BY JEFFREY BRAMSON

The political correctness phenomenon has lost most of the public attention that it once garnered in the past few decades, when the terms by which we refer to society’s marginalized groups were deeply important to the media and public. As recently as 1998, Congress felt compelled to rename its Christmas tree a “holiday tree” to appease non-Christians. In the post-9/11 world of constant political turmoil, the luxury of spending time on such discussions seems to have evaporated.

There is, however, another much livelier side to battles over political terminology: the efforts of some groups to coin new terms for old ideas in order to change public opinion (“death tax” versus “estate tax”). It is because of this relatively new occurrence that the discussion about language and politics merits revisiting.

End of the Line

In the simplest sense, the term “political correctness” refers to either explicit or implicit restrictions on acceptable language for public discourse. Harvard professor of government, Harvey Mansfield, told the HPR that the trend was initially attributable to “the therapeutic attitude that we need to be sensitive to others,” which he deemed important but perhaps overemphasized. The process was straightforward at first: “black” was replaced by “African-American” because of consensus among African-Americans that the former was inappropriate. As the glass ceiling on women’s career opportunities shattered, most gender-specific job names were replaced by their gender-neutral equivalents.

Arguments arose over which groups ought to be granted their desired terms—for instance, the reframing of “juvenile delinquents” as “troubled youth” raised concerns over the stifling of personal responsibility. The debate was bitter and at times even sarcastic, but since the end of the 1990s, it seems to have abated. The most patently offensive terms have long since been purged from common usage. Moreover, proponents of politically correct speech have recognized that changing language is not tantamount to changing society, and opponents are coming to the conclusion that some liberals’ insistence on political correctness, far from being a major threat, is mostly a matter of semantics.

The New Debate

Out of the void of terminology came an interesting problem of politically neutral speech, a derivative of the political correctness concept which many believe threatens citizens’ freedom of thought. While at first cultural and interest groups pushed for a change in terminology in order to gain equality and respect, now politicians and parties often attempt to manipulate terms for their own political gain. Professor Fred Schauer of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government described to the HPR how rephrasing “affirmative action” as “reverse discrimination” amounts to what he called “persuasive labeling.”

It is because of the danger of these persuasive phrases that the discussion over political correctness ought to be reworked. Calling a blind person “visually impaired” does not do any harm to society nor restrict anyone’s freedom of speech. As Schauer put it, “I don’t find it very troubling to refer to some group by the name it prefers.” The problem comes when the change in terminology affects the ability of certain citizens to express their opinions fully. Trying to rename the pro-choice movement “pro-abortion” or the pro-life movement “anti-choice” stifles debate, relying on gut reactions rather than intelligent discourse. In these cases, society runs a greater risk of subtle censorship of important thoughts than it does when it makes taboo words like “nigger.”

Schauer noted that the damage often emerges from a “social intolerance of non-received opinion,” referencing John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty . For example, labeling someone a terrorist may satisfy most people, but it leaves no room for a discussion about that individual’s motivations. Mansfield suggests a way out of the quandary, recommending that society “go back more towards ordinary liberal tolerance, which doesn’t require you to conceal your opinions.” In this way, social tolerance of marginalized groups is maximized, but not at the expense of free debate.