Sometimes it is hard to be politically correct. It takes a few moments to not take terms that have been taken for granted, well, for granted. For example, until fairly recently, 'chairman' have been unproblematically used as a term to describe the post regardless of the actual gender of the person sitting in it. Now, the politically correct term is 'chairperson'.

At other times, it would appear as if political correctness has been taken too far; in effect, ironically mocking the effort of transforming language to be more sensitive to those it discriminates against. To take a few instances, 'ethically disoriented' as the P.C. (politically correct) way to describe 'dishonesty' and 'living impaired' as 'those who are deceased'.

Coupled with the fact that adeptness at political correctness has become a sign for civility and education, it has become difficult to discern the actual point of being politically correct from the anxiety to appear cultured. In fact, the reason for being P.C. has become so murky that sometimes, we openly celebrate the few who are wittily and explicitly non-P.C. as having a healthy sense of humour.

Before we prematurely dismiss the relevance of political correctness as pretentious emptiness, it may be useful to examine the reason for its emergence and salience to respectful social relations.

Words have power. It shapes our reality and how we draw meanings from things. When we use a term, it reflects how we perceive and value the matter.

In the example of the term 'chairman' above; previously, managers and economic leaders were automatically assumed as male. Women did not exist in the public imagination as having the capacity to direct companies or occasionally, as lacking the ability to own assets and properties.

This gendered perception affects laws and policies on matters such as inheritance and taxation. It also impacted upon the employability and promotional opportunities available to women. In most places in the world, women are still underrepresented in decision-making positions and are not receiving remuneration equal to their male peers. With that, an apparently innocent term has translated itself as a condition of reality: managers are called chairmen because only men can properly sit as managers.

This false perspective have been challenged and countered by the women's movement. Much research, discussions, writings and activism have been made to expose the male-centredness of these value-judgements, and the inherent inequality that they provide for. Due to these struggles and efforts, the sexism of what was previously seen as common sense is slowly being uncovered.

This is the crux of political correctness. It brings to mind the discrimination faced by particular social groups and highlights the injustices and exclusions that they face.

When a person is called terms which has a history of subjugation, such as 'retarded' or 'ah moi', this makes her/him feel the pain of derogatory humiliation. Not only that, it limits practical possibilities that are available to them by virtue of their perceived social identity. Language is constantly evolving, and carries with it the trace of what has passed. A conscious shift of language is a conscious ethical effort to correct a past that has been oppressive towards particular social groups.

However, some people employ P.C. terms without thought. The main impetus for being P.C. is to not appear as unsophisticated through causing inadvertent offence. This is a self-defeating and frustrating practice of political correctness. From fear of causing offence, skirting around what is deemed un-PC prevents conversations that can help to transform social relations. Instead of questioning and exploring what makes a certain label problematic, hence enabling a deeper understanding of the shared history of inequality, they skip over topics, blank out forgotten P.C. terms or parrot the most recent fad in political correctness with an agenda to impress. Through this, the lived struggles of marginalised groups for equal respect and recognition are lost.

Worse still, some may use terms which are P.C. in statements that blatantly convey otherwise. An example would be, "I am not racist, but I think… those who are Indian in descent have non-discretionary fragrance/ethnically Chinese are ethically disorientated/bumiputeras are motivationally deficient/indigenous people are cosmetically different etc." What this in effect does, is dressing up old stereotypes in new languages. It hides the discriminatory intent of the speaker, and prevents him/her from being held accountable for what is said. This demonstrates a grossly unscrupulous exploitation of the victories won by oppressed groups, usually by someone who is in a socially privileged position. Far from being humoured or impressed, we should be gravely critical of such usage.

Most politically correct terms have been won through great effort and struggles by those who are most affected by their insulting predecessors. The next time we think about using or responding to what is P.C., stop for a moment and question our intent.

Do we want to add words in creating a reality that is respectful, or use them in a way that adds to inequality?

Jaclyn Kee
11 June 2003

Talk Back to wao@wao.org.my
* Ten Years After Beijing was the last issue of WAO's Fortnightly Column on Sunday Mail. We were informed by Sunday Mail that the space for this column has been designated for advertising. We will continue to post previous articles that have not yet been posted on our site until this final one.