The philosophical status of "political correctness".

Joe,

Yes I agree that it is the validity of the claim which is the central question. Phrases like "we hold these truths to be self-evident" as in "equal rights" issues are in essence statements of assumed consensus which belie the de facto state of human relationships. The inequality of such relationships is indeed perpetuated and reified by a number of linguistic devices including the default male pronoun in English, and is even more emphasized by different "male" and "female" idiolects in other cultures. (Sociolinguists abounds in such examples).

So, on what are we to base "validity" of the pc "ethical claim" ?

If language and culture are ultimately related to differential physiological function or innate tendency to pecking orders, are we to assign the origin of "ethical questions" to some "outside agency" like "a deity" ? (This is indeed the ultimate position of intellectual theists like Polkinghorne). Or if not "a deity", is there some transcendent "non-self position" which some might call "spiritual", from which the validity of the pc claim is to be judged ?

0 Replies

Fresco wrote:

Quote:

Or if not "a deity", is there some transcendent "non-self position" which some might call "spiritual", from which the validity of the pc claim is to be judged

Could it be the attempted, though sometimes misguided, linguistic manifestation of the golden rule- "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?
In other words do label others as you'd like to be labeled if you were in their specific racial/ethnic/religious/sexual preference and/or gender-specific shoes.

0 Replies

Aiden,

Perhaps...but are we under-estimating dimensions like "submission-dominance" which seem to operate "in nature" which certainly manifest in some aspects of traditional human relationships ?

Foucault pointed out that even statements like "Its a girl" on the birth of a baby create a subsequent social reality for all concerned with the event. Are we to infer from this that any statement of "gender difference" is "politically incorrect" ?

0 Replies

Quote:

Perhaps...but are we under-estimating dimensions like "submission-dominance" which seem to operate "in nature" which certainly manifest in some aspects of traditional human relationships ?

I'm not attempting to explain the conditions, whether naturally innate to the human condition or adopted, which elicit whatever perceived inequality that people then try to rectify with politically correct language- I was just thinking about what could have been a traditionally more "spiritual" basis for it.
Part of me wants to say it's (political correctness) nothing more than just ineffective lip service that's enacted to give the illusion of more tangible and meaningful thought or action, but I have to admit I don't think it's entirely meaningless. When applied conscientously, purposefully and without residual resentment, I do think that language, applied to concepts, can make a powerful difference in perception.

Quote:

Foucault pointed out that even statements like "Its a girl" on the birth of a baby create a subsequent social reality for all concerned with the event. Are we to infer from this that any statement of "gender difference" is "politically incorrect" ?

Only if the person who says, "It's a girl", or the people who hear, "It's a girl" automatically imbue that statement with inferiority and create that reality.
I'd never tell my son this, but when I discovered I was pregnant, and before I was aware of his gender, I found myself hoping for a daughter. Thus, if I'd been the one who had heard, "It's a girl", that would have created a whole different reality- and not necessarily a negative or inferior one- for me and all others concerned with the event.

Also, I don't feel less than, or in any way unfortunate to have been born female rather than male. In fact if I had the ability to choose, knowing what I know, I'd still choose to be female, so I find the concept of equating the reality of femaleness with automatic inferiority or political incorrectness inaccurate at best and offensive, at worst.

But I'm confused-isn't it the birth of the baby, and the fact of its gender whichever that is, which creates the reality, and the statement is only ancillary and incidental and after the fact?

And how does the tone with which the statement is made weigh in there? Are the actual words more important than the meaning implied or inferred due to tone and expression?

0 Replies

Aidan,

Foucault goes heavily into discourse analysis and "power structures". Statements are not merely descriptions of events but themselves are enmeshed in particular social realities. It is not therefore the "tone" of a statement that implies its social significance but its sociocultural etymology. (Consider cultures where girl babies are left to die for an extreme illustration of this). In general all categorizations imply subsequent divergence of action whether considered "favourable" or "disfavourable".

(I am reminded here of the apartheid rules concerning the travelling on doubledecker buses by "whites" and "non-whites" in South Africa. Only "whites" could travel downstairs, but the twist was that Chinese were classified as "non-whites" but Japanese classified as "whites" because of their favoured tourist status. The poor bus conductor had no way of telling them apart !)

0 Replies

My wife and I were talking yesterday about the politically incorrect use of qualifiers like jewESS and actRESS (instead of a generic "jew" and "actor", of course). She said that gender equality will have been achieved when it is no longer considered an insult to refer to a woman as a woman. I agree.

Aidan said: "Could it be the attempted, though sometimes misguided, linguistic manifestation of the golden rule- "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?
In other words do label others as you'd like to be labeled if you were in their specific racial/ethnic/religious/sexual preference and/or gender-specific shoes."

Remember GB Shaw's caveat: "Do not do unto others as you would have them do unto you; their tastes may be different."

0 Replies

Good Shaw point JLN !
(even if Shaw did applaud that guy called Mohammed :wink: )

0 Replies

And given his appreciation for Nietzsche he might also have applauded the Persian Zarathustra.

0 Replies

I have never thought of the term "actor" as being neutral. To me, it always signifies male, although in North America the term is usually applied to both genders.

The Oxford dictionary defines 'actor' as "the performer of a part
in a play, film etc." and 'actress' as "a female actor".

Amazing!

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Quote:

Remember GB Shaw's caveat: "Do not do unto others as you would have them do unto you; their tastes may be different."

Yes, that's why I used the word misguided. Which brings up an interesting question in my mind, who decides which labels are, in fact, politically correct? Who makes the final decision about what labeling is most respectful to various societal groups, and why? How do they come up with a consensus?
And also, does language change thought enough to ever translate into real change in action toward these groups? If people are forced to speak respectably, (even though it may be forced to begin with), does that ever really translate in and of itself into changed interactions which then translate into changed attitudes?

Quote:

Foucault goes heavily into discourse analysis and "power structures". Statements are not merely descriptions of events but themselves are enmeshed in particular social realities. It is not therefore the "tone" of a statement that implies its social significance but its sociocultural etymology.

Yes, but in terms of the actual terminology, I think it's an incredibly individual preferential issue, and really difficult to generalize. And I also think though theoretically "tone" may not imply social significance, in practicality it has to.

I know when I moved here, I used to use the term "gypsy". It had absolutely no negative connotations in my mind, in fact I had all sorts of positively romantic and adventurous thoughts about the term, but the people who do in fact live lives similar to someone we would describe as a "gypsy" in the US- prefer to be called "travelers" here (with a double ll).

I don't know what the appropriate terminology is at this point in the US, but black people close to me have told me that they have always prefered black to African American. So who came up with African American?

Both of my children are interracial (black/caucasian). I prefer the term interracial to biracial, (I hate "mixed" as it reminds me of what you'd call a litter of puppies). I like interracial because I feel it communicates the idea that their racial heritage is the result of two separate influences inseperably intwined, as opposed to the two remaining apart and identifiably separate.

But when I said gypsy to a traveler, and he corrected me and I apologized and amended my labeling, it was fine. Same with when people refer to my children. Someone could say "mixed" or "mulatto" or "colored" and if I can tell there's no racist or harmful intent- it's fine.

On the other hand when people use terms like "African Americans" with a roll of their eyes and voices that drip venom and sarcasm- their meaning is equally clear.

So I think any or all of these politically correct faux pas can be either intensified or diffused depending on the tone or intent that is apparent when they're spoken- in fact I feel that's probably even more indicative of social reality than empty use of prescribed wording.

0 Replies

Aiden,

You make a good point about the transactional nature of specific social encounters. This implies that pc is aimed at "generalities" .

0 Replies

Aiden, thanks for a thoughtful and sophisticated post. I'll have comments later. Right now I'm going out to have my Sunday breakfast of huevos rancheros.

0 Replies

Yes intent is everything in these instances as far as I'm concerned. Funnily enough, approximately 20 caravans full of "travellers" entered my local university campus and parked themselves all over the rugby pitch recently, refusing to budge until their stay was over (which ended up being about a week I believe). The email all students received, alerting everyone and warning people to stay away, talked of "travellers". The students certainly didn't refer to them as such, "gypsies" was slightly more common I think. Smile

I remember last year I checked over some guidelines for writing essays and such, I didn't know what to make of the suggestion that things like "mankind" needed to be replaced with "humankind". I think that's ridiculous myself. In polite company I'm only too happy to sense the tone and mix and match with people but there you go. Luckily, what I handed in was fine as it was. I often wonder about how swear words sometimes manage to elicit such horror myself.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Joe,

Yes I agree that it is the validity of the claim which is the central question. Phrases like "we hold these truths to be self-evident" as in "equal rights" issues are in essence statements of assumed consensus which belie the de facto state of human relationships.

I don't think so. A statement like "all men are created equal" is a statement about political facts, not social ones.

fresco wrote:

The inequality of such relationships is indeed perpetuated and reified by a number of linguistic devices including the default male pronoun in English, and is even more emphasized by different "male" and "female" idiolects in other cultures. (Sociolinguists abounds in such examples).

I'm dubious. The default pronoun in German and French, for instance, is not gender specific, but those societies, historically, have been just as male-centric as English-speaking ones. Indeed, English is far less male-centric than, for example, German, which routinely affixes a feminine marker on nouns (-in) where English does not make a differentiation (compare, e.g., the English "student" (male or female) with Student and Studentin).

fresco wrote:

So, on what are we to base "validity" of the pc "ethical claim" ?

On the same basis that we evaluate any ethical claim.

fresco wrote:

If language and culture are ultimately related to differential physiological function or innate tendency to pecking orders, are we to assign the origin of "ethical questions" to some "outside agency" like "a deity" ? (This is indeed the ultimate position of intellectual theists like Polkinghorne). Or if not "a deity", is there some transcendent "non-self position" which some might call "spiritual", from which the validity of the pc claim is to be judged ?

"Deities" and "spirits" are fine if one's ethics are guided by deities and spirits. Mine are not.

Let's take a mundane example of political correctness to evaluate its ethical claims on a non-deistic basis. Suppose we are admonished to use the term "chairperson" rather than "chairman" to describe the head of a committee. Presumably, then, the issuer of the admonishment would maintain that our use of the term "chairman" would be some kind of breach of a duty -- at the very lowest level a breach of our duty to maintain decorum, at the highest a breach of our duty to some specific individual.

For instance, if we were participating in a professional conference, where the organizing body had issued a directive that all conference participants should use the term "chairperson," then our obligation would be the same as our obligation to follow all the other directives of that organization. On the other hand, if the admonishment is merely based upon the notion that some unidentified people would take offense at our use of the term "chairman," then our obligation is correspondingly less compelling. Indeed, if our estimation of the chances of offense is low, then our obligation to use the term "chairperson" may be overridden by any number of competing interests. If, however, there are no competing interests, then, all other things being equal, we should go ahead and use the term "chairperson." The ethical claim, therefore, cannot be entirely divorced from its context.

0 Replies

This may be a fine academic point but regarding the following:

fresco wrote:
"Joe,
Yes I agree that it is the validity of the claim which is the central question. Phrases like "we hold these truths to be self-evident" as in "equal rights" issues are in essence statements of assumed consensus which belie the de facto state of human relationships".

(Joe responds) "I don't think so. A statement like "all men are created equal" is a statement about political facts, not social ones."

They are both right insofar as "we hold these truths to be self-evident" refers (as Joe suggests) to what is formally (legally) the case (if not socially so), AND it was (at least politically--but falsely) assumed that there was consensual support for that formality even by people who owned slaves and continued to deny the suffrage to women and propertiless citizens. How politically reliable is "a nonconsensual consensus" when it is public but not private (i.e., insincere) in nature?

0 Replies

JLN,

Nice point.

"Politics" is clearly about "social aspiration" which I mentioned earlier in this thread. The problem word is not "political" or "social" but "correctness". I see the situation as somewhat similar to the "correct English" issue debunked by Chomsky and others. Instead of "correctness" we now have "appropriateness" (much to the chagrin of Miss Dewson my former English teacher !) Similarly we might say that pc is one aspect of appropriateness which reflects the social aspirations of particular groups.

..and here perhaps a little "Life of Brian would seem appropriate...

Quote:

JUDITH: I do feel, Reg, that any Anti-Imperialist group like ours must reflect such a divergence of interests within its power-base.
REG: Agreed. Francis?
FRANCIS: Yeah. I think Judith's point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man--
STAN: Or woman.
FRANCIS: Or woman... to rid himself--
STAN: Or herself.
FRANCIS: Or herself.
REG: Agreed.
FRANCIS: Thank you, brother.
STAN: Or sister.
FRANCIS: Or sister. Where was I?
REG: I think you'd finished.
FRANCIS: Oh. Right.
REG: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man--
STAN: Or woman.
REG: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan. You're putting us off.
STAN: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
STAN: I want to be one.
REG: What?
STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.
REG: What?!
LORETTA: It's my right as a man.
JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA: I want to have babies.
REG: You want to have babies?!
LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.
REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA: [crying]
JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG: What's the point?
FRANCIS: What?
REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!
FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.
[trumpets]
[clap clap clap]

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

"Politics" is clearly about "social aspiration" which I mentioned earlier in this thread.

I'll address your point, fresco, even though you directed it to JLN. I'm sure you wouldn't just ignore my last post in order to give yet another verbal pat on the back to someone who is more simpatico to your beliefs, so I expect you're still formulating a response to the points that I raised.

Suppose you're right that "'politics' is clearly about 'social aspiration.'" What then? If you're saying that politics is nothing more than social aspiration (whatever that is), then where does that get us? If you mean that politics is shaped by social factors, then you're not saying anything particularly new or particularly insightful. If you're saying that politics can be dismissed as nothing more than social aspiration, then I think you are wrong about both politics and social aspiration.

You cite to Foucault, which isn't surprising, since he suffers from the same problem. Once he concluded that all discourse is conducted within an episteme, he was left with nowhere else to go. The inevitable question remained: so what? It was a question that he never answered, and I suspect that it's one that you can't answer either. But I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise.

fresco wrote:

The problem word is not "political" or "social" but "correctness". I see the situation as somewhat similar to the "correct English" issue debunked by Chomsky and others. Instead of "correctness" we now have "appropriateness" (much to the chagrin of Miss Dewson my former English teacher !) Similarly we might say that pc is one aspect of appropriateness which reflects the social aspirations of particular groups.

Again I ask: so what?

0 Replies

Joe,

Since I originated the thread, the answer to "so what" is with respect to the "philosophical status of pc". I have agreed with you that such status is about "relative" rather than "absolute" values and therefore "correctness" should pehaps be replaced by "appropriateness". The interesting question is whether, by extrapolition, such a shift is applicable to all "ethical" and "moral" issues. If so the philosophical "status" of "pc" could include its status as a microcosm for such wider issues.

0 Replies

Re: The philosophical status of "political correctness&

fresco wrote:

In a recent thread I voiced the opinion that ...

Quote:
"Political correctness" is in effect an attempt to renegotiate "social reality" against a possible evolutionary tendency to prejudice and tribalism.

By this I imply that pc has no claim to "ethical superiority" but is merely driven by assumed consensus.

Any thoughts.

I reject the assumed consensus,
and reject the claim to ethical superiority.
THAT is rooted in their collectivist psychologies
and results from their naked personal opinions.

Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, Ludwig von Mises,
Marx, Hitler, and Pol Pot and Hugh Hefner
all considered themselves to be ethically superior.
( I plight my trough with Smith, Bentham, von Mises and Hef, on an eclectic basis. )

0 Replies

And thus OmSigDAVID continues his unbroken streak of posts in which he says nothing -- and says it badly.

0 Replies

The philosophical status of "political correctness".

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know