Summary Of A Critique Of Politically Correct Language

The PC police have spoken. Are these call outs for cultural insensitivity appropriate or does being politically correct do more harm than good? One side of the argument, some say that substituting the harmful phase does not have an effect. In the essay, “A Critique of Politically Correct Language,” Ben O’Neill claims that politically correct language is irrelevant as long as the social stain continues. O’Neill contends, PC suffers from a recurring bullying problem: new words replace injurious language, but individuals remain stuck in a cycle which words are continually being replaced. “Garbage Man” will eventually become “Disposal Professional” and in lieu of “Mailman” one will label as “Dispatch Engineer.” The dilemma is the lexicon tends to be taken up by the same persons with the same purpose. In brief, the elemental slanderous intention never changes.

Even worse, other scholars dispute that one politically correct action gives the masses permission to void all future violations.

Researchers have examined different ethical behaviors and their association to their prejudice. Their paper speaks of the theory of “Moral self-licensing.” “Moral self-licensing...occurs when past moral behavior makes people more likely to do potentially immoral things without worrying about feeling or appearing immoral.” Each time a John Doe does something they think is good, they add +1 and if they do something harmful -1 bringing the overall balance to zero. Which they later use this method to absolve from any claim of being a racist or a bigot. In short, a person might feel like acting the right way in one case balances out immoral actions elsewhere. If PC language is supposed to stitch the wound of malicious speech — to create a form of expression separated from the injury and traditional baggage of bigotry — one should ask: Does it actually

work?

Supporters of political correctness, arguing the notion that the words have a profound impact on persons' lives. The main powerhouse behind PC has to do with the theory of language. Language is not just descriptive but affects our aspect of truth. Certain forms of degrading speech, create distress. In her book "Words that Wound," law professor Mari Matsuda explains that hateful incitement is violent whenever it's muttered. Pushes the addressee down to a level where the addresser is comfortable, it portrays the violent expulsion of another individual. It creates emotional anxiety, urges people to switch schools or jobs, and it creates solitude emerging from the hated and loneliness one might experience. Researchers have also recognized some of the psychological entanglements that stereotypical language has on intellectual range. One of the several experiments included asking two group women to solve math problems. One group was informed of the stereotype that men are better than women at mathematics, and the other was not made aware of the stereotype. The women who were made conscious of the stereotype did worse than the control group (who were not noted about the stereotype). They found that the knowledge of a negative stereotype limits working recall measure. Our brains are subconsciously cognizant of the stereotypes that society uses to define a group. The threat cannot only harm women but citizens of color in their scholarly or work performances. Language aids one to comprehend the world, and it shapes our observations of others. This threat seems to strengthen the idea that words have the power to lessen an individual's potential significantly. A choice to bowdlerize language, to not replicate possibly harmful stereotypes, may be a tyrannical self-censorship, or a way to avoid severe language that has a tangible influence on others. In any way, the voice one use is all up to preferences. Willing to be PC may or may not change the way the population thinks about the world.