Art by Peau Porotesano
In this presidential election, we’ve heard on many occasions, in varying contexts, about the dangers of political correctness.
In the GOP debate held Aug. 6, 2015, Trump said “the big problem this country has is being politically correct,” and going further to say that “this country doesn’t have time” for political correctness. Unfortunately, it’s become increasingly unclear what exactly this term entails.
Rhetorically, the term “political correctness” is reminiscent of Stalinist-era totalitarianism, implying there is a state-mandated correct way of thinking about politics. This is because, historically, the term was used ironically to describe the Far Left. Educator Herbert Kohl describes the term’s early use among American Socialists in the 1940s in his essay “Uncommon Differences.” Kohl writes that it was “used disparagingly to refer to someone whose loyalty to the [Communist Party] line [ignored] compassion and led to bad politics.” It was meant to poke fun at “dogmatic Communists who would advocate and defend party positions regardless of their moral substance.”
In modern times the term is still used mainly as a pejorative, and attached to one’s opponent rather than claimed for oneself. But as Kohl himself notes, the widespread use of the term, from the 1990s on, has shifted to the Right.
The label “PC” is also a brilliant positioning tool. It implies that one’s opponent — a person, institution or system — is behaving in a particular way only because they are following orders. These “orders,” as they relate to free speech in the United States, don’t exist in legislation. There is no Amendment in the Constitution requiring political correctness.
By positioning oneself as up against imaginary requirements, that person is rebranded as a rebel. Though opposition to same-sex marriage has historically been an establishment position, a conservative who prefaces his dissatisfaction with, “I may not be politically correct” has just put himself in the anti-establishment camp. Since Americans have many examples of “noble rebellions” — the Revolutionary War, for instance — this rebranding can greatly help that person’s cause.
People don’t generally call themselves politically correct, but will easily pass the label onto a politician or policy they oppose. There are no “proponents” of political correctness who can defend the label and no “pro-PC” organization that can define exactly what the term entails. Political correctness, as a phenomenon, is defined entirely by its enemies.
The imprecision of “political correctness” is its greatest flaw: because it doesn’t describe a clearly defined phenomenon, it can easily be co-opted for any purpose. The various qualities the term usually describes — over-sensitivity, euphemism, deliberate inoffensiveness, artificial politeness — can be mixed together and blurred under the “PC” title. This leaves ample opportunity for vague criticism.
Trump, for example, has cited political correctness as a significant causal factor in various situations, from the Orlando massacre to the “gentle” treatment of protestors at his rallies. There doesn’t appear to be any correlation between domestic terrorism and mild crowd control at political events, but both phenomena are yoked together under the “PC” title. The use of the term in such disparate situations obfuscates whatever real substance it was meant to have.
This obscurity is frustrating because it encourages people to offer a false diagnosis for real problems. Modern issues that are often mentioned in a “PC” context — safe zones, the protection of free speech on campuses — are very important to address, but to find resolutions in these cases we ought to look closely and treat them individually. The term “PC” broadens and abstracts, just in the moments when we most need precision. By refusing easy labels and thinking critically about individual situations, we will have more success in diagnosing and solving national problems.
_________________
Follow the Graphic on Twitter: @PeppGraphic
