Political correctness in its definitive sense means the avoidance of actions that marginalise or exclude groups of people that are excluded and discriminated over. An instance of being politically correct can be as simple as asking someone what pronouns they use instead of assuming their gender identity on the basis of their appearance. From being a phrase that was formerly considered one that exhibited wisdom, it is now being attached to negative connotations linked to extreme leftist ideas. With a rise in populist governments across the globe, the idea of political correctness is being rejected by many state heads and governments.
As a result of the different elucidations attached to “political correctness”, it has led to the formation of two main arguments in its regard; the first being that of having freedom of speech and the second being that it is unfruitful in nature and further reinforces the grounds on which individuals are discriminated over.
PC and Freedom of Speech
Recently, President Jair Bolsanaro was found making homophobic remarks about Brazil’s tourism industry and how Brazil should not become a “gay tourism paradise”. Not only does this offend an entire community of people who have historically been discriminated against, it also enables citizens of the country to solidify their homophobia towards the LGBTQIA+ community. Inferring from this illustration of political incorrectness, it is safe to assume that such comments made by people, especially those in the political system, endangers the rights and psychological health of marginalised groups of people.
Individuals opposed to the idea of adhering to political correctness have often retaliated with the argument that it is justified because of their freedom of expression. This then raises the question of whether speech that is meant to offend marginalised groups of the society should be encouraged or not regardless of their political correctness? The answer lies in the motive. Hate speech, such as President Bolsanaro’s comments, is perpetuated with the aim of being derogatory and devaluing the sentiments of another individual. Freedom of expression on the other hand is designed to act as a form of communication and articulation of opinions.
Hence, exemplifying that freedom of expression is not just the structural formation of language and words on its own, but it is the value, ideology and symbolism attached to those words that differentiate it from hate speech.
PC and a Global Ethos
Global ethos refers to the underlying sentiments and beliefs that make up dominant assumptions about a group or society. This can largely be justified by the theory of social constructivism. It suggests that human development, socially, is a product of interpersonal interactions and relationships. These notions are now more relevant than ever due to globalisation and an increase in the influx and efflux of people from different cultural backgrounds into other settings.
As a result of a globalised world, multiculturalism has now become a limitation for political correctness as a diverse society means a heightened need for inclusivity. In this case, political correctness must be viewed from a linguistic perspective, if it is to be incorporated by the government in their legislative frameworks and dialogues. The idea of political correctness, therefore, relates directly to tolerance which is essential in a globalised state of world order. Although, political correctness does not equal the eradication of social exclusions but it does to a certain degree aid in the process of reducing the phenomena. This further gives rise to the argument of political correctness only being used for formality and not based on morality, hence, disregarding the very idea of diversity and inclusion of different sections of the society, especially those who have been victims to systematic oppression.
The Trump administration is a pure reflection of the aforementioned fundamentals. President Trump has made it very apparent that he does not put any effort into being politically correct. If in case the government under Donald Trump was to pass a politically correct law or legislation the hypocrisy of such an action would be evident since the head of the state does not believe in the notion itself.
This therefore, demonstrates that political correctness can either partially eliminate inequality and discrimination or can become counterproductive and contrast the very core of its meaning and what it stands for.
Conclusion
To summarise the different tangents of political correctness, it can be established that political incorrectness can not be justified under the framework of freedom of expression and can only be determined based on the intention and ideology behind what is being said. Additionally, although the narrative of political correctness is one of significance and needs to be treated with utmost importance, however, implementing it without the right ideology behind it dilutes the essence of the principle hence making it ineffectual.
