The widespread intention to avoid using discriminatory
language has been going on for decades. Euphemism has been used along with
creating alternative terms to blunting the prejudicial undertone in the
language. The “attempt to artificially manipulate language use for a social
goal” (Hale & Basides 2013, p. 77) is called Political Correctness
(PC).
As an established purposeful
effort to “camouflage life’s harsh realities” (Halmari, 2011, p. 828), PC dates
back to the 1990s. Since then, PC has
expanded extensively and governed the language in various parts of societal
discourses including the official uses of language. This essay identifies the approach toward the official uses of PC and discusses the ways in which PC has
been utilised as a pretext to manipulate other people’s language use. Although
the legacy of equality and use of non-discriminatory language have sustained
PC, the idea of prescribing people how to use the language is intrinsically
unequal.
Political correctness is powerful (Hale, 2016); it
means that PC can affect people in various ways. Through governing the use of
language, PC changes the way in which people think about one another as well as
affecting how they perceive themselves. The very fundamental consent of PC as
the “idea of appropriateness” (Hale, 2016) was appeared to be sound at the
beginning and accepted extensively upon as beneficial. Nevertheless, the power of PC, in practice,
has not been complying its initial intent as Rojas-Lizana (2014) contends “it
centres on those who have the power to impose their views and how their
discourse is used to perpetuate and ‘normalize’ dominant ideologies” (p. 3). Consequently, the influence of PC is
exploited to manipulate the use of language and PC has utilised in favour of
power rather than in avoiding discrimination. Thus, to some extent, PC is
being criticised because of various reasons. One of the foremost critiques of
PC is that it is imposing an adverse effect on equality, therefore, it has lost
its credibility. Allan & Burridge (2006) argue that “something supportive
of equal opportunity, tolerance, sensitivity, open-mindedness, courtesy, and
decency, become so disparaged?” (p. 91). Discussing the official uses of PC
could be of assistance to identify its power and effects in society.
The idea of scepticism and freedom of
questioning everything including the official uses of PC is highly important.
Emerging as a commanding force of society, PC has been challenged not only
through authoritative critiques but also by public resistance “because it is
seen as highly arbitrary and imposed and without wide social conventionality”
(Hale & Basides 2013, p. 77). The instance of referencing to gender in a
discourse of official language shows a perfect pattern of official uses of PC
while resisted by others. According to
Yoong (2014), “term chairman, the male generic, can be used to denote either a
man or a woman. But feminists have argued that male generics are not generic at
all. Maleness is presumed and women are rendered invisible when it is used” (p.
1). While the resistance based on gender or any other social categories is continuing,
the more important issue which still remains experimental is that how far the
PC can really improve the social inequality in favour of those who
suffered.
The official uses of PC are more observable in the
speech of politicians. Following the 9/11
attacks in 2001, the US President said: “Islam is peace” (The Press Secretary
of the White House, 2001). In fact, Islam is not peace, it is a religion for
worshiping God, and seeks peace after the resurrection rather than in the
actual reality of the contemporary world. In some extent the desire of
political aspiration has always been the force behind euphemism, therefore, PC is
stretched beyond its original intention which was avoiding discrimination.
Following the massive publication for euphemism and attempts in bringing
syntactic and lexical change in referencing social categories as well as the
renaming of various organisation departments and institutions (Halmari, 2011),
official uses of PC have been remarkably successful in forcing people to change
their linguistic behaviours.
In conclusion, PC will continue to be utilised as an excuse of manipulating the use of language, unless the intention of prescribing
people how to use the language does not replace euphemism.
References:
Allan,
K. & Burridge, K. (2006). Forbidden
words: Taboo and the censoring of language. New York, USA: Cambridge
University Press. Retrieved from http://uwsau.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=307385
Hale, A. (2016).
Week 9 lecture, Western Sydney University
Hale, A. & Basides, H. (2013). The
keys to academic English. Melbourne: Palgrave Macmillan.
Halmari, H. (2011). Political correctness, euphemism,
and language change: The case of ‘people first’. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(3),
828-840.
Office of the
Press Secretary. (2001). "Islam is
peace" says president: Remarks by the president at Islamic centre of
Washington, D.C. Retrieved on 23/04/16 from http://georgewbushwhitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html
Rojas-Lizana,
I. (2014). Perceived discrimination in LGBTIQ from Australia: A typology of
verbal discrimination. Journal
of Multidisciplinary International Studies, 11(1), Retrieved
on 25/04/2016 from https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/portal/article/view/3303/4363
Yoong, Y. (2014).
Pull up a chair, we need to talk about sexist language at work. The Conversation. Retrieved on 25/04/2016 from https://theconversation.com/pull-up-a-chair-we-need-to-talk-about-sexist-language-at-work-31869