A paper I found. VERY long

[wordsmythe]

This is a paper I wrote when working on my Masters. I happened to run across it and thought I'd see what other think many years later. It's a long paper and may be difficult to read if anyone is intersted in a better copy I'd be happy to email the original.

**Warning** there are some "bad words" but then again that's what it was about.

Political Correctness and its impact on basic freedoms

being

A term paper presented
in partial fulfillment of course credit.

Prologue: In the beginning this paper was to take a look at sexist language and its relation to thought, which would be in keeping with the theme of the class. However, this type of language falls into the much larger category of “political correctness,” so it seems necessary to tackle that bigger picture. I was unable to effectively separate the two since non-sexist language is a direct offshoot of the original ideas of PC language. Hence the following writing was produced.

In the progression of the work I thought it might be necessary to add a bit of a warning, as well. I contend that words, in and of themselves, are not offensive. The connotation attached to words by the receiver is the source of the offense. I have used some language which may be considered offensive by some, but this is the nature of the beast I hope to tame to some degree by the end of the paper.

Politically Correct. Most members of contemporary society have internalized some sort of meaning for the phrase. Whatever connotation is attached to these two words, a receiver would most likely not have the same interpretation of them as the sender. This difference in interpretations is the source of contention and conflict between groups who advocate “politically correct” speech and those who vehemently oppose it.

Where do we go from here?

Where can we go?

It seems a short trip through time is in order. In the foreword of the book Political Correctness: A Response from the Cultural Left, Teresa Brennan traces the use of the term back to the 1930’s. In this original use it was used to criticize Stalinism and became a term of “self-satire and light irony.”
She notes that it became a style of terminology used by Leftist thinkers to “uphold the rights of disadvantaged groups,” (Feldstein x). This seemingly noble, and righteous idea, meaning has somehow changed through common usage and exposure in society.

If this ideal and terminology are accepted as true use of political correctness, then how did the bastardization of the term come about?

Kors and Silverglate remind us that, “Human history teaches that those who wield power rarely see their own abuse of it,” (1998 p 98). They go on to say that this not just a failing of the left or the right but of all humanity. This may be applied to the ideas of the leftist thinkers who tried to empower the “victim” groups of our society. In the beginning the idea was pure but now has been changed through abuse.

Leftist scholars blame the Right wing conservatives for demonizing the term giving it a “Big Brother” connotation and making light of this once noble ideal. It is possible that instead of protecting the rights of disadvantaged groups and making it easier to gain equality, it now crushes and tramples the rights of everyone else.

What an astonishing expectation (and power) to give to students: the belief that, if they belong to a protected category, they have the right to four years of never being offended. What an extraordinary power to give to administrators and tribunals: the prerogative to punish the free speech and expression of people whom they choose to assign the stains and guilt of historical oppression, while being free, themselves, to use whatever rhetoric they wish against the bearers of such stains, (Kors & Silverglate p. 99).

This passage sums up the position of those who feel they have reason to fear the power granted by the implementation of political correctness.
This once purely innocuous term, used to champion the causes of the oppressed, is now considered dangerous to those who would refuse to be told what to say and humorous to others. It seems that there is no part of contemporary life that hasn’t been touched by the specter of the politically correct bogeyman or his jester brother.

With these statements, the queen nearly choked on her soy milk. The prince, who had learned of his mother’s scheme to screen out a princess, was so excited he couldn’t keep silent any longer. “So you really are a princess!” he yelped.

“Last night was, yes,” she replied. The quizzical looks from the prince and queen led the wommon to elaborate: “Last night I was a princess; this morning I am an ancient Viking warrior. Oh, you sillies–I’m channeling!”
These revelations made the queen very angry, but the prince was intrigued. “So when do you think you will be channeling a princess again?”
“A week from Tuesday,” she said matter-of-factly, “mid-morning until early evening. I am very punctual with my past lives.”

“Then on that Tuesday afternoon, I will ask you to be my wife and castle-mate, and you can rule by my side as an equal partner in every way.”
The wommon considered a moment, then answered: “I would accept, if not for the fact that this morning, as I have said, I am a Viking warrior–Liefdahl by name, son of Ülfdahl–and I have a strong notion to lay siege to your castle just after breakfast...”

This excerpt from “The princess and the pea” contained in the book Once Upon a More Enlightened Time by James Finn Garner takes the concept of “politically correct language” to its farcical extreme. How is it possible for one concept to have so many possible meanings? Once again, it leads back to receiver orientation and differing connotation.

The initial intent of politically correct language was to protect disadvantaged groups and to bolster individual self esteem. Through usage and abuse the intent has changed. Some would even argue that a person’s self image should come from within to be truly gratifying and not from forcing others to use a new term to refer to them. It is just as likely that the implementation of this type of language does little more than to confuse issues rather than clarify them.

To illustrate this point I will use excerpts from the book Brain Droppings by George Carlin. His life experience, use of language as a means of earning a living and his defense of freedom of speech all serve to make him a credible source. As a comedian Carlin has entertained many thousands of people and probably offended just as many, but beyond the comedy he makes some very interesting points.

Carlin writes:
First, I want to be really clear about one thing: as far as other people’s feelings are concerned–especially these “victims groups”– when I deal with them as individuals, I will call them whatever they want...
...I’m not trying to change anyone’s self-image. But! But! When I am speaking generally, and impersonally, about a large group of people I will call them what I think is honest and fair. And I will not try to bullshit myself (Carlin 160).

Carlin also believes that euphemistic, politically correct language is nothing more than a form of lying. He exemplifies this in the following passage about people’s weight.

...I used the word fat. I used that word because that’s what fat people are. They’re fat. They’re not large; they’re not stout... These people are not necessarily obese, either. Obese is a medical term. And they’re not overweight. ...Heavy is also a misleading term. An aircraft carrier is heavy; it’s not fat. Only people are fat, and that’s what fat people are. They’re fat... It is not intended as criticism or insult. It is simply descriptive language. I don’t like euphemisms. Euphemisms are a form of lying (Carlin 161).

Intent seems to be a recurring theme. As a society we have given the word “fat” a negative connotation making it the negative comment Carlin wishes to prove wrong. Being fat is not a desirable thing in this culture. It’s a sign of neglect, poor health, low social status etc... So, if you visualize Carlin’s “fat” person and then describe that person as large, heavy, stout or obese–does that person change? They may feel better about themselves but their weight, health and social status have not changed.

**Continued** Second part of paper

[lurker]

I quit using my old computer because its hard drive was a fat32. It got slow, started hiding things behind partitions and wouldn't deliver the goods as nicely as my newer hd. It also whined a lot.

3 sentences Highwayman... can you top it...?