Political correctness is everywhere.  Love it or hate it but you can’t avoid it.  But what is it about political correctness that is so hated by some while at the same time others consider it the saviour of our moral compass?  Where does it come from?  What is its function?  Is it a force for the good or evil?

To answer these questions let us start with a simple definition of Political Correctness as “thought, speech or behaviour which can be interpreted as insulting or demeaning to a group of people generally belonging to minorities or the disadvantaged”.

Nothing controversial here and I am sure most reasonable people will agree with the stated altruistic goals of Political Correctness.  It may be useful to note that before the advent of the current form of Political Correctness, religious morality fulfilled this function for centuries.  However, its effectiveness was admittedly limited due to the exclusion of issues which were in direct conflict with religious orthodoxy.

Let us examine some aspects of political correctness to explore if there be demons in this Utopian notion!

Does Political Correctness have any legal status or is it just opinion?

Legal statutes exist for preventing discriminatory practices on the grounds of race, religion, sex, sexuality, disability, age etc. There is also a clear pathway in almost all democratic nations to create similar legal protection for other vulnerable segments of society.

However, this process is based on robust debate and any attempt to undermine it on the strength of moral indignation, feelings, emotions and self-righteousness should be zealously guarded.  We have to be extremely careful that we do not unwittingly become victims of the vocal minority of 5% influencing the rest of the 95% as was established by a Leeds study titled Sheep in human clothing – scientists reveal our flock mentality.

It should be remembered that two of the main pillars of civil society are Free Speech and Equality.  Efforts to effect change purely on the basis of subjective opinions of the vocal and influential few for ideological reasons or vested interest will always results in simmering resentment which over time builds up to find expression in violent backlash.  French revolution is a perfect example of this self-immolation where the same few people who influenced the frenzy of murderous violence were all killed  within a few years by the very monster they helped create.

Majority of Political Correctness initiatives are mere opinions with an aura of high morality. These initiatives are enforced with great zeal with the help of vocal supporters who are mainly driven by ideology and blind faith, in a lot of ways not too dissimilar to religious extremists!

Is Political Correctness science or religion?

Political Correctness is a set of subjective beliefs which take on the garb of religion when spouted with a sense of self-righteousness that disallows discourse or dissent.  Taken to extremes it almost resembles the Inquisition undertaken by the Catholic Church in the 12^th century to supress any challenge to its authority.  Try challenging any element of Climate Change orthodoxy and you will quickly experience the wrath of the zealots!  This is strange indeed when you consider that one of the foundational precepts of science is scepticism.

Condemnation of Kanye West just for having an independent opinion about Donald Trump and the views of conservative commentator Candace Owens is another example of this Inquisition mindset where anyone not in conformity with the opinion of the group quickly becomes a pariah.  How can the same much-loved Kanye suddenly become a figure of hate purely by this one act?  What happened to his other much-admired attributes as a musician?  Does this reflect the shallowness and immaturity of groupthink which seems to be an intrinsic attribute of Political Correctness?

Does that make Political Correctness authoritarian?

If you look at the intolerance of the custodians of the Political Correctness agenda, it does appear to be authoritarian.  Why else would its backers try to stifle any opposition or challenge?

This notion is supported by the fact that in the recent past Political Correctness was effectively weaponised by Nazis and Communists to enforce their ideology.  They used it to enslave their citizens by dictating the norms of speech, behaviour and even dress.  Anyone challenging the orthodoxy was imprisoned, exiled or killed resulting in millions falling victim to this scourge.

These dangers were graphically illustrated by George Orwell in his book Nineteen Eighty Four  where the Thought Police designated as Thinkpol was mandated to discover and punish anybody guilty of personal or political thoughts not in compliance with the party diktat.  Ayn Rand’s book Anthem  goes further to highlight the horrors of planned and enforced conformity where individuality has been totally eliminated.

While the current malevolence of Political Correctness is nowhere near the grim scenarios outlined in the two books, the incremental encroachment on our freedom to think and speak is a slippery slope which can only lead to that destination.  The citizens of nations visited by the horrors of Nazism and Communism did not realise the evil that was being unleashed on them till it was too late.  It was also disseminated in phases with carefully calibrated diet of propaganda and misinformation in the name of patriotism, justice and the greater good!

So, who is promoting the Political Correctness agenda?

Most of the people leading the Political Correctness agenda are either left leaning activists, academics or liberals.  But why?  They seem to be mainly motivated by power, influence and political advantage mixed with an element of Utopian aspirations.  If true, we should take all their pronouncements with a pinch of salt keeping in mind the 5^th  Muse Commandment which states “Utopia is a fictional enterprise and should never be mistaken for reality”.

Utopian dreams are what the hustlers of Political Correctness selling to a gullible public to gain power and influence. Like corrupt politicians and religious hucksters they exploit the weak and vulnerable with promises of paradise, shamelessly using identity politics to pit one groups against another.  Any issue taken up by them sows division, discord and resentment in society creating favourable conditions for them to expand their power.

Why is it called Political correctness?  

Good question! Why not Ethical, Moral, Legal or Religious correctness?  Could it be because politics is about power and organised control over a community or state?  Is the real goal of Political Correctness power and control? Does this further reinforce the hidden motives of authoritarianism behind Political Correctness?

Almost all the worlds religion subscribes to the Golden Rule best summarised by Jesus’s exhortation to “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  Don’t all the multitude of Political Correctness aspirations have their grounding in this principle?  Why reinvent the wheel to replace this universal, timeless and logical principle with ill defined, divisive and narrow versions of the ever-changing dogma of Political Correctness?  Is this an attempt by some to force the many to conform to their world view?

Do good intentions always translate into good outcomes?

The appeasement of Hitler by all the European nations was done with the best of intentions to avoid war and possible causalities of a few hundred thousand.  However, the outcome of this good intention was a war with estimated 50 – 80 million deaths not to mention the worst holocaust in the history of human civilisation.

Have we considered the impact of the purported good intentions of Political Correctness on society?  Is it possible that the artificial restrictions on free speech and pressure for conformity might one day erupt in violence causing far more damage than the ills the Political Correctness is attempting to remedy?

Does Political Correctness do any good?

Undoubtedly it has some redeeming features where it provides superficial solace to the weak and disadvantaged.  It also highlights issues which might otherwise be overlooked.  However, these benefits pale into insignificance in comparison to the risks it poses. The aggressive and blatant manner in which its exponents try to enforce it with short-sighted focus on any gains they can squeeze out of it makes it extremely toxic for the long term health of society.

It poses the greatest threat to our inalienable rights of Free Speech, Open Debate and Individuality. Why is criticism of Christianity proclaimed as Free Speech but the gentlest of probing of radical Islam condemned as Hate Speech? Doesn’t the Golden Rule provide a more equitable answer?

Acknowledging the difficulty of defining hard-core pornography, United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously said, “I know pornography when I see it”.   Similarly, we will know the good and evil of Political Correctness when we examine some real life examples in a series of future blogs!

Muse

1. Does Political Correctness have a higher moral status than the right of free speech and individuality?
2. Why do Political Correctness adherent consider anybody challenging their beliefs evil, ignorant, brain washed or stupid?
3. Does Political Correctness promote GroupThink?
4. Why is there general acceptance of the imposition of Political Correctness even by those who oppose it?
5. Does glossing over the truth in the name of Political Correctness serve the interest of humanity?
6. Does Political Correctness risk a backlash where the pendulum swings to the other extreme?

Next Week: The Science and Religion Debate