Natalia Banschikova,
EHU, Vilnius
POLITICALLY CORRECT LANGUAGE USAGE AS PROMOTING SOCIAL CHANGE
In the article ”Politically Correct Language Usage as Promoting Social Change” the author, Natalia Banschikova, explores the phenomenon of political correctness, primarily reckoning its linguistic manifestations. The author argues that PC language usage is not a mere attempt to sound polite and inclusive, but has the potential to engender social change and to redefine power relations existing in society. As far as language and social world are interdependent, discourse can operate as a fulcrum of social change. The conception of historical and cultural variety of the above processes stipulates the necessity to take into account historical and cultural background of changes. The author cites examples of main areas of PC language usage in the English-speaking environment depicting its social conditionality.
To be politically correct (PC) is currently used to mean not endorsing prejudicial political positions as well as “softening the edges of language”, especially regarding negatively differentiating and allegedly sexist implications. To sound politically correct means to sound “inclusive”. It refers to the use of language that would not cause an individual of any demographic, social or cultural group to feel excluded, offended, or diminished. In this paper I intend to prove that the political correctness movement is predominately an intellectual effort to use language to allow and encourage social progress and that linguistic turn of the kind promotes social change.
Political correctness is a term which denotes “language, ideas, policies, and behaviour seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, handicap, and age-related contexts”. [4] Some authors, like Glenn C. Loury, treat “the PC phenomenon as an implicit social convention of restraint on public expression, operating within a given community.” [3] Both approaches lack depth and are limited by the concept of politeness. Michel Foucault makes clear that matters of discourse cannot be separated from issues of power. Being a social agent, language attributes dominance over the oppressed. As soon as perspectives are developed and integrated into society, the social arrangements of the society are altered. Discourse can thus operate as a means of social change. [1]
Under the changing conditions in the modern world, language has to be modified to assert recognition as far as it doesn’t only convey the message, but shapes the speaker’s thoughts and actions. “Language represents thought, and may even control thought” according to the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, which maintains “cultural change via linguistic change”. [5] Other cognitive psychology and linguistics works indicate that word choices have significant “framing effects” on the perceptions, memories, and attitudes of speakers and listeners [5], as a result language is perceived as a system of social interdependence.
Understanding of the world is a product not of the world as it is, but of textual history. Our language conventions are dependent on social processes. To be more precise, our language about the world operates as a mirror of the latter, and discourse about the world is largely based on social processes which in turn are mounted in terms of linguistic rules and options.
Cognitive processes do not operate similarly across time and culture. For Foucault, our thinking arises out of and is an attempt to respond to our historical situation. [1] Historical circumstances are to be taken into account when considering the interdependence of linguistic turn and social change.
The PC movement is spread world-wide, but cross-cultural communicative problems underlie the fact that each society has its specific social transformation mode depending on historical, cultural, and economic development peculiarities. For instance, the impact of PC on American English is unquestionably strong. In the United Kingdom PC is often taken too far so that a catchphrase “political correctness gone mad” has become widely used. Belarusian society hasn’t undergone similar social transformations, obviously having a different historical and cultural background from that of the USA and the UK.
The concept “political correctness” and the corresponding movement evolved in 1970s in the USA, at the time of increasing political awareness and economic liberty of women. The role of women in society was profoundly altered with growing feminism and with a significant number of women as heads of state and government in a number of countries across the world during the 1970s, many being the first women to hold such positions. Nevertheless, PC is assumed to have a long history embracing centuries of inequality and oppression.
The first type of language which is exclusionary encompasses titles and reflects century-long division of labour between sexes and male domination so far as present-day professional segregation. Due to the former it used to be natural to include “man” in the name of the male-dominated professions. Today such usage implying that there are separate occupational roles for men and for women is politically incorrect. One says “congressperson” instead of “congressman”, “chair” or “chairperson” instead of “chairman”, “spokesfolks” instead of “spokesmen”, “police officer” instead of “policeman”. Traditionally female professions are renamed too (e.g. a “flight attendant” instead of a “stewardess”).
Using the word “man”, in isolation or as a suffix, to refer to all of humanity, or using the pronoun “he” where any person, male, female or androgynous, may be referred to, is to engage in “sexist language”, i.e. language that embodies, affirms, or reinforces discrimination or the patriarchal subordination of women to men. The general references of “man” and “he” are simply inaccurate and unnecessarily exclusionary. They imply that masculinity is a superior gender trait experienced inversely as the default. To institute “gender neutral” language is absolutely fundamental to the social and political project of feminism since in some cases the very connotations are humiliating. For example, a middle-aged unmarried male is given the neutral term “bachelor”, but the older unmarried woman is given the derogatory term “spinster”.
One more important PC area covers race and ethnicity related terms, where race is not a biological concept, but a social construct. Ethnicity is a contested term used to refer to cultural identity that defines the members of a group. Cultural affiliations can be based around a sense of shared history, religion, language or political identity. It has been introduced by writers as an alternative to the “race” concept, with “ethnicity” used to highlight the cultural, as opposed to biological, basis of group membership. PC movement in this context deals with ethnic minority people and historically oppressed people. One of the examples is as follows: “Spic” as a shortening of “Hispanic” is insulting while the latter is politically correct. Far too complex is the case with people whose skin is not white and, especially, is black, which reflects a long, savage history of oppression. The offending “nigger”, “boy”, “black Sambo”, “blackie”, “coloured” were changed to “Negro”, then “Black” and, later, “African American”. Today it is politically correct to say “African American” only when talking about Americans who have immigrated from or hold dual-citizenship in an African country. Otherwise the person is simply an American. In the case of a person’s citizenship uncertainty, “Black” and “White” are acceptable terms.
By the same token, each cultural group has equal protection from offensive generalizations and slurs, not just a certain ethnic group or gender. It’s recommended to avoid the use of religious terms when speaking to a group that may include people who belong to different religions (for instance, saying “God Bless” at a local event). The exception here is in the context of describing either academically or referentially specific characteristics of such a group.
Many common expressions have roots in a less inclusive social climate, to avoid offense and misunderstanding it is better to completely eliminate them (for instance, to ask a girl “Do you have a boyfriend?” would be politically incorrect, as it makes her exclusively heterosexual. Instead ask, “Are you seeing/dating anyone?”). Sexual orientation is a concept that evolved in the industrialized West and there is a controversy as to the universality of its application in other societies or cultures. As philosopher Michel Foucault wrote, “sexuality is an invention of the modern state, the industrial revolution, and capitalism.” [2] Sexual orientation is usually classified relative to the gender of the people who are found sexually attractive. Thereby, sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual; and asexual is increasingly recognized as a fourth. Many sexologists conceive the much more nuanced nature of sexual orientation and sexual identity. Due to compulsory heterosexuality in our society people with different sexual identity are perceived as minority groups and undergo discrimination. Words like “gay” are by all means offensive and insulting; if one needs to refer to sexual minority groups, politically correct terms like “homosexual”, “lesbian”, “bisexual” are to be used.
It’s extremely significant to avoid expressions that are derogatory with regard to physical or mental abilities, such as “handicapped” or “retarded”. Chronic illness, impairment and disability have a biological aspect, but experiences of chronic illness, impairment and disability are also socially constructed. Disability is thereby defined as “disadvantage or restriction of activity caused by contemporary social organisation which takes little or no account of people with impairments and thus excludes them from participation in the mainstream of social activities”. [6] People are disabled by society not by their bodies; people have disabilities, but they are not defined by them. It is politically correct to use person first language, such as “person with a disability” or “person with Down’s Syndrome” and to address the person who has mental, physical, or other challenges in the same terms as anyone who is able-bodied would be addressed. The insulting term “invalid” was replaced by a more neutral, but still offensive, “handicapped”. However, positive is better than neutral. Therefore, the terms “physically (or mentally) challenged” and “differently abled” have become widespread.
Attitudes towards old age not only differ between societies, but they also differ within societies over time. This proves that images of the elderly are also socially constructed. Nowadays to be reminded that one is “old” or even “aged” is uncomfortable for the reason of devaluation experienced by older people in modern societies. Possible euphemisms are “senior citizens”, “the third age”, “the golden age”, while “respected citizens” is considered to be a misnomer.
The terms “politically correct’” and “political correctness”, in the sense defined and explained above, entered the language via the U.S. feminist and other left-wing movements of the 1970s, while the previous meaning was “in line with prevailing political thought or policy”. In those days the law was discriminatory towards women, slaves, children, non-citizens etc. Later egalitarianism was reinforced, but the social practices of centuries cannot be legislated away straight off. The PC movement is widely dispersed and obviously includes many more elements than the above-discussed. However, the ones concerning gender, racial, cultural, disabled, aged or other identity groups are probably the most insidious and misunderstood. The PC movement has the potential to engender constructive social changes as far as language constitutes reality. Having the focus on the linguistic and social construction of reality, on interpretation and negotiation of the lived world, the language of political correctness can be consequently seen as an attempt of profound social reform and redefinition of power relations.
LITERATURE
1. FOUCAULT, Michel. Discipline and Punish. New York: Random House (Vintage), 1979
2. FOUCAULT, Michel. The History of Sexuality. Vol. 1. Trans. Robert Hurley. New York: Random House (Vintage), 1980
3. LOURY, C. Glenn. Self-Censorship in Public Discourse: a Theory of “Political Correctness” and Related Phenomena. [online] [cited 22.04.2010] Available from Internet: http://www.econ.brown.edu/fac/glenn_loury/louryhomepage/teaching/Ec%20137/Ec%20137%20new%20material/material_2004/Ratsocty.pdf
4. PERRY, Ruth. A short history of the term ‘politically correct’ in Beyond PC: Toward a Politics of Understanding , by Patricia, 1997
5. The concise Oxford dictionary of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992
6. Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation, 1976. Fundamental Principles of Disability. London: UPAS: 14
7. SPIVAK, Gayatri. Can the Subaltern Speak? The Spivak Reader, 1995