“Political Correctness” is a reactionary term against the loss of privilege.
By Guest Contributor Restructure!, originally posted at Restructure!
Excerpted from Whitey Don’t see that: The rising recognition of ‘white privilege’ in Western academia (PDF) by
Momoko Price at The Ubyssey, November 2006:
Laurence Berg, Canada Research Chair for Human Rights, Diversity and Identity, disagrees with the
idea that PC language and policies are oppressive. Why? Because he doesn’t really believe that PC policies existed in the first place.“What [they]’re calling the ‘PC movement’ I would call a social movement by marginalised people and the people who support them,” he said. “[A movement] to use language that’s more correct—not ‘politically correct’—that more accurately represents reality.”
Berg is referring to a way of thinking that many of us students were too young to catch the first time around. For us, the term ‘politically correct’ survived the 90s, but the term ‘human rights backlash’ did not. Will Hutton, former editor-in-chief for the UK publication the Observer, described in his column how the term ‘PC’ was never really a political stance at all, contrary to popular belief. It was actually perceived by many as a right-wing tactic to dismiss—or backlash against—left-leaning social change. Mock the trivial aspects of human rights politics, like its changing language, and you’ll succeed in obscuring the issue altogether.
Berg believes this is what political correctness is all about: “The term politically correct is a reactionary term,” he said. “[It was] created by people who were worried by [social] changes…that affected their everyday understanding of the world in ways that pointed out their role in creating or reproducing dominance and subordination.”
According to Berg, the indignation people feel against PC ideas reflects the discomfort we feel when language and politics begin to pull away from the dominant values we grew up with—in other words, white, middle-class values. It’s no small coincidence that the concept of political correctness originated in the 80s and 90s, just after human rights concerns and visible minority groups started getting real attention in politics and the media.
Berg explains that in its original context, PC was a pejorative term used by people who felt they were losing something. Exactly what they were losing is very hard to describe, especially to them. But many sociologists and historians today have come to a consensus on what they call it: it’s a loss of privilege—and in terms of race, a loss of white privilege.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Julia wrote:
This is genius! Thank you.
Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 10:09 am ¶
jen* wrote:
wow – talk about hitting the nail on the head. I’m glad to see the words in print, cuz that is the straight up truth.
Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 10:33 am ¶
atlasien wrote:
Yep, agree absolutely.
Whenever I hear anyone saying they’re “not PC” or “anti-PC,” I roll my eyes and think, “OK, guess I can write you off as a pretentious, mean-spirited dumbass.”
No one who drops the word unironically really understands what it means.
Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 10:52 am ¶
Notebook wrote:
I have to admit, I never really thought about it that way.
I never could get a decent grasp on the entire concept of political correctness, or more specifically how much power it has over the media like certain individuals like to proclaim. In fact, perhaps those same individuals are just as confused about what political correctness actually is as much as I am.
Also, I never really seen political correctness used as a positive term from anyone.
Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 11:00 am ¶
Penni Brown wrote:
I say ‘wow’ too! I never thought of it like this, but now I can’t see how I missed it.
Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 11:10 am ¶
Emmeaki wrote:
Ha ha! I have that book! The PC Dictionary & Handbook will have you cracking up!
Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 11:52 am ¶
Denarii Monroe wrote:
That’s all?? I was looking forward to reading more, lol.
Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 12:00 pm ¶
ztastz wrote:
Amen!
The term is like an all-purpose hand wave now.
Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 12:20 pm ¶
Lisa J wrote:
THANK YOU!!! Sheesh, this is what I’ve been thinking, though not so cogently, for years. I’m really sick of how the right-wing keeps making up words and abusing the language to shore up their political goals. Just like how they talk about “revisionist” history when people finally start talking about history from the perspective of minorities, women or non-victors, when really that is what historians have always done. Different generations always go back to examine what was broadcast before about what happened in the past and re-examine it, but somehow when it gives the new/extra/more broad perspective it is “revisionist” like people are making stuff up. So tired of the right.
Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 12:42 pm ¶
Phil Deeze wrote:
Brilliant piece! One thing I love is when the n-word debate crops up, the white privilege deniers show up and say “Well, rappers and comedians say it and it’s funny, but it’s not fair that I can’t throw the n-word at who I want to.”
It’s obvious to me that those folks want a return to the “good old days” when a white person could say damn near whatever they wanted to a black person with no consequences.
Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 12:48 pm ¶
pm wrote:
Surely ‘Political correctness’ as a term has many different meanings?
It’s used by the right to try and dismiss anything they disagree with, without having to go to the effort of actually constructing a rational argument. I guess that’s the version being discussed here.
But it also started as a term on the far-left (particularly Maoists) for adhering to the party-line. And furthermore then got used in a slightly ironic fashion by the soft-left (though in my childhood the term was ‘ideologically sound’, which seemed to mean much the same thing)
And finally it was a very specific movement that resulted from the way the US left found itself mostly confined to university and upper-middle-class environments, where the one thing they had some power over was the use of language, so that’s what they decided to focus on.
To me, the downside of this was the way it could occasionally end up being used as a means for articulate, educated middle-class people to play one-upmanship games with language as a substitute for politics. A lot of politics on the net seems to end up like this, middle-class white people policing each other’s language as a power-game. I really don’t know how I feel about it. I mean, I can see why non-PC language is wrong, but sometimes these discussions seem to become ridiculously insular and obviously about power struggles within a group.
I always feel a bit uncomfortable in the real world about knowing how to handle it when someone more proletarian than me says something that I see as being somehow ‘not PC’ (assuming its not something horribly blatant). I always feel like I’m playing some sort of class-privilege card if I correct them, for not having read the right articles and understood the full implications of that language. One can carefully police one’s language to claim the moral high-ground and still not really change reality at all.
Finally it now gets used to describe all sorts of things that the speaker vaguely resents, even if they have nothing whatsoever to do with left-right politics. E.g. you get folk saying ’smoking [or drinking] isn’t very politically correct these days’
Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 12:54 pm ¶
inkst wrote:
Agreed! Something I have always had a gut feeling about, but never been able to quite put my finger on like that.
Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 1:06 pm ¶
thesciencegirl wrote:
Yes! Whenever someone says, “oh, that’s just PC,” my guard goes up because I know they’re getting defensive in response to their privilege being pointed out.
I once did some diversity workshops led by a woman in the Boston area named Patti DeRosa. We had a long discussion about terminology, and she always said, “PC means precise and clear. When we discuss difficult topics, like race, we want to be precise and clear so that our point gets across well.” I really like how she turned PC into a positive thing, when usually it’s wielded to shut down conversations.
Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 1:46 pm ¶
Danny wrote:
I had a short conversation with a friend regarding political correctness not too long ago. I think this article hit the spot with the loss of privilege. Nice history lesson too.
While there are some justified critcisms about political correctness (as what we think/define of it in today’s terms), it’s a little obvious that what many people dislike about political correctness is the self-control, reasoning and sensitivity involved as well as slightly shattering some fantasies people might have.
Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 2:06 pm ¶
Invasian wrote:
Right-wingers and conservatives aren’t the only ones who do this. Liberals are equally guilty. (White hipsters anyone?)
Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 3:54 pm ¶
Eva wrote:
I just see “being PC” as being polite and respectful.
Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 4:34 pm ¶
socgrad wrote:
“It’s obvious to me that those folks want a return to the “good old days” when a white person could say damn near whatever they wanted to a black person with no consequences.” Phil Deeze
This is what always makes me cringe when I hear someone decry political correctness or declare approvingly that something is politically incorrect. To me, political correctness means that I can go about my way in the world, day-to-day, and be assured of at least some basic amount of public respect.
Not having to deal with day-to-day public disrepect and denigration simply for being black and female is priceless. If that means I have to spend a bit of time to remember whether the appropriate term is “little person” rather than “dwarf” and “Latino” rather than “Hispanic”, that’s no skin off my nose.
And that’s the reason why it really bothers me when I hear other POC, women, or gay / lesbian people bemoan political correctness when it’s demanded for other minority groups. Political correctness protects them as much as it does the group from whom they want to deny it.
Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 4:48 pm ¶
MoonCat wrote:
my (white) husband has had similar experiences in the military. when he was deployed to LA for hurricane katrina, he asked if people could be a little more polite and sensitive when talking about the various people they were helping move (SHOCKED at the language) and he was surprised at the responses he would get. “Being PC is just too hard and there’s no point. What do you care? You’re not (insert racially offensive/classist/sexist word here)”
guess it’s easier being an ass.
Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 5:47 pm ¶
bossymarmalade wrote:
How I wish more people at UBC thought like this — maybe then I wouldn’t be counting down the days.
Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 7:12 pm ¶
DivergentDana wrote:
“I just see “being PC” as being polite and respectful.”
I do, too. Politeness expanded to groups that didn’t warrant even the most rudimentary forms of it in previous eras. There’s a reason that PC is decried while politeness is courted, and it’s because the assumed targets of the solicitous behavior in the former are still deemed less deserving of common courtesy, especially if it means by the groups’ own measure/cultural standard.
Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 8:55 pm ¶
Phil Deeze wrote:
@Mooncat,
Some people will always see black folks and other minorities as deserving their plight in life, and they’ll say it out loud, too. The thing I’ve learned is that when you confront folks like that about what they say/do, they get defensive and fall into a classic scenario for a racist:
a) They say something racist or racially offensive
b) When called on it, they say they aren’t racist, and besides, Halle Berry is really pretty for a black lady; therefore, that makes them not racist (it never ceases to amaze me just how many white men can cite wanting to bang Halle Berry as making them magically not racist. I wonder how she feels about being some sort of living, breathing presto-change-o for white male racism and lust. All in one. Like one of those Transformers. LOL. Is it like there’s a room that says “racist” on it and then a room with Halle Berry butt-naked and you walk into the room with Halle, jump in bed with her and you walk into another room and the sign turns to “cured” and your racism is goes away forever? That’s a neat gadget.)
c) Then, they say that YOU’RE racist because you called them a racist and that people that recognize racism are “perpetuating it” or “looking for it and manufacturing it.”
d) They might even say that they admire Michael Steele or Ward Connerly or they’ll cite a “hard-working” pro athlete that they root for as an example.
Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 8:55 pm ¶
Luis wrote:
OH! Killed it. Laurence Berg is my hero.
Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 9:04 pm ¶
Pickly wrote:
Mostly when I see “politically correct” used, it’s in the form of using “politically incorrect” to try and jazz something up to sound cool and rebellious.
(The term itself does seem kind of screwy in a way, though, a lot of the ideas behind word changes seem to boil down to “don’t be an asshole when talking”)
Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 10:29 pm ¶
Tracey wrote:
I think my demonization and distortation of PC toleration officially ran out when someone blamed PC-ness as the reason that the U.S. didn’t intervene in the Rwandan genocide. That’s right people, PC-ness is the fault of lack of international intervention in the Rwandan genocide. I’m sick of people trying to make it seem as though PC is about preventing people from telling the truth or “telling it like it is.” Trying to talk up how un-PC you are as a positive generally means the person has little clue of what PC is about or they’re just a jerk, Carlos Mencia.
Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 10:41 pm ¶
Bobby wrote:
“[A movement] to use language that’s more correct—not ‘politically correct’—that more accurately represents reality.”
Exactly. I always feel that people who shoot down “PC” are using it as an excuse to be racist. I hear people all the time saying blacks are n*ggers. Recently, these people point to Kanya West and Serena Williams’ meltdown at the U.S. Open, and argue that describing them as arrogant and rude–rather than typical n*ggers–is “PC.”
Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 11:08 pm ¶
greenkozi wrote:
loving the full version (the truncated version is a little hard to understand)- i feel like white privilege is so hard to articulate, and SO easy to brush under the rug.
in the US (and Canada, where the original article was published), political correctness, and “culture” in general means “white” culture, and “white” mainstream- why can’t we talk about that?!
Posted 24 Sep 2009 at 12:23 am ¶
mute wrote:
Great post. I was just thinking about this. How do you respond to people deride certain things as being “PC”?
@pm in #11
“I always feel a bit uncomfortable in the real world about knowing how to handle it when someone more proletarian than me says something that I see as being somehow ‘not PC’ (assuming its not something horribly blatant). I always feel like I’m playing some sort of class-privilege card if I correct them, for not having read the right articles and understood the full implications of that language. One can carefully police one’s language to claim the moral high-ground and still not really change reality at all.”
This is something that I think about as well, especially when it comes to when minority groups refer to other minority groups in not so respectful or intelligent ways. When folks are being purposefully prejudiced, whatever class they are I’ll tell them that I’m not comfortable referring to other people that way. But its when folks honestly aren’t aware that they could be offending that I have trouble.
I’m afraid that I don’t really have a particular approach to suggest. I know in the past I’ve tried to be not so confrontational and just sort of ask “Why’d you say that?” or “Awww, that’s not right” or something similar with maybe a little (little) bit of a laugh. It keeps me from coming off like I’m judging the person, signals to them that not all people find that language acceptable, and leaves an opening in the coversation to suggest a better way to refer to someone or to look at a situation.
i think that approach was also something suggested from a racialicious/new demographic download. but i’m not certain. i could be imagining that.
Posted 24 Sep 2009 at 1:51 am ¶
JC wrote:
No wonder almost every”anti-PC” folks I know are white males.
Posted 24 Sep 2009 at 2:51 pm ¶
submom wrote:
I see the term “politically correct” or “politically incorrect” as the new “I am sorry but no offense” or the new “with all due respect”. It is mostly used with “quotation marks” and often accompanied by “wink wink”. I think from now on when somebody uses the term in the “quotation mark” way, we should combat it with Jazz Hands…
Posted 24 Sep 2009 at 3:21 pm ¶
Donna wrote:
PC =Plain courtesy, and I have noticed the same thing JC
Posted 24 Sep 2009 at 4:55 pm ¶
ColinSFX wrote:
I remember I first heard the term as a young dude on my stepdad’s radio from the lips of Rush Limbaugh.
Looking back, I realize that’s all I need to know.
Posted 24 Sep 2009 at 10:36 pm ¶
londonmabel wrote:
BRAVO. I totally agree. And I love the jazz hands idea, submom!
Posted 25 Sep 2009 at 6:38 am ¶
Jess wrote:
(Sigh) I feel old.
pm is right, “politically correct” started out as a far-left-ish term, and it was used even then in a semi-pejorative sense — it was a reaction against blind following of the party line.
(It also got picked up from the Communist Party of China’s proceedings, but not being a fluent speaker of Chinese I can’t vouch for whether it’s one of those mistranslated terms that turns into something utterly unrecognizeable once it crosses the language barrier).
Anyhow, I think the reaction is not, as pm and Berg both note, just a reaction to loss of privilege.
I get really really frustrated when discussing an issue with someone and it becomes a battle over terminology, which to my mind is interesting, but not really salient a lot of the time. The history of the word “Negro” is one example — it was once the non racist, anti racist term to use. (See Douglass, WEB DuBois, who both use it for that reason). Obviously, a lot has changed in a century.
But if I were to tell someone in the Bronx that the single biggest issue facing the community is that black folks there sometimes refer to the Puerto Ricans as ‘Spanish’ (I hear this among the older generation) or that young kids use ‘n-word’ to describe each other sometimes, that person would laugh at me or smack me upside the head, especially when Sean Bell is busy getting shot.
Feminists I have met do this a lot. It’s one reason that a lot of the good stuff about it got trapped in the university and academe, I think. I can do all kinds of mental gymnastics about terminology, but at the end of the day it isn’t going to make the paycheck of the migrant latina domestic worker any bigger. It just isn’t. And I see making her paycheck bigger and getting her health care as a much more helpful thing to do than telling her she is a victim of a phallocentric language process and should start spelling women as ‘womyn’ and referring to her husband as a ‘partner.’
That’s one reason I think the ‘politically correct’ term as a pejorative got traction — part of it is telling someone they are focused on the trivial. And let’s face it, some of the battles over terminology are trivial when stacked up against other things. I mean, whether you call Lakotas on the rez ‘native’ or ‘Indian’ won’t change the fact there are no jobs there.
There’s a hilarious send-up done by an animation studio about a decade ago. It appeared on Spike and Mike’s sick and twisted animation fest. It’s called “Politically Corrected.” I think it shows a few of the weird things we can end up doing. My favorite is Canadian bacon = upper North American murdered pig product, and black coffee = non-lactated Colombian Java.
So yes, it is a reaction against loss of privilege. Berg is right on that score. I always say to people that a lot of the problem is that folks like Rush Limbaugh are mad they can’t call black men ‘boy’ anymore.
But there are a few other intertwined histories here that I think explain why ‘political correctness’ survived and ‘human rights backlash’ did not.
Posted 25 Sep 2009 at 9:45 am ¶
Ben Jokisch wrote:
Dennis Prager said on his talk show in feb that “Political correctness is entirely a matter of truths that can’t be said because they’re painful. Political correctness is the inability to state certain truths because they may offend or cause pain to certain people and certain groups.”
That being said, I’d rather be truthful that polite. But that’s just me… some people would rather try to not hurt anyone’s feelings.
The author does have some points, but is for the most part wrong and has little idea why people dislike the PC movement.
Posted 25 Sep 2009 at 10:21 am ¶
mute wrote:
Ben — Do us a favor and hit this post up with some examples of what truths/”truths” can’t be told while using respectful language.
Posted 25 Sep 2009 at 3:23 pm ¶
Pickly wrote:
I do sort of agree that the the idea of “truths that can/cannot be said” is what a lot of people are attempting to capture when calling something politically correct or incorrect, it’s just a lot of the time I hear people actually use the words it’s to try and jazz up stuff that is already spoken or thought pretty commonly.
(a.k.a. “politically incorrect study proves that men and women actually do think differently”, usually leading to a poorly done “study” using the same sorts of arguments that plenty of other people believe and would use to argue such a position)
Posted 26 Sep 2009 at 1:31 am ¶
Lyle wrote:
One thing I love is when the n-word debate crops up, the white privilege deniers show up and say “Well, rappers and comedians say it and it’s funny, but it’s not fair that I can’t throw the n-word at who I want to.”
I think the simple way of explaining that “double standard” is to say that if you know what it feels like to have that word used against you as an insult, you can say it. Otherwise, you don’t understand the word well enough to change its context.
Posted 27 Sep 2009 at 12:00 am ¶
Jacqueline wrote:
I have to say this has always been my impression. I cringe when I people use the term. In my opnion, another term that falls under this category is the “race card.” I have unfortunately heard too many people of color use this term as of late. It is very self-defeating.
Posted 30 Sep 2009 at 3:46 pm ¶
Michael wrote:
FACT: “Race card” is another reactionary term conceived in the same vein as “political correctness” (or at least the modern, skewed version) that is used by conservatives (or average dumb-asses who think along the same lines as conservatives) as a means of putting minorities on the defensive and, in turn, making said POC feel guilty about something that they were rightfully protesting/dissenting.
Yet another bullshit tool that idiots will use to keep their privilege alive and well, and another tool they use to keep you quiet, docile and ignorant…just like the old days, right?
Call them on their bullshit, white privilege be damned!
Posted 11 Oct 2009 at 11:22 pm ¶