I am a theoretical physicist and currently Director of 
July 14, 2005
"I know this is not politically correct but...."
One of the advantages of being older is that sometimes you can personally witness how language evolves and changes, and how words and phrases undergo changes and sometimes outright reversals of meaning.
One of the interesting evolutions is that of the phrase "politically correct." It was originally used as a kind of scornful in-joke within Marxist political groups to sneer at those members who seemed to have an excessive concern with political orthodoxy and who seemed to be more concerned with vocabulary than with the substance of arguments and actions.
But later it became used against those who were trying to use language as a vehicle for social change by making it more nuanced and inclusive and less hurtful, judgmental, or discriminatory. Such people advocated using "disabled" instead of "crippled" or "mentally ill" instead of "crazy," or "hearing impaired" instead of "deaf" and so on in an effort to remove the stigma under which those groups had traditionally suffered. Those who felt such efforts had been carried to an extreme disparaged those efforts as trying to be "politically correct."
The most recent development has been to shift the emphasis from sneering at the careful choosing of words to sneering at the ideas and sentiments behind those words. The phrase has started being used pre-emptively, to shield people from the negative repercussions of stating views that otherwise may be offensive or antiquated. This usage usually begins by saying "I know this is not politically correct but...." and then finishes up by making a statement that would normally provoke quick opposition. So you can now find people saying "I know this is not politically correct but perhaps women are inferior to men at mathematics and science" or "I know this is not politically correct but perhaps poor people are poor because they have less natural abilities" or "I know this is not politically correct but perhaps blacks are less capable than whites at academics." The opening preamble is not only designed to make such statements acceptable, the speaker can even claim the mantle of being daring and brave, an outspoken and even heroic bearer of unpopular or unpalatable truths.
Sentiments that would normally would be considered discriminatory, biased, and outright offensive if uttered without any supporting evidence are protected from criticism by this preamble. It is then the person who challenges this view who is put on the defensive, as if he or she was some prig who unthinkingly spouts an orthodox view.
As Fintan O'Toole of The Irish Times pithily puts it:
We have now reached the point where every goon with a grievance, every bitter bigot, merely has to place the prefix, "I know this is not politically correct but.....'" in front of the usual string of insults in order to be not just safe from criticism but actually a card, a lad, even a hero. Conversely, to talk about poverty and inequality, to draw attention to the reality that discrimination and injustice are still facts of life, is to commit the new sin of political correctness......... Anti-PC has become the latest cover for creeps. It is a godsend for every sort of curmudgeon or crank, from the fascistic to the merely smug.
Hate blacks? Attack positive discrimination - everyone will know the codes. Want to keep Europe white? Attack multiculturalism. Fed up with the girlies making noise? Tired of listening to whining about unemployment when your personal economy is booming? Haul out political correctness and you don't even have to say what's on your mind.
Even marketers are cashing in on this anti-PC fad, as illustrated by this cartoon.
Perhaps it is my physics training, but I tend to work from the principle that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we should assume that things are equal. For example, physicists assume that all electrons are identical. We don't really know this for a fact, since it is impossible to compare all electrons. The statement "all electrons are identical" is a kind of default position and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, does not need to be supported by positive evidence.
But the statement "some electrons are heavier than others" is going counter to the default position and definitely needs supporting evidence to be taken seriously. Saying "I know this is not politically correct but I think some electrons are heavier than others" does not make it any more credible.
The same should hold for statements that deal with people, because I would like to think that the default position is that people are (on average) pretty much the same in their basic needs, desires, feelings, hopes, and dreams.
POST SCRIPT 1
I love movies but am not a big fan of Tom Cruise's films. I was surprised, though, by the way people went after him (and his Church of Scientology) for his recent comments on psychiatry and mental illness. I was first bemused that this topic arose in the interview with him, and then by the subsequent reaction where it was as if people felt that he had no right to his views on this subject. Even if people disagree with him, why do they get so upset? Why do people even care what his views are about psychiatry? I was thinking of writing something on this incident but then came across this article which covers some of the ground I would have, and also raises the problematic role that the big pharmaceutical companies have played in this issue of treating illnesses with drugs.
POST SCRIPT 2
The invaluable website Crooks and Liars website has posted a funny The Daily Show video clip about the Valerie Plame affair. Since I do not have cable and don't watch too much TV anyway, I depend on Crooks and Liars and onegoodmove to alert me to TV segments that I otherwise would miss. These two sites are well worth bookmarking.
Comments
Thanks for posting the link to Crooks and Liars. :)
I looked for a politcal cartoon I'd seen by a right-wing artist that seems relevant to this discussion. ("state of the union" - it's awful) The strip showed a man standing in front of a blackboard on which was written "Diversity Training. His word balloon read, "To sum up - black is good, hispanic is good, we're not sure about asians, and white is bad" - it made me so very angry, because of course having taken three diversity training courses at three different places of employment I have never heard anyone say anything but that diversity and cultural sensitivity applies to everyone, even the majority... I bring it up only because it seemed to underscore for me that there seem to be misplaced feelings here - blaming others for feelings of guilt, maybe, at having it easier in life than most. I've seen more of this - the concept of the 'heroic anti-PC pundit' has as an assumption some force demanding PC behavior - and that force is frequently painted as foolish, over-the-top, anything but what it really is - the very boring, even conservative, pressures of social nicety and good manners.
As a digression, in an attempt to be open minded and read right-wing humor, I've discovered that either:
a) I only find political humor I agree with humorous or
b) the right wing has no sense of humor.
Probably "a", but sometimes I get egotistical and think "b".
"I'm know this isn't politically correct but..." sounds a lot like "I'm not rasict but..."
I spent an afternoon with a neighbor who started every other sentance with that phrase and then proceded to spout every single stereotype I could think of against asians, blacks, hispanics, females, arabs. Pure torture
As to your postscript... It seems to be much harder for thoes in the public eye to be able to spout their own views without being attacked by everyone who disagrees with them. Celebrities don't change governmental policy or anything like that but they are viewed as influential people. I might be a little skeeved if someone with influence told my that I was wrong, in a them against us sort of way.
Mr. Cruise is certainly entitled to practice his religion and believe whatsoever he chooses. Making disparaging statements about the science of medicine, particularly psychiatry, on a nationally broadcast interview, opens one up to criticism.
The truth of the matter is that depression is not an "illusion" as a scientologist might claim, it has been conclusively demonstrated to be a biochemical abnormality of the central nervous system. While one can argue about the best course of treatment or note the well documented errors of psychiatry in the past Mr. Cruise really ought to attend medical school before dispensing advice to fellow Americans and celebrities such as Mrs. Shields. Stating that he has "studied the history" of psychiatry/depression does not qualify him as an expert.
We have reached the point in this country where rational people simply must directly refute irrational statements and mythological beliefs at every opportunity. When the general populace begins to accept the medical opinions of an uneducated Hollywood actor, the legislature in the state of Kansas attempts to change the definition of "science" in order to facilitate the teaching of religous myths in the science classroom, and wars are waged on nonexistant evidence of threats to our national security, we have passed the point of dismissing these types of events as harmless ignorance. The influence that schools, media, and our government have on the impressionable minds of our youth is not to be underestimated. As a former ignoramous I should know, it took twelve years of higher education and thirty years of my life to develop a level of critical thinking that allowed me to see these blatant lies for what they truly are.
I guess my point was that it was inconceivable to me that any person who needed advice on psychiatry would look to Tom Cruise for guidance! I thought peope would just have a hearty laugh and move on.
But perhaps the comments point to a deeper problem - that the views of pop culture celebrities, just by virtue of their renown, are given a deference that they do not deserve and can be influential in harmful ways. It is a disturbing possibility.
I believe political correctness is a shroud for the truth. A new label slapped on the same "difference", whether it be race (ah hem cline) or anything else, it is still just a label. The label on the outside of my cola bottle does not change its contents or how I feel about them. I have always believed those who try to oppose racists and biggots by censoring them are doing just as much harm as the racists and biggots in the first place. To me political correctness is an emergent behavior of society, censoring ideas that could offend some of its people. In America we have a right to freedom of speech, not a freedom from being offended. Why? If you could only choose one, which right would you take with you to a desert island? Which right is more important for the nation? It is a serious question.
As for "I know this is not PC but...", the phrase is absolutely meaningless. It obviously does not slip by anyone paying attention. It offends those who disagree with the comments and confirms the beliefs of those who already agreed. It is much like what fills politics these days, filler. Filler for real ideas :) .