I think it’s a similar tactic, yes. The difference being, I think, that it is used by those who believe they are in the minority or fighting the status quo, and in a manner that tends to appeal to intellectual elitism.
I am not familiar with his earlier thread, so I’m not sure what the precedent is here, but I think it’s hard to miss that he was responding to a specific statement I made. He quoted my post, the last part of which was:
Then, he made his comment, the last part of which was:
As you can see, within his comment, he used the same phrase as I did (“correct political opinions”), and he has quotes around it, indicating that he was quoting me and referring to what I said.
A parallel construction that I wish had caught on was “patriotically correct”, in reference to the hissy fits that get thrown when one’s displayed love for America (or hatred for our enemies, real or perceived) is judged to be insufficient.
Examples don’t abound these days like they did a few years ago, when “Freedom Fries” was less of a joke. The outrage over Obama’s failure to wear an American flag lapel pin might count.
You would be correct in that the same sort of animal as political correctness has been around for a long time. Orwell, however, was the first that I am aware of to explicitly deal with it as a concept, formalizing it… the others practiced it while unaware of what they were practicing.
And yet Orwell did not characterize it as “Political Correctness” either. His fictional government, too, was “unaware of what they were practicing”. You are cherry-picking.
Actually, the fictional govt he referred to was very much aware of the purpose of “Newspeak”, and the concept is the same even if the name is different.
There may be prior references to the concept somewhere, such as in Vatican archives, but I do not have access to them so I would not know… as was posted earlier, the thing was practiced, even before a name was given to it, by the RCC during the middle ages, and probably long before that (I am thinking of the fate of Socrates).
Another example of the concept was demonstrated in another work of fiction, the movie “V”. In both V, and in Orwell’s 1984, we are talking about governments which were “conservative” tyrranies, but “progressives” use it as well. It has become a tool of virtually anyone with an agenda who does not want speech that questions their agenda. LOTS of people use it, even if they are not aware of what it is called or aware of it as a formalized concept.
Yes, I know…last time I checked, East Anglia hadn’t declared independence My point was that claiming a word is ‘banned’ just because its use is generally frowned upon is nonsense.
Another exploration of the concept was demonstrated in Bradleys “Fahrenheit 451”. They TOO knew what they were practicing, burning books because they had content that was destabilizing to their society.
I don’t mean to be a jerk, and it may just be that written English is not your area of expertise and you got a little jumbled up, but you do realize that you contradicted yourself within your first two paragraphs here? You claim that political correctness has its roots in Communist ideology, and then turn around and say its roots can be traced to 1984, which of course is not Communist ideology. The latter also does not not any sense, since of course the idea of political correctness was not invented by George Orwell.
I agree wholeheartedly on the latter, but on the former you’re simply wrong. “Gay” as an adjective meaning “homosexual” is not politically constructed, deliberately misleading speech the way “homophobe” is. “Gay” in that context was a creation of slang. “Gay” has had sexual connotations and meaning for at least four hundred years, and the specific meaning of “a homosexual male” is probably a century old, was originally NOT meant to sound good, and was a natural evolution of its previous meanings. It also has the benefit of being easier to type and say, which explains a lot of its popularity.
Saying it’s a Newspeak-type term is like saying the words “nice,” “dumb” and “zoom” are Newspeak because they’ve all changed definitions since first being invented. Most of English is different now than it was before; it’s not all Newspeak.
You mean “used,” not “utilized.” Hey, if we’re going to be picky about vocabulary, let’s be picky.
You don’t really have the history of those words straight, and in any event the tortuous history of the words used to describe black people has been set as much, if not more so, by white people as black people.
“Political correctness” is a Godwin. It’s something folks on th right throw around when they can’t actually address a given argument, much like “fascist” is used by people on the left. It’s a sure sign that the speaker doesn’t have anything worth saying.
“Gay” as Orwellian newspeak? That’s a new one on me. The evolution of the term to mean homosexual is pretty clear, and started in the 17th century when it began to take on connotations of unsavory sexuality, and was applied to adulterers, prostitutes, and womanizers. It’s application to homosexuality grew out of that usage, and during the 20th century, the other meanings were winnowed away, leaving us with the current definition that is pretty much exclusively, “homosexual.” This was not the result of an overt political agenda or deliberate attempt at redefinition of the term. In effect, the term was embraced by homosexuals because, of all the terms used to describe them, it was the least offensive.
“Homophobe” is a bit different, and to some extent I agree that it’s unfortunate that it connotates mental illness, as that implies that the person’s attitudes are beyond his control. Many gay advocates and academics dislike the term for this reason, preferring terms like “heterosexist” or “sexual prejudice.” However, I doubt the usage on this issue is going to change any time soon, as “homophobe” appears to be firmly established with the meaning of, “prejudiced or bigoted against homosexuals,” without any explicit connotation of mental illness.
Personally speaking, I don’t consider queer to be particularly derogatory, and prefer that term when describing my own sexuality. I don’t think either term can be legitimatly objected to on the basis of “accuracy,” though. In fact, the existence of homonyms are crucial to accurate and concise communication. If a person wants to communicate the idea that he objects to homosexuality, what better term to use than “faggot?” It makes it immediatly clear where he stands on the subject. It is, in that respect, a far more precise term than “gay” or “homosexual,” provided of course that one wants to communicate opposition and disgust to the concept of homosexuality.
Now, I hope it’s obvious that I don’t approve of the term “faggot,” but that’s not because of the word itself, but rather because of the attitude behind it, just as I would object to the attitude of a self-described “homosexuality opponent,” which is itself a horribly inelegant term, and strikes me as far more an Orwellian concotion than any of the terms you’ve singled out in these two posts.
There is also IMO “historical correctness”, a tendency to justify an argument by over-reliance on history or artifacts of history.
“The constitution does not include the words ‘separation of church and state’ or ‘right of privacy’.”
“Appeasement of Hitler led to WWII.”
“Most of the founding fathers were slaveholders.”
All of these are historically correct statements, but relying on them to justify current policy positions is at best misguided and at worst grandstanding; no wonder then its popular among our governing/pundit class.
In fact, just this very morning I a received an email from a family friend decrying global warming as “PC.” I actually feel stupid just writing it. That’s right, not that a belief in global warming is politically correct (which, depending on our settled definition could be argued), but global warming itself. I really don’t hear the phrase that often any more and, when I do, it’s usually in conjunction with something as ridiculous as what I found in my inbox this morning.
In the early 1980s, my clique used the term “politically correct” to refer sardonically to anything the current political majority (i.e., US presidential administration) would regard as acceptable. It was essential to our ironic use of the term that one understood that what was “politically correct” now would change with the pendulum swings of the electorate. That’s why we were making fun of that behavior: it was passed off as ultimate truth but it was ephemeral. We’d say something like “Reagan’s minions don’t actually hate poor mothers, but they have to be politically correct and complain about welfare queens to keep their jobs.” “It wasn’t politically correct for Carter to hit the bunny with a paddle.”
Used to refer to only one side of the political spectrum – either side – the term loses a lot of nuance that I liked. Oh well, I guess the point was too subtle for most users.
I think we need a better definition of political correctness before this debate can go forward. A lot of its defenders seem to think of it as a soft set of social rules, in which the penalty for not complying might be a slight discomfort or at worst a private talking-to by a PC proponent. The appropriateness of this kind of pressure is disputable, though again I might note that the same social pressure, applied in the opposite direction, is a major cause of complaint among various minority activism groups. (Gay activists complaining about a “straight social standard,” even in the absence of provable discrimination, for example.)
But another form of political correctness is more institutionalized and more harmful to those who dare to cross it. This would be the kind of anti-intellectual knee-jerkism that got Larry Summers and James Watson in trouble, for perfectly valid statements based on well-publicized facts (for those interested, a well-researched defence of Watson can be found here.) It’s the kind of atmosphere that gives rise to risible “diversity training” to college entrants and employees, and gives rise to an atmosphere of (justified) fear when dealing with people who just happen to be of a certain protected group. (For example, it is considered risky for a supervisor to tell an inappropriately female employee to follow the dress code, for fear of getting hit by a sexual harrassment complaint.) And a related phenomenon shows up - though I’d hesitate to lump it in with the rest of these complaints - in the steady stream of suspensions and expulsions of children, almost always boys, for upsetting the matriarchal culture of elementary education by, well, being boys: playing cops and robbers, loving imaginary guns, and so on.
To see just how bizarre this system is, consider how even the most mild “morality enforcement” would look by comparison. Imagine that it was standard workplace policy that any employee suspected of infidelity - and accusations would come in from the most untrustworthy sources: anonymous complaints, people with a grudge - would be in risk of losing his job. If he somehow manages not to get fired, he would be forced to attend embarassing fidelity training seminars, and a black mark would be added to his name in HR. Even when the punished action is something that we can all agree is a Very Bad Thing, this sort of control is unpalatable to most of us.
The stifling of free discourse and investigation, intrusive control over our lives, and granting of unmerited powers in the hands of a class, this is the greatest impact of political correctness. Restore Summers and Watson, and I’d be content to lose the “War on Christmas.”
My point was that claiming a word is ‘banned’ just because its use is generally frowned upon is nonsense.