by Howard Young
definition
research
I do not remember exactly when I first heard the terms "politically correct" and "political correctness." It was probably about ten years ago, c.1990. What I do remember is thinking, "What in the heck is that?" At first I assumed they were terms from a government glossary of some sort to ensure the proper use of governmental jargon. It was only as these terms were used more and more in the media that I began to question what it was they meant. It didn't take too long for their correct definition to become apparent to me. They mean propaganda, abrogation of the First Amendment, and manipulation of public opinion (mass brainwashing).
The concept of political correctness was brought to my attention years earlier, however. In high school we were required to read 1984 by George Orwell (the pen name for Englishman Eric Blair). Being born in 1941, I was raised to believe propaganda was the sole work of the Axis devils. It was only later that I learned we "good guys" use propaganda too. After reading 1984, I began to understand how controlling thought and language could be used for the ultimate control of mankind. I've been a skeptic ever since.
Orwell's warning novel introduced me to terms such as "Big Brother," "Newspeak," and "Doublethink." These terms were precursors of the large centralized government we are now experiencing. The manipulation of language, and ultimately thought, now used by the government and its media supporters, is resulting in the corruption of the general populace. Our brainwashed citizens are beginning to view hypocrisy as truth.
My original intent regarding this paper was to write something light and mocking about how ridiculous Political Correctness is. Once I did a bit of research, however, the tone changed to something more serious.
Being a believer in plain speaking, I turn to the dictionary as a starting point to understand the meaning of political correctness. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines "political" as: Of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of a government. Of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of government policy. Of, relating to, or involving politics, especially party politics.
These definitions are rather sterile so I turned to Modern Political Analysis, Fifth Edition by Robert A. Dahl for definitions that better reflected the real world. Dahl believes that all human relationships are political and politics, therefore, is inescapable, as are its consequences. My experience bears this out.
Ever since Aristotle argued that the central factor in politics is the authority of one over another, that idea has been generally accepted. Dahl, by extension, then offers a definition of a political system as:"Any persistent pattern of human relationships that involves, to a significant extent, control, influence, power, or authority (Dahl 2-4). It is clear that politics involves influencing others by any means available. It is the art of bending others to your will, either through peaceful negotiation or persuasion, or through violence as necessary (an extension of diplomacy).
Webster's also defines "correct" or "correctness" as: To make or set right: amend, counteract, neutralize. To alter or adjust so as to bring to some standard or required condition. Conforming to an approved or conventional standard. Conforming to or agreeing with fact, logic, or known truth. These definitions imply that "correct" is freedom from fault or error; a fidelity to fact or truth.
If one accepts that politics is the influencing of others to one's point of view, then "politically correct language" must mean language that conforms to a predetermined political meaning. It is not necessarily "correct" in the dictionary sense of being factual, but is correct only in the sense that it agrees with the predetermined position of those in authority. I cannot remember anytime [any time] during my life when propaganda, spin, and language manipulation have been used to influence the opinion of the American public to the extent they have been used during the Clinton administration.
One last definition of Political Correctness comes from the The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics (379): "Term, originally derisive, but accepted by some of its targets, for an influential movement on US campuses beginning in the late 1980's. Appealing to the principle of affirmative action and to various understandings of 'multiculturalism', the movement for political correctness sought changes in undergraduate curricula to emphasize the roles of women, non-white people, and homosexuals in history and culture, and attacked the domination of 'Western' culture by dead white European males. It promoted anti-sexist and anti-racist speech and behavior codes, which opponents denounced as illiberal."
It is not just the government that manipulates language. Most special interest groups manipulate public opinion to the maximum extent possible. With the assistance of lobbyists, public relations professionals, and the media, most so-called information that is provided to the public is not factual but editorial.
Political Correctness is also used extensively by liberal special interest groups so they can be "offended." Once offended by language or behavior deemed by them to be incorrect, they then lobby for legislation to prohibit such language or behavior. These are generally the professional "nannies" who feel their view of the world is the one and only true social order. These "elitists" love government and regulation primarily, I think, not only because they are Socialists, but also because excessive regulations lower the competitive standards of a capitalistic society to a level almost everyone can meet. Without the lowered standards of the group, they could not be as empowered as they seek to be. What they really want is a lower, one size fits all, standard for a socialistic society. Free enterprise and capitalism is too tough for them, and an educated populace would not accept the totalitarian rule that will surely follow.
When I grew up, in the 1940's and 1950's, the United States seemed to be a generally rational place. After World War Two our homes and neighborhoods were safe. The schools were safe and were doing their job of teaching. Women acted like, and were treated like, ladies, and men tried to act like gentlemen. Most children had two parents, and the entire family could attend entertainment without parental concern.
Fast-forward about fifty years to 1999. More and more neighborhoods are unsafe. Window bars and alarms abound. The government schools are equipped with metal detectors and staffed with guards. Illegal narcotics are readily available, and little Johnny and Jane arrive home to tell their mother that it's normal and good to have two daddies. Television is becoming overrun with sleaze.
On the job referring to "the little lady," smoking, or referring to "Negroes" will result in a severe dressing down at best, and possibly, termination. Humor is fast disappearing from the American personality as the slightest offense taken can, and usually will, result in severe sanctions.
I can remember going shopping with my mother as a child. She would always dress up, and so would we (unwillingly, I admit). My grandmother would take us to San Francisco several times a year. She was always turned out in her finest, and what I really remember are the white gloves she wore, as did almost every other woman you saw. Now, if a woman dresses formally to go shopping, she is the rare exception.
If one could have returned to 1950 with this description of the future the reaction would be horror and shock. How could our nation decay and degenerate so quickly toward being a third world country in only fifty years?
Why is this happening? The origins are 19th century German socialist philosophers who developed an ideology which resulted in the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx in 1848. This totalitarian and socialist ideology not only spawned Stalinist Russia, but also had a heavy influence in Fascist Germany and Italy, and in Red China. There was very little difference between the ideologies of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. The real struggle between them was for power and territory. The ideology of Communism was (is?) so strong in Russia that it is estimated it will take the Russian Confederation at least two generations to adapt to capitalism.
Communism (Marxism) takes two forms. Classical Marxism is economic in nature. As classical Marxism has ostensibly failed in Russia, it has lost credibility.
Therefore, those who want to promote Marxism in the United States have turned to the second form, Cultural Marxism. Cultural Marxism is known in the United States by another term, Political Correctness.
Marxist ideology, combined with Fascism and linguistics (Goebbels' "Big Lie") resulted in "deconstruction" of language. This is, in effect, Newspeak straight from 1984.
Political Correctness in the United States is considered by many to be somewhat of a joke. This would be true if it were not so serious. Those currently in power in the US are applying Political Correctness in every way possible to change forever the basic character of our country. Political Correctness is attempting to change the rules we live under. It is attempting to change all of our relationships between people, institutions, and organizations. It is attempting to change our behavior and our value system. If those in power can control our words, control of our thoughts is not far behind.
There are several clear parallels between the classical Economic Marxism and its variant, Cultural Marxism (Political Correctness). Both share the vision of a classless society of equal opportunity combined with equal results and benefits for all. This "vision" contradicts human nature, as people always end up unequal, regardless of their starting point. This "vision" fails as it disregards the profit incentive for hard work and self-betterment. Society will never accept this limitation unless forced.
Both versions of Marxism are forced. Both are totalitarian ideologies. Through the near take-over of colleges in the US, both versions seek to control freedom of speech, thought, action and the press to the extent possible. The Politically Correct Marxist education of several generations of Americans is producing a population of generally mindless, docile "sheeple" incapable of independent, critical thought. The stage will be set for a New World Order in the form of the United Nations.
Both versions of Marxism have single-factor explanations of history. In classical Economic Marxism the ownership of the means of production explains all history. In Cultural Marxism history is explained by which groups (sex/gender, race, poor, rich, religious, "the children") have power over other groups.
Another similarity is that both variants declare certain groups virtuous and other groups evil without consideration of the actual behavior of individuals within a group. Economic Marxism defines workers and peasants as good and the middle class and other owners of capital as evil. Political Correctness defines blacks, Hispanics, Feminist women, homosexuals, and other minority groups as virtuous and white men as evil. Blacks who are not Politically Correct are considered as being white, and non-feminist women are not recognized at all. They are simply tools of evil.
A fourth parallel is the means of Marxism. Economic Marxism, when in power, expropriates the property of the middle-class, and gives it to the state which is the representative of the workers. Cultural Marxism, when in power, will penalize white men and others who disagree with politically correct thought and action. Privileges are given to favored groups. Examples are affirmative action, open borders, excessive welfare, hate crime legislation, and a general disregard for the Constitution unless it suits the purposes of those in control. The unconstitutional use of Executive Orders is highly favored by the current administration.
Both forms of Marxism employ a method of analysis specifically designed to show the correctness of their ideology in every situation. For Classical Marxism the analysis is economic. For Cultural Marxism the analysis is linguistic and deconstruction of language. Deconstruction "proves" that any text, past or present, illustrates the oppression of favored groups by reading that meaning into the words of the text regardless of their non-political (dictionary) meaning. This is exactly the use of "Newspeak" and "Doublethink" in 1984. Both are phony analyses that twist the so-called evidence to fit the pre-conceived conclusions desired by those in power. However, because of the formalized structure of the twisted logic, a certain legitimate air is given to the ideology.
The parallels discussed above are not coincidental. They exist because Political Correctness derives directly from Marxism. Since the mid-1800's, Economic Marxism overshadowed Cultural Marxism. Today, with the fall of the Soviets, and Economic Marxism almost totally discredited, Political Correctness has taken its place. Its goal is the same, a society of radical egalitarianism enforced by the state.
Having heavily influenced both major political parties in the US, Political Correctness appears to have grown into an unstoppable monster. Countless governmental laws and regulations enforce it. It almost totally controls the entertainment industry. It permeates government (public) schools and higher education. It has strong influence in many Christian churches. Conformity to the god of "PC'ism" is necessary if one hopes to be accepted into or remain in the Establishment.
The vital question, in my mind, is: How can America combat Political Correctness and take back the US from the Cultural Marxists? It is inadequate just to criticize Political Correctness, as it is willing to accept a certain amount of criticism to disarm its opponents, and to seem less menacing. The proponents of Political Correctness are too wily and wise to reveal their totalitarian goal until they think full victory has been achieved.
Those of us who oppose Marxism must defy Political Correctness. We must use so-called forbidden words, phrases, and thoughts, and reject what is deemed appropriate thought, speech, and behavior by the current Establishment. We must voice reality, unpleasant facts, and the truth. Our behavior must reflect the best of America's former culture of some fifty-odd years ago.
Defiance feeds upon itself. When others see Political Correctness defied with success, they will become emboldened to do the same. Open defiance is Political Correctness's chief vulnerability. We cultural conservatives must defy it at every opportunity. The truth, plain spoken, is the American way.
Very few Americans appreciate Political Correctness for what it is, Marxism disguised. As that truth spreads, so will defiance. With education, defiance will spread. Presently, Political Correctness prospers by disguising itself. Through defiance and education, Political Correctness can be revealed for what it is. It will no longer be able to hide beneath its camouflage of "sensitivity" (do not disagree with me or I'll be offended), "tolerance" (this word means to endure, not to embrace or accept), and "diversity" (as in "Balkanize," rather than a population of individuals bound together by a common American culture and language).
Initially, I was going to lard this paper with as many examples of Politically Correct foolishness as I could assemble. I will close with only one of my favorites: "Stop the slaughter! Boycott babyoil."
Works Cited:
Ball, Jeri Lynn. "The Great Communitarian Hoax." The Resister, Vol.V, No.1 (Winter, 999): 57-69.
Dahl, Robert A. Modern Political Analysis, Fifth Edition. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1991.
Horowitz, David. Marx's Manifesto:150 years of evil. Los Angeles, California: Center for the Study of Popular Culture, 1998.
Lind, William S. "What Is Political Correctness?" The Resister, Vol. IV, No. 3 (Spring 1998): 66-68.
Marx, Karl. The Communist Manifesto. Appleton, Wisconsin: The John Birch Society, 1974.
McLean, Iain. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Webster's Ninth New Collegate Dictionary. Springfield, Massachusetts:1987ed.
Return to English 122 syllabus
Return to English 122 main page
Questions? Brian McKinney
(bmckinne@home.com)