Political Correctness

In reality, PC has become a bit of a joke. To call someone, or something, politically correct, in some circumstances can even be considered an insult, with intimations of a lack of sense of humour, or worse still, caring too much. It appears that society has, in the 21st century, outgrown the need for such an over- protective concept.

Born from the social and political bedlam that was the nineteen- eighties, like many ideas of similar vein, political correctness came from the States. It originated in American Universities, where, focused largely on the arts and humanities faculties, it was an attempt to widen the literary base to include more works from non-white and women writers, to restructure the ways in which history was taught, and to promote sexual and racial awareness by means of certain speech and behaviour codes on campus, and closer focus on the true meanings of all materials to be included in the curriculum.

Almost straight away, absurdities arose, and the PC debacle was born. An example of this came in the form of accusations that the poem "To his Coy Mistress" by Andrew Marvell, taught to this day in establishments around the world, was simply a "sophisticated form of sexual harassment." It soon became clear that the situation was out of control.

And the idiotic and outrageous examples continue right up to the present. In the news recently has been the idea that some politicians wish to get rid of the term "British" and ban "Rule Britannia." They fear that this traditional British ideology may be slightly old-fashioned, and that it fails to encompass the variety of ethnic backgrounds existent in the UK. This much could easily be passed off as a harmless theory, but the lunacy is this: they want to replace the name "Britain" with "a community of communities." Really rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?

But where will this madness end? In George Orwell style censorship, with all non-PC news articles erased? Perhaps not, but with PC being as uncontrollable as this, is there truly an end? The extremes really are frightening. Imagine, all-out thermonuclear war over something so petty as black-to-white ratios winning the lottery, for example.

There are slightly more amusing extremes that PC can go to, though. In his book, "Politically Correct Bedtime Stories", James Finn Garner takes a satirical view of the whole PC movement through the re-writing of traditional stories and fables:

On the way to Grandma's house, Red Riding Hood was accosted by a wolf, who asked her what was in her basket. She replied, 'Some healthful snacks for my grandmother, who is certainly capable of taking care of herself as a mature adult.' The wolf said, 'You know, my dear, it isn't safe for a little girl to walk through these woods alone.' Red Riding Hood said, 'I find your remark offensive in the extreme, but I will ignore it because of your traditional status as an outcast from society, the stress of which has caused you to develop your own, entirely valid, worldview. Now, if you'll excuse me, I must be on my way.'

While this is a comical view of political correctness, and perhaps more than a little exaggerated, it does show just how ridiculous PC really is. The implications of anything vaguely political influencing the growth and development of small children are immense. It has long been thought that the innocence of childhood is precious, and untouchable. This idea threatens that.

By far the biggest problem with political correctness is its hypocrisy. The whole idea of PC is non-PC. Nobody likes to have everybody around them watching what they say, and what they do, and what they think. Be they black, white, gay, straight, whatever, the feeling of separation and being different can only be deepened by this sort of behaviour. Take black people for example. Over the years, PC has changed its mind from calling non- Caucasians Blacks, Coloured People, or Ethnic minorities. But does anyone in the black community actually care? No! What they do care about is equality. This cannot be preserved by people stumbling over what to even refer to them as.

Another question that the whole debate poses is: Is PC killing individuality? Some people just don't want to be equal. The kids at school, (there's always at least one) who where their hair different, and perhaps wear clothes that, shock! horror!, don't contain someone else's name. While PC does to some extent try to say that these people are entitled to their own opinion, it contradicts itself brilliantly, with its guiding principle that everything, and everyone needs to be named, filed, and classified. Who likes being put in a category? Very few people, I imagine; but for some reason, the fashionable people seems to think that this is best for us.

Finally, who are this ubiquitous they? The 'Men in Black' that have control over all of these codes and regulations. What we have to remember, that someone has had to work out all of these ideas. Are they completely infallible? Do they have absolutely no prejudices? I think not. Show me any man without a single prejudice, and what you have is not a man... you have a machine, taking everything at face value, with no emotions and no drives.

Whenever I try to think about this, I am returned to the same image: A balding man, ageless, but ancient at the same time, with a desk full of the world's great works, and a big black marker pen. This is a literary crime, and cannot continue. Free Speech? Under political correctness, there is no free speech. There is the free speech that we are entitled to, just so long as we don't speak it to loudly, and it doesn't disagree with anybody else's equally entitled opinion.

So, in the end, what does this PC all boil down to? Fear. The fear of putting one's foot in one's mouth. If you make a social faux-pas, what's the most serious thing that can actually happen? A dirty look? A slap around the cheeks? Really I think PC is used as a justification for some people's insecurities in the need to cling onto pre-defined structured ways of thinking for social gatherings. Small-talk on a grand-scale, encompassing our thoughts, actions, and even emotions. In the information age, with 99.99% of people in this country receiving at least basic education, is there really a need for such a device?