Political Correctness and Communication Inefficiency
The Purge went too far. After decades of efforts to protect people from discrimination based on their skin color, ethical roots, gender, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, body shape, impaired bodily function, impaired mental function, and other distinctions, the Great Purge of Political Correctness went too far.
The Western philosophical principle of the value of the individual goes back hundreds, even thousands of years. In an American context, individual freedom is most often associated with Thomas Jefferson. However, Jefferson did not invent the idea; Jefferson borrowed heavily from European Enlightenment philosophers like Rousseau and the Greek giants: Aristotle and Plato. It is unlikely that any of those deep thinkers would subscribe to modern political correctness. In the name of protecting people from prejudice or insults, the Great Purge of Political Correctness left the English language less accurate, less efficient, and more sterile.
Ever since our species began living in groups, outgroups have been stereotyped. Individuals were labeled positively or negatively (bias) based on their group identity. Automatic assessments were made of tribal membership, race, ethnicity, age, sex, wealth, ancestry, education, religion, intelligence, physical disability, mental health, and even the color and fullness of head and body hair. Initially, stereotypes were essential for survival. Over time, some of these assessments were neutralized by cross-cultural experiences and the slow expansion of civil rights. Mixed marriages dissolved some stereotypes. The expansion of the right to vote reduced prejudices toward groups with whom political power had to be shared. Other stereotypes fell at the point of a gun or a pen: a violent revolution, a civil war or a religious reform.
However, in the closing years of the 20th century, the successful campaign against prejudice in the United States became an end in itself. A combination of missionary zeal and egotism eventually propelled the movement beyond reason. The Political Correctness (PC) police patrolled every village in the country to protect vulnerable people from the words that would hurt: blacks, mestizos, disabled, retarded, fat, skinny and many more. PC police gave “raised eyebrow tickets” to anyone using masculine pronouns in gender-neutral or mixed-gender contexts. ‘Raised eyebrow tickets’ and often more severe verbal spankings lead to (1) ridiculous slash pronouns: he/she, he/she/himself; (2) ridiculous double references: he or she, he or she, himself or himself and (3) ridiculous parentheses: he (she), he (she) or himself (herself). Professional descriptors were neutralized from sexism. Waiters and waitresses became waiters. Fishermen, regardless of gender, became fishermen. The postman, regardless of gender, became the mail delivery man. The firefighters, regardless of gender, became firefighters.
While some of the changes were justified or benign, others made the English language darker, less efficient, and less personal. For example, “secretary”, which held and continued to be associated with high-powered positions in the cabinets of presidents and governors, was considered a demeaning title for women who filled a variety of roles for a boss, usually a man. So female secretaries were renamed program assistants and shielded from their male bosses under sexual harassment policies that made it risky for bosses to hug them, talk to them about their personal lives, introduce them as their secretary or address them as such. However, the innocuous new title “program assistant” conveys little information, as it could refer to a receptionist, typist, file clerk, or executive assistant with broad discretionary decision-making authority.
Historically, hurricanes had been named with simple feminine names. After an attack by PC police, the US Weather Service named 50% male names, which lost face for women who never had a hurricane.
Employers were limited in the type of questions that could be asked in an application or interviews. Although designed to protect the applicant from discrimination, some of the prohibited questions were relevant to predicting the applicant’s likely success on the job.
Some beating hearts tried to defend the rights of an individual from discrimination by condemning all stereotypes. While it is morally wrong to judge an individual by the group they belong to, stereotyping is an essential skill for navigating the world, near and far. Everyone has to stereotype the groups around them, understand their relationships to the group, and act accordingly. For example, it is incorrect to have an automatic negative opinion of a young black woman, in a wheelchair, who joins her engineering firm. That is prejudice and a violation of basic human rights. The defense of the individual against guilt by association is a basic principle of human rights.
However, condemning the celebration of all stereotypes is PC nonsense. The willingness to maintain and act on an exact stereotype of a group of black youth on the back streets of Detroit at midnight on Saturday could save your wallet or life. Understanding the stereotypical ethical standards of mortgage lenders could save your home. Understanding the stereotypical tactics of used car salesmen (PC correct) could keep a lemon out of your garage.
In addition to patrolling for group stereotypes, PC police developed a list of politically incorrect descriptive words: “disabled” was deleted and replaced with “challenged.” Of course, everyone was challenged in some way: hearing challenged, mobility challenged, learning challenged, socially challenged, sexually challenged, hair rejuvenation challenged, mechanically challenged, etc. Many people faced multiple challenges.
The application of others was reduced. The words “girl” or “boy” could not be applied to anyone over the age of 12 because it implied immaturity, lower class or, most derogatory, a “black” servant.
Some words were sacred and their PC use restricted. Since “adopted” was used of children, the more fanatical PC police handed out “raised-eyebrow fines” and sometimes even verbal spankings in public, when such children were demoted if the word “adopted” was applied inappropriately. broader, for example, Adopt a pet. or Adopt-a-Highway.
Politically correct words have been substituted to soften or disguise negative connotations and protect the user’s piety from any accusation of being judgmental or biased. These politically correct words were often more obscure than the common words they were meant to replace. They made the language less efficient. For example, what exactly is the limitation of a person with mechanical problems: can’t drive a car, can’t change a flat tire, can’t change the oil, can’t tune up the car, can’t? Can’t rebuild the motor, or can’t figure out how to replace the battery in your cell phone (PC right)?
My natural hair rejuvenator broke when I was 20 years old. I never tried to fix it. I never perceived my baldness as a “challenge”. Going bald really freed up a lot of time that I would have had to spend cleaning and styling my hair. However, the politically correct way to refer to my baldness, so as not to offend me, would be to say: “Lowell’s hair is thinning”; or “Lowell has a receding hairline”; or “Lowell has hair problems.” I’m glad my friends don’t have such extreme concerns about political correctness. When describing my hair, they are free to be bold and simple: “Lowell is going bald” or “Lowell is almost bald.” Of course, an explicit description would change with age and hair coverage. In college he had “long hair with receding”. As an assistant professor, he was “prematurely bald.” As an associate professor, I was “going bald.” As a tenured professor, he was “nearly bald with a trimmed gray beard.” As a professor emeritus, I am “mostly bald with an overgrown gray beard.” The PC police do not like such clear and sharp descriptions. They would prefer something softer, something more vague, and they would apply it to all stages of my baldness maturing from 20 to 67 years old. They would sacrifice a lot of information just to protect my fragile ego.
We all have a moral obligation and individual interest to get rid of outdated and inaccurate stereotypes. And it is imperative to update old ones and create new stereotypes based on personal observations and learning from credible secondary sources. The Great Purge of Political Correctness got rid of degrading racist and sexist stereotypes and terminology, but it went too far. It damaged language and impaired communication. It resulted in less communication, less information in that communication, and less efficiency in conveying the information in that communication.
Fortunately, the momentum behind the Great Purge of Political Correctness seems to have dissipated and the PC police have lost much of their fervor. We owe them a degree and have a good trip.