A Brief History of ‘Political Correctness’

An interesting style article in the Washington Post recently looked at How ‘politically correct’ went from compliment to insult, and from politics to sexuality and back to politics.

As writer Caitlin Gibson explains, the phrase originated in the 1930s as “the proper position for a member of the U.S. Communist Party to take on a particular issue.” In the 1960s, feminist and lesbian circles adopted the phrase, “sometimes as a fairly neutral term…and sometimes with a tiny hint of judgment” about ideological rigidity.

What’s politically correct, of course, changes over time. Gibson recounts that a 1979 book on the lesbian community noted, “In America among many political lesbians, bisexuality is regarded as a betrayal … [therefore] the politically correct thing is to define oneself as a lesbian.” Today, being “pansexual” is what’s truly progressive.

In the 1980s, campus activists embraced the concept unapologetically, as in “P.C. and Proud.” By the mid-‘80s, however, politically correct “was being leveled by some conservative critics with heavy doses of irony against what they viewed as…liberal pieties,” Gibson notes.

Looking back, I recall this early example of LGBT P.C. run amok vividly: In 1995, lesbian activist Urvashi Vaid wrote:

[Gay] Conservatives derided the 1993 March on Washington as the epitome of “political correctness” for its requirement that all delegations to its national steering committee be gender balanced and racially diverse. When gay conservatives criticized the 1993 march for insisting that 50 percent of all steering committee members be people of color, on the grounds that such representation inaccurately reflected the demographics of the community, what message were they sending to gay communities of color? That they believe people of color will not fairly represent whites?

There were some 120 people on the steering committee representing all 50 states plus U.S. territories, so if a state sent two reps one had to be a woman; if she wasn’t a woman of color, then the second representative couldn’t be a white male. (And yes, for supporting this and similarly arch positions, some of us called Vaid out for political correctness).

Today, the left no longer uses the phrase, except to deny that such a thing as “political correctness” even exists as anything other than a right-wing slur. But these denials seem to take the form (and this is me paraphrasing): “There is no such thing as political correctness, and if you try to say there is, we will demand that your invitation to speak be rescinded and/or shout so loud when you try to speak that no one will be able to listen to you, and then we’ll lobby to get you fired.”

More. David Gelernter on how speaking against political correctness is a big reason why Donald Trump is connecting on an emotional level with so many voters:

Republicans rarely even acknowledge its existence as the open wound it really is; a wound that will fester forever until someone has the nerve to heal it—or the patient succumbs. To watch young minorities protest their maltreatment on fancy campuses when your own working life has seen, from the very start, relentless discrimination in favor of minorities—such events can make people a little testy. …

Mainstream reporters can’t see the crucial importance of political correctness because they are wholly immersed in it, can’t conceive of questioning it; it is the very stuff of their thinking, their heart’s blood. Most have been raised in this faith and have no other. Can you blame them if they take it for granted?

13 Comments for “A Brief History of ‘Political Correctness’”

  1. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Today, the left no longer uses the phrase …

    The right sure does, though, 24x7x365, using it as a hammer and rallying cry, and just about as honestly as thrice-divorced politicians use “traditional marriage” as a hammer and rallying cry.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      Yes, and like the word “tolerance”, I almost only hear the term PC used by people who are made because someone called them out on their own bigotry. Yes, there is some overreach and I’m happy to call that out. (Claiming that any criticism of Muslim or the practices in Muslim culture or countries is Islamophobia, for example.) But the real issue is that once was a well-coordinated effort on the part of the GOP to hide the racists and sexists in the back and away from the mics and cameras has come crashing down and they need to divert attention from the nutjobs that are hogging the attention (and leading in the polls).

    • posted by Tom Jefferson III on

      Did anyone else notice the “straight line” that Stephen tried to create? Where the Communist Party of the 1930s is the same thing as modern day liberals. Wow. Nice, that.

      Seriously, the Communist Party and the Socialist Party (and their were several variations of both in America…still probably are) were never in a position to be too terribly relevant politically, except in a few city and regional campaigns. Communists and Socialist — then and now — also tend to dislike liberals, because liberals do not want to abolish capitalism.

      This is not to say that their were not actual Soviet/Iron Curtain spies in America (although much less then the public believed).

      Yet, much of what these third parties did was protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendment. The witch hunts and legal discrimination against third parties was dreadful and embarrassing.

      If you were a black man in 1930s who was actually able to vote, you probably took notice of the fact that the Communist Party was — initially — quite open in its opposition to racial discrimination.

      Yes, A position that — apparently — Moscow pressured them to change. Other third parties of that era may have continued their strong opposition to racial discrimination. I do not know enough about the platform’s of minor parties in that era.

      However, the two major parties views on the “Negro question” (as it would have politely been called in the 1930s), was (at best) lukewarm support for some civil rights. This assumed that a black man could actually vote (or hold office), which was not a reality in large parts of the nation.

      Maybe, someone in the Communist Party believed that support for racial equality would help the party sweep to electoral victory. People involved in third party politics in America can sometimes overestimate their political viability.

      Yet, most black voters and most white voters — who supported racial equality –, did not make a “protest vote” for the Communist party, or the other minor parties that came along.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      Did anyone else notice the “straight line” that Stephen tried to create? Where the Communist Party of the 1930s is the same thing as modern day liberals. Wow. Nice, that.

      Yeah, but as often the case when Stephen starts drawing “straight lines”, the line isn’t supported by the article to which he links. The article uses ten uses of the term “politically correct” to illustrate the ways in which the term has morphed over the years:

      “But what does it actually mean? Depends what year it is, and whom you’re asking. These days, for GOP candidates, it’s a catch-all synonym for liberal cowardice or caution — whatever it is that’s keeping America from being great, or something. But “politically correct” is a linguistic weapon that has changed hands many times. It’s been a literal term. An ironic joke. A snide insult. To some, the term has even represented a positive ideal, a righteous label worn proudly.”

      The term “politically correct”, like the terms “people of faith” and “patriot” has a specific meaning in political right-speak at this point, a meaning that has little to do with history or etymology. To suggest that, though, is (as is the case when it is suggested that religious people other than conservative Christians might be “people of faith” or liberals who put blood on the ground for this country might be “patriots”) to deviate from the orthodoxy of the right.

    • posted by Jorge on

      Did anyone else notice the “straight line” that Stephen tried to create? Where the Communist Party of the 1930s is the same thing as modern day liberals. Wow. Nice, that.

      I think it’s a theory that comes to mind very easily from reading the article and worth looking into. It doesn’t pass my rule of three though.

  2. posted by Jorge on

    1979: “In America among many political lesbians, bisexuality is regarded as a betrayal
    . . . [therefore] the politically correct thing is to define oneself as a lesbian.”

    Oh, hiya, Miss McCray. (There are still echoes of that today, I think.)

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/115665122/I-am-a-Lesbian-by-Chirlane-McCray-Essence-Magazine-September-1979.

  3. posted by Lori Heine on

    Political correctness is not just a left-wing phenomenon. It’s a feature of human nature, and common to people everywhere. We all tend to want to hear some things and not others.

    There’s every bit as much of it on the political right as on the left. The difference is that at least the left was honest enough to give it a name. In hindsight, that was probably foolish of them.

  4. posted by Lori Heine on

    Political correctness is not just a left-wing phenomenon. It’s a feature of human nature, and common to people everywhere. We all tend to want to hear some things and not others.

    There’s every bit as much of it on the political right as on the left. The difference is that at least the left was honest enough to give it a name. In hindsight, that was probably foolish of them.

    • posted by Lori Heinel on

      How did that come out twice? I have no mouse at the moment; stuck using the finger-pad. I hope that doesn’t happen again.

  5. posted by Houndentenor on

    Like so many things, the intent was good. People through a lot of effort eliminated derogatory terms like the n-word from most public discourse. People were shamed for being openly racist or sexist and eventually even anti-gay. But the right quickly figured out how to play the game and came up with new ways of saying the same thing. Bob Dole in 1996 claimed to be for gay rights but not for special rights. Of course he ran on a platform that wasn’t for gay rights at all. But that gave cover to people who were just a little bit anti-gay but didn’t like to think of themselves that way. Frank Luntz and others made quite a bit of money figuring out how to word positions that were racist, sexist and anti-gay without sounding like they were. At that point (and this is the 90s) that PC era was over. Then of course some nutjobs ran amok and ruined whatever good might ever have come from trying to get people not to call each other mean and hateful names. And now here we are. Yes, there’s a lot to criticize about PC culture but frankly 90% of the time (if not more) when someone complains to me about PC it’s because someone frowned at them for telling racist jokes and they think their free speech rights should include freedom from criticism or disapproval. They most certainly do not.

    • posted by Jorge on

      Yes, there’s a lot to criticize about PC culture but frankly 90% of the time (if not more) when someone complains to me about PC it’s because someone frowned at them for telling racist jokes and they think their free speech rights should include freedom from criticism or disapproval. They most certainly do not.

      I actively use this rule to say scandalous things when people inject politics where it is not warranted.

  6. posted by Tom Jefferon III on

    I think that “political correctness” — ideally — is a form of institutionalized politeness and civility. I seem to recall a Scottish comedian making a similar comment a few years back. I think that our culture tends to toss out civility and politeness too quickly.

    Too many of the folks — in my own experience — who complain the loudest about political correctness are people who are not comfortable with the cultural and legal progress made in favor of equal rights, or in the idea that people of different races, colors, religions and creeds ought to coexist peacefully.

    • posted by curtis on

      Trying to control how people think (and shouting them down when they don’t conform) is a good deal more than avoiding insults.

Comments are closed.