Many years ago, I was teaching a class on gender and I asked what the difference was between “Miss” and “Mrs.”
The students correctly responded that “Miss” described a woman who wasn’t married while“Mrs.” conveyed the connubial state.
I then asked what the analogous words were for men to which the scholars responded there weren’t any.
The conclusion drawn was that these words which revealed women’s marital status were unfair. It was soon pointed out that the word “Ms.” solved the problem.
However, in relating this experience to a spinster cousin, I was informed that she preferred “Miss.”
I called her a Neanderthal and that ended the discussion.
The narrative above led me to think about political correctness which I instinctively approved of.
Could anyone legitimately object to substituting either “homosexual” or “gay” for “fag?”
And shouldn’t “Native American” be substituted for “Indian” when the latter perpetuated a mistake Columbus made in thinking he had found India.
But how far should we take this?
“Do we really want to use “vertically challenged” in place of “dwarf” or “midget?”
And isn’t it ridiculous to speak of the “differently-abled” when we mean “handicapped” or “crippled?”
And what about those of us in the land of Academe who are told that the head of our department is our “chair?.”
It wasn’t too many years ago that a baseball team, the Cleveland Indians displayed a cartoon version of a native American which, to say the least, was unflattering.
The Cleveland fans defended the image arguing that the objection was an example of political correctness run amok. And while the team owners and fans prevailed, the question remained — was this fair to native Americans?
One blogger makes the argument that the aggrieved party should determine what is acceptable.
This means that blacks can insist that the “n” word is verboten; Jews can outlaw “kike” and Italians ban the word “wop.”
My feeling is that bigots can use any language they wish in the confines of their homes, but in the public arena they should be sensitive to the wishes of minorities.
If they are not, I don’t believe we should opt for legal remedies, but rather rely on the force of public opinion.
Some bigots may be dissuaded when subjected to public embarrassment
Now that we’ve explored some of the ramifications of political correctness, we should probably seek a definition.
One is…“PC is a term used to describe language or behavior which is intended.…to provide a minimum of offence, particularly to racial, cultural or other identity groups.”
It came as a surprise to me to realize just how controversial PC has become when it simply boils down to being civil and polite.
If one looks at those on record who oppose P.C., one finds Jacques Barzun, Glenn Beck, Phyllis Schlafly, Rush Limbaugh, and, of course, Donald Trump.
They charge that P.C. violates freedom of speech.
Novelist P.D. James called it “linguistic fascism,” and opponents talk about the “P.C. police.”
Those who object most strenuously to P.C. are usually Republicans or conservatives.
One can ask what all the fuss is about.
Does language really matter?
Yes! Language is power, and changing the words we use can change society.
Think of Joseph Goebbels, FDR, Joseph McCarthy, Martin Luther King and how their words shaped history.
While all the problems of the world won’t be solved by political correctness, it is a start.
Dr. Hal Sobel
Great Neck
