Humans are fearful of what they find different. Various ethnic and religious groups have oftentimes faced prejudice because people succumbed to their fears of the unknown, and in an effort to contain these abnormalities. oppressors have resorted to active discrimination of certain groups. The recent movement for the institution of politically correct terminology as a means by which to restore humanity to the oppressed has spurred countless debates about the effectiveness of such an approach. Nevertheless, politically correct language can only ameliorate the state of society to a certain extent, as proven by several scholarly works written on the subject of what politically correct language can actually achieve. Introducing politically correct terminology into everyday conversation creates an atmosphere …show more content…
In “Tense Present: Democracy, English and the Wars over Usage,” David Foster Wallace argues that it would be ridiculous to assume “that American ceases to be elitist or unfair because Americans stop using certain vocabulary that is historically associated with elitism.” Just because society uses words that are less offensive does not mean that society has adopted attitudes that are less offensive. To clarify why such a fallacy is often heard, Wallace defines two functions for politically correct language “On the one hand they can be a reflection of political change, and on the other they can be an instrument of political change.” Usage conventions can be the result of change, or they can result in change. However, when one function occurs, the other does not, and vice versa. Care must be taken when determining the efficacy of politically correct terminology; it could either signal great strides being made in social justice, or it could be a superficial impersonation of human
1 Wilson Follett, in the article “On Usage, Purism, Pedantry” from Modern American Usage, promotes how two parties view the rights and wrongs concerning the usage of language.
In the modern society, millions of people realize that several offensive words with insulting taboo meanings heavily disturb their daily lives and break some special groups of people’s respect to push them to feel like outsiders of the whole society. As a result, more and more people join some underway movements to eliminate the use of these offensive words in people’s everyday speech and writing. However, these offensive words themselves are not the culprit, the bad meanings people attach are the problems and some other functions of the words are useful in the society. Christopher M. Fairman the author of “ Saying It Is Hurtful, Banning It Is Worse” also argues that although
We’ve all done it: walking down a hallway, judging someone or thinking someone is less than what we perceive ourselves to be based on the color of their skin or how they are dressed, or even their physical features. The author of The Language of Prejudice, Gordon Allport, shares how we live in a society where we are ridiculed for being less than a culture who labels themselves as dominant. This essay reveals the classifications made to the American morale. Allport analyzes in many ways how language can stimulate prejudice and the connection between language and prejudice.
In Haig Bosmajian's essay, "The Language of Oppression," he speaks of the value of a name. "To receive a name is to be elevated to the status of a human being; without a name one's identity is questionable." A human being is defined by his name. Without a name no one knows who he is, for he has no identity. However, a name can also be "used as a curse." Language can lead to the dehumanization of human beings and can ultimately lead to their extermination. As Bosmajian says, "Just as our thoughts affect our language, so does our language affect out thoughts and eventually our actions and behavior." When the Nazis took over the Jewish population, they were only able to accomplish this through the use of oppressive language. They re-named Jews as "bacilli," "parasites," "disease," "demon," and "plague." Because of the implementation of these names, people began to believe the Nazis, and the extermination of "six million human beings" was viewed as a "Final solution." Language affects all aspects of our lives. Language and names can inspire us and motivate us but can also belittle us. As Stokely Carmichael said, "...people who can define are masters." When a person is given the power to change one's name and identity and to define, they are given the powers of a master, and therefore are seen as a leader. Bosmajian wants this oppressive language to stop. He wants the belittlement of humans, caused by their differences, to cease. Clearly, the only way to do this is to rebel against the use of these words and eliminate the categories they create.
Gone are the days of legalized slavery, of Nazi Germany, of women being incapable of having a notable opinion. No longer is there a system of racial segregation adopted by an entire country, complete white supremacy or lynchings performed by the Ku Klux Klan. Yet, although we are no longer exposed to such past experiences and despite us living in a world where diversity is embraced more than ever, the existence of prejudice remains. Today we have universally come to accept multiculturalism, varied ethnic backgrounds and those populations who historically were forever stigmatized. But in spite of these developments prejudice has manifested itself in other, more subtle ways and no matter how modernized society become such unfavourable attitudes
In the essay “From Ancient Greece to Iraq, the Power of Words in Wartime” by Robin Tolmach Lakoff, Lakoff discusses the fact that words are a tool as well when it comes to wars. She talks about the differences between our natural want and ability to kill things, and the mental training soldiers receive to make it easier for them. Lakoff talks about the practice of dehumanizing the “enemy” through nicknames that make us feel superior then our foes, and the repercussions of using this type of language. In the essay by George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language”, Orwell talks about the decay of the English language, especially in political writings. He discusses the fact that when it comes to writing, political being the main focus, it’s
History can be taken many different ways. Political correctness can often muddy the waters of history. Recently, the political correctness of certain groups have begun to cross the boundaries of historical heritage.
Discrimination based on race, gender, class, and culture has been reoccurring since the beginning stages of mankind. Discrimination can derive from several different factors, whether sexual identity, race, gender, social-class as this paper demonstrated. The purpose of the paper was to discuss how discrimination was locked to institutional power between 1600s and 1990s, but even today discrimination is very prevalent and will continue to be, as the criminal justice system and the war on drugs acts as a form of discrimination towards people of color. Discrimination based on race, sexual ideologies and practices, and social class seem to still be very prevalent, while discrimination based on gender seems to have left the publics view.
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.
The central idea in Newspeak is used in today’s society to limit ideas and prevent people from being different. Political Correctness demands that people adhere to its standards of ideology in order to be acceptable to a society of peers. Any idea that is different than societies value is crushed by people who share political views. Words and actions are abolished by citizens in order to gain the approval of the people around them.
“If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought” (Orwell). George Orwell emphasizes the importance of the language and its effect on the truth. The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood, “Dulce et Decorum Est” by Wilfred Owen, and Anthem by Ayn Rand all show how words can affect actions and people’s lives. When language is tightly control or even manipulated by a certain group, the people suffer and become oppressed. Language manipulation is the basis of a dystopic society, and modern society must protect itself against this propaganda in order to maintain freedom.
In the United States, it is apparent that there is a struggle over the matters of race and equality. The evidence lays in the forms of police brutality, religious freedom laws, and how certain races are treated. In today’s society, discrimination1 is a huge problem that affects everyone on a personal level. Andrew Cuomo once said “I believe that discrimination still exists in society and we must fight it in every form.” Those words speak volumes and should be engraved into the heads of those who have the audacity to say that discrimination is not an issue today. The intolerance in America is projected by media and affects everyone: by race, religion, age, gender, wealth, and much more.
Political correctness has acted as a muzzle to those with an opinion and bubble wrap to those who are easily offended. Political correctness involves the prohibition of many common expressions and habits on the grounds that someone in our diverse society may take offence to them. It might have been born of a generous impulse - it’s good to avoid animosity when one can - but it has been taken to the extreme. It has become a nightmare for anyone with a different perspective on current affairs. We are encouraged to think about sexuality, gender identity, cultural imperialism, and race, but discouraged from talking freely about these very real issues. We have arrived at a point where we are constantly talking, but we are not actually saying anything.
Language is the glue that keeps people together. It helps us to connect, learn, describe, express, and advocate for ourselves. Without this tool people have little control over how they’re treated in the world. In this paper I’m going to discuss the ways language has been used as a mechanism of oppression against minorities, women, and victims of crimes.
Many times, people feel like there is benefits to silencing speech on topics that are not to their liking, instead of thinking of why they do not want to hear about it in the first place. By silencing these topics and stopping the critics they are preventing people from hearing more ideas. How can we determine what ideas are good and which are bad if we do not hear all of them? So, in this writing I would like to bring up a few reasons as to why political correctness should be questioned. Stopping the flow of ideas for any reason is detrimental to our growth as a society, and political correctness does just that. I would also like to discuss the aspect of possible danger because of political correctness. There may come times where people’s very lives could be at stake. Also, political powers often use the excuse of political correctness to inhibit and prevent certain ideas they may not agree with from being debated. We must also consider hate crimes, and whether a person’s beliefs and associations should be considered sufficient to secure a criminal