In fact, it doesn't necessarily denote “incorrectness”at all.
It is true that, as used, politically
correct language often is ineffective and even counterproductive. And,
yes, it also is used to promote causes with which some people disagree and is
used by people with whom partisan adversaries differ. But none of the above disqualifies
or credibly challenges its validity or its intent.
The Merriam-Webster online Dictionary defines “Politically Correct” as,
“conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend
political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.”
Why would anyone “offend the
political sensibilities” of anyone if such offense could be avoided by a
simple, easy shift in vocabulary? Of course, in our belligerently partisan
culture there are some who are offended that anyone would dare disagree with them. By extension, I suppose they would
consider it politically incorrect to do so.
Wikipedia, the online free dictionary, says political
correctness “is
a term that refers to language, ideas, or policies that address perceived or
actual discrimination against
or alienation of politically, socially or economically disadvantaged groups. …
These groups most prominently include those defined by gender, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual
orientation and disability.”
The emphasis is on “political,
social or economic disadvantage.” In my personal observation, most of those who
scorn political correctness also believe social or economic disadvantage
is purely and solely the result of personal choice and laziness. Thus, I
suppose the logical extension is that political correctness gives credence to
poor choices and laziness.
But Wikipedia goes a step further:
“Historically, the term
was a colloquialism used in
the early-to-mid 20th century by Communists and Socialists in political debates, referring pejoratively to the
Communist "party line",
which provided for "correct" positions on many matters of politics.
The term was adopted in the later 20th century by the New Left, applied with a certain humor to condemn sexist or racist conduct as "not politically correct". 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..”
Aha! I had no idea that
political correctness had such a long history, nor that it seems to have
emerged out of communist rhetoric. But at least now I can understand why some people hold political correctness in disdain! “Guilt-by-association”
has some limited validity; but to assign a whole category of language to the discard
pile because of its origins is a bit over the top.
The Judeo/Christian lexicon
is jam-packed with verbiage straight out of pagan worship and ritual! If we
were to eliminate all words, phrases and verbal imagery that emerged from
questionable sources, our language would be emaciated.
But “conversion” is at the
heart of Christianity; thus the Judeo/Christian approach was to take language
and verbal imagery from one reality and convert it (redefine it) into specific
applications within Judeo/Christian ideology. As political correctness emerged
out of Communist and Socialist (or “New Left”) ideologies, the correctness assumed
the “party line.” It seems quite plausible that within another socio/political environment it could be converted to that environment’s ideological position.
For example, in the USA, political correctness thus would refer, at least
in part, to the American ideals outlined in the preamble to the Constitution: “…to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the
general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…” In my
estimation, any language or vocabulary that promotes those values is
politically correct.
A side trip (hopefully to come
back around to the main route): throughout the history of religions,
virtually every creed and doctrine was established to eliminate heresy.
In other words, historic creeds and doctrines generally are “exclusive.”
As I understand the teachings of Jesus, God’s Grace is “inclusive”—open to all who will receive
it—and, by definition, without prerequisite qualifications. Thus, Grace precedes
conversion or change; indeed, it is the only source and power by which one can be converted or transformed (cf. Romans 12:2) and is extended to the most undeserving
of humanity!
I who have received Grace dare not—DARE NOT—approach another human
ungraciously (though I confess to overwhelming failure in that intent! Thus, I
stand condemned apart from God’s grace.)
I prefer the term, “inclusive” to “politically correct”. If I am to be
a faithful witness to the Grace I have received, I will be careful to use
language that does not exclude or overlook anyone. That effort sometimes is a
pain in the neck, because we have not derived a suitable personal pronoun to
replace “he” or “she”. Most people have resorted to using the plural, “they”,
even when the subject is a singular person. The Grammar Nazi in me just won’t
allow me to do that! I will intentionally type “he or she” or “he/she” instead.
I understand that language progresses, and that my use of language will become
(may already be) a relic archived alongside the King James Bible with its Elizabethan,
Shakespearean language. I can live with that.
And, while I appreciate the value of traditions, and am not the least
offended, for example, by the masculine references in the traditional Doxology
(e.g., “Praise Him above, ye Heavenly Hosts!”), what could possibly by offensive
about a more inclusive version:
“Praise God,
from whom all blessings flow!
Praise God, all
creatures here below!
Praise God
above, ye heavenly Hosts!
Creator, Christ and Holy Ghost!”
Together in the Walk,
Pastor Jim
