Political Correctness
April 11th, 2005 at 11:15 am by David FarrarThose who rail against political correctness are often asked to give a definition of what is political correctness. And it can be hard to do, because it is a bit like spam. Bloody difficult to define exactly what qualifies, but we always know it when we see it.
Now I thank new Labour MP Lesley Soper for giving the perfect example of political correctness when people ask for examples.
In her maiden speech, she said supported the need for a more appropriate, gender-neutral term for the occasion of her first speech and that “Inaugural speech would better suit the privilege of introduction to office”.
Now that is what we mean, when we say we are sick of political correctness.
No tag for this post.
April 11th, 2005 at 11:33 am
I wonder what Lesley Soper thinks of the term ”
Vote:front bum”.
April 11th, 2005 at 12:05 pm
Perhaps we should change ‘manhole’ to personhole? Also, the Ironman triathlon surely needs to change to ‘Ironhomosapien’.
How about also changing Lesley to Les? That way you don’t know whether it’s a man or woman Les, or it could be interpreted as the other word starting with ‘les’ which Tamihere despises?
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
Is that it? Is that all this wicked “political correctness” is? Why on earth would anyone care that some Labour backbencher thinks “inaugural speech” is better than “maiden speech”?
It seems to me that the phrase “political correctness” is in fact devoid of meaning. It is a phrase that seems to cover three quite distinct things when used by white trash politicians:
1) Common good manners and civility (ie, not sitting on a table when you’re in a marae or not calling Don Brash “Donny Boy” when you are in a formal meeting with him.)
2) Innocuous personal preferences (such as that expressed by Soper in your post.)
3) Mindless nonsense (ie, publishing a job advert for an IT technician in Maori, or calling a chairman/woman/person a “chair” – what is a horseman, a horse??? – or consulting an iwi over whether or not a plane can fly over its land.)
The latter group are things that need to be fixed, but compared with all the things wrong with our society under the Clark Government, I hardly think Soper’s comment about the name of her first speech is even worthy of comment.
It will be good when National and ACT start talking about more important things than this.
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 12:12 pm
And what shall we do with the word “human”?
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 12:14 pm
I think the problem most of us have with the term “political correctness” is that its a lazy term used to short cut what you really mean.
Take for instance gender neutral terms. One school of thought suggests that our language has evolved in a sexist manner (since other areas of our society have it is reasonable to assume this is correct) the solution to this is to correct that language.
Now those that use the word “political correctness gone mad” are just being lazy. If you think that while some areas of society are/were sexist and language may be one of them but you don’t think it should be changed then say so.
People use political correctness as a way of getting around tricky arguments. I am sure DPF that you are against Sexism. And you are also against political correctness.
Now if the language is sexist then why wouldn
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 12:29 pm
What about “mail-box”?
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 12:36 pm
And Member and Whip and calling a person a chair?
Maybe politics is out of date.
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 12:47 pm
Did you hear about the Labour candidate, Guy Chapman? The Party made him change his name to Person Personperson.
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 12:51 pm
Yes merc. Some years ago in Australia I read of a colony of homosexual termites which had been discovered in the Northern Territory. I was sucked right in until the last line where it was said that they only attacked mail boxes.
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 12:51 pm
Right Kiwi – it is an example. And I think it does indicate a way of thinking which is way outside the mainstream.
And what do you mean by when National and ACT start talking about more important things than this? As far as I know neother party has commented on Soper’s sillyness.
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 1:06 pm
Political correctness is not just harmless stupidity; it is the imposition of pre-digested opinions, usually by those in some position of power. It is the replacing of thought with rote.
Author Stephen Hicks argues that political-correctness comes from post-modernism, and is simply post-modern relativism applied to speech and personal beahavious.
In his book ‘Explaining Post Modernism,’which I highly recommend – especially to students – he contrasts the Enlightenment view of the world with its nemesis, the post-modern politically-correct position that seeks to overturn Enlightenment values:
“The contemporary Enlightenment world prides itself on its commitment to equality and justice, its open-mindedness, its making opportunity available to all, and its achievements in science and technology. The Enlightenment world is proud, confident, and knows it is the wave of the future.
“This is unbearable to someone who is totally invested in an opposed and failed outlook. That pride is what such a person wants to destroy. The best target to attack is the Enlightenment
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 1:15 pm
What I find funny about these sorts of debates is that anytime the power dynamics of language are raised, those defending the status quo are at pains to stress that “their” phrasing is neutral, and that the challenger is somehow “way out” or different.
Of course, this is not true. There is no such thing as neutral language. Maiden speech and inaugural speech have two different bases.
The right fights this kind of thing because part of their enduring power has been to capture and control language to their benefit. Changes which undermine this are always firmly resisted.
Anyone who thinks language doesn’t matter – go figure out why companies spend billions on marketing.
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 1:18 pm
Yup,very familiar, thanks. Left and Right just don’t cut it anymore do they?
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
Ombudsperson anyone? (And yes I know that Ombudsman is a Swedish term you pedants)
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 1:33 pm
What a lot of nonsense. Political correctness is simply a modern application of politeness. It means that people should be referred to how they want to be, and not by some offensive and insulting slang term (front-bums, say, instead of ‘female collegues’).
Anyone who seriously wants to go back to pre-PC days could greatly benefit from a five-minute conversation with my Grand-Father. A hearty dose of hearing about spastics, poofs, chinks, krauts, hebes (Jews. They own everything), slit-eyed scum (the Japanese) and ‘frigid lesbian bitches’ (pretty much every woman in the world) is a good antidote to anyone whining about ‘political correctness gone mad’. We’ve come a long way.
Of course, some people take politeness too far – Lesley Soper is a fine example. But your argument there is with stupid people who quibble over pointless things, not with the fundamental idea of political correctness.
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 1:38 pm
A Tui to Dim:
‘But your argument there is with stupid people who quibble over pointless things, not with the fundamental idea of political correctness.’
Political correctness is stupid people quibbling over pointless things!
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 1:51 pm
Political correctness is more and less than some of what has been written above.
It is not about changing the language. I have no difficulty with saying “chair” or “chairperson” instead of “chairman” – it has become very common in business settings, and is part of the language evolving. I now find it off-putting when my colleagues in other parts of the world (particularly Singapore) ask me for estimates in mandays – I usually ask whether they want separate estimates for the womandays, and what ratio I should assume for relative effectiveness. In this part of the world common usage shifted to the term persondays at least 5 years ago, probably more. The thing to remember is that English is a living language and it evolves. Get used to it.
To me, political correctness is when these changes are taken to the point of silliness, and particularly when societal pressure is brought to bear to stifle debate. Suggesting that discussing something is wrong because it is “racist” or “playing the race card.” Like, for example, attempting to stifle debate about whether race is a good proxy for deprivation, and therefore a reasonable way of allocating government funds. To me, that is political correctness – denying that it is reasonable to debate something. To some extent the anti-political correctness brigade are using this allegation as the exact inverse – we don’t want to debate whether “maidan speech” should be changed to “inaugural speech” because it is just political correctness.
So, to that extent, I see both the political correctness and the anti-political correctness as being equally a problem. What I want to see is the debate shift from whether a particular point is politically correct or not, to whether it is accurate and reasonable. So:
– is it a big deal to change maidan speech to inaugural? No, and we should probably do it if some people care about it
– is it a big deal to change maidan over to something else (and what? Virgin over?)? Probably is a big deal, and we shouldn’t (not saying that people can’t start the debate, but I don’t think it will happen)
– is it reasonable to discuss whether race is an appropriate proxy in allocating govt funding? Absolutely we should have the debate without anyone being called racist
The reality is that it is politics and an election year. Evidence Jordan’s taking a reasonably straightforward discussion and turning it into a party political broadcast “The right fights this kind of thing because part of their enduring power has been to capture and control language to their benefit. Changes which undermine this are always firmly resisted.” And the fact that DPF felt that a relatively minor statement by an MP who probably won’t be one after the election was worthy of mentioning.
Parties have to go with sound-bites that capture the media’s attention, and capture the attention of the swinging voter who pays little attention to politics. Expecting reasonable debate is probably unreasonable.
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 2:01 pm
Jordan’s comment about the Right- “part of their enduring power has been to capture and control language to their benefit” sums up much of the over emphasis some on the Left place on the influence of language. I doubt whether the political power of the Right rests on whether or not someone’s first speech is called “maiden”. It’s more likely to be due to the appeal of their political points of view.
Ideas matter, not language. Language is a bit like band names, after a while no one really notices that “The Beatles” is a very silly pun on Cricket. But many on the Left like to believe that the meaning, the social implication, of words is locked in stone. Therefore anything which has an historical association with masculinity must always be tainted with sexism. It’s more complex than that.
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 2:07 pm
DPF – thinking that “inagural speech” should/could replace “maiden speech” is not “way outside the mainstream” as you claim. It sounds like a trivial proposal that may have some merit (but, as I say, really who cares).
On National and ACT not talking about this: pleased to hear it.
My comment stands (and I know I am lining up with the left here) – does all this really matter so much? Does it matter than cricketers talk about “batters” rather than “batsmen” these days (even if, in that case, “batters” is a more ugly word than “batsmen”)?
I think much “political correctness” is all about people taking offence over trivial things – but increasingly the anti-PC campaign seems to be the same: taking offence over trivial things.
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 2:18 pm
Language matters, so note “inagural” above should be “inaugural”! Sorry
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 2:32 pm
Why attack Jordan for repeating the party line? Would you expect anything else?
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 2:40 pm
We have a very intresting point here, Many people complain that this is “trival” and not a big deal.
While changing one word may not seem like a big deal… language is. Any Anthroplogist (or linguist) will tell you, the very basis of culture comes from language. In fact a case can be made that only those people who have thier own “language” can be classes as a culture.
Now this mat be a language diffrent from english (for example) but it can just as easilly be the same, Hip Hop, Punk, Rugby heads all have thier own language and culture.
Now if you truely want to change a culture then language is a corner stone of the change.
I suspect for example New Zealand would be alot diffrent if it has been called Aotearoa.
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 2:40 pm
IIRC, “chairman” derives from the times where chairs themselves were uncommon and only the wealthy had them. Everyone else sat on their bedding, or the floor. Apart from any sexist connotations, the term is also classist, with an implication that the man or person wealthy enough to own a chair should be the one to run a meeting.
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
I didn’t attack him for it, any more than I attacked DPF for making not of the comments of an obscure MP who won’t be an MP after the election. I just noted that it is to be expected in election year.
Although I will note that Jordan does seem to have a style of writing comments in which he writes something reasonably intelligent and then follows it with an unsubstantiated comment that refers to some form of VRWC, and in my mind weakens his entire argument. God, if only the right wing were that organised.
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 2:48 pm
There’s something in Peter Cresswell’s linking to postmodernism. An aspect of the Left’s preoccupation with language does indeed derive from postmodernism. Foucault and Barthes famously claimed that the world is language and that “language is a prison”. That is, our thoughts (about politics, society, gender etc etc) are a product of our language which is in turn a product of (capitalist, patriarchal) society.
Therefore, words are of ultimate importance as they are the mechanism of our imprisonment and the key to our escape. Change words and we change the very nature of our being.
Some of this remains, even though it is a very outdated view of how our minds work, in some people
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 2:52 pm
‘Ideas matter, not language.’
What a silly thing to say. Haven’t you people heard of Marshal McLuhan?
Here’s a link to the George Orwell essay which (arguably) started this whole debate in the first place.
http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 2:59 pm
I’ve heard of and read McLuhan and seen him in Annie Hall. Like much of 60s counter culture, not much substance.
I see Tristan is making the Language is Culture argument.
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 4:04 pm
I’m not sure what this intellectual debate has to do with the common usage of political correctness.
From Dictionary.com:
politically correct
adj. Abbr. PC
1. Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.
2. Being or perceived as being overconcerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters.
In my experience the 2nd usage is now most common in NZ. The 1st usage may have been common 10-20 years ago, but not anymore.
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 4:08 pm
Those who argue language doesn’t play a part in shaping power structures cannot simultaneously argue that polically correctness should occupy our concern to any great degree. The point is that people who hold certain world views are asserting their authority over arguments not through their soundness but through changing the language of the arguments themselves. This is why PC is so insidious.
Lesley Soper thinks that the term maiden speech is sexist. It is not. She thinks we should feel bad about using it. We should not. Social control through guilt is best left to organised religion, and the secular version is just as scary.
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 4:13 pm
AL’s contribution is most helpful. If the definition is “being or perceived as being overconcerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters”, then the charge sticks as much to too many so-called “anti-PC” people as to the political left. I think the right of politics risks looking obsessed with this stuff, when the looming economic recession is surely more important.
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 4:22 pm
I think we need sexism in society and racism (as in different descendants of an ancestor) for that matter.
We are all different.
Man,woman, Chinese, Maori,White fella, Gay, straight etc etc.
Without these differences we lose the identity of our forebearers.
Men are biologically stronger than woman hence the way our societies formed and grew for the 125,000 years pre electricity.
This is basiclly the same worldwide.
To try and homogenise society, all the same, all equal is stupidity. Without those differences we will breed ourselves out of exsistence.
Political correctness is nothing more than a blind for ideological change.
Reject at all cost.
Allah protect us
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 4:24 pm
What a lot of bloody useless hot air! You know political correctness has gone mad when sex change operations are funded while other people are dying to get off waiting lists.
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 4:28 pm
Adolf to the rescue — that is the sort of thing to worry about, not what we call the first speech an MP gives in parliament!
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 4:44 pm
TheProphet: You are confusing equality of outcome with equality of opportunity. If I set a standard that someone joining the army must be able to carry 50kg for 30km in the heat, within 4 hours, that gives equality of opportunity. Anyone who can meet that standard can join.
If I set a standard that men must be able to carry 50kg, but women only 25kg, that is trying to achieve equality of outcome (i.e. that just as many women as men can get in). That is also where the problem lies.
Govt funded sex change operations: don’t start me.
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 5:29 pm
PC terminology such as “diversity, tolerance, compassion” form an “unacceptable” mantra that seems to obviate rational thought and clear communication. It’s cultural conditioning, my fellow guinea pigs!
Vote:http://no8wire.blogspot.com/2004/09/big-brothers-buzzwords.html
April 11th, 2005 at 5:38 pm
PC is dishonest because people are going discriminate if they want to but will do it in more subtle ways.
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 6:18 pm
Inaugural is a rather ugly word perhaps MS Soper should refer to her virgin speech.
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 6:24 pm
First of all I have to say this has been a very good thread with lots of interesting points.
We have some people like Adolf who agrees that it is political correctness
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 7:07 pm
waaaaaay too simplistic Tristan.
I agree with the premise that he (sic) who controls the language has power. This is entirely obvious.
However I absolutely do not accept that language, by definition is about class. Language evolved as the powerful described their world. the current debate is really about 2 power elites – the left elite in the universities (those people who have never worked yet nevertheless represent the workers – see how it works) and the traditional elite of business,church, science and engineering.
working people – remember them, use language and don’t tend to worry about lexical niceties – “frontbums” anyone.
The interesting thing is that since Derrida, the left have thought that if they can control language, they can change the power structure of society, and this is the real intention behind so-called PC.
It is about feminism, secularism and attempting to destroy what they consider as a conservative patriarchal society, and to try to reform it into a secular (or animist depending how green you feel), feminised one.
The only problem is that you essentially have to deny several thousand years of judeo-christian civilisation to achieve this, and as we are discovering, if you argue that your culture has no meaning or value, you become a nihilist and end up wondering why you live in a country with no values.
The nasty part of this is that it is entirely intentional. Never trust a french philosopher.
It also sums up the problem with lefties, they only want to break things and punish people for thinking the wrong things.
Ask lefties what they want to create and they tend to start mumbling about utopian fantasies. Ask them if this includes Leninist or Stalinist Russia, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia or Castro’s Cuba and they start getting all grumpy.
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 7:32 pm
Forgive me if I think you are the one being simplistic here…
Both sides can be portrayed as having Machiavellian intentions and you have described the left leaning one at length…
Now why do I think you are being simplistic…
You say people in universities don’t work. They do different work but they do work..
You seem to think I am a class warrior, this is not the case while money is an important factor in right/left wing discourse there are plenty of rich and poor on both sides.
You seem to think that jeudo-christian tradition has more right to exist simply because it was there first (which by the way it wasn’t). Those on
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 7:41 pm
I don’t think the power balance between left and right would shift at all if we replaced “maiden speech” with “inaugural speech” just as it has not changed as a result of “chair” replacing “chairman” or “Maori” as a plural replacing “Maoris” – even if Richard Long at the Dominion (now Don Brash’s Chief of Staff) resisted the latter for many years. Language evolves. The left tries to make it evolve faster. The right tends to defend the status quo. Let’s talk about the Labour Government destroying our economic prospects, our education system, our international relations etc etc etc
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 8:04 pm
I think as much as anything else, the “PC” term has simply become a clique, and like other cliques it has little impact and is used lazily.
Why not, as several contributors above have, use the english language and construct a pithy argmument to demonstrate how stupid/insipid/cringing the behaviour or comment in question is?
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 8:32 pm
When you are afraid of a word like mail-box, simply because it sounds like male, or you wish to make an issue of “maiden speech” because its got the word maiden, you have sensitivity elevated over sense.
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 8:43 pm
And then, of course, we come to the old left v’s right question, and whether it is descriptive enough. Tristan, I note that you put “moral conservatives” and “economic liberals” on the right, and “economic conservatives” and “moral liberals” on the left. Where do you put ACT?
In this particular case, the labels conservative v’s liberal would probably be more useful – conservatives (of the left or the right) tend to like the status quo, liberals (of the left or the right) want to change the status quo (presumably with the intention of improving it – there aren’t that many people I have met who want to make things worse).
So those who are anti-PC would be conservatives, those who are PC would be liberals. Even that doesn’t work all that well, but probably better than the right/left distinction.
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 9:26 pm
Good points PaulL, when ever you declare a dichotomy you are bound to get caught up in exceptions. In terms of our current parliament genrally speaking I would stick the parties along the line like this
National (Moral Conservative/ Economic Liberal)
Easiest one to pin
ACT (Moral Conservative?/ Economic Liberal)
Well the profess to be Morally Liberal but because Labour has that patch they almost always vote against their own pronouncements, Civil Unions and Supreme Court and Crime being good examples
NZ First (Moral Conservative/ Economic Conservative)
Which is why they can play in the centre
United Future (Moral Conservative/ Economic Liberal)
Vote:Good Friend to National when it
April 11th, 2005 at 9:58 pm
Political correctness is just a tool employed by the left to set arbititary but politically and socially acceptable speach/thought standards, fall outside of it and expect to be socially condemned by the brainwashed. Who needs a political Police Force when you can get the schmucks to do it for you?
For the record, I think a good proportion of Maori are generally lazy, and grievence-ridden. Mothers too drunk or stupid to remember the name of the father should be denied the DPB (but when we hunt the bastards down we should strip them of assets until their debt to us is fully repaid). Criminals are not broader view, ahem victims. The Treaty does not give rise to Turia’s claims. There is no genuine Child Poverty in NZ. Oh, and the Jews didn’t do it.
Can’t wait to be “corrected” by the self annointed.
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 10:00 pm
Stripping our language of words and phrases is about the level of some dumb union official who really has nothing to offer. She will be our shortest lived MP hell even the Labour Party does not really want her.
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 10:02 pm
Tristan, how on Earth can you conclude the Greens are economic liberals?
They oppose free trade!
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 10:08 pm
Graeme, I think that the Greens are sconomic vandals.
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 10:12 pm
There are some significant problems with Tristan’s analysis.
“ACT (Moral Conservative?/ Economic Liberal)
Well the profess to be Morally Liberal but because Labour has that patch they almost always vote against their own pronouncements, Civil Unions and Supreme Court and Crime being good examples”
Greens (Moral Liberal/ Economic Liberal)
While state asset sales are off the table, they want to look at replacing income tax
–> Now this is just rubbish. The Green Party is the most left wing economic party in Parliament. Take a look at their manifesto sometime. You can’t call them ‘economically liberal’ because Rod Donald or whoever mused one day that replacing income tax would be a good idea. No doubt they’d have lots of other levies to make up for it anyway!
–> uh, what sorry? Half the ACT MPs voted for the CUB. I have no idea how opposing the Supreme Court is a ‘morally conservative’ position. It’s also entirely consistent with classical liberalism to be in favour of strong punishments for those who violate laws, particularly laws around the sanctity of life, the human body, and private property.
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 10:56 pm
I note the left are using this thread to change language as we unsuspectingly read. Labour hack Michael Wood has a few posts above redefined the word cliche, I see a cliche has now become a clique.
That the left are trying to subvert the English language by this sort of subterfuge is worrying indeed. Especially when you consider that Labour represents certain cliques that have campaigned on cliches for years.
Vote:April 11th, 2005 at 11:04 pm
Go take the World’s Smallest Political Quiz. Just 10 easy questions. http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
See how you score on both the Personal Freedoms scale and the Economic Freedoms scale, and get pigeonholed. (Essentially, it is Tristan’s approach.)
National (Right-Conservative)
ACT (Right-Conservative / Libertarian)
NZ First (Authoritarian)
United Future (Right-Conservative)
Labour (Left-Liberal)
Greens (Left-Liberal)
Maori (Authoritarian)
Progressives (Authoritarian)
Note that Libertarians occupy the moral high ground and hence appear at the top of the chart.
Vote: