Canadian Human Rights ActSection 13(1): It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Political Correctness: A Linguistic Straddling of Tolerance and Intolerance

Carly KirchmaierDepartment of English, University of Calgary

Allan, Keith, and Kate Burridge. Euphemism & Dysphemism: Language Used as Shield and Weapon. Oxford: OUP, 1991.American Psychological Association. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. 5th ed. Washington DC: American Psychological Association, 2001.Beard Henry, and Christopher Cerf. The Officially Politically Correct Dictionary and Handbook. New York: Villard Books, 1993.Canada. Dept. of Justice. “Section 13.” Canadian Human Rights Act. Feb. 2008. 1 Feb. 2008 <http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/H-6/bo-ga:l_I//en#anchorbo-ga:l_I>.Ellis, Frank. “Political Correctness and the Ideological Struggle: From Lenin and Mao to Marcuse and Foucault.” The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies 27:4 (2002): 409-444. Gibaldi, Joseph. MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers. 6th ed. New York: The Modern Language Association, 2003.Maggio, Rosalie. The Dictionary of Bias-Free Usage: A Guide to Nondiscriminatory Language. Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1991.Pickens, Judy E., Patricia Walsh Rao, and Linda Cook Roberts. Without Bias: A Guidebook for Nondiscriminatory Communication. San Francisco: International Association of Business Communicators, 1977.Suhr, Stephanie and Sally Johnson. “Re-visiting ‘PC’: introduction to special issue on ‘political correctness’.” Discourse & Society 14.1 (2003): 5–16.

Contact Information: ckirchmaier@gmail.com

References

Conclusions

Research Questions

Background

Methodology

•How does PC compare to other linguistic phenomena?•How did the socio-political trends and policies in Canada during the latter half of the 20th century affect our lexicon?•What have been the responses to these lexical changes, and how have they altered the conception of a multicultural, liberal democracy?

I performed a close analysis of a web of words—including discrimination, prejudice, bias, judgment, intolerance, bigotry, tolerance, acceptance, and indifference--to find the slippages of meaning within their definitions and their connection to social trends as per the Oxford English Dictionary. I also examined the parallel developments in social tolerance and linguistic tolerance: from acceptance to indifference, and from euphemism to taboo. Additionally, I compared the entries in Beard and Cerf’s The Officially Politically Correct Dictionary and Handbook and other online PC dictionaries to two bias-free language guides (Maggio; Pickens et al.), to linguistic convention (Allan and Burridge), to various examples of jargon, and to guidelines in manuals of style (MLA; APA).

Within Lenin’s Marxist revolutionary movement, politicheskaya pravil’nost’, or, ‘political correctness,’ “contained an explicit reference to right/wrong, correct/incorrect from a political or ideological point of view … [and] could be used to indicate those deviating from the party line in an authoritative manner” (Ellis 414). PC was introduced to Canada and the U.S. through the New Left in the 1960s, where the term referred mockingly to those on the ultra-left that “toed party line” (Paul Berman qtd. in Surh and Johnson 9). People adopted bias-free language to complement the policy changes made to protect citizens from discrimination; to the extent that governing bodies enforce policies on hateful and offensive speech, however, they increasingly infringe on the right to freedom of expression. Today, PC means avoiding, rejecting, or outright eliminating language (and behaviour) considered offensive or discriminatory, especially regarding race and sex. Underlying Canada’s “tolerant” multiculturalism is cultural relativism, which leans towards an eager or reluctant acceptance of, or apathetic indifference towards, marginalized people. Paradoxically, PC preaches tolerance while practicing intolerance.

Bias-free language represents a shift in verbal taboo from traditional subjects, like bodily functions and death, to marginalized identities in response to the growing acknowledgement of oppressive tendencies in the Eurocentric worldview and English language. It also involves the creation of new euphemistic terms, but because euphemisms can shield or uplift others, or protect and glorify the speaker, euphemisms can be offensive when perceived to be hypocritical. As such, euphemistic terms eventually tend to become insults, making it extremely difficult to be linguistically “tolerant.” PC is often conflated with jargon and euphemism, though it most closely resembles a negative or mocking reaction to institutionalized bias-free language. In the effort to create an egalitarian, multicultural society, officially regulating speech appears to be do more harm than good. The law ultimately determines what is (in)tolerable, but only through very vague and subjective phrasing. Furthermore, while it is good that people understand how their speech affects others, paranoid self-censorship while speaking about issues of race and gender stifles genuine conversation and compassion between people. Additionally, enforced bias-free language directs attention to differences in identity that tend to marginalize people further, while other expressions of PC shroud offensive truths in euphemism.

Canadian Human Rights ActHate Messages

Section 13(1): It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.