Political correctness has a civilizing effect
on society. It limits the use of offensive terminology by replacing it with neutral euphemisms
free of prejudice a nd negative connotations. It aims to reduce reflexive offensive speech
and promotes conscious thinking. However, saying that a person is Uniquely
abled or Differently abled instead of simply "disabled" can arouse confusion. By suppressing
information or altering it, the term actually encourages us to disregard those who need
help or even
avoid a certain group of people fearing we might use the wrong words or expressions
in our encounter. Political correctness strictly divides speech
into two conflicting categories "proper polite terms" and "offensive slurs,". That contrast
then creates friction due to the ever-changing nature of political correct terminology. One
has to constantly be up-to-date with the latest semantic innovations or risk rejection by
a community he or she supports regardless of his or her intentions. But the d
ebate over political correctness
actually revolves around whether making semantic alterations to one's speech is even capable
of solving preexisting societal issues. Consider this quote by the commentator Jules
Feiffer: “I used to think I was poor. Then they told
me I wasn’t poor, I was needy. They told me it was self-defeating
to think of myself as needy, I was deprived. Then they told me underprivileged
was overused. I was disadvantaged. I still don’t have a dime. But I have a great vocabulary
” This kind of argument led some to view it
more about censorship and intellectual bullying "than it is about diminishing the social acceptability
of using offensive language. Plus, continuously opting for circumlocutions can reveal a patronizing
or holier than thou attitude which is discriminating in itself. and imposing these terms can be
taken as an attempt to dominate freedom of speech by favoring certain ideas over others. Previous U.S. President George H. W. Bush
made that connection in a
1991 speech at the University of Michigan: "The notion of political
correctness has ignited controversy across the land. And although the movement arises
from the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism and sexism and hatred, it
replaces old prejudice with new ones. It declares certain topics off-limits, certain expression
off-limits, even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured
into a cause of conflict, and even censorship.' Limiting one's freedom
of speech in the name
of greater good can seem condescending or straight up totalitarian. How can a single
person or power decide which speech should be authorized and which one should de sanctioned
and on which basis? Contrary to popular belief, there is not a
particular branch of speech that identifies as “hate speech”.
Some forms of derogatory or disruptive discourse might be prohibited or punished especially
if they invite criminal behavior. However, freedom of speech gives one the liberty
to say whatever he or she wants with little regard to no to honestly, logic, emotional
involvement or bias and that makes it a core tenet of democracy.
It is also important to note that the non conformance to political correctness is an
outdated prerogative that was common at times where discrimination and oppression were taken
with a grain of salt and were minorities had no voice to begin with.
So, speech guidance should not be equated with dogmatism but rather with with the desire
to show resp
ect to minorities. We can take the Australian cartoonist Bill
Leak as an example. Some of his work was described as homophobic, sexist or racist and he often
ignited controversy by using freedom of speech as a protective shield against his detractors.
He even said that criticism is “an instrument with which to punish someone, for having defied
the unwritten rules of political correctness,” What he failed to mention is humor should
not be used to dehumanize, marginalize or alienate others. Trying
to halt that process
and holding someone accountable for his actions is also an obligation.
PC Culture does not have to be represent a form of unattainable idealism or a conceited
deliberate effort to misconstrue others just to feel intellectually superior to them. In
most cases, it simply strives for inclusion and acceptance. But rest assured, in modern times, it's become
almost trendy for people to publicly display how socially conscious they are.
And here's where the word "woke" falls right
into place. It describes someone aware of
social issues and involved in the efforts to fight them.
In the endless tug-of-war between the left & right, pc culture had been liberals' Achilles
hill for years, but "wokeness" represented their newest consolation price.
It gave them incentive to call out injustice and discrimination whenever they saw fit and
gave them enough impetus to rally against it without receiving much push back. So what are the origins of woke culture? The concept of staying me
taphorically awake
had been around for decades. It was used by J. Saunders Redding in 1942
in an article about labor unions and by Martin Luther King Jr in 1965 when he gave a commencement
address called Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution at Oberlin College.
Yet the first significant usage of the word was linked to a 1962 "New York Times" article
written by William Melvin Kelley who's an African American novelist and a college professor.
It was titled, “If You’re Woke You Dig It" and in
it he discussed black slang and
its appropriation by white people. To put it into perspective, the word "woke"
was used to warn African Americans about how their culture is continuously being hijacked
by non blacks, and in an ironic turn of events that same word ended up being appropriated
by that same group. Its meaning was watered down and universalized,
stripped away from its black roots and thrown to the general public to use and misuse as
they saw fit and with little knowledge of the word's
historic origins.
So in an almost satirical way, "woke" is used to describe those who outwardly showcase themselves
as socially aware when in actuality, they deeply lack self-awareness.
Like systematic racism, appropriation of African culture is so common and trivialized that
those who practice it fail to notice the role that they're actively playing in it until
they're faced with concrete historical evidence. Rock'n'roll, Jazz and hip hop have all suffered
the same fate and it seems that histo
ry is repeating itself once again.
It can be argued that words evolve and develop different meaning with time. There is no gainsaying
that "woke" has expanded to encompass all kinds of civil rights issues beyond racial
ones such as sexual harassment and sexism at the dawn of the me too movement.
But disregarding its origins can bring more harm than good as it became a marketing ploy
for brands to pay lip service. Brand activism is a form of activism where
corporations actively try to promote pos
itive social, political or environmental reform.
What turns it into woke washing is the intentions often hiding behind the progressive façade
they display to the public: the money grabbing capitalistic motives that use serious issues
as a way to bait customers into believing that their products are ethically produced
or that they're a part of the solution. In 2019, The supermarket Co-Op launched a
gender-neutral gingerbread person to promote inclusion and diversity yet none of the proceeds
went
in support for those causes nor did their hiring system make any particular change.
There's also Burger King's a campaign aimed at destigmatizing mental health issues in
which they released "the blue burger" The move was deemed tone-deaf due to the fact
that most of the company's workers are underpaid and financial stress is a one of the leading
causes of depression. Hundreds of similar attempts have been made
including Gillette's ad calling out toxic masculinity, Pepsi's insensitive "Black Live
s
Matter" commercial, H&M’s Conscious Collection that was labeled misleading and greenwashed.
What makes these companies disingenuous is their intention. They're more about following
current trends than they are about self-policing and social consciousness. Ever since clicktivism became a mainstream
activity, the preexisting borderlines between business and activism faded out and staying
quiet is no longer a viable option for brands especially the ones with products targeted
towards the millenni
al market. Which raises the question: Does the motives
really matter? that's a debatable subject. Even Hollywood grew accustomed to feigning
diversity in casting. John Boyega was cast in a major role in the
Star Wars franchise only for him to turn into a background character in the following films.
He recently expressed his frustration with the move in an interview with GQ UK:
"What I would say to Disney is do not bring out a Black character, market them to be much
more important in the franchis
e than they are and then have them pushed to the side," Oh, and let's not forget that celebrity "imagine"
cover. If I can't forget it, nor can you.
Comments