Locating the Harm in Political Correctness

The concept of Political Correctness has become crucial to the presidential campaigns in the US, with Trump supporters often citing his lack of political correctness as an asset. Yet it seems the concept of political correctness has been unmoored, either rather recently, or perhaps decades ago. Either way, it's difficult to understand what people mean by the concept, since neither the media nor pundits lay out the necessary and sufficient conditions for politically correctness.

Merrian-Webster's dictionary describes "politically correct" as:

agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people"

The fuzziness in the concept of "political correctness" I would attribute to two aspects of the above definition. 1) That being politically correct is about agreeing with the idea; 2) vagueness about this group of people we're talking about.

Whether someone defines their self as PC or not depends on the first aspect of the above definition, that one agrees with the ethos of political correctness. Those that don't agree with the ethical good of being PC immediately recognize it as being forced to change their beliefs and actions. This conflict is nothing new to any "ought" statement, and seeing political correctness in this light helps us see how quickly the concept becomes divisive.

The second part, about particular groups, is problematic in the same way identity groups are always problematic for people: it depends on a recognition of privilege. When someone talks about not being PC, they often mean that they are bummed to not be able to tell their racist or sexist jokes anymore. What this individual doesn't recognize is (a) the harm that is done when we reinforce stereotypes about underprivileged groups; and (b) the difference between hand waving away an offensive statement as a joke, and satire. Satire pokes fun at the reality, using irony to puncture our cozy little perceived world with biting reality. Saying something is a joke to get out of trouble for being an asshole is something different. The average white person, who is uncomfortable with the idea that they are privileged because their "life isn't easy!" want to hand wave away any offense people take, because they "didn't mean any harm."

This brings us to intention, and the role it plays in political correctness. When someone explains that they meant no offense- whether it be with, or in lieu of an apology- the sentiment is that their intention was harmless, and as such no harm should have been done; it was a misunderstanding. This isn't a good reason to defend saying something offensive. George Carlin made this argument quite often, but I'll come back to that idiot later. The lesson about how intention informs political correctness is what I mentioned before: whether or not you are speaking in satire or irony. It's not a pass to make shitty comments for the sake of making shitty comments. Satire is about making those shitty comments to undermine, not justify.

So, is political correctness fascism? Yes, most definitely, but not for the reasons George Carlin or Trump supporters believe. Before that, we should look at a brief history of the term "political correctness." Published in the Washington Post, Caitlin Gibson's article "How 'politically correct' went from compliment to insult" gives us an interesting history of the term. What began as a phrase to describe the line Communist Party members were supposed to tow in 1930s US politics, it quickly began being used as a snide joke. In the 1960s, President Johnson used the phrase to describe politically advisable courses of action, as distinct from ethical duties:

“I’m here to tell you that we are going to do those things which need to be done, not because they are politically correct, but because they are right” (L.B. Johnson, 1964).

According to Gibson, "politically correct" gained it's full pejorative power in the 1970s and 80s with discussions in feminism. She writes:

Feminists who opposed pornography and certain sexual behaviors were labeled “politically correct” by their “pro-sex” counterparts in the movement — a term meant as a sneer, suggesting that those women were succumbing to patriarchal influence.

It is here, in the battle between sex-positive and sex-negative feminism that "PC" becomes the sneaky fascist ideology that Trump supporters and comedians hate so much. Let me make another distinction here, which explains why I think political correctness is fascist, while arguing that people use the term incorrect. I'm coming back to George Carlin!

The begin, let's read a really long quote from Carlin's When Will Jesus Bring he Pork Chops? that is probably shared on the internet every single day:

Political correctness is America’s newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people’s language with strict codes and rigid rules. I’m not sure that’s the way to fight discrimination. I’m not sure silencing people or forcing them to alter their speech is the best method for solving problems that go much deeper than speech (Carlin, 2008).

Are you ready? I find five major issues with this quote. You might find more of your own!

First, intolerance masquerading as tolerance. Carlin seems to think this is especially problematic, and this can only be due to thinking that tolerance is a social good. It isn't. Or at least, it isn't that great, but we do need it. In a liberal society, toleration isn't what we want, but it's the bottom floor for how much we can be bothered by other peoples experiments in living, identity groups, subcultures, etc. You can hate Steampunks as much as you want, but toleration means you have no right to take legal or physical action to stop Steampunk conventions. You might even need to keep your hatred to yourself, if you want to be considered fully tolerant.

Carlin also ignores the power dynamics in tolerance or intolerance. When someone votes against gay marriage laws, they are being intolerant by using their democratic power to limit someone else. When someone tells you to stop making racist jokes because "it's not OK to say that" they are not being intolerant. Tolerance doesn't mean keeping your mouth shut when people are being wrong, offensive, or assholes.

Second, why does Carlin think it's an issue for fairness to be restrictive and controlling? Even a hardcore libertarian must recognize that the freedom to swing my arms ends at my neighbors nose (All respect to John Stewart Mill, or probably his wife Harriet, whomever actually wrote this example). In fact, fairness makes zero sense whatsoever without restrictions. If it's only fair that Jimmy and Tommy both get to play with the doll, then Jimmy might well need to have his time restricted, and Tommy would be acting out of control if he were to destroy the doll to not allow Jimmy to have it again.

Third, this is not "the way to fight discrimination." Restricting people is absolutely how you fight discrimination, at least in the meantime before a new generation of loving saints appears who don't see color or whatever. If Carlin means that it's not the best way to stop discrimination, then that's fine, but falls for a trap uncritical liberals and conservatives alike fall for: that the only solution worth taking is always the best, or perfect one; no others need apply. We know enough about the power of words and language to know that saying certain things that reinforcing sentiments and oppressive notions does do harm.

Fourth, we shouldn't silence people. Carlin and I agree here, but I'm not sure if for the same reason. I have two reasons that are classically liberal for not restricting freedom of speech (unrelated to legal or constitutional concerns): (a) I'd rather bigots and idiots get their ideas out, so that I can more easily spot them; and (b) goes back to my boy Mill (or Harriet!) and the concept of dead doctrines. A dead doctrine is a concept with is made forbidden, like making the swastika illegal. In so doing you give a symbol or a notion more power, and power that is difficult to respond to because you are no long able to fully utilize the thing to then undermine it's own power. When Mein Kampf was made legal in Germany, it sold a whole bunch of copies: this is the power of dead doctrines.

But silencing people in this case is, again, a matter of power. I believe in freedom of speech, and not legally restricting symbols, notions, or speech in general. But social pressure not to say something, or not to fly a Nazi flag, is not a matter of freedom of speech. The constitution is not invoked when I tell you to shut the hell up with your Nazi rhetoric if you don't want to be kicked out of my house. Kicked out of my bar might be a different thing, but that's for another article. In the end, while Carlin and I agree on this, we disagree on what counts as "silencing" speech.

Fifth, and lastly, Carlin says that problems of discrimination are "much deeper than speech." Of course they are, no argument from me here. But this doesn't mean that speech isn't a crucial and powerful tool of oppression and even more so, maintaining oppressive attitudes and cultures. Certain sexist jokes aren't what keeps women from making the same salary as men for the same jobs, but it sure doesn't help us in addressing the issue.

Where does that leave us? Well, I don't actually think Carlin is talking about political correctness. Or at least not the problematic political correctness that I call fascist. What he's talking about is the fear of social chastisement for speaking without concern for the underprivileged; the historically oppressed; those who have it hard enough as it is. And this is the same kind of political correctness that Trump supporters would love to abolish as well. What's the point of being an ignorant white person if I can't freely degrade others to feel superior to them? Oh, but as a joke. Don't be so sensitive.

While Trumpetters or whatever they're called go around talking about how a sociopath with a low IQ who got lucky enough to have the media polish him into some sort of folk hero, the actual insidious, fascist PC agenda wages on, and it's one that Trump only benefits from.

Hopefully at this point in history it is no surprise that politically liberal people can be just as stubbornly anti-science as the nearest conservative, but in case that is surprising to you, let me remind you of the following: anti-vaxxers; alternative medicine; organic foods. So, liberals can hold outlandishly unscientific beliefs, sure. But these are usually beliefs about the world; large scale ideals about how the world is, less about the particular belief that vaccines are good for you even though they don't sprout from the earth organically.

There is another way in which liberals, especially academics and activists, can be anti-science, and that is when being politically correct. The example I'll use is that of personally identity. When we advocate for a groups identity, what happens when that identity is contrary to other identities? In her book Galileo's Middle Finger Alice Dreger details many battle she's helped others fight regarding their scientific findings that don't agree with politically correct ideas, especially when it comes to identity and sexuality. One particular conflict is between transgender men and how they identify.

Dreger defends psychologist J. Michael Bailey's studies that show that transsexualism in men is not always a matter of being born with the brain of a woman but in the body of a man. There are others who are autogynephiliacs: sexually aroused by the idea of themselves as a woman. This brings sexuality into talk of transgender identity, and notice I used "transsexual," a term that is considered old fashioned. It is considered old fashioned because years of advocacy have tried to divorce sexuality from the trans identity, much in the way the fight for gay marriage tried to be as sexless as possible.

The main issue of political correctness, though, was in that mainstream trans identity does not align with autogynephilia, and in fact it threatens the mind-body-switch narrative. Yet, autogynephilia itself is a kind of identity, and one that some trans women do identify as. In cases like these, political correctness sides with the masses, and massive are they! Any search of the word "autogynephilia" will bring up endless blogs and articles about how offensive, misguided, harmful, and false the notion is. Research backs up autogynephilia, but so does the experience of some trans women. If it's politically incorrect to talk about these trans women because the vast majority of trans women are offended by them, well that's a kind of oppression.

In Dreger's book, she has even more examples of scientific findings being resoundingly rejected for PC reasons, when these facts would bolster advocacy if they were taken seriously. Rape being a sexual act, and not simply about power, is another controversy that Dreger defends. The immediate reaction people have the notion of rape being a sex act, after years of feminist arguments that it was solely about power, completely distracted from the purpose of the research. One of the authors of this research, Craig Palmer, was motivated by a rape and murder case in which the defense was looking for a motive beyond the girl being sexually attractive to her rapist, because science had proven that rape was never about sex.

When the research came out, so did women who had been victims of rape, thankful that their story was finally being recognized. They felt victimized sexually, not solely from violence and power dynamics. When it comes down to it, the notion that rape isn't about sex functioned well to begin addressing rape culture. If a rape wasn't sexual in nature, then courtrooms must stop asking women what they were wearing, to see if they were somehow to blame themselves. But, in aiming to put a stop to this victim blaming, we went too far, leading to a PC culture that denies the sexual assault that rape victims have been put through. This pattern is much like the removing the sex from discussions of transgender identity: done for the right reason, but now doing harm after overstaying it's welcome.

How do we then move forward and not let political correctness harmfully stagnate our thinking on crucial topics? Well, to start, we need to address the role of offense. When someone takes offense to something, what are we to do about that? Maybe there are times when offending someone is perfectly acceptable, and I hope to offend people who think vaccines cause autism on a daily basis (sorry, dad!). But we also need to be careful when we adjudicate between offended groups.

Political correctness doesn't allow adjudication, instead the loudest, largest voice wins, and everyone else should fall in line. A more nuanced, non-reactive approach would allow for conflicts without needing to pick a side. In the case of autogynephiliac identity versus the mainstream transgender identity, we can't let one squash the other in the name of political correctness if there is any good reason for both identities to continue (and I think there are). We'll have to work through being offended and evaluate the motives of the research, argument, or position. We can't assume that when one argues that rape is sexual in nature that they are a rape apologist when in fact, they are doing important work to further undermine rape culture.

In the end, political correctness is a terrible enemy of free speech, and should be seen an a pejorative thing to label someone. But this is not for the reasons usually stated or implied, and instead because it is a stagnating cultural attitude that denies scientific truth for safe and proper beliefs, even when those beliefs are no longer useful or necessary.