Political Correctness gone mad - the history of the term
In recent years little has been as divisive as Political Correctness or the emergence of ‘PC Culture,’ largely focussed on the use of language across the political spectrum. The left view it as a useful tool, used to protect minority groups from discriminatory practises whilst the right often argue that the ‘loony left’ are infringing on their right to free speech. Many see the ideas of ‘PC culture’ as being rooted in ‘wokeness’ and the increasing awareness of younger generations. The ‘war on woke’ has led to increasingly divisive and polarising discourse around what is right and what is wrong. The developing use of the term PC culture is largely due to the influence of the internet and the spread of ‘click bait stories’ used by online journalists, or being ‘called out’ for using unsavoury language online. Cancel culture and “its political correctness gone mad!” are by-products of increasingly polarising conversations surrounding language and accountability online.
‘Woke’ is a fairly new term, according to the Cambridge dictionary it means ‘aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality.’ However, its meaning has been twisted to be used in a derogatory manner and utilised, largely by those on the right, to describe people increasingly ‘out of touch’ with reality.
Political Correctness is equally as contemporary, some see its origins in the culture wars of Lenin and Mao, others argue its earlier use was among American leftists, used ironically to call someone out for being ‘self-righteous.’ The term was however adopted by the right and became a flashpoint for conservatives in the early 90’s after a campaign against the apparent liberalisation of universities in America. Those largely identifying as members of the right wing began arguing that leftist ideas were destroying conservative ideals and historic institutions. One of the first articles to directly reference the idea of Political Correctness was by Richard Bernstein in the New York Times called “the rising hegemony of the politically correct.” The idea seemed to explode on to the scene, in 1990 the term Politically correct was used in American magazines and newspapers 700 times, by 1992 this grew to more than 2,800 instances.
In the early 2000’s the term seemed to lose some weight with focus shifting elsewhere, however by the end of the Obama presidency the anti-political correctness movement seemed to explode. Seemingly coinciding with the increasing influence and reach of online spaces in election campaigns, especially in regard to Donald Trump’s campaign. The nature of the conspiracy changed taking on a more populist form, the elitist liberals silencing the ‘common man.’ According to Moira Weigal“the climate of digital journalism and social media sharing enabled the anti-political-correctness stories to spread further and faster than they had in the 1990s.” The nature of the debate concerns identity and deeply polarising topics creating easy click-bait, causing outrage, or outrage at the outrage of others. The phantom, all controlling enemy in the form of political correctness was created, causing increasingly factionalised conversations. These conversations seemed to spread like wildfire through Twitter and Facebook and online digital journalist spaces.
For example a mail online article claiming to share the ‘A to Z of politically correct madness’ with some examples being ‘C for Clapping,’ ‘P for Pronouns,’ ‘S for Sombrero’s.’ The article has been shared almost 300 times. Some of the commenters claim that ‘PC will destroy western culture,’ ‘it’s all about controlling the masses’ and that the ‘ironic truth is the very people claiming to defend freedom are actually ensuring we never have it.’ There are countless pages on Facebook names ‘anti political correctness’ one has almost 7,000 followers, their cover photo reads ‘its not racist… if its true.’ Online pages that are right supporters have vilified political correctness sparking international outrage, accessible to all through the influence of the internet.
Ingo von Münch argues that political correctness has threatened the nature of journalism given the accessibility the online space has created. Rudeljournalismus or ‘pack journalism’ was a term coined by former German chancellor Helmut Schmidt. The term is meant to describe the era of journalism where “journalists don’t want to offend with a supposedly incorrect expression of opinion or find themselves in the wrong corner.” This encapsulates the right-wing idea that Political Correctness is largely the policing of language, infringing on free speech.
Language has become central to the agenda especially a person’s online presence, past and present. Unsavoury past comments become public domain and lead to extreme, albeit somewhat warranted, reactions from the public. The development and manifestations3 of the term political correctness from the 1990s has been immeasurable, largely due to the increased accessibility to peoples lives the internet has given us. Jon Ronson has criticised this arguing the internet has created equal access to public and private personalities and their dialogue is placed on equal footing. He says that “"This is a very new weapon that we have. On Twitter, we're like children crawling towards guns."
The argument therein lies on whether Political Correctness has been positively manifested through online spaces, whether it be the over policing of language, or a positive mechanism utilised to protect already marginalised groups. Whilst free speech is no doubt an important aspect of modern society it does not create a free space to cause harm or offence to groups of people. Who sets these parameters however is a tricky question. Language is consistently modernising, and discourse can never be seen as black and white. Patience and balanced discission is necessary for positive change. Accessibility is not just for those that use the same language as we do, that we determine are just as ‘woke’ as we are, politics is not absolute. Modernisation and protection of vulnerable groups is always a positive, these new tools we have been given however, must be utilised with caution.
