“Political correctness”: decoding a vicious, pernicious code word

[Igel]

31. It's a useful phrase.

Like "fascist," it gets redefined by people who don't bother to think about what it is.

Sure, avoiding offensive terms can be called "politically correct." Or "polite." The two don't mean the same thing, or at least don't always. In the last few decades the term's become bleached--those who originally used it don't like it and those who picked it up changed the meaning a bit.

"Semantic bleaching" is when the (denotative) meaning of a word is made fuzzier and fuzzier until it's lost. "Politically correct" had a single, rather specific meaning. It still has that meaning if you're widely read enough or in the right circles. For others it's bleached.

Originally the term went like this.

There was a policy promulgated. What's done and planned must be according to the policy. If something wasn't done according the the policy, it was automatically politically incorrect.

The policy included everything from speech codes of a sort to codes of action and opinion. On DU at election time it is forbidden to voice support for a non-Democratic candidate. You may like the Green candidate--that's your business, keep it to yourself. The politics and the policy are such that this kind of speech is incorrect. It's a mild form of politically incorrect speech, but can get you banned. "Policy correct" is probably a better phrase for it. I don't know an adjectival form for "policy" that doesn't involve coercion (which is the taking of a word that's, say, a noun and using it as a verb or adjective. To verb a noun is "coercion", to say that you use a "computer keyboard" is to coerce "computer" into being an adjective.)

It's a leftist term in origin. In Russian you can still say, without irony, that something is politicheski pravil'no or politicheski nepravil'no--politically correct or politically incorrect. Russian "politicheskii" is the adjective for "politika" (policy as well as politics--your politics are the government policies you agree with, after all).

And it got into English via the CPUSA. When Stalin was alive, you didn't criticize him. When the CPUSA or KP SSSR said to do something, it laid down the party line. That was the official policy. To say otherwise was not in accord with the stated policy and objectives of the party you were a member of or evaluated in accordance with. To disagree was politically incorrect.

When Stalin's denunciation was made public, life was interesting for KP and CP members. They'd come to work speaking praise for Comrade Stalin. When told that this was no wrong, they'd be in a quandary: What level of condemnation is appropriate? Who can be praised and sucked up to? Can I get back that recommendation I filed yesterday whole-heartedly supporting Stalin's initiative but which today might get me fired? No? Shit!

For many here, disagreeing with Obama is politically incorrect. For many here, to disagree with some facet of ideology--whether a (D) party platform plank or some tenet held by many is politically incorrect. To transgress those boundaries is to face calls for enforcement by the "party bosses," to have public criticism foisted upon you (we never used to post jury results to disgrace others), to call for samokritika (self-criticism and public repentance).

Once I was in a church that went from frowning on discommunication towards approving it. I watched one sweet woman go up to another who'd been having problems and give her a sympathetic, warm hug and a kiss, then a card expressing sympathy. She held the woman's hand and patted it, looking kindly and weepy-eyed. Five minutes later that woman with the problems was called out from the pulpit and we were told that she was disfellowshipped. The nice sweet woman went up to the woman with problems before she left the building and insisted on having the card returned, lest the minister find out about it. "You're a horrible person, how could you deceive me like that?" Sympathy was politically correct at 1:00. At 1:50, sympathy for that woman was politically incorrect. It often has nothing to do with rudeness. It has to do with following the rules as set by somebody or some group, and doing so blindly because one has to follow policy.

The word is a bad for for many places where there is no one oligarchy or autocrat that sets and dictates policy and therefore politics. DU is one of them. Work places are another. Where I work there are a lot of times when a student refuses to learn--some make sense, they have other goals; in some cases they face overwhelming problems; mostly the tuned-out students are just disinterested and see no point in anything that doesn't involve their genitals, money, socializing, or some other sort of fun. But "if a student fails, it's really the teachers that have failed" and "nobody is allowed to blame the student." To say out loud even alone with the principal that it's the student's fault in many cases is politically incorrect. Period. It's not particularly rude. It's just factual. But it violates policy and brings a rebuke, a request for self-criticism, and can lead to administrative sanction.

However, it became inappropriate to use certain language, and it wasn't just politeness. To the extent that there's peer pressure as the only "setter of policy" politeness can look about the same. But there's a difference: You are polite to a person. If I call my wife a "hunky" to her face, I'm quite possibly being rude. If I call her a "hunky" when she's nowhere to be seen, I risk having something offensive reported back to her but she's not there. There's no rudeness. That's especially true if I'm alone. But it's still "incorrect." The policy is that you never, but never, use terms that might in any circumstance give offense in the view of an observer who may, or may not, have idiosyncratic views about what is correct. That observer gets to set the policy. At least for some people. ("Hunky" is the standard term of derision in some subgroups of Americans for "Hungarian". It can be used to be insulting, like "Jap" or "Nip"; it can be used, by people who's credentials are in order and approved by the Modern Offense Monitors Society or MOMS, in ways that don't quite signal affection but show solidarity with that disadvantaged and formerly oppressed minority group.)

If you want to see the difference between politeness and milquetoast "PCism" try this. Pick two acquaintances you really don't care about. Go up to one and be rude. "Did you know you're a real dickhead? I mean, fuckhead just doesn't do it when saying how disgusting you are." He'll be offended. Now go up and with a tone of voice that is neutral or even approving, use a racial epithet--perhaps one that could apply to the person you're talking to, perhaps even just one that applies to his/her friend or S.O. "Did you know that hunkies wrote some really good music? Bartok, for instance." The "dickhead" comment is rude. But the comment analogous to "hunky" marks you not as rude, but as suspect, immoral or dangerous, and there's no way to get around this if you're credentials aren't in order. It will trigger a response that's different from mere insults. (This has been studied. Racial epithets really are different.) Politeness and PCism may overlap, but one's worse. Even if the person you talk to is an inveterate racist and agrees with the use of the epithet he may look around if it's in public to see if his reaction's being monitored by his peers before agreeing.

It's not "true" political incorrectness because there's no party line that you have to tow. But the behavior is often the same as in situations where there was real political correctness. For example, coming to work and saying good things about Khrushchev the day *after* he was sent off to his dacha for his "retirement." Or going to work for RT and singing to your friend, just loud enough for your boss to hear, "Putin--khuilo! La-la-la!"

There's a difference.