The secret origins of political correctness

The "gender is a social construct" idea, briefly, is that the word sex indicates physiological typology (of which there are not "only two," by any scientific criterion one chooses). The word gender indicates which imago (oh wait that's an academic term and thus communist-progressivist-atheist-etc-ist) ... the word gender indicates the behavioral characteristics a given culture/society assigns to "male" and "female" ... it's really not a new or complex concept in sociology/psychology.

It is only in that strict sense that "gender" equates to "a social construct." Most people imprint with one or the other sets of characteristics ... if not, why would we have the concepts of "effeminate male" or "butch female"?

I anticipate that this will quickly be dismissed as "more PC-thought-police nonsense" or "progressive clap-trap" or maybe even "neo-Soviet cultural engineering" but I think we can all admit those are merely rhetorical devices, at the end of the day.

Changed gender to typology because I usually, like most folks, use the terms sex and gender interchangeably.

JuniorDisco

It was a conditional. I didn't really engage with your post particularly, it just seemed like a wall of information as opposed to an argument.

Junior, you incessantly demand evidence of political-correctness, yet you ignore every bit that has been presented. Can you see how it might appear that you are not prepared to have an honest discussion?

As to your misinterpretation of my previous posts -- you have carried your preconceived notions through this entire thread, and you are going to hear what you want to hear. Frankly I don't care to waste time trying to set you straight, so long as I believe that my points are not lost on readers who actually consider them.

TheConstruKctionofLight
Yawn...here we go again...are we still theorizing tha PC doesnt exist?

I won't go into the Culture Marxism from the Franfurt School as the genesis of PC...

Heres a link for all to considewr

en.wikipedia.org...

from the same wki...I'll leave you all to ponder this

The article linked by TheConstruKctionofLight at Wikipedia states:

By the early 1990s, the term was adopted by US conservatives as a pejorative term for all manner of attempts to promote multiculturalism and identity politics, particularly, attempts to introduce new terms that sought to leave behind discriminatory baggage attached to older ones, and conversely, to try to make older ones taboo.

US Conservatives adopted a term, in the 1990s, used by Communists and Socialists, in the 1940s, and adapted it to use against their political enemies?

Interesting, is there more?

The term "political correctness" in its modern pejorative sense became part of the US public debate in the late 1980s, with its media use becoming widespread in 1991. It became a key term encapsulating conservative concerns about the left in academia in particular, and in culture and political debate more broadly.

Two articles on the topic in late 1990 in Forbes and Newsweek both used the term "Thought police" in their headlines, exemplifying the tone of the new usage, but it was Dinesh D'Souza's Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (1991) which "captured the press's imagination."

"Political correctness" here was a label for a range of policies in academia around supporting multiculturalism though affirmative action, sanctions against anti-minority "hate speech", and revising curricula (sometimes referred to as "canon busting").

These trends were at least in part a response to the rise of identity politics, with movements such as feminism, gay rights movements and ethnic minority movements.

That response received significant direct and indirect funding from conservative foundations and think tanks, not least the John M. Olin Foundation, which funded D'Souza's book.

In the event, the previously obscure term became common-currency in the lexicon of the conservative social and political challenges against progressive teaching methods and curriculum changes in the secondary schools and universities (public and private) of the U.S.

Herbert Kohl (1992) pointed out that a number of neoconservatives who promoted the use of the term "politically correct" in the early 1990s were actually former Communist Party members, and as a result familiar with the original use of the phrase. He argued that in doing so, they intended "to insinuate that egalitarian democratic ideas are actually authoritarian, orthodox and Communist-influenced, when they oppose the right of people to be racist, sexist, and homophobic."

In summary then, right-wing Conservatives, in the 90s, pulled this "PC" term out of Communist mothballs and started using it pejoratively to attack feminists, gay rights advocates, university professors, supporters of affirmative action ... in short, anyone that they didn't like or that they disagreed with politically?

Interesting, that clears up a lot of confusing stuff in the discussion here.

reply to post by Gryphon66


And in accurate summary, modern conservatives simply used the term 'politically-correct' (because modern liberals had already added it to the lexicon, in the same way that 'war against women' is used by both parties despite having differing opinions on the issue) when describing how PC policies were harming the country.

OpenMindedRealist
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

And in accurate summary, modern conservatives simply used the term 'politically-correct' (because modern liberals had already added it to the lexicon, in the same way that 'war against women' is used by both parties despite having differing opinions on the issue) when describing how PC policies were harming the country.

That's specifically not what the posted article claimed as was linked by TheConstruKctionofLight.

Do you have other information than was presented in the article linked above?

For example, when did "modern liberals add it [PC] to the lexicon?" Which modern liberals? How, when?

Follow-up question: do you disagree with the article's position that terms like "PC" et. al. have been and are used by Conservatives, right-wingers, etc. to refer generically and vaguely to anything against their own political agendas?

If not, why not, there seems to be plenty of evidence for that right here in this thread of discussion.

JuniorDisco
As I say your and Skyfloating's arguments are part of a rich tradition of decrying women's rights, racial equality and so on. I'm not sure that's a heritage to be proud of.

After having read this entire thread, one can garner precisely what is wrong.

I have said this in other threads, completely unrelated to this topic, yet the basic idea remains:

It's perceived protection versus actual protection. (Replace protection with another buzz-word of the year and you get the point)

What the guy who I have quoted is not seeming to understand is, that personal responsibility (one where you police yourself in knowing not to impart racial slurs, not to immediately believe women are inferior etc., you get the idea) is wholly different than having it mandated; forced will of sorts.

Let's face it, you can't UNforce a true racist to not be racist. You can't litigate a person into ANY belief, force them to comply, yes; into BELIEVING, no.

If there's one thing that anyone at all should glean from this very well written and articulated OP, is that while it may have started as a psy-op program, our REAL true enemy at the gates, is complacency and lack of common sense. This shortcoming is many many years in the making, much like our financial crisis (where GWB or Obama or even Clinton were ostracized, meanwhile you have to go back decades to see the real enemy). People were asleep at the wheel, our fathers and mothers, grandparents, all steaming toward that "American Dream" but, asleep at the wheel.

-We have the choice to be offended
-We have the choice to feel inferior
-We have the choice to love the gender we want
-We have the choice to speak our minds

-We DO NOT have the choice of any of the aforementioned once it is decided for us.

This post, right here, encouraged me to join the ATS community. I am so happy my first post is going to be in response to this thread.

I have been in schooling for awhile now (adult returning to college) and I noticed that there was a heavily disproportional amount of cultural diversity courses which I had to take. Six since 2010. Many of these courses mimic each other in content, and at first I was merely frustrated at the aspect of taking another 'diversity' course.

Admittedly the first course which discussed expectations that different cultures have about health care were important and very enlightening, so I feel I gained something from it. This means I only benefited from 1/6 of these courses. The rest is absolute drivel.

For example, my current (yes I am currently in the 6th 'diversity') course explains things that I think any human being would find offensive. Basically everyone is an ist. Racist, sexist, genderist, pick an ist, you have one no matter what. And if you don't have one, you're in denial of being racist/sexist/agist/whateverist. You automatically have one if you are in a minority against yourself. (You're automatically sexist against women if you're a woman, you're automatically racist of Asians if you are Asian sort of thinking.)

"As previously discussed children of color, by the fact of being raised in a hostile and racist environment, are likely to have unpleasant experiences associated with their ethnicity. As these negative group-related experiences accumulate, it becomes increasingly difficult for the child—and, later, the adult—to integrate them into a coherent and positive sense of ethnic self."

"Two qualities will make a difference in how you relate to this book and ultimately in the pursuit of cultural competence. The first is self-honesty. There is an aspect of ethnocentrism that is self-delusional. It seeks to hide the fact that ... all of us a strong tendency to deny and hide from consciousness the negative feelings we hold about race, ethnicity, and cultural differences. Together, these tendencies conspire to keep us in the dark."

It all reminds me of that woman in Oregon who wanted to ban peanut butter and jelly sandwiches because somewhere someone's feelings MIGHT get hurt because their culture never ever had peanut butter and jelly sandwiches so they MIGHT feel left out. It was absolutely shameful.

So thank you for writing this thread! Thank you for pointing out some things I've never seen! Most of all: THANK YOU for letting me know I am not alone in the thinking that political correctness has gone too far and it is coming from a really bad source.

reply to post by KaDeCo


KaDeCo, as the first to respond to your first post, let me say you did a very nice job. Well-written, cohesive, and you bring some fresh ideas to add to the discussion. My opinion of your post has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we seem to agree on the topic of political-correctness.

I can understand a person having doubts about the origins of PC, but I don't see how an informed person can deny this:

KaDeCo
...political correctness has gone too far...

I ABSOLUTELY think that "PC" has gone too far. It's gone from being polite and inclusive to being ... well, thought-control.

But it's not just the Dems, Libs, Lefties, etc. doing it. There's a version for the Right side of the aisle as well.

Further, modern academic studies into sociology, psychology, and even literature and history, et. al. have left all sense of reality, IN GENERAL. Logic is too left-brained, or patriarchal or sexist or [yada yada yada].

In my opinion.

However, the straight line connection between Soviets and modern PC or the Frankfurt School schlock and modern progressive politics is just asinine in my opinion. It's just too convenient to tie 70 years of right-wing philosophy together.

I've studied Marx and Marxist criticism at the graduate level. I can tell you, based on my experience, that there is simply NOT some universal dark cabal that is working at a unified level of coordination in all media, education, and politics, that connects the modern liberals, Democrats and progressives with the Bolsheviks, Stalinists, or really, even Marx.

But that's my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

Gryphon66
...there is simply NOT some universal dark cabal that is working at a unified level of coordination in all media, education, and politics, that connects the modern liberals, Democrats and progressives with the Bolsheviks, Stalinists, or really, even Marx.

This is correct. History shows us that socialism/Marxism/tyrrany-by-guilt will arise on its own in any society that prospers. It is an extension of human tendencies, namely exploitation of generosity and desire for power and money.

Political-correctness is also a function of human nature. People normally don't want offend those around them, and it is generally not in one's best interest to exhibit behavior viewed as socially unacceptable. If you can influence social 'norms' then you can influence behavior, and therefore thought.

OpenMindedRealist

This is correct. History shows us that socialism/Marxism/tyrrany-by-guilt will arise on its own in any society that prospers. It is an extension of human tendencies, namely exploitation of generosity and desire for power and money.

First of all socialism does not equal Marxism neither of which equals "tyranny-by-guilt."

Second of all the only theory that I'm aware of that says that socialism will arise on its own is Marxist. Do you have any other references, or are you advocating Marxist political theory here as your basis?

Third, in fact, socialism does NOT generally arise in systems that are prospering, but in those systems in which the (extreme) minority of the population controls the (overwhelming) majority of the wealth (or capital, to use Marx's wording). Socialism and communism arise, according to Marx, in those systems overrun by rabid capitalism that is detrimental to the vast majority of people only benefits the few at the top of the economic food chain, so to speak.

Fourth, you wouldn't characterize capitalism as exploitative and desirous of power and money? How do you describe capitalism?

Fifth, I am not a socialist and certainly not a communist, Marxism is idealist philosophy as is much of the 19th century brand. I favor mixed economies featuring capitalism restrained by reasonable regulations that protect everyone as well as an infrastructure provided socialistically.

Political-correctness is also a function of human nature. People normally don't want offend those around them, and it is generally not in one's best interest to exhibit behavior viewed as socially unacceptable. If you can influence social 'norms' then you can influence behavior, and therefore thought.

edit on 23-2-2014 by OpenMindedRealist because: (no reason given)

I have no challenge at all to this comment. How does this correspond to the OP's position in the thread?

OpenMindedRealist


Junior, you incessantly demand evidence of political-correctness, yet you ignore every bit that has been presented. Can you see how it might appear that you are not prepared to have an honest discussion?

That's simply a lie. I've addressed each piece of "evidence" presented since I entered the thread. You're simply pretending that I haven't so you can (ironically) call me dishonest.

The problem for you is that they don't say what you want them to. In each case an outlier - often one without any power - says something that you interpret to be the word of an all-pervasive authority. Somehow these edicts never quite come to fruition. Perhaps they are emblematic of a world where PC has indeed run wild, and somehow the tiny number of free thinkers still left manage to fight a brave rearguard action and short circuit them all, thus keeping the world on the straight and narrow.

Or perhaps - more likely - they are just very left-field, very rare examples that you are pretending are part of some mainstream.

As to your misinterpretation of my previous posts -- you have carried your preconceived notions through this entire thread, and you are going to hear what you want to hear. Frankly I don't care to waste time trying to set you straight, so long as I believe that my points are not lost on readers who actually consider them.

I haven't misinterpreted your previous posts. You were demonstrably talking nonsense there as well. Once again, you said that "American progressivism was born out of social movements which were seeded by Soviet propaganda" which as you know is untrue.

First, OP, let me say that I can appreciate the amount of thought and writing that you did in compiling the OPs.

I disagree with much of what you wrote, but, at least you're putting the strength of your convictions out there for everyone to see. Bravo, on that.

I find the concept of "PC" and everything that goes along with it in this discussion extraordinarily vague. I wonder if the definition of exactly what is and is not PC (because it seems to be applied, in general, to anything that disagrees with standard right-wing American ideology) could be made more clear.

It seems unlikely to me that a plot seeded almost a hundred years ago by a defunct organization is currently undermining/controlling/manipulating all areas of American values, because at any given time, what I personally see in modern American politics, is a very strong and clear division on very basic principles.

The application of "PC" to anything non-right-wing seems to indicate, in short, that the only plot at hand is based in the modern, right-wing media echo chamber, rather than in 85 year old KGB plotting.

Gryphon66


But it's not just the Dems, Libs, Lefties, etc. doing it. There's a version for the Right side of the aisle as well.

Certainly. There is always stuff "i am not allowed to say", depending on which side I am talking to. The self-censorship gets tiring. "Don't joke about abortion!" the conservative tells me. "Don't joke about Lesbians!" the liberal tells me. In other words, every time one opens their mouths someone or other is going to be "offended".

Even Elephants recognize Gender.

reply to post by Skyfloating


So because elephants can tell the difference between male and female voices people shouldn't be allowed sex changes? Am I picking you up right?

The PC-Brigade would like to ban the word "bossy", but only when it is said to females.

"This can't be real" I at first thought, but it is.

JuniorDisco


So because elephants can tell the difference between male and female voices people shouldn't be allowed sex changes? Am I picking you up right?

No, I`m saying if Elephants can tell the difference between genders, human ought to be able to.

Soooooo PC stands for political Cheka. Very interesting stuff, Skyfloating, and discussion everyone. Thank you for putting this together.

And while I do see the dilemma gender-specific restrooms can cause for some (I hauled my son into women's rooms for so long sometimes he still goes for that door haha), in public places I, for one, don't want gender-neutral restrooms. Men's rooms are typically far less clean than women's. I guess the compromise here might be to have three. What are the odds that'll happen though, costwise. Nil.

Skyfloating

JuniorDisco


So because elephants can tell the difference between male and female voices people shouldn't be allowed sex changes? Am I picking you up right?

No, I`m saying if Elephants can tell the difference between genders, human ought to be able to.

But the only person unable to do that here is you. You seem to have carved out a position whereby your idea of gender is at odds with scientific fact, and you're now employing elephant voice recognition as a plank of your argument. Do you see that this might look a bit silly?