By Kyoko Canaway
Am I allowed to say this? Will it be deemed politically incorrect and offensive to use this term? Questions like this have come to define one of the greatest preoccupations of modern society, namely whether or not something is politically correct. However, this obsession is perhaps misplaced, since it is not political correctness alone that will resolve the societal injustices faced by many today. Indeed, political correctness can be seen instead as something that hinders forward progress, simply because it often does not work. A prerequisite of many of those that tell you that you are or are not allowed to say or do something is that they believe absolutely that what they are telling you is correct and should be followed by all. While I am not at all suggesting that there should be doubt surrounding the validity of movements that strive for total equality across society, I nevertheless believe that an absolute mindset can be dangerous, since it immediately excludes the points of views of others, shouting over the voices that question in the hope to clarify, and instead assuming that any doubt is a symptom of half-heartedness or lack of belief in what they are fighting for. This exclusion of the other, the rejection of attempts to nuance or clarify typifies, ironically, many of the institutions and figures that are being targeted today. Instead, those perhaps less concerned with generic movements of political correctness and more engaged with nuance and doubt are more prepared to see the points of views of others and so adapt, more quickly and aptly taking into consideration the voices of all, and not simply the voices that shout the loudest. As Bertrand Russell stated, “one of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt. Let doubt prevail”(1).
One area in which there is currently no room for doubt however, is in the question of language. It is undeniable that language influences the collective subconscious of society and can therefore become a means of perpetuating social injustices if not considered closely. This is because each term brings with it its social and historical connotations, evoking secondary implications that remain problematic, even if not intended by the speaker nor picked up on by the listener. Due to this, it is entirely justifiable to criticise people for their use of certain words. However, in order for this to perpetuate a progressive mindset that is policing real issues rather than simply the words themselves, there must be an awareness of why a certain word is problematic. If this is not the case, then an aggressive policing of politically correct language in fact becomes stifling and represses the movement that it is rightly seeking to promote, resulting in the limitation of its own spread for one of two reasons. Firstly, members of society are simply too afraid of offending in an effort to defend, and so remain silent. Alternatively, people focus on the terms used, leading to a vague and meaningless political activism that remains purely linguistic and achieves nothing for the individuals who are facing the very real issues of discrimination in their everyday lives.
An example of this was seen in 2015, when the British actor Benedict Cumberbatch was criticised for using the word ‘coloured’ in an interview with Tavis Smiley on US television. It is undeniable that someone so in the public eye should have researched the correct terminology to use before appearing on television and he was therefore right to apologise for his misuse of language afterwards. However, nowhere in the media backlash to his interview was there any consideration of why the term ‘coloured’ is now considered to be outdated and therefore inappropriate. This word brings with it many problematic connotations, since it recalls a time when racism was an accepted part of everyday life and was therefore used to describe anyone who was not white, implicitly suggesting that white was the accepted norm and that anyone who did not conform to this descriptor was an inferior outsider. In addition to this, this is the term that was used to differentiate between black people and white people in the Jim Crow laws of America. As a result of this, a sense of derision and a suggestion of inferiority is inextricably bound up with the word ‘coloured’ and it is this that today makes it offensive. However, this is not what people said when Cumberbatch used this word. Instead, there was a general outcry that skated over the historical implications, causing many to shun the word without understanding why there was such anger around it. If this alone is not an indication of the power that policing language has in eradicating the true substance of words and thought, it must also be noted that Cumberbatch was highlighting the diversity problems faced by black actors in England during this interview, raising awareness of the racial injustices still prevalent in the entertainment industry. However, his argument appears nowhere on a Google search relating to this topic, since all results instead clamour to report on the actor’s misuse of language and to criticise him for it. Here therefore again is an example of language being policed to the detriment of the cause itself, as activists work against people with the same sentiments as them, policing language rather than policy. Ultimately, the rage against Cumberbatche’s misuse of the term ‘coloured’ achieved very little. No-one felt that further action needed to be taken against the racial injustices of the entertainment sector as a result of Cumberbatch’s interview, because everyone had forgotten that that is what he was arguing for and no-one was more aware of why the term ‘coloured’ is considered offensive. Instead, it was simply quietly dropped by people who, like Cumberbatch, had been unaware of its connotations.
The issue of politically correct language can also be seen in consideration of the organization the NAACP, which, despite the media outcry at the inappropriate nature of the word ‘coloured’ after Cumberbatch’s interview, continues to be called the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People. This is a highly esteemed American organisation, founded in 1909, that continues to fight against race-based discrimination and yet its name proudly declares itself an advocator of rights for ‘coloured people’, the very term that was so vehemently condemned after Cumberbatch’s use of it. However, the use of this outdated term in the name of the organisation in no way detracts from its efficacy as a promoter of Black rights. It is currently preparing a virtual march on Washington and continues to be one of the “largest and most pre-eminent civil rights organization of the nation” (2). The implications of this are clear. Here, terminology in no way impedes the ability of an individual or a group of individuals to fight for the cause, a clear demonstration that policy is much more important than language. Stephen Fry also cites an example of this in his 2018 speech ‘Against Political Correctness’. Fry recounts an anecdote about Russell Means who founded the American Indian Movement. He allegedly once said to Fry “Oh for God’s sake! Call me an Indian or a Lakota Sioux or Russell. I don’t care what you call me. It’s how we’re treated that matters.”(3) This is the sentiment also embodied by the name of the NAACP – ultimately the treatment of individuals should weigh more heavily on people’s minds than the terms used to describe them.
It remains undeniable that language does have the ability to subconsciously affect the way in which we view those around us and so it would be naïve of me to suggest that the policing of language should stop. What I do believe however, is that an informed policing of language should be encouraged, one that seeks to explain why specific terminology is condemned and that understands that sentiment exists beyond language. Ultimately it will be people’s belief in a cause, the unrelenting fight for equality that will achieve social justice, not a rigidly but blindly controlled list of vocabulary.
1. Russell qtd Fry https://scrapsfromtheloft.com/2018/10/19/against-political-correctness-stephen-fry/