Political Correctness - the End of Intelligent Thought?

Political Correctness: The End Of Intelligent Thought?

Political correctness is a political ideology, nothing more. It cannot be correct unless it is linked to genuine transformation. First, I will examine the origins and causes of PC in an attempt to get a clear understanding of what this movement truly is. Second, I will examine the possible negative effects that political correctness can have on our society. And finally, I shall discuss why this cultural ideology is hindering the intellectual growth of our nation and promoting ignorance and self-indulgence.

It is very difficult to put a definition to political correctness. It is a term widely but loosely used today; but it is too young a concept to have received the attention and standardizing influence of the dictionary editors. Therefore, it quite possibly has a different meaning for everyone using it. We can, however, look at some of the symptoms of what has been broadly labeled as political correctness.

Among the most important rallying cries of the political correctness controversy is the word "victim". Initially the concern was about minorities. Minorities of race, gender or ethnic background who were subject to various forms of bias, harassment and general discouragement in a university setting that was dominated by the middle class white males of European origin. (The feminist movement chose the label Chilly Climate to describe the situation.) The notion of victimization soon grew, however, beyond this realm of human relationships, of treating people fairly and equally as human beings. Now it was moved to epistemology, with the argument that to be forced to adjust to ways of thinking and of organizing knowledge that reflected the values and norms of the dominant group, but not those of the minorities, was also to be "victimized", this time by an institution and a system. By logical extension, not to be allowed to study by your own group's way of thinking and organizing knowledge, and not to be able to study what was deemed to be important to your group, rather than to the custodians of the dominant "canon" as it was now called, was to be a victim. If victimization was to cease, minority groups must be "empowered" to define and do things their way. For an academic to impose and expect the historically accepted norms of scholarship was to demonstrate his or her lack of sensitivity, and a desire for cultural domination.

Political Correctness has come into being as a term born both of scorn and of fear. A conservative American critic described the contemporary universities as "islands of repression in a sea of freedom", suggesting that the universities are in fact going far beyond what the larger society is requesting or even wanting in this area. There is another kind of fear as well: a fear of "tribalism", which, according to the traditionalist's reading of history, is inevitably doomed to chaos. It should be remembered that political correctness is a term that has been introduced by the detractors of the ideas which the PC movement, as it is called, is assumed to represent; and there hasn't been developed a generally accepted word or phrase that represents what it is the supporting forces are after. The "enemy" has therefore set the agenda for the debate. In consequence, we are left peering into a fundamentally important social phenomenon through a window created by fear, distrust and scorn; and what we see inside is too often a defensiveness and militancy on the part of the defenders of political correctness, which is a reaction to the hostility of their critics. To cut through all this to what the issue is really all about is therefore not the easiest of tasks.

It's easy enough to see the appeal of PC to those who have historically fared poorly in our society. The sense of perpetual victim hood precludes even the concept that the members of a victimized minority could actually rise above their assigned position in society and meet that society on their own terms. To do that would mean taking personal responsibility for the condition of their own lives, instead today's 'progressives' have designed an argument that leads not to the encouragement of personal change and growth but to entitlement, group rights, and the eradication of the individual, all in the name of progress. Why bother even trying to compete in modern society, if you can, instead, simply portray yourself as a victim of that society, entitled therefore to special treatment and remedial largesse from your fellow citizens. So we arrive at a political climate where personal responsibility, self-reliance, moral behavior, and even rationality come to be seen not as the tools through which we can all achieve a better human society, but as treacherous remnants of the old system of oppression, to be rejected and discarded, post haste. Meanwhile, if this were all simply a matter of whom to blame, it might not be a big deal, but consider the implications of this victimology. For one thing, it has to stifle the motivation of people to help themselves, which must thereby prevent them from improving their health. It would be fine for folks to say : "I'm a drunk because of the historic crimes of white men, but now I'm taking control of my own life and I'm going to quit drinking." At least they'll get better. But if they sit around saying: "It's not my fault, so I don't need to change", then they are going to remain sick. In addition, such victimology works by depriving them of a work ethic and of any sense of personal responsibility, and also serves to keep minorities in the lower socio-economic status that PC has correctly identified as contributing (at least somewhat) to their poor health. The very pathologies that contribute to poverty, ignorance, indolence, immorality, and addiction, also contribute to ill health. And by excusing these behaviors to suit their political purposes the "practitioners" of PC have sacrificed the surest cure for what ails the poor: self-help, and personal ambition.

This form of ideology can be used to support the theory that PC is merely cultural Marxism. Marx, believed that if people were left to work on their own they would be more efficient. He had an ideological belief that laborers could actually want to work hard without being forced to. Political correctness as noted by Lind (www.university.org) is just Marxism converted from economic into cultural terms. This is how far back one has to look in order to understand how political correctness came about.

Political correctness goes back further than just twenty years ago as Cameron (1995) stated. As Lind noted it probably can be traced back to World War one. Lind noted the Marxist theory that when