Be It resolved: What you call "political correctness" I call "civility"
I'll level with you right now: I hate both of these terms.
"Political Correctness" is a term that gets used by a lot of people to talk about what I would consider to be basic politeness ("don't intentionally offend someone if they've made it clear they don't like a word, or would prefer to be referred in a certain way; just try"). I have suspected for a while that what these people typically really mean when they talk about political correctness is a fatigue with feeling like they're being forced to meet standards of politeness that are decided by others, and which they do not share.
"Civility" is a term that gets used just about every way you can imagine. It can mean politeness, it can mean "nonviolent protest," it can mean voting, it can mean only certain kinds of protest, and it can mean meeting decorum (which is a more formal way of saying politeness, but it has its nuanced differences, so I suppose I'll list it, goddamn, twist my arm why don't you). The range of possible meanings makes it pretty annoying, and borderline useless to talk about directly.
The title of this thread is an intentional play on one of my frustrations with a munk debate which was shared about a month ago. I believed the terms were too dependent on who "you" are in the statement. So rather than have them redo the munk debate, I thought we could have one of our own.
I definitely have my own views on this claim (that I'll be sharing below), but this has been such an awkward issue on this site that I think it's worth exploring directly. So explore with me:
- Is there a difference between "political correctness" and "civility"?
- Is either term valuable to society?
- Why the hell are so many people so hot and bothered about these two terms, and also seemingly unable to interact meaningfully with anyone else?
I'm feeling cynical today, so my answers are, in order, "No," "No," and "because they need something to rally around."
I think the best of what these terms could mean has to be tied up with a level of respect for one anothers' humanity. Some people hear "political correctness" as a dog whistle for "white people aren't people worth hearing." Some people hear "civility" as a dog whistle for "you can protest shitty race relations, just not here, just not now, and just not where I will have to see it, because I don't care about you." In both cases, you have one group of people hearing a plea for respecting humanity as an insult.
So in a sense, to me these are two sides of the same coin used against different groups of people, neither in a particularly helpful way.
Which brings me to:
I would say, emphatically, "not really."
Don't get me wrong, I think that politeness, decorum, and comity are all crucially important concepts for people to understand in any situation they find themselves. Intellectual good faith is a must in any reasonable debate. What's more, if it comes to making a difference (the squeaky wheel getting the oil, as it were), the most effective rule breakers tend to be the most familiar with the rules.
But I haven't seen anything that resembles "progress" from the use of these two terms, nor would I say I see much use in them given how emotionally charged they each are as terms. It would be much better for everyone just to agree to leave these two terms in the dustbin of history and figure out different ways to talk about racial sensitivity and keeping decorum, if that's how you use the terms.
I think these terms bother people because we all want to be respected. We all want to feel valued. We all want to feel like we're not chopped liver or just a member of "that group" with a disparaging tone hanging over the term judgmentally like the sword of Damocles. I want to feel unique, goddamnit. And fuck anyone who wants to lump me in with a group just because of how I identify. I still find myself needing to identify with that group, but that doesn't mean that group is a monolith. And it's frustrating to have to say things like that over and over again to people who aren't in that group, but they're not in that group and don't seem to get it, so time to turn that cheek and take another slap, I guess.
It's not hard to see why people get frustrated with these topics. I'm now frustrated! Goddamn this topic makes me annoyed.
I'm feeling pretty cynical myself today, and I saw a post on r/PoliticalHumor earlier that got me musing about it. It's a screenshot of a tweet saying:
and some of the comments within the thread:
I'm sure plenty of folks will feel that political correctness and civility are not quite interchangeable. Personally I'd argue they're basically equitable, and both generally mean, "try not to be a dick, aight?". We could argue a difference, but let's not.
So, how people react to these statements will undoubtedly be varied depending on how you are, and what you've lived through, and such. But from my personal perspective (26yo, Male, Progressive, American), this shit really resonated with me. I went through high-school and my early 20's trying to be the kind of person Mr. Rogers would be proud of, ya know? Treat LBGT+ as no different from other people, recognize the unique experiences, perspectives, and hardships of People of Color, see women as equitable with men, try not to use offensive words, try to understand how being a white man in America does actually, unfortunately, gives me a leg up on POC and women in this society, stuff like that. I tried to educate myself on the state of the world, and the perspectives of peoples in other nations. Try to put myself in the shoes of a Rwandan, a North Korean, a scared Iraqi child. Dare to consider that maybe we've done some really unforgivable and unjustifiable shit in the Middle East (not hating on our Military personnel themselves, I myself have served). We had a black President for eight years, and for a non-negligable portion of America that was just unacceptable. Any time I heard somebody claiming he wasn't a real citizen, or a secret Muslim terrorist satanist atheist, or likened him or the First Lady to an ape, or worse, I'd speak up.
I had to speak up often.
I've been accused of political correctness. I've been called an SJW, a snowflake, a bleeding heart, a 'liberal weenie', a 'faggot lover', queer, and pansy.
I'm tired. I've grown impatient.
And now, all of a sudden I see the same kinds of people (from my perspective) who attacked and belittled me come out of the woodwork to call for civility. All I can help but think is — how dare you?
So, per your questions:
1. Is there a difference between "political correctness" and "civility"?
I really don't see any meaningful difference. Not in my own experience on what I have done which was called "political correctness"
2. Is either term valuable to society?
For American society, for the kinds of people I associate with, no. If my rant above hasn't made clear my reasoning, let me know.
3. Why the hell are so many people so hot and bothered about these two terms, and also seemingly unable to interact meaningfully with anyone else?
See above, but I'd love to read anybody else's perspectives. I only have mine and my friends to go by.
Don't get me wrong, I would love for everyone to practice politeness. I would love for everyone to put their best foot forward, to always assume the best intentions, to always try to empathize with everyone else, and to try and all work to build a better tomorrow. To build a society where our children's children can prosper and look back and what we've done and feel proud. But I see two major, large factions in my world which are diametrically opposed and every year relations deteriorate, further and further. I don't know what the hell the answer is. If everybody, of all faiths and political ideologies, could be excellent to each other, I believe we would have a better world tomorrow.
I try to keep it together, especially here on ~, but I've had a few drinks and I've had no fewer than five people show contempt for my life today, so if I've been uncivil or inflammatory here in this post I hope you'll forgive me for that.
/rant.
I think your battle wounds around these sorts of topic are fairly won (and I also saw that tweet in my feed--I have organizer friends who retweet stuff like that all the time--, and it also got me feeling cynical and formed most of the basis of this thread).
I should also say first that my father is a birther, and that we largely stopped talking to one a fair bit before Trump was even running for office because we couldn't figure out a way to be polite with one another (in part because he's every bit as racist as you'd expect a birther to be--oh, but OUR ANCESTORS WERE INDENTURED SERVANTS FOR TWO YEARS SO THAT MAKES IT OKAY TO TELL A BLACK MAN TO GIVE ME REPARATIONS or some shit; in part because he's just an asshole who can't see beyond his navel and I have other things I'd rather do with my time). So at that level, I get a bit of where you're coming from.
A lot of my frustration comes from the very sentiments that start your comment off: "maybe you shouldn't have been such assholes to us if you wanted us not to be assholes back." That's really what's at the root of all this, and I've never been one that believes in an eye-for-an-eye morality system (as much as I want to sometimes).
It's hard work to get up every day after being insulted to try to work past those wounds to make a constructive effort at getting to a better world. It's especially hard when dealing with the reality that few people who we engage with tomorrow have any idea what scars we carry with us from yesterday. This topic comes laden with scar tissue, probably for just about everyone I'd wager. But if there's no forgiving people who are associated with the people who had harmed us, then it's really hard to talk to a lot people. And that cuts into my bottom line of trying to treat literally everyone like they're people.
There was a statistic from Pew Research that I remember from back during the Obama years (like 3 years in or so) that talked about the values among each group. And among Democrats/left leaning individuals, the value for compromise was super high, like in the 60-70% range, while the Republican compromise value had dropped into the 40% range. And it was the right that fell on this value first, there was no mistake about that. But now I saw an update of this poll late last year that showed the left was falling to the right's level. I struggle to see how that's good for anyone.
Personally, I don't think the eye-for-an-eye position is any good. It's not very productive. I tend to bite my tongue instead of saying something regrettable in a heated moment, and escalating something to a point of no return. It doesn't help anybody. However, I can't say I don't understand people who bite back. I live near DC, I sometimes bump into political figures who I would just love to lay into and give them a piece of my mind, but that wouldn't accomplish anything. Not really. But the temptation is there, and I really don't love that I have that sort of feeling living deep inside of me.
There's this essay titled Tolerance is not a moral precept, which argues that tolerance is more akin to a peace-treaty, that I think may be worth reading.
I won't try to summarize the entire thing, not with beer brain anyway, but I think that people in similar shoes to mine feel that the peace treaty has been broken, and now we've entered the warring period.
Essentially, I think it's natural that there is this push-back against this current call for civility (not that it's helpful or necessarily justifiable), at least among people with similar experiences to mine. We're in a turbulent time, post-breach of the treaty, and we need to work towards attaining peace again. That will take some time, and it will take effort on both sides to reach a new equilibrium in which we can all coexist.
I think the best summary (of course, as a summary, it is probably missing something) of that essay would be described by the paradox of tolerance, one of the founding ideas behind ~.
Huh, now that I tried to read that essay, it looks like they changed where the link is or something, because it 404s.
Anyway, I just wanted to drop a note here to say that I agree that some ideas should not be tolerated. In particular, we should have an intolerance for intolerance--but it's hard sometimes to know where the difference between malice and ignorance lies, and that difference is crucial. Malicious intolerance is something that cannot be tolerated or persuaded, and must be combated. Ignorant intolerance, however, is something that can be lessened through interaction, engagement, and education (as infuriating as it can be at times).
I'm not saying it is the responsibility of impacted people to shoulder this burden. I see a large role for myself (and yourself) in helping forward the conversation for our similarly colored, gendered, and cultured peoples, highlighting their stories and voices whenever possible to add context to discussion. It's frankly too much to ask only people in effected classes to shoulder this burden. The very nature of the burden is that it is disproportionately shouldered by the oppressed in a particular power dynamic.
What I am saying is that the more trigger happy we are about suspecting malice among larger and larger groups of people, the more people we're writing off to being unpersuadable, and the larger the group of people becomes that we must combat. People like you and me, who probably come from more privileged backgrounds, I think it's crucial that we have the most patience for all the various classes of people we're talking to and engaging with. The trauma of oppression works itself out in a myriad of ways that don't always translate very nicely, civilly, politically correct or however you want to put it. People who are dealing with the trauma of oppression in their lives can be assholes. It is no less a moral duty to attempt to help improve their lives.
There are a lot of problems I had with Bernie's campaign, but the focus he had on economics wasn't really one of them. Focusing debate on what we can do economically for all people is a way to try to broaden the umbrella and conversation around oppressed groups of people to include poor and working-class whites (which I think we would all love to get integrated in this debate constructively). I disagreed a lot with the particulars and thought he didn't seem to know much about economics, but I liked the branding and impulse. The people I worked with in rural Ohio really resonated with that branding and emphasis, much more than they ever really did with Hillary's messaging on how vaguely united we ought to be.
Yes. Civility, in my mind, equates to politeness. At the very least, it means refraining from insulting or attacking the person you're conversing/discussing/debating with. It's avoiding a bad thing, rather than doing a good thing.
But, even so, civility is a good thing. Discussion can't be productive if it's just an exchange of insults ("You are!" "No, you are!" "I know you are, but what am I?") It's a bare minimum for discussion to occur.
Political correctness, on the other hand, is the negatively loaded term that people use to deride certain precepts which are often a step beyond civility. I actually don't know a term for this, but it's where you ask people to take a step beyond merely refraining from insulting someone, and ask them to actively support them. One example that comes to mind is using a person's preferred pronouns. It's a step beyond merely refraining from insulting them ("Tranny!") and asking you to accept their right to be addressed how they want to be addressed. You're engaging with that person on their own terms, rather than imposing your worldview on them.
But people who don't want to take that extra step of engaging people on their own terms deride it as "political correctness" (this term is much more frequently used by opponents to this concept than its supporters).
The terms or the concepts? I believe that the concept of civility is absolutely essential to a well-functioning society: to refrain from insulting people is the social grease that enables the wheels of society to turn. To take the next step and engaging with someone on their own terms is what makes a society a better, happier place for people to live in. As for the terms, the term "civility" is a useful label to tell people the minimum that's expected of them to engage in civil life, while the term "political correctness" is useful only because its use identifies those people who won't engage with their fellow citizens on their own terms.
Buggered if I know. The concepts behind the terms are extremely important. Not being able to refrain from insulting someone is toxic to helpful, useful discussion, so civility is necessary for a society to function.
If you're being bombarded with hateful messages from people who don't like you, why would you want interact meaningfully with them?
Your example doesn't make much sense. It's offensive to address people incorrectly. Even cisgendered people would be offended if they were called by the wrong gendered pronouns. That kind of behaviour is belittling. Refusing to address someone properly is the very definition of disrespect.
Exactly. So, asking someone to address people correctly is merely civility. However, it's attacked by those who don't agree as "politically correct", instead of as simple respectfulness.
I don't know. I think you can argue that they cover similar ground, but they definitely get used in different contexts.
Not really? "Political correctness" in particular seems wholly unhelpful these days. I only see it used by people to deride or scoff at other's actions or views. If someone dismisses what I've said as PC, I don't really want to continue the conversation because I know they likely don't have any interest in my point of view.
And as you pointed out, "civil" means so many different things to different people that it becomes meaningless. You end up with people arguing about whether or not civility is necessary while using different definitions.
Take a discussion that touches on protests. Person 1 supports peaceful protests, thinks that peaceful protests fall under the umbrella of civility, and thus says they are in favor of civility in political matters. Person 2 assumes person 1 thinks protests are uncivil (because some people do) and thus starts an argument with them from that position. "So you're saying we can't protest? Civil disobedience is important! Civility is overrated."
I guess I kind of already covered this? For "political correctness," a large proportion of people who use the phrase mean it in a derogatory fashion, so of course someone being called PC isn't going to be very pleased. And if you have different definitions of civility you get disagreements even if two people generally agree.
Everyone's been burned before.
Here's my filter on these questions as a layman:
Yes. Civility is acting with respect, especially in spite of disagreement. It is a system designed to reduce the amount of bloodshed a society experiences. Political correctness is enforcing (or attempting to enforce) through shame or guilt or violence specific norms on a person or group. Enforcing norms can be and usually is good for the stability of society - the problem that we face right now in my country (and I'd hazard to say in many others) is a segment actively trying to alter those norms in an artificial way in the name of progress with an assumption that their way is the best way for everyone. The resistance to this is a stabilizing feature of human psychology evolved to stabilize societies. In my opinion, we need both - those who want to create change and those who want to stick to things that mostly work - for our society to evolve healthily and not destroy itself.
Yes, they both describe phenomena which do not have popular synonyms in the common vernacular in English.
People have strong emotions regarding the two terms because the people who want change see those who resist it as backward and moralizing, while those who want things to stay mostly the same see those wanting radical change as reckless and foolish (broadly speaking). The two terms are relevant to the worlds that each side sees in this dramatic conflict, and the emotions of that conflict get associated with the terms. It doesn't help that there are people actively stoking fires in this conflict, whose profit motive in the age of the internet has selected a strategy of focusing everyone's attention on the most inflammatory happenings or filters on happenings.
I think some change is good, and not all of it can be put under an umbrella of progress as a package deal and sold effectively to half of society which is psychologically predisposed to resist too much change. Political correctness is a stabilizing feature of society, along with civility. We're in a time of chaos where that stabilizing feature is being used as a weapon by a group to control society, to shape it into their image. Think of it like the Heart of Lorkhan from The Elder Scrolls - you control it, and you control the world. But if people realize you're trying to tamper with the fabric of reality, you're going to have a fight on your hands because who the fuck are you. Not only that, but if you do it without knowing what you're doing, you risk making alterations to reality which are counter to your intentions (see: the Disappearance of the Dwarves).
So with that event, one side realizing what's going on perceives war to have been declared - hence the "culture war" terminology we've seen going about. When you're at war, the utility of civility comes into question. However, I think that civility is exactly the stabilizing system we need to de-escalate this conflict and sort out what's actually going on, let everyone have a voice, and reach an agreement that everyone is satisfied with.
Yep. Political correctness, as I interpret at least, refers to when people are afraid to challenge a belief solely because it's seen as traditional or popular. An example of this with be a Nepalese practice in some villages forcing menstruating woman to live outside - the New York Times wrote an article on it recently. It's been very hard to convince people to change their opinions on it, because even though it puts their own wives and daughters in serious danger, many people are more afraid of the potential bad luck that would supposedly come from violating the taboo. This, imo, would be an example of political correctness - people are afraid to speak out or stand up for a belief because of being shamed or exiled. Meanwhile, civility refers to, well, being civil. In otherwords, having respect for people other then yourself. if you're not being civil, that doesn't mean you're being politically incorrect, and vice-versa.
It depends. I would argue in very traditional societies, like the mentioned Nepal or perhaps Russia, there comes a lot of value in pointing out how people do pointless or useless things just because it's traditional. In the US, it was also valuable for the LGBT movement, to show that the stigmas against us were rooted purely in tradition and not in a rational sense. That being said, it's very commonly used in intentionally bad faith or outright misused. An example of this I particularly bristle at is when some conservative activists say that white people are discriminated against in America. While individual incidents can no doubt occur, no person with even a remote introduction to US society could say such a thing. It's an intentionally false and proactive statement designed to manufacture outrage.
For civility, I would say there's more value. While it's obviously inappropriate in some contexts - for example, it lends false credence or support to a viewpoint like that the Nazis were justified -, society is a whole and cohesive fabric, made up of everyone's cooperation. I'd seriously struggle to think of an academically honest argument that can't be stated in a polite way and with respect for the other person. Words have power, whether to incite, elevate, respect, dishonor, promote, protect, or anything else. Forgetting that, and invite yourself to be shown how wrong you are :/
Also consider patriotic correctness.