also occurs outside of gender where a group or culture tries to alter how it is viewed and described by other groups and cultures. Note that this can lead to a distorted view of how a culture or group perceives itself by minimizing or obliterating any undesirable denotation or connotation, even though those denotations are a part of that group or culture. Probably the best example of this is in advertising, but that is another discussion beyond the scope of this paper.

So the effort to neutralize gender is more about neutralizing the offenses. As stated earlier, there is nothing wrong with this idea. It is a good thing (pardon me, Martha Stewart) that thoughtful planning to minimize negative connotations and remove critical views are being attempted. However, much of this new language is "a bunch of hypocritical, ego-soothing, nonsense to make people …. feel better about themselves (not others), [and/or] better about doing something that might better be left undone…" (Ashe, 2001). In fact, many of the current "effete sensibilities" are "perfect examples of the pretentious euphemisms that characterize almost everything we do and say", many of which "are sometimes only prissy, sometimes ridiculous, and sometimes tiresome" (Jernigan, 1999). Several examples, of course, are found on the historical list of neologisms provided by Mr. Williams (2000). Nowadays, the results of these ego-soothing, pretentious euphemisms are the classes on multiculturalism, anti-Christian bigotry, feminism, homosexuality, socialism and environmentalism being taught at colleges and universities throughout the country – not as an alternative political ideology, but the only ideology that can exist! (Farrish, 1998). In fact, anyone holding an outdated, conservative view labels them as unenlightened and even stupid (Farrish, 1998), and from then on are considered as enemies of the truth and legal targets for mob violence (Atkinson, 2000).

This kind of licensed illegal action can motivate a change in topic. Yes, correcting a language is still futile, but the ideology behind it is becoming a slow tragedy instead of something to laugh at. Political Correctness in its current form started in the 1980’s as a spontaneous cry from a few voices declaring that legislation should forbid currently legal ideas, expressions, and behaviors. Growing in both popularity and momentum, it soon became both written and unwritten law within communities, with transgressors being punished by mob violence if the government’s prosecution were viewed as inadequate or missing. Several sources, both men and women, see this as a decline in our civilization (Atkinson, 1998, Atkinson, 2000, Farrish, 1998, Jernigan, 1999). A decline, because we are moving from the Unselfish, to the Selfish. Unselfish members of an organization or community will put that community ahead of their own individual self-interest. Although there is not much recognition or reward for doing so, the entire community will benefit, with capable leaders emerging not only because of their bravery and dedication, but because they increase the efficiency of the organization or community. A community of Selfish members will put themselves ahead of the community by accepting the easiest solution to a problem, not necessarily the correct one. Those members attempting to live Unselfishly are regarded as a dangerous threat to be cut off from the community, lest the corruption and private gain of the leaders be exposed. The bottom line is that only one type of community can pursue truth, while the other considers truth dangerous and must live in a pretend world propped up by necessary lies. Consider Toastmasters. The goal is to teach its members how to speak in public, by having them speak in public [gee, who would have thought…]. Successful speeches used to be rewarded by the label and title of "expert speaker", in addition to the admiration of the speakers peers. Today, Toastmasters does not grade its member’s presentations, but rewards all speakers equally, whether inadequate or exemplary. In fact, anyone rendering an unpleasant evaluation will be regarded as anti-social and even victimized, and since 1998 can be cast out of Toastmasters by a simple vote. As much as the honest might despise the dishonest, the dishonest despise the honest even more. This is how Selfishness becomes Tyranny. (Atkinson, 2000)

Tyranny, because we have compulsory popularity hanging over every head. Any nonsensical idea creates uncertainty and vacillation among members until a group decision reports which reaction is PC (Atkinson, 1998). Tyranny because of the attack on truth, clear thinking, and plain speaking. (Atkinson, 2000) Look at the evolution of some politically correct terms. Around World War I it was simply two one-syllable words: shell shock. The next generation caused it to grow into combat fatigue, now four syllables. Today it is a four word, eight syllable phrase with its own acronym: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). It still means the same thing. (Jernigan, 1999) And that seems to be the main actions of being Politically Correct (PC): Word Multiplication, which is replacing one word with two or more words, and Blurring which is avoiding statements with negative, inflammatory connotations. (Ashe, 2001). Which finally demonstrates the futility of all this effort: once the association is made between the new description and the old phrase, all of the previous connotations and stereotypes get assigned to the new description. Changing the words does not change the concept. The form may change, but the second-class innuendo and notions of inferiority remain (Jernigan, 1999). Gravitationally challenged people are still fat. People dwelling in a zone of economic oppression still live in a slum, Liquid Grain Storage Facility is still a Beer Gut, Follicle Independence still means Balding, Factually Unencumbered is still Stupid, Motivationally Dispossessed is still Lazy, Residentially Flexible is still Homeless, and Persistently Focused continues to mean Stubborn.

Nevertheless, compliance with the new vocabulary is almost demanded using arguments that appeal to obligation, pity, even anger and happiness. An example of this is the memo from Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (a temporary employee?) to the Office for Civil Rights senior staff. This person has the audacity to not only describe how persons with a disability shall be described, but also says that people with disabilities prefer phraseology that stresses their individuality. Specifically, blind people shall be described as people who are blind [interesting: Word97 flagged that phrase as too wordy!]. Furthermore, anyone questioning this edict is referred to a superior (Jernigan, 1999) (apparently, the Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights does not have any authority!). The social coercion applied to a group or society to get on the Politically Correct bandwagon ranges from public insult, through disgrace and humiliation, to bodily injury and death. It is defined as coercion because of "…the threat of deprivation or violence [to a person or group] if the speaker’s demands are not met" (DeWine, et al, 2000, p. 258). That kind of persuasion should always make the cause suspect, whether it seems good at the time or not. If that kind of force is necessary, then there is an another agenda besides the one being presented (Heil Hitler!, for example).

The best safeguards against tyranny in the community are plain speaking and freedom of choice. As soon as official truth is the only truth allowed, that totalitarian state generates a madness where even in private life delusion thrives and terror rules. In 1914, Tsarist Russia could have become Europe’s economic superpower (Atkinson, 2000). Look what politically correct truth has done to Russia. In fact, not only does the country of Russia no longer exist, neither does the republic that followed which continued to enforce Politically Correct thought. Those who have lived within the tyranny of PC thought and then escape are prone to nervous breakdowns until they become accustomed to thinking for themselves, instead of the government thinking for them. Until then, their lives are handicapped by the destruction of spontaneous thought or action, lest they be branded an enemy of the state.

The abstract concept of Cultural Sensitivity can be a good thing; being considerate of others has always been to the best interest of a group, culture, or society. Unfortunately, the politically correct movement is more about demanding a properly biased perception instead of manners or concern for another’s feelings. History shows that implementation of these demands has not been very successful, mostly because the suggested replacements are either too wordy or just plain ridiculous. Also, once the old denotation and the new word or phrase are associated together, any old connotations are automatically attached to the new idea, which defeats the purpose. Most attempts at correcting a language are perpetrated by those wishing to "…feel better about themselves (not others), [and/or] better about doing something that might better be left undone…" (Ashe, 2001). This kind of selfishness is best described by the closing lines of Two Modes of Community; Riches from Truth, Ruin from Lies (Atkinson, 1998):

Please contribute to the consideration of others whenever necessary, but do not contribute to societal decay!

The Futility of "Politically Correcting" a Language

Mike Selvy

INCO 101

The Futility of "Politically Correcting" a Language

This must be done first: to beg the readers forgiveness for "…any sexist, racist, culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, ageist, lookist, ableist, sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist …" (Garner, 1994, introduction page) remarks that are made under this topic. Yes, this might seem somewhat ridiculous, but nowadays it is necessary to protect everyone’s Politically Correct posterior.

It is impossible (and therefore futile) to be completely Politically Correct due to the corrupted and contradictory perceptions of those attempting to correct language. Additionally, once the association is made between the old word and the new phrase, the old connotations and stereotypes are automatically transferred to the new phrase, making any word or phrase corrections to minimize negative connotations a futile waste of time.

It has been established that words have no meaning by themselves, but have denotations assigned to them by everyone’s common agreement. Additionally, individuals will assign their own connotations to those words based on experience and upbringing. Sometimes these connotations are held by larger groups of people, and often carry negative implications (DeWine, Gibson, Smith, 2000, p. 26). In an attempt to reduce these negative connotations, efforts are being made to re-structure the grammar of the English language. This is not bad or wrong, in and of itself. However, the necessity of correcting the way people think might be misguided (and therefore inappropriate) because of the corrupted connotations of those making the corrections. In fact, it is suggested that "proponents [of Political Correctness] neither understand the implications of what they say, or why they are saying it" (Atkinson, 2000). This observation came into light during a discussion of American Sign Language, and the apparent sexist references therein (DeWine, et al, 2000, p. 37). The author’s biased connotation(s) should not be the foundation to force the correction of the reader’s connotations (which are assumed similar to the author’s, or at least negative in some manner). Although the rest of this discussion is limited to gender issues, the concepts and examples follow the same pattern for all of the other issues under the general heading of Politically Correct. So let the reader beware, or at least aware, of the subtle coercion towards only thinking the Politically Correct way.

Political Correctness in its current form started in the 1980’s as a spontaneous cry from only a few voices declaring that currently legal ideas, expressions, and behaviors should be legislatively forbidden (Atkinson 2000). This was not the beginning of change. As early as 1789 the English Gender Neutral Pronoun (GNP) ou was recorded. It is no longer used today. Neither are hundreds of others that have been suggested and cast aside for various reasons. Neologisms from nim (from the 1850’s) to dudu (in 1993) have come and gone. An interesting note is the current feminine pronoun she was drafted back in the 12^th century to reduce the very ambiguity that GNPs are trying to create today. The ambiguity of the GNP h'orsh'it (circa 1975) clearly demonstrates why it did not succeed as a replacement. (Williams, 2000)

However, this cycle has kept repeating itself over the last 200 years. On an irregular basis, some circle makes some effort at neutralizing gender, only to have the suggestion die out shortly after its beginning. Actually, things quieted down in 1891 and remained stable for almost 20 years before erupting again, and repeating the cycle of birth and death. The current form is the result of the uprising of feminist consciousness in the 1970’s, which also almost died out in the 1980’s. The resulting ideology, however, has carried over into other circles of Political Correctness today. (Williams, 2000).

This is the basis for telling you that there is widespread support for language reform. The truth is that a 1999 study of language reform revealed that less than half of the survey supported the use of nonsexist language. (Parks & Robertson, 2000). The percentage is actually lower when the ambivalent responses are removed from the total. In fact, this was a second study to follow up a previous one 14 years ago. The question remains: why, after all this time there is still a majority (53%) resistance to even partial change to language (Parks & Robertson). Furthermore, cultures that already have liberated (non-sexist) language (e.g., Japanese, Eskimo, Turkish, Ozark Mountain dialect) do not show any decrease in discrimination (Parks & Robertson), a fact the protagonists of Politically Correct would like believed otherwise. Note also, that an estimated 60% of the Anti-Politically Correct movement is actually comprised of women.

Yet, the Politically Correct protagonists want you to get on the bandwagon. They insist on it. The social coercion applied to a group or society to get on the Politically Correct bandwagon ranges from public insult, through disgrace and humiliation, to bodily injury and death, especially if the government’s prosecution is viewed as inadequate or missing.. It is defined as coercion because of "…the threat of deprivation or violence [to a person or group] if the speaker’s demands are not met" (DeWine, Gibson, Smith, 2000, p. 258). That kind of persuasion should always make the cause suspect, whether it seems good at the time or not. If that kind of force is necessary, then there is an another agenda besides the one being presented (Heil Hitler!, for example).

The best safeguards against this tyranny in the community have always been plain speaking and freedom of choice. As soon as official truth is the only truth allowed, that totalitarian state generates a madness where even in private life delusion thrives and terror rules. In 1914, Tsarist Russia could have become Europe’s economic superpower (Atkinson, 2000). Look what politically correct truth has done to that country. In fact, not only does the country of Russia no longer exist, neither does the following republic that continued to enforce Politically Correct (PC) thought. Those who have lived within the tyranny of PC thought and then escape (to another country) are prone to nervous breakdowns until they become accustomed to thinking for themselves, instead of the government thinking for them. Until then, their lives are handicapped by the destruction of spontaneous thought or action, lest they be branded an enemy of the state (Atkinson, 2000).

Several sources, both men and women, see this as a decline in our civilization (Atkinson, 1998, Atkinson, 2000, Farrish, 1998, Jernigan, 1999). A decline, because we are moving from the Unselfish, to the Selfish. Unselfish members of an organization or community will put that community ahead of their own individual self-interest. Although there is not much recognition or reward for doing so, the entire community will benefit, with capable leaders emerging not only because of their bravery and dedication, but because they increase the efficiency of the organization or community. A community of Selfish members will put themselves ahead of the community by accepting the easiest solution to a problem, not necessarily the correct one. Those members attempting to live Unselfishly are regarded as a dangerous threat to be cut off from the community, lest the corruption and private gain of the Selfish leaders be exposed. The bottom line is that only one type of community can pursue truth, while the other considers truth dangerous and must live in a pretend world propped up by necessary lies. Consider Toastmasters. The goal is to teach its members how to speak in public, by having them speak in public [gee, who would have thought…]. Successful speeches used to be rewarded by the label and title of Competent Toastmaster, in addition to the admiration of the speakers peers. Today, Toastmasters does not grade its member’s presentations, but rewards all speakers equally, whether inadequate or exemplary. In fact, anyone rendering an unpleasant evaluation will be regarded as anti-social and even victimized, and since 1998 can be cast out of Toastmasters by a simple vote. As much as the honest might despise the dishonest, the dishonest despise the honest even more. This is how Selfishness becomes Tyranny. (Atkinson, 2000)

It’s called Tyranny, because we have compulsory popularity hanging over every head. Any nonsensical idea creates uncertainty and vacillation among members until a group decision reports which reaction is PC (Atkinson, 1998). Tyranny because of the attack on truth, clear thinking, and plain speaking (Atkinson, 2000). It is a good thing (pardon me, Martha Stewart) that thoughtful planning to minimize negative connotations and remove critical views are being attempted. However, much of this new language is "a bunch of hypocritical, ego-soothing, nonsense to make people …. feel better about themselves (not others), [and/or] better about doing something that might better be left undone…" (Ashe, 2001). In fact, many of the current "effete sensibilities" are "perfect examples of the pretentious euphemisms that characterize almost everything we do and say", many of which "are sometimes only prissy, sometimes ridiculous, and sometimes tiresome" (Jernigan, 1999). Several examples, of course, are found on the historical list of neologisms provided by Mr. Williams (2000). Nowadays, the results of these ego-soothing, pretentious euphemisms are the classes on multiculturalism, anti-Christian bigotry, feminism, homosexuality, socialism and environmentalism being taught at colleges and universities throughout the country – not as an alternative political ideology, but the only ideology that can exist! And those holding an outdated, conservative view are labeled as unenlightened and even stupid (Farrish, 1998), and from then on are considered as enemies of the truth and legal targets for mob violence (Atkinson, 2000).

Consider the etymology of some politically correct terms. Around World War I it was simply two one-syllable words: shell shock. The next generation caused it to grow into combat fatigue, now four syllables. Today it is a four word, eight syllable phrase with its own acronym: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). It still means the same thing. (Jernigan, 1999) And that seems to be the main actions of being Politically Correct (PC): Word Multiplication, which is replacing one word with two or more words, and Blurring which is avoiding statements with negative, inflammatory connotations. (Ashe, 2001). Changing the words does not change the concept. The form may change, but the second-class innuendo and notions of inferiority remain (Jernigan, 1999). Gravitationally challenged people are still fat. People dwelling in a zone of economic oppression still live in a slum, a Liquid Grain Storage Facility is still a Beer Gut, Follicle Independence still means Balding, Factually Unencumbered is still Stupid, Motivationally Dispossessed is still Lazy, Residentially Flexible is still Homeless, and Persistently Focused continues to mean Stubborn. This demonstrates the futility of all this effort by showing how all of the previous connotations and stereotypes get transferred to the new description. Note how the new descriptions can lead to a distorted view of how an individual, culture, or group perceives itself by minimizing or obliterating any undesirable denotation or connotation, even though those denotations are a part of that group, culture, or individual.

The abstract concept of Cultural Sensitivity can be a good thing; being considerate of others has always been to the best interest of a group, culture, or society. Unfortunately, the politically correct movement is more about demanding a properly biased perception instead of about manners or concern for another’s feelings. History shows that implementation of these demands has not been very successful, mostly because the suggested replacements are either too wordy or just plain ridiculous. Laura Madison (1999) observed that most alternatives to sexist language are subject to criticism of some kind. Also, once the old denotation and the new word or phrase are associated together, any old connotations are automatically transferred to the new idea, which defeats the purpose. Most attempts at correcting a language are perpetrated by those wishing to "…feel better about themselves (not others), [and/or] better about doing something that might better be left undone…" (Ashe, 2001). This kind of selfishness is best described by the closing lines of Two Modes of Community; Riches from Truth, Ruin from Lies (Atkinson, 1998):

Please contribute to the consideration of others whenever necessary, but do not contribute to societal decay!

DeWine, Sue, Gibson, Melissa K., Smith, Matthew J. (2000). Exploring Human Communication. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company

Garner, James Finn. (1994) Politically Correct Bedtime Stories: Modern Tales for Our Life & Times. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.

DeWine, Sue, Gibson, Melissa K., Smith, Matthew J. (2000). Exploring Human Communication. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company

Garner, James Finn. (1994) Politically Correct Bedtime Stories: Modern Tales for Our Life & Times. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.