Redefining 'political correctness': should the British use a less politicised term of ‘common humility’?

There is more than a slight backlash against the movement of political correctness within the UK media as a whole and this is one area where the media seem in tune with the British public at large – what tends to be accepted in the UK is that there is no apparent alternative to the movement that ‘political correctness’ has become, when it may just be the beginning of a revitalised approach to human relations and how they are termed in everyday language use.

There may not be a single source, of course, of political correctness as a movement, though as the history of the situation gets formed, it may be possible to assume that there was a need for a perhaps international common framework to discuss and describe number of forms of disadvantage that resulted in lower social and economic status for an individual. This may as a result be an example of the process of globalisation of culture which marks the interchange between Britain and the US socially and economically. This may of course not be the case, there doesn’t seem to be an exponent from the US who would argue that the same terminology should be adopted in the UK or elsewhere in Europe that may have been seen to be suitable in the USA.

The backlash against global processes may reflect a resistance to the processes of globalisation as a whole, which may not be visible but is taking place in a great many forms through the discussion groups which were used to select appropriate terms to use within an organisation to avoid discriminatory action. Arguably, those who have disliked the new terminology of political correctness have not been connected to the processes of selecting the most appropriate language for an organisational context. There may be solid grounds to reject the use of terms of courtesy based upon language which does not connect with the social history of the users of the terminology. The process of managing this form of social change and ensuring that there were positive impacts all round are considerable. All of this creates a position where there may be a need to reject elements of the globalisation of culture and seek a national, regional or more local solution that are part of a more prominent movement which helps get those who feel resentment to the ‘politically correct’ on board.

Deconstructions of political correctness may include a more complex picture of competing interests that incorporate what I am stating. Would they indicate that it were a movement that it provides a means of avoiding discriminatory language which can not only restrict the development of the person that it is being used to describe but also to ensure that any one who is working with them may not be accused of discriminating against them? This also could be in the interests of an employer who may not wish to be involved in either providing substandard working conditions where harassment may take place but also may avoid the risk of prosecution through negligence over not addressing this type of matter. In whose interests does political correctness take place as a process may also be worth asking as there may be some benefits for the vulnerable groups who are not discriminated against, although perhaps there is a greater benefit for those who get to grips with how the terminology can be used so they can progress in their careers.

There may be good reason to question the beneficiaries of political correctness – as a movement political correctness may not have addressed any unequal power relations but only offered window dressing to those who were looking to absolve themselves from engaging in any meaningful form of social change. This type of change in language use is little more than a lubricant to capitalism and maintains distinct power relations rather than challenges them in any way. It would be interesting to examine who the major beneficiaries of political correctness have been so far. It does assist in some ways with the sense of a meritocracy and sense of social and economic freedoms.

The meritocratic nature of Blair’s Britain may be subject to further analysis at an appropriate point. We may then find that there are ‘relationally challenged’ individuals that are those who do not have a great opportunity through extended family or others who are ‘aesthetically challenged’ when looks are fully recognised as being a particularly significant issue in the preferences of employers. Maybe one day….

If social and economic power relations are not being challenged and there is an aversion to the US approach of political correctness which may be due to financial and public image reasons being central to undertaking the process of cultural change then there may be scope to undertake a more British approach. Finance and public image may not be matters necessarily central to British culture and there could be reason, despite common ground with the US, to separate and form a more British movement. This has been undertaken by the left wing councils of the 1980'S and not respected for what it was - maybe it is time to review this.