Political Correctness Complaints: 'That's a Red Flag Because...'
What is being communicated to recipients of "PC" blowback and what is possible and a better approach
Is there possibly cloaked meaning behind the expressed annoyance and complaints regarding what is deemed "political correctness?"
That’s what actress, entertainer Julia Louis-Dreyfus recently inferred.
"When I hear people starting to complain about political correctness — and I understand why people might push back on it — but to me, that's a red flag, because it sometimes means something else," she said. "I believe being aware of certain sensitivities is not a bad thing. I don't know how else to say it."
‘Political correctness colloquially implies communicating with individuals in such a way that does not evoke anger or offend individuals who would have a very legitimate reason for being offended,” says Jamie-Lukas Campbell, creator of the TUS Initiative, a TEDx speaker and a political history doctoral researcher focused on leadership and inclusion.
Campbell adds that as time has passed, the chants have become more insensitive and dismissive.
“It has more recently been used as a method to dehumanize people en masse: Black people, women, LGBTQIA+ people, parents, the list goes on,” he says.
“Pushback in this regard almost always means ‘I am uncomfortable with having my privilege called out or having my authority questioned’ or ‘I don't want to treat that group like people,” says Hannah Gomez, the senior editor of Cultural Accuracy and Sensitivity Editorial Services at Kevin Anderson & Associates.
“There's no such thing as political correctness,” she says.
“The entire concept is a dog whistle — see Ian Haney-Lopez' ‘Dog Whistle Politics’ for more on that — for not wanting to treat everyone with dignity. I consider a lack of interest in treating people with dignity to be a huge red flag.”
So the complaints about political correctness, can and do "mean something else" as in something unkind or disturbing, as Louis-Dreyfuss feared.
“It is legitimate and should be acceptable for an individual to express concerns about how people communicate or to express confusion or frustration with terminology for which they are uncomfortable, provided it is done so respectfully and professionally,” Campbell says.
“What is not acceptable, however, is the use of terminology such as ‘PC’ or politically correct,” he goes on to explain, “as it dismisses the very legitimate reasons why individuals would be offended in the first place.
“When an individual balks at political correctness and then goes on to discuss a topic, they make it very clear that they stand politically or ideologically aligned with what they suspect is a shifting or new social or political norm. The PC terminology is often used to allow people to be offensive for the sake of it.
“How we talk about issues is important and as Louis-Dreyfuss said, self-awareness and a bit of sensitivity shown toward others can go a long way.”
Gomez says that what once was arguable has become more personal and puzzling.
“I remember from my childhood in the early 90s that politically correct was often a punchline and usually invoked for a deliberately obfuscatory or absurd phrase, like ‘vertically challenged’ instead of ‘short,’” she remembers. “Those types of phrases are indeed very silly because they were unnecessary euphemisms for things that weren't offensive to begin with. ‘Short’ is just an adjective, not a value judgment.”
To her, that is an important distinction as a part of the debate.
“There is a huge difference between ‘vertically challenged’ and other such euphemisms and the things that are these days still mistakenly being declared political correctness,“ Gomez says.
“Using a person's correct pronouns is just how you show that you view them as a fellow human being, not a politically correct act. Using an indigenous nation's own name for themselves rather than one given to them by their enemies hundreds of years ago is not politically correct. It's just factually correct.”
There is a new level of discomfort felt that leads to what feels like restrictive language expectations to some people.
“To imply or hide behind the use of a term such as ‘PC’ indicates that an individual is ideologically aligned — or at the very least, uncomfortable — with what they either know or perceive to be new social contexts in which they view themselves in the minority,” Campbell details.
Gomez sees something more happening.
“The other way you can be sure it ‘means something else,’ as Louis-Dreyfuss says, is that this isn't invoked when talking about genuine human mistakes,” she says.
“If you've known someone for years who recently transitioned and you accidentally use their old name once, that's a reasonable human slip-up that doesn't require anything but a ‘Sorry, Jane! I won't do that again.’ If you didn't know that a word you used had a root that was a slur or a pejorative, you didn't know and that's fine.
Becoming informed and educated has to mean something, Gomez says.
“It's once you learn it's a slur and you continue to use it after being told that it is harmful and offensive that you're deliberately antagonizing someone,” she states.
“And it's often the people who continue to deliberately use words or phrases after being told that they are incorrect or hurtful who claim that the person asking not to be antagonized is demanding political correctness,’” Gomez points out. “They're not. They're requesting dignity and respect.”
She thinks often about a Tumblr post:
stimmyabby:
Sometimes people use “respect” to mean “treating someone like a person” and sometimes they use “respect” to mean “treating someone like an authority”
and sometimes people who are used to being treated like an authority say “if you won’t respect me I won’t respect you” and they mean “if you won’t treat me like an authority I won’t treat you like a person”
and they think they’re being fair but they aren’t, and it’s not okay.
(via wizardovthevoid)
“People who genuinely believe in the concept of political correctness are often playing this game, where they don't want to treat someone like a person, yet when they are asked to adjust their behavior or language, they react as if they are an authority who should not be criticized,” Gomez laments.
Louis-Dreyfuss is of the mind that society should develop peace "becoming aware of certain sensitivities" as that is "not a bad thing.”
It’s a suggestion about which Campbell is in agreement.
“I think we need to be more comfortable having conversations with one another and more sensitive and self-aware about how our words and behavior impact the people we interact with,” he suggests.
“There is scope to err and to be confused and to be frustrated but I think that needs to be handled with the same grace as what someone who shields behind the ‘PC culture’ argument would expect from folks who might be offended by their words. Otherwise, it just fosters division and resentment.”
There is a reason why additional pushback is being communicated, Gomez says.
“The reason this is a hot-button topic right now is because our society's demographics are changing. We are more diverse than ever, sure, but really what it is is we are more comfortable being open about what makes us diverse than in generations past — because it's not like queer people, disabled people, people of color and more just came into being recently, it's just that they aren't forcibly hidden away quite like they used to be — and the people accustomed to being at the top of the social food chain feel extremely threatened by anyone else gaining even a modicum of societal power of any kind.”
This uneasiness has led to a defense mechanism.
“Their response to that threat is to suggest that anyone different from them who wants to receive the same respect they do is simply playing the ‘political correctness’ game,” Gomez asserts.
There is a way forward, Campbell proposes.
“Self-awareness, empathy and navigating uncomfortable conversations are highly underrated interpersonal skills in education and professional development today,” he says.
He points out to what he views as a false conclusion and reality.
“I balk at leaders who balk at so-called political correctness and cancel culture from their multi-million-dollar studios with hundreds of thousands of viewers,” Campbell says. “They aren't canceled or removed from the public domain but are asked to be more empathetic, respectful and aware of their words' impact on people who engage with their content in the public sphere.”
His professional analysis is that the facts are different than what is believed is occurring.
“All this conflict and what Louis-Dreyfuss described has little to do with trivial policing of people's language and more with championing a culture of empathy and good intent,” Campbell states.
“I think most people can accept that in our pursuit for fairness and equity, we have seen and we will continue to see a rising number of nontraditional people in the workforce, in our militaries around the world and on the world stage for myriad reasons.
“There will be confusion and uncertainty and, perhaps, frustration, but if we treat it all with a bit of compassion and are transparent concerning our logic, there is no reason why we can't co-exist respectfully.”
People who want to publicly communicate the “PC” complaint may not fully understand the risks they are undertaking, Campbell says, because doing so “as part of any well-intentioned dialogue can ruin their ability to effectively engage individuals altogether, as the intent behind invoking ‘‘PC’ suggests that concepts are not morally, ethically or socially equitable to either or both parties, but rather forced or coerced onto the speaker.”
Thank you for reading this issue.
Communication Intelligence, the Newsletter — is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Advertising Update: Contact me at comm.intel.newsletter@gmail.com and communicate your value offering for $400 for an attractive color ad in one issue, $700 for an ad in two issues or $2,000 for a color ad placement in every new article for one month (usually six-to-eight issues).
