Authentic Counselling Training
Personal Development: Political Correctness
[Under development: 4 March 2006 ]
Introduction
'Political correctness' is
a term that has to do with words that are used, sentiments expressed or
inferred, and with underlying attitudes. I do not know whether the foregoing
list is exhaustive.
I had long harboured a
desire to write about the issue of political correctness: about my respect for
it; about how I am upset that its underlying aims are mocked by many people;
and about my discomfort regarding how its practice is used as
a weapon by some people. This document began life on my weblog. I moved it here both because of its length (2,500
words) and because it now communicates much of what I intend, even though I am
still adding to it and amending it. The document is personal, which makes it
somewhat idiosyncratic; has not been researched, which
means that it is wide-open to criticism; and therefore is barely referenced. Even
so, the document has the merit of being a simple introduction to some complex
social and political issues.
Politically-correct terminology
My
choice of words has been subjected to the scorching searchlights of censure and
searing humiliation on several occasions (for example, when I have used the
term 'man' where my meaning was 'human'), has been respectfully queried on
other occasions (for example, when I recently used the term 'intellectual
pygmy' as a term of derision), and has been scoffed at with some frequency (for
example, when I insist on responding to the question: "Black or
white?" by replying "Without milk."). There have also been occasions
when I have used a term to which I have received no response, but have felt
unhappy with myself because my use of the term sounds like I am expressing a
consensual attitude with which I am uncomfortable, examples include the words
'yob', 'girl' (when what I mean is 'young woman' or woman'), and 'lady' (except
when a woman prefers that I refer to her as such).
During the 1960s, my understanding was that the correct term in the
During the 1960s, gay men were politely known as 'homosexual
men', but frequently referred to in insulting terms, such as 'queer'. In
the 1970s, I came to recognise that for a gay man to be referred to as 'gay'
was empowering for him, and for a lesbian woman to be referred to as 'lesbian'
was empowering for her. Just as it was possible to disempower
a person by using a term of abuse, so it was possible to contribute to their
empowerment by using a term that showed respect for how they wished to be
addressed and referred to.
I found it fascinating in the 1980s to realise that the term 'queer' returned
to acceptable use, but only amongst my gay friends. The term 'queer' was still
experienced negatively when used by a straight person. I learned, therefore,
that the person of the speaker affects how what is said
is heard. A term used of each other from within a group can easily feel
disrespectful when used by someone from outside the group. I find it
interesting that groups of people who feel disempowered or marginalised will sometimes
adopt for themselves a term of insult - the classic example being the Quakers
(members of the Religious Society of Friends).
In summary, I can choose to be respectful of how a person wishes to be referred to. If I choose not to be respectful, I risk being experienced as offensive even though insult may not
have been my intent.
Brainstorming
The recent event that has
prompted me to write concerns my uncertainty about using the term 'brainstorm'.
My longstanding involvement in teaching and groupwork
has led me to encounter and to use the term on many occasions. When, several years ago, I was told that use of the term
'brainstorm' was not acceptable, I felt unsure whether my use of the term had
inadvertently caused offence, or at least communicated something offensive even
if no-one present were offended by use of the term; or else whether suggestion
that the term was unacceptable was a spoof, put about by
politically-reactionary people, in a similar vein to the so-called straight
banana rumour that was germinated and disseminated by people wishing the vilify
the European Union.
When I wish to be offensive, for example when I feel
angry, frustrated, disappointed or frightened, I may express myself
offensively. When, on other occasions, I have no desire to offend by my choice
of words, and my use of a particular word is experienced
as offensive, I desist from using that word. Therefore
I stopped using the term 'brainstorm', at least until such time as I had
managed to clarify whether its use was experienced as offensive.
Despite the fact that, historically, the word 'bastard' has been used quite
commonly, with greater or lesser negative overtones, during some period between
the 1590s and the 1950s, the word 'bastard', came to be used as an extremely
unpleasant insult. During the middle of the twentieth century
the word 'bastard' would rarely be heard uttered from the lips of nice people,
and perhaps never as an insult. It is as though it had been
transformed into a word that could not be uttered. Those were times when
to be born of a liaison between two people who were not married to each other
was considered extraordinarily shameful. The insult value of the word when used as an insult was approximately proportionate to the
degree of shame implied. To my knowledge, the term 'illegitimate' was not used as a term of insult. Even so, polite people
would use the word 'illegitimate' only soto
voce. It was as though the very concept questioned the right to existence of
the person about whom it was being used. My father and
his brother were born to an unmarried mother, and while the issue troubles me
not in the slightest (why should it?), I know that my uncle has felt deeply
troubled by it his entire life. In his presence, I should feel very
uncomfortable were someone to use the word 'bastard', and even more so were
they using the word as an insult. My discomfort would stem from the negative
emotions that would be evoked in my uncle about himself as a
result of the circumstances into which he was born. However, I recognise
that as the proportion of children born within a marriage has plummeted, along
with any shame attached to the issue of being born to unmarried parents, so the
insult value of word 'bastard' used as an insult has also declined, and the
insult has gained considerably in popularity to the point of being heard daily.
Should I wish to be insulting, and feel inclined to use the word as an insult,
how much account do I need to take regarding the sensitivities of a dwindling
minority of people?
It would be fair to state that, in the
I have a strong belief that many of the words I use, not simply insults,
'betray' the type of attitudes I hold, including those derived from the company
I keep. Not only do I not hold obviously homophobic attitudes, but I am keen to manifest my enthusiasm for inclusion. Therefore I am unwilling to use words that suggest
homophobic attitudes. I guess that few people in the UK use the words 'sod' and
'sodding' with homophobic intent, or even with an
awareness that these words have a homophobic etymology. However, in considering
issues of political correctness, I wish to avoid even inadvertently celebrating
past attitudes. The experience that brought me up short was
to be informed by Community and Youthwork students,
during a lecture I was giving, that my use of the term 'rule of thumb' was
offensive to women, as it pointed to an English Common Law that permitted a
husband to beat his wife with a stick provided that the stick was no thicker
than his thumb. I had no previous knowledge of the etymology of the
term, and could maybe be forgiven my use while I
remained ignorant. However, once informed, I could henceforth use the term only
in the knowledge both of the term's etymology and the offence its use might
engender. I have never again used the term.
The following is drawn from the website of Epilepsy Action (the British
Epilepsy Association).
"We are often asked about the word 'brainstorming' and whether its use is
acceptable. Our view is that it depends upon the context: if the word is being used to describe a meeting where
participants are suggesting ideas, then its use is not offensive to people
with epilepsy. However, it should not be used to describe a seizure or the
electrical activity within the brain during a seizure."
I am happy to be guided by the British Epilepsy Association regarding
matters that risk causing offence to people diagnosed with epilepsy. The
paragraph above follows a short section that, for me, epitomises the principles
behind politically correct language:
"Terminology to avoid
Illness: epilepsy is a condition, not an illness.
Fit: the term 'seizure' or 'epileptic seizure' is preferred
as people with epilepsy do not always experience convulsions.
An epileptic: it is important to look at the person before the medical
condition, therefore it is more appropriate to say 'a
person with epilepsy'.
A victim, sufferer (this depicts someone helpless).
Grand Mal or Petit Mal: terms previously used to describe types of seizure. There are many types of seizures so these terms are too general and
are now considered outdated. "
Respect for people
My daughter was born with,
and lives with, cerebral palsy. She has very poor muscle control, and makes
frequent jerky movements. She is not ill. She is not to be
pitied. She is to be accepted for who she is
and how she is. All this is obvious. So why is the word 'spastic' (except when
used in a medical context) used as a term of insult and abuse? Why is there a
contraction of the word 'spastic' that is solely insulting? I hear adults
choosing to use these words insultingly, mocking the target of their derision
for their insufficiency, basing their insult on the insufficiencies of people
who live with cerebral palsy. My daughter lives with cerebral palsy, and
regardless of whether the abuser intends to insult my daughter, they are
mocking my daughter for her physical incapabilities.
My passport states clearly that I am a British (adjective) 'subject'. I should
rather be a British citizen. However, I am, undeniably a British person. I am
neither a Brit, nor a Pom, nor a Limey. I am a person
first, not a nationality. I cringe when I hear some medical staff, some social
workers, and some teaching staff, refer to people as
their illness or condition. Only recently a social worker told me that, amongst
the service users in her service were 'one epileptic and two or three cerebral
palsies'. A person, whether African, Jewish, black, or carrying a diagnosis of
schizophrenia, is a person first and foremost, and I
wish to respect that in the way in which I speak.
My family history is undeniably Welsh. Why do English people consider it
amusing and acceptable to mock the status of Welsh nationality? I have the
impression, albeit perhaps mistaken, that such people enjoy the frisson of
uttering a sentiment they know to be 'politically incorrect'. My brother and
his family live and work in
Conclusion
I am strongly bound to
some of the ways in which I speak: my default positions are to communicate
respect where I can, and to avoid ways of speaking that would be insulting to
someone. I am not so strongly bound to the ways in which I speak that I refuse
to learn how people wish to be referred to. My sense
of who I am is not threatened by acknowledging the
preferences of other people. My sense of who I am is
diminished when I am seen not as a person but as some mere aspect. My
commitment to 'political correctness' and 'politically correct language' is
about respect. Maybe a better term would be 'politically respectful language'.
To read, and read about,
what other people have written regarding political correctness, including more academic perspectives, follow this link to the Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
This
document in all parts is copyright ©