It seems as though the idea of “political correctness” has become a necessary stipulation for everyone living in our society. It has developed boundaries for what we ought and ought not to say in order to remain socially sound and respectable. However, for quite some time, I have questioned whether or not we are exercising this in the right way. Are we pushing it too much? Does it eliminate our sense of expression? No, but we are not practicing it properly.
Society’s ability to enforce political correctness has, over the recent years, been quite remarkable. Despite this, I have come to the conclusion that the true meaning and purpose of this idea has been changed over the years, or at least, changed from the purpose that best benefits the society. While we have mastered restraint, the idea of political correctness in its current form has lost some of its practical application.
George H.W. Bush pointed towards the roots of political correctness saying, “The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land…the movement arises from the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism and sexism and hatred.” Bush identifies the fact that putting in place social boundaries to block hatred is indeed important, and this is where political correctness is most valuable.
It is best used when it develops social pressure ensuring that people are not outright mean, harsh, or disrespectful to others. Despite this, it has been stretched into the idea that we mustn’t voice any thoughts that may make others slightly uncomfortable or be perceived as offensive. When stating our beliefs or opinions in a respectful way is restricted for this reason we are losing our voice and ability to learn from each other.
I am not suggesting that we forget the idea, but rather, rethink it. Without political correctness, slurs of hate could be tossed about with ease, lacking standard for personal conviction. However, Bush also suggests that political correctness, at times, “declares certain topics off-limits, certain expression off-limits, even certain gestures off-limits.” This is the issue at hand. As things stand, merely claiming solidarity with a certain faith could be considered “politically incorrect” in the secular arena. Likewise, stating personal views on delicate issues might be scrutinized as being politically incorrect because of how one’s ideas may put people on edge, in disagreement. At times, even stating the truth or offering criticism could be interpreted in this way.
These are topics that people should be able to openly discuss and, yes, disagree about. Reasonable discourse enables us to learn more about each side of disagreements; but we need to be open to hearing them, regardless of discomfort. We also mustn’t restrict others from expressing their own opinions simply to shelter ourselves from possible offense. And, most importantly, we cannot knowingly avoid the truth of certain topics when the truth happens to be upsetting. This might entail learning to accept criticism as a suggestion for improvement.
The central issue is disrespect and harshness; the same thing that political correctness has sought to prevent. This is why we must use our words wisely, taking others into consideration, while we openly state what we believe or think in a respectful way. It is impossible to make hateful speech respectful; when we disrespect others, we can make innocent speech hateful.
Respect is essential if we plan on reestablishing what political correctness really means in our society. We can say how we feel without being harsh when we align our words through respect of others. Allowing ourselves to show who we are and what we think,in a respectful way, can simply make us a more honest and help form real community.
Undoubtedly, acts of chivalry can be easily confused for sexism or paternalism, where, at times, similar actions to chivalry can be driven from the idea that men need to help women because of their superiority. It is quite obvious that there are a number of men who would agree with this false need. It is because of this that I will not discount misunderstandings. While one man may walk around the vehicle to open the door for a woman, thinking to himself, “I better help, or else I’m sure she’ll end up hurting my car…or herself,” another man may do the same action while thinking quite differently, “I want to serve this woman, whom deserves all that I can give.” The differences are, of course, the intentions of each man. Performing chivalrous deeds don’t make a man chivalrous; the heart must align with the action (similar to that of 1 Corinthians 13:1.) A chivalrous man would not believe that he is superior to a woman, as it would directly conflict with our starting point of meekness,which, again, is synonymous with humility. Over time, I believe that paternalistic men (like the man in the first example) will have their wrong intentions brought into the light, based off of their other surrounding actions. This is where we can find distinction.