Under the Microscope: I am motivated to write about political correctness (PC) for two reasons. Firstly, I am embarrassed by the fact that this movement has been so strongly promoted by the university sector (particularly in the US) and, secondly, because PC is anti-scientific. PC has spread far beyond its university origins to have a widespread effect on society. I believe it is an unfortunate development that we should now relegate to history, writes Prof William Reville
PC generally prescribes a set of very tolerant attitudes on issues such as gender, race, sexuality and the environment. It claims that we have long stereotyped persons, particularly minorities which are different from ourselves, and that we often discriminate against such persons in ways that degrade them.
So far, so good.
However, a problem arises when you investigate more deeply to discover that PC itself is intolerant and is based on a very dodgy philosophy.
PC is based on relativism, an ethical theory in which values are determined by each individual, or, at most, by his/her cultural subgroup. What is right for one is not necessarily right for another.
Most of us could go along with that so long as we are talking about how individuals interpret generally accepted principles. For example, almost all would agree that people should support each other, but there are many interpretations of how that general principle should be effected.
However, the problem with PC is that the relativism it promotes is about differences in principles themselves. It assumes that differences in principles cannot be resolved and that there is no higher standard than human choices.
There are two contradictions in PC. Firstly, although the pre-eminent PC value is tolerance of different positions, advocates of PC are intolerant of those who don't agree with them. This is a contradiction. Many people believe that definitions of right and wrong are, in many cases, based on objective principles and that if something is objectively wrong but a person chooses to believe it is right, this does not make it right for him/her.
To be consistent, PC should tolerate this view, but it doesn't.
Secondly, relativism has no power to compel people to do anything. It is generally agreed that speeding on the road is bad, but, under relativism, if my sub-group decides that it is good my obligation to desist from speeding is absolved. A majority could insist that speed limits still be legally imposed but such laws would inevitably be eroded by the PC obligation to "respect" everyone's position.
I don't see how a society based on relativism ultimately could hold together. In practice, huge conflicts would arise that could be resolved only by the strong prevailing over the weak.
Relativism also holds that there is no such thing as superior knowledge. Thus, if a pre-modern jungle tribe believes that the moon is a luminous lantern suspended by the gods above the tree-tops, relativism proposes that this knowledge is just as valid as the scientific understanding that the moon is a satellite of the earth that revolves around our planet, is devoid of live and atmosphere, and so on. Obviously, within the culture of the jungle tribe, the lantern explanation is adequate, but there is no doubt that the tribe's knowledge of the moon is inferior to our scientific knowledge.
PC has devised a whole lexicon of terminology to be used to refer to individuals and groups in a non-offensive way - chairperson, senior citizen, and so on. I have no objection to the use of much such terminology except when it is pushed to ridiculous lengths, such as demands on some US campuses to have history courses re-named as herstory courses in order to remove the offending "his", although the word history is derived from the Greek for "an account of events".
Some right-wing commentators claim that PC is a formal ideology of cultural Marxism, which originated in the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory in 1923, and is deliberately aimed at the destruction of western civilisation. The basic idea is to constantly criticise mainline western civilisation and thereby to weaken and destabilise the structure until eventually political Marxism can take over.
I don't agree with this conspiracy theory but I do accept that PC is an ideology.
Like any ideology it pushes to have its tenets implemented, even when they are opposed by scientific evidence. For example, PC holds that all forms of the family are of equal value - traditional family, single-parent family, same-sex couple family, and so on, despite the fact that there is very significant evidence that both children and parents fare best in stable married families.
I am constantly surprised and disappointed at how effectively PC has spread in society. It inhibits people from expressing valid viewpoints for fear they will be labelled as bigots and people frequently censor their utterances.
There is a rigid PC position on a whole host of issues - for example, immigration, travelling community, religion, and so on - and one is likely to be quickly reprimanded if one raises dimensions other than PC-approved ones. Rational debate is inhibited.
One is reminded at times of Stalinist Russia where people lived in constant fear that their ordinary conversations would be interpreted as being offensive to official ideology.
There is a serious issue of freedom of speech here. It is quite amazing that PC is so popular on university campuses because it fosters a rigid atmosphere quite inimical to the atmosphere of academic freedom we all claim to cherish.
William Reville is associate professor of biochemistry and director of microscopy at University College Cork