We can no longer say anything about women, the disabled (ah ! sorry, we have to say people with disabilities), homosexuals (ah ! sorry, we have to say LGBTQI+++), the poor, foreigners without risking being accused of being sexist, handiphobic, homophobic, classist, racist etc. All questions of inclusion (ah ! yes, because besides, that's how we say " diversity " now) are regularly reduced to " newspeak imbued " with " political correctness "...
But what is this " political correctness " the name of? Of a real control of language and thought ? Of a hypocrisy intended to flatter the various and varied identities without anything really changing in the daily life of the discriminated against ? Of a neo-conformism aimed at anesthetizing the debate in favor of a certain " right-thinking " ? Or is it a conviction that language can contribute to the transformation of mentalities ? And that inclusion requires precision in the recognition of identities ? The editorial staff of the EVE web magazine investigated.
First debates : a legal notion or an ideological vision?
For a correct interpretation of the spirit of the law
The history of " political correctness " begins in 1793 with a mention in the U.S . Supreme Court's decision in Chishlom v. States of Georgia. During the debates, a judge, James Wilson, a signatory of the Declaration of Independence as well as the First Constitution, stood out by defending a " correct " interpretation of the spirit of the Founding Fathers of the Republic. " Political correctness " is therefore at its origins, a reading of the law that probes the intentions of the text, instead of looking at the legal as a discipline of procedures.
Political correctness and ideological orthodoxy
The term took on a new meaning during the first half of the twentieth century, with the rise of Marxism-Leninism on the one hand and National Socialism on the other : " political correctness" was then assimilated to ideological orthodoxy. On the " left ", the most dogmatic activists are described as " politically correct "... And that's not a compliment !
On the other hand, under the Third Reich, Aryans who had " good opinions " were congratulated. Being " politically correct " is even a sine qua non condition for obtaining a license to practice the profession of journalist, recalls a major article in the Washington Post retracing the history of the expression.
Morale and justice under suspicion
The imprint left by the dark period of the 1930s and 1940s on the expression " political correctness " still hangs over the world after the war. Thus, for example, President Lyndon Johnson, presenting in 1964 the axes of his " Great Society " program to fight poverty, for the recognition of the civil rights of minorities, access to education and health and the protection of the environment, made it clear that he was not in the ideology, hardly in the political project. but on the side of pragmatism. It is now necessary to justify a "good deed " by the interests and benefits that are expected from it. " Right-thinking " is disqualified : there must be utility !
Attempts to rehabilitate the political principle of justice
By anti-discrimination activists
At the turn of the 1970s, actors in the fight against racism and sexism were irritated by this depoliticization of the fight against discrimination. For these activists, having to justify what is just is a contradiction !
" Black feminism " is at the forefront of this fight to rehabilitate discourses on the imperative of justice : the writer and activist Toni Cade Bambara establishes an acceptance of the term " politically correct " that reconnects with Judge Wilson's vision to say that it is " correct ", i.e. in line with the American democratic promise to pursue policies of equality with determination.
The academic field followed with the " studies " movement
At the same time, the academic world is working to renew the paradigms of thought on the dynamics of inequality by developing a new thematic and interdisciplinary approach: " studies ". Cultural studies, gender studies, ethnic studies, urban studies etc. embrace all the dimensions of their subject, from sociology to economics, political science, psychology, art and pop culture, the distribution of spaces, historiography...
The proponents of academic conservatism look with a suspicious, if not ironic, eye at these " detail " sciences that produce a host of new concepts : self-fulfilling prophecy, magical thinking, glass ceiling, mental load, manterrupting, racialization, intersectionality, invisible disability, ableism, intergenerational, internalization of stigma, etc. inclusion...
Disqualifications of " political correctness "
In the name of the fear of " communitarianism "
The lexicon from " studies " is readily mocked for its form, which would be jargon at will when splitting hairs : a disabled person is a disabled person, why complicate one's life by talking about " a person with a disability " ; a black person is a black person, why talk about " racialized people" ; Being a woman or a man, it's quite clear, why then distinguish between " sex " and " gender ", etc. ? But behind the sarcasm, there is a fundamental reaction: all this " politically correct " rhetoric would legitimize communitarianism, feed identity withdrawals and contribute to the erosion of the foundation of universality that makes it possible to make a society one and indivisible.
This reaction obviously denies the fact that society is in fact disunited and divided by inequalities and that for a large part of these inequalities, it is the legacy of a political, economic and social history that has excluded certain populations from citizenship and/or work and/or the public space: women deprived of political rights almost everywhere until the twentieth century, slowed down in their economic integration; people with disabilities who are discriminated against in employment and poorly received in the public space, etc.
In the name of freedom of expression
" Political correctness " is also decried when, by its very nature, it requires that we take care to use language that does not offend certain categories of the population. We could " say nothing more"... Without risking being accused of being sexist, racist, homophobic, handiphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic and now transphoped, fatphobic, glottophobic etc.
And then, will we still be able to laugh, if at the slightest prank, there is someone to catch the fly or even launch bad buzz campaigns? By the way, since we're talking about humor, wouldn't they lack it a little, these killjoys who hunt down the wrong word, look for the little beast in every ad, spoil the pleasure of seeing a movie or a series by always finding fault with the diversity of characters and/or the stereotypes that the script conveys ? Seen like this, it seems like a heartbreaking boredom, a life of " political corrector" !
Against the " victim culture "...
Moreover, are these " discriminated against " people who are so attached to being recognized in their differentiated identity a gift? Paradoxically, don't they participate in anchoring their non-conformity in mentalities and don't they contribute to reinforcing social rejection? Would they not even take indirect satisfaction in positioning themselves as victims ?
Published in 2018, the book The Rise Of Victimhood Culture by Professors Campbell and Manning, based on the work of sociologist Donald Black on intercultural conflicts, denounces a shift from the morality of shame of being discriminated against to the morality of honor of being recognized for one's suffering and sensitivities. According to them, we are witnessing a kind of glorification of victims, who derive a whole series of benefits from their condition: moral support, visibility, enhancement of their dignity, recognition of their rights to access " positive discrimination" measures, etc.
It is an understatement to say that such a thesis is tense in the ranks of those who fight against discrimination. According to psychiatrist Muriel Salmona, a specialist in the care of victims of violence, the good fortune of the anti-victim discourse exposes victims to a double or even triple penalty : that of being attacked (or oppressed, discriminated against, harassed) first, then that of being made to feel guilty (of being insufficiently resilient, in particular) and finally that of being suspected of taking advantage of their situation. Society would thus more easily side with those who attack, dominate, discriminate against than it would be quick to take the side of those who are attacked, oppressed, affected by injustices...
What if " political correctness " was also a force for transformation ?
The virtues of precision
But let's go back more directly to our "political correctness " case . Couldn't questioning (if not monitoring) one's language also contribute to positively transforming reality ? The performative power of language has been known since the work of John L. Austin, author of When to Say is to Do : Naming is not a neutral act, it helps to bring things, people, and situations into existence. If we take note with Camus that " to misname things is to add misfortune to the world ", let us consider that designating with precision is a factor of accuracy... And perhaps justice.
Saying " person with a disability " may seem more convoluted than simply " disabled ", but it does say that disability is a situation that each of us can face, from birth or later in life, permanently or during a moment in life (such as when, for example, a large fracture puts us in the situation of a " person with reduced mobility" or a depression in the situation of a person with a mental disorder). To say " maintenance worker" rather than " cleaning lady" is, on the one hand, to professionalize the function and, on the other hand, to degender it. To speak of " human rights" rather than " human rights" is to get out of the confusion between male men and men as a representation of the universal, etc.
The benefits of active kindness
Inclusion also involves active benevolence, i.e. attention to the other, singular and unique, present in the world with their history, temperament, sensitivity, culture, experience, situation in society... People who are more often discriminated against may be more " likely ", or at least vigilant about how they are treated, than those who have a more favourable position in society. However, the expression of this vigilance is not necessarily an attack directed against those who, most often unconsciously, stigmatize them or lack consideration for them.
The person who denounces a sexist, homophobic, racist, fatphobic attitude or situation, etc. first of all, asks to take into account his feelings and the impact on his condition of ordinary inequalities of treatment. To retort that she is a victim or simply that she is breaking everyone's feet with her demands, is to deny her this consideration. It may also be denying oneself an opportunity to question one's own biases, one's own conditioning, one's posture, one's relationship with others, one's place in society. It is missing an opportunity to exercise one's empathy, one's critical thinking, one's relational ecology too...
" Political correctness ", reduction or extension of the space for expression ?
One question remains, and not the least : does " political correctness " harm freedom of expression ? When it is presented and perceived as a " language police" or even a " thought police", we glimpse with a shiver the coming of the worst of the " brave new worlds " imagined by Orwell in his seminal novel 1984, a totalitarian world, regulated by self-censorship and called for the destruction of all forms of creativity.
It is nevertheless a distorted reading of Orwell to see in " political correctness " the advent of a " newspeak " worthy of 1984, because in the book, " newspeak " is a restrictive lexicon that suppresses words and simplifies discourse to the extreme... Whereas the logic of " political correctness " is rather extensive : it tends to add words and notions to account for the diversity and complexity of reality. As such, it can be recognized as having a form of creative power.
" Political correctness " as a lever for creativity ?
Nevertheless, the rhetoric of political correctness is also that of vigilance on expressive forms... Intuitively, it is difficult to imagine that creativity, which needs all the authorizations to exercise itself, can withstand such constraints. And yet... However, the artistic movement of Oulipo has clearly demonstrated that constraint can be a formidable creative lever.
This was also verified by a study jointly conducted by the universities of Cornell, California and St. Louis. Four groups of students were invited to participate in a creativity exercise: the first, mixed, received no instructions other than to produce new ideas to rethink commerce ; the second and third, dismixed (boys on one side, girls on the other) received the same instruction and was made aware of " political correctness "; The fourth, mixed, benefited from the same awareness as the two previous ones. Results : the first group, which was not sensitized, proved to be the least creative : it essentially reproduced existing models with marginal variations. The second and third groups, single-sex and aware of " political correctness ", produced proposals that were more disruptive on paper, but not very applicable. And it was the fourth group, mixed AND aware of the diversity of sensitivities, which proved to be the most creative, proposing innovative ideas, with a high potential for appropriation and implementation.
Conclusion : gender diversity has an impact on performance, on the sole condition that it is invested with a culture of equal treatment and inclusive dynamics. In short, it remains to think of " political correctness " as a vector of this culture, and not as a weapon of censorship.
