Political Correctness Synthesis Essay

For as long as there has been language, there have been people ready to label said language as offensive. Over time, however, society has seemingly developed a method of avoiding such offenses, rules of decorum that govern the English language with dreary rigidity. Political correctness, while presenting the illusion of a polite society, has rarely been the result of a polite attitude, denies the truths of human suffering rather than seeking a solution to it, and has created innumerable opportunities for double standards, leading to its overall ineffectiveness. The act of speaking with political correctness has no doubt presented the image of kindness and decorum, but this is grossly different than politically correct language actually being indicative of a kind and polite mindset. Indeed, political correctness has not become a result of a proper attitude, but rather a mere influence for a facade that might appear as proper attitude. This, as David Foster Wallace stated in a Harpers Magazine article is PCEs central fallacy- that a societys mode of expression is productive of it attitudes, rather than a product of those attitudes (Source A). Politically correct English is not a result of a decent human mind, but rather produces seemingly decent attitudes. This contributes to the ineffectiveness of politically correct language, as it proves that humans are not innately moral, but rather that humans simply strive to appear moral. As noble as inoffensive language might seem, it carries with it an intrinsic shortcoming. By creating labels that attempt to shy away from insinuating that one person is less than another due to mental or physical differences, politically correct language manages to deny the truths of human suffering that are tied to these differences. By refusing to refer to an individual who suffers from a disability as disabled or even cripple, society denies the idea that these individuals have suffered a loss. No, rather, these individuals are simply differently abled, a term that shies away from connotations of pain and struggle in favor of presenting all human beings as equal. Such is the case for Nancy Mairs, who claimed I refuse to participate in the degeneration of language to the extent that I deny that I have lost anything in the course of this calamitous disease (Source C). Replacing so called offensive terms with politically correct language not only robs words of meaning, but presents the idea that a life of pain and loss is comparable to a content life of happiness for the sake of human equality, creating the strife that politically correct language seeks to alieviate. While a world where individuals accept politically correct language readily, and are equally ready to use it, bears an almost Utopian image, this language is often the source of double standards that produce further rifts in society. As opposed to unifying and equalizing society, politically correct language can be readily used to ostracise others. For instance, a Random House publication clarifies how A within the group rule often applies, which allows a member of a group to use terms freely that would be considered offensive if used by a nonmember of a group (Source D). Not only does the idea

that language is only offensive when used by a certain person or group foster a double standard, it creates groups within society, which defeats much of the purpose of politically correct language. The fact that politically correct language can be used to separate people goes against the ideas of unity and equality that said language strives so hard to produce, further lending to its ineffectiveness.