In order to be able to better distinguish between ideas of political correctness that are concerned with the “correction” of offensive or uncomfortable language from those that seek to curtail verbal and physical acts of violence present in our society, there are a few questions we must first ask and answer. What do we mean when we say that certain ideas of pc attempt to “correct” behavior? Why do proponents of this position hold that language must be corrected along political lines rather than any other? What were the primary motivators behind such a position? What effect does language, on its own, have on behavior and people in our society? Can words alone constitute a harm that necessitates correction? If we are to suggest that while we perhaps ought not be concerned with correcting behavior but rather limiting violence in all its forms, how can we distinguish words of violence from words that simply express dissenting opinions? It is our position that an attempt to categorize behavior along lines of correctness as defined by political stances is counter-productive and does not, in the overall outcome of things, spur social advancement, at least not in any way we would like it to. But while that may be true, the power of rhetoric is hardly one we can neglect. The words we use, whether in private or in public, have the power to inspire and foster beliefs in views within our society that have the high potential of manifesting themselves in truly harmful and destructive ways. From public addresses delivered by those who hold our highest political and legal offices to entertainers who speak to millions of people at a time, the words we choose to put out into the world can have far reaching consequences. As such it is necessary that we hold each individual responsible for their choice of expression, and should they fail to honor said responsible it ought to be up to our legislative system to compel them. In so far as we are able to understand our legal system as a social process by which we regulate the things we want to have present in our society, we believe it to be a proper application of our laws.
In this blog, we hope to be able to present you with scholarly sources that attempt to answer some of those questions as well as provide some support for our ideas surrounding the role of legal institutions in regulating conduct. By presenting sources that provide historical context for the terms we are discussing, we are hoping you will be able to gain a better understanding for the climates and environments within which people felt the need to develop such ideas about the harms and social effects of words. These historical sources also usually resort to a categorization of different time periods based on their relation to the development of pc, and across most of them an idea is present that defines this current era as one that is defined by a vehement backlash against ideas of political correctness thought to have gone too far. As such we have also cited sources that speak to this current climate we find ourselves in. Sources which document the current attitudes about the far reaching effects of ideas of pc that can be observed in our society and the perceived harm they cause. Then finally we want to provide you with sources that can help shape our thoughts and ideas productively moving forward. These sources speak to the demonstrable effects of certain words and behavior and the actual measure we can take to specifically target them. they also speak to areas in our society in which perhaps we would be behooved to allow most forms of speech, even if some of it might be concerning. Thus attempting to define the outer limits of pc where the need for regulation of conduct meets the need for freedom of expression and thought.
Frye, Marilyn. “Getting It Right.” Signs, vol. 17, no. 4, 1992, pp. 781–793. www.jstor.org/stable/3174536.
In this article, the author attempts to explore the transformation of the terms political correctness and political incorrectness over time to a point where both terms have lost all of their original normative and utilitarian value. The author begins by looking at the original climate in which the terms were born in order to perhaps rediscover some of the uses for which they were originally thought up. The author readily admits that attempting to return the terms to their original “luster” is perhaps impossible, but she does attempt to redefine the terms much along the same lines as it was done originally. In that attempt, she deconstructs the meaning of being “politically correct” in contrast to simply being correct as an ad hoc social construction, and even examines the necessarily rigid and static nature of such social constructions if they are to serve their purpose. But ultimately concluding that perhaps “correct” is not what we want our politics to be, in so far as that would require an arbiter for what is correct. That perhaps correcting social institutions and processes is less constructive than simply building new ones.
Dharmapala, Dhammika, and Richard H. McAdams. “Words That Kill? An Economic Model of the Influence of Speech on Behavior (with Particular Reference to Hate Speech).” The Journal of Legal Studies 34.1 (2005): 93-136. Web. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/425599?seq=7#page_scan_tab_contents
In this paper the authors examine the effect that certain types of speech have on behavior of individuals within a society. Ultimately the paper focuses on the correlation between an inclination towards hate speech amongst a group of individuals and their likelihood to commit hate crimes. Studying the approval seeking behavior predominantly observed in such individuals, the paper establishes the trade-off that such people commit by avoid certain speech, and the esteem from like minded individuals they seek, in favor of avoiding sanctions placed on said forms of speech, namely hate speech. And finally, it reexamines the reduction in hate crimes that correlates with said reduction in speech due to increased sanctions. Concluding that increased sanctions on hate speech is effective at reducing incidences of hate speech which correlates strongly with a corresponding decrease in hate crimes.
Purdy, Elizabeth. “Politically Correct.” Encyclopedia of Politics, edited by Rodney P. Carlisle, vol. 1: The Left, SAGE Reference, 2005, pp. 344-346. Gale Virtual Reference Library, remote.baruch.cuny.edu/login?url=http://go.galegroup.com.remote.baruch.cuny.edu/ps/i.do?p=GVRL&sw=w&u=cuny_baruch&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CCX3452800184&asid=faf843932d0ada6ca20c690b1d3d811f. Accessed 15 Dec. 2016.
This encyclopedia entry examines the different perspectives on the left and the right on freedom of speech and political correctness. The article contends that although conservatives tend to celebrate the virtues of America’s tradition for absolutely free speech, such total freedom of expression has never been a part of the American legal tradition. In fact, the author cites the many legal restrictions placed on speech as evidence of the longstanding belief in American culture that certain forms of speech should be restricted and removed from public settings. The article concludes that in so far as political correctness can be understood as the pursuit of a proper standard for public conduct, as it is defined by the left, there is legitimate merit in such ideas.
Barreto, Manuela, and Naomi Ellemers. “The Perils of Political Correctness: Men’s and Women’s Responses to Old-Fashioned and Modern Sexist Views.” Social Psychology Quarterly. Sage Journals, 01 Mar. 2005. Web. 18 Oct. 2016. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/019027250506800106
This study examines the response of females and males to old-fashioned forms of sexism versus modern ones in order to document the possible unique harm that modern day sexism poses to society. They find that females were less capable of recognizing modern forms of sexism versus older forms, and more likely to react with anxiety than outrage to the modern forms. While their male counterparts were much more comfortable with more modern sexist views than older ones. Concluding that due to their inherent likelihood to go undetected, modern day sexism is more of a concerning problem. While their definition of what constitutes “modern day” sexism as opposed to old-fashioned sexism, their findings are still quite significant in terms of documenting public responses.
Merritt, Anna C., Daniel A. Effron, and Benoit Monin. “Moral Self-Licensing: When Being Good Frees Us to Be Bad.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5 May 2010. Web. 24 Oct. 2016. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.remote.baruch.cuny.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00263.x/abstract
In this article, the authors explore the idea of moral credit and one of the ways in which acting in a way that is consistent with what we believe to be right, allows us to feel comfortable being wrong in other areas. The authors discuss the role that appearing to be immoral has in incentivizing us to act morally and what effect acting publicly in ways that appear moral would have on such a system of incentivized morality. If a main component of the reason why people behave morally in certain areas is our appearance, then as long as we mostly behave morally in public, that would allow us to be privately immoral without such disincentives. They support this theory by examining other relevant research, as well as suggesting further research to address certain unanswered questions, like the extent to which pat behavior balances out future acts rather than simply reframing them.
Ely, Robin J., Debra E. Meyerson, and Martin N. Davidson. “Rethinking political correctness.” Harvard Business Review 84.9 (2006): 78+. Biography in Context. Web. 24 Oct. 2016. http://remote.baruch.cuny.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=21882966&site=ehost-live
In this article, the authors examine the effects that pc, both in terms of stated social norms as well as legal protections, has on interoffice relationships. Although progress has been made in terms of increased diversity in the workplace, the increased emphasis on enforcing standards of interaction between such diverse individuals hinders the building of trusting relationships rather than promotes it. By depriving the individuals of their ability to confront the difference inherent in themselves and others constructively, which the authors cite as what is necessary to build trusting relationships, the relationships built in such an environment are necessarily less valuable. Instead they encourage risk taking in office relationship building which they suggest will have overarching benefits that extend throughout the workplace.