Introduction
In the eighties, the United States of America and several other Western countries felt a new concept and wave emerged. It was the eruption of the term political correctness. Atkinson (n.d) defines political correctness as the “communal tyranny that …led to a spontaneous declaration that particular ideas, expressions, and behavior, which were then legal, should be forbidden by law, and people who transgressed should be punished (para. 1).
While it started as a small movement, the call for their expectations achieved national acclaim, enacting some as written and others as unwritten laws. The issues incorporated within the argument involved various cultural and academic issues in contemporary society. For instance, studies such as women’s multiculturalism and feminism, practices like speech codes, and free intellectual inquiries became controversial topics that required careful consideration before being approached in public. Considering the increased controversies to date, it is necessary to understand the historical events that led to the development of the concept.
History of Usage
While most studies concerning the issue trace the origin of political correctness in the eighties and nineties, evidence points out that the concept of political correctness can be traced as far back as the eighteenth century. However, the usage might not be similar to the one employed currently. For instance, early usage involved literal meaning of the words “political” and “correct.” As a result, political correctness meant something that was in formation with the then political thought and policies. Therefore, the earlier usage of the word did not primarily entail the use of political correctness to mean defamatory or discriminative words or practices towards a demographic unit. However, the contemporary society has evolved to take up certain challenges which eventually led to the reconstruction of the use of the word (Wilson 34).
In the early seventies, the word political correctness started assuming a new direction of usage. To be precise, the gender aspect of correctness started taking the better of the definition of the word. The new left proponents adopted the word in 1970 when Toni Bambara first inclined the meaning towards feminist sexuality. In her book The Black Woman, she clearly points out that respecting the female gender and understanding that they are equally human as their male counterparts was being politically correct. That’s exactly what the phrase, “…a man cannot be politically correct and a chauvinist too” (Friedman and Narveson 20). The word progressively acquired a feminist perspective while acquiring a satirical outfit. The writers of the age employed the word in comic strips. A god example was found in the book Merton of the Movement which sarcastically made use of the term political correctness.
Current Usage
The current use of the word acquired its meaning early in the nineties. This period was characterized by movements for political rights specifically referred to as culture wars. Universities and other institutions of higher education have taken up the meaning of the word. In the early 90s, political and social pressures affecting the curriculum and impeding on constructive and progressive teaching methods led to increased debate on whether conservative approaches were relevant or the United States would be better if it reformed the curriculum to embrace the country’s cultural outfit. The new movement which was driving towards a new usage of the word political correctness aimed at redefining the conservative specifications which had placed some language, expressions, gestures and topics out of limits. They pushed towards a freedom of speech and education that would allow all Americans of all colors and backgrounds to attain a good quality and level of education (Friedman and Narveson 36).
One might ask, what could have led to the new conception of the term? Friedman and Narveson (1) highlight an issue that led to the development of the term political correctness to assume an academic angle. In the nineties, the media was completely preoccupied by the news of increased riots and the reign of terror instigated by the non Caucasian ethnicities that called upon policy makers to redefine the curriculum and certain practices within the education institutions that would allow for improved education for all Americans. It is axiomatic that pressure from students who forced their way into their deans’ offices and terrorized their professors would attract the attention of the media. Consequently, they managed to force a host of reforms in terms of practice and attitude.
In the contemporary context, political correctness expresses itself in terms of redefinition of the superiority of a certain culture. Before the era of political correctness in the educational context, Western civilization and scholarship was believed dominant and the only correct curriculum. Any other approach that infiltrated the Western practices and concepts would be termed an infringement of the norms. However, the development of the political correctness concept led to the infiltration into the curriculum by feminism, multiculturalism, Marxism and deconstructionism. The classical works which defined the Western civilization was incorporated with third world and communist scholarship. While the proponents of political correctness pointed out that this was a consolidation of academic knowledge, the conservatives thought that this was an attack and ridicule to the concept of truth and objectivity. The mechanization would subject the United States education into intellectual disintegration (Wilson 42).
Initially, the chauvinist and racist ideals held women and minority ethnicities as academic dwarfs that would not qualify any important academic positions. In fact, it was not only teaching positions that were forbidden to women and minorities but also studentship and belonging to a certain faculty was reserved for certain groups. This had resulted into very few women in certain teaching and administrative positions and very few students in certain faculties. However, the concept of political correctness changed this. Affirmative action has been enacted in order to change this. Currently, women assume great faculty and other administrative positions within universities. In addition, minorities have also been give opportunity to handle such positions. Furthermore, there are no faculties meant for certain races. A certain number of other races are required in almost every faculty. Al this is meant to promote multiculturalism (Wilson 43).
Conclusion
While the debate rages on whether political correctness helped in the wellbeing of the society or not, the truth is that only an individual perspective can give a true answer. It still remains everybody’s own decision to make on whether women cannot hold positions of distinction in the world of academia remains answerable to the individual questioning their ability. On the other hand, the existence of certain causes courses or faculties that can only be handled by white males remains the true to whoever wants to believe it. Furthermore, classical Western aspects of truth could be the only measure of truth if one wants to believe it. However, the best approach is trying all possible truths before coming up with the best or integrating all the truths to come up with one truth that puts all concepts of truth and objectivity in consideration. In terms of affirmative action, it is good that every race and gender are given opportunity to showcase their ability. People should be promoted or demoted based on their performance. The skin color, gender, or sexual orientation should not be a basis from which one’s capability is measured. Viewing Atkinson’s definition of political correctness through the prism of justice to all, one notes that this is one of the best events to ever happen on earth.
Works Cited
Atkinson, Philip. Political Correctness. N.d.
Narveson, Jan and Marilyn Friedman. Political Correctness: For and against. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 1995.
Wilson, John. The Myth of Political Correctness: The Conservative Attack on Higher Education. London: Duke University Press, 1995.