Political Correctness and Language Manipulation: An In-depth Analysis

This essay discusses political correctness and language manipulation, focusing on the suppression of language and the imposition of speech codes. It argues that banning words under the guise of creating a coherent society is undemocratic and favors one group over others. The essay examines swear words as emotional outlets and social constructs, highlighting how society's perception of these words has shifted towards labeling them as hate speech. It also critiques the idea that eliminating offensive language can create a bias-free society, suggesting instead that it can lead to the suppression of feelings and the domination of minority groups. The essay concludes that speech restrictions infringe upon democratic rights and should be resisted to prevent the rise of a controlled environment that stifles individual expression.

Running head: LANGUAGE AND POLITICS
Language and Politics
Name of the Student:
Name of the University
Author Note:

1
LANGUAGE AND POLITICS
The essay deals with the issue of political correctness and language manipulation
where one set of individual is in the position to ban words and language for the illusion of
creating a coherent society. The argument is structured into three parts discussing the idea of
swear words in a social context, the second paragraph deals with a how society’s approach
towards these words has altered and third a rationale on how manipulation of language is un-
democratic and solely the privilege of one group over the other.
Swear words are generally seen as taboo through which people express their strongest
emotions. It is a relief button through which people channelize their anger or frustration. The
demarcation between amicable and social words is no doubt social constructs which differ
from one set of cultural values and social norms from the other. It is society who constructs
and associates imageries and symbols with words and deems them as indecent, vulgar or
regressive. According to Cavazza & Guidetti, (2014) people who have acquired their
language without systematic training or observation are prone to vent out their emotions with
the usage of “swear words”. Language is a social variable and is therefore manipulated.
Language manipulation is a politics on the part of state since language is considered as a
symbol of power and authority shaping concepts, ideas and notions, exerting influence. If we
consider politicians their language and discourse differ from private life to that of their
personal. Imposing speech codes is not an answer to social problems but is merely an
instrument of society to suppress the weaker section. The primary role of a language is to
impart information, suppression of language only denotes the privilege over the dominant
ideology over the lesser ones.
There has been however a radical shift in the society towards their approach to social
words and these words are grouped as hate speech consisted of prejudiced languages and

2
LANGUAGE AND POLITICS
vocabulary. Prominent figures opine that it is fundamental in eliminating gender or caste
based discrimination and bringing forth a more positive change within the society. The
language crusade has striven to change the approach of how one perceives the environment
around. While criticizing the concept of swearing, one should realize the socio-cultural
context, where linguistic politeness comes to represent a larger society. Therefore swearing
can be viewed as a violation of the community’s right to harmony and dignity or in other
words somebody’s right to not hear it (Kramsch & Vinall, 2015). Today swearing is seen as
a deliberate act on the part of the people in order to demonstrate power and domination,
where speaker is n control of the pattern of discourse. To end the discussion it can be firmly
asserted that the decision to use swear word is a matter of neurological, socio-cultural and
psychological process. Swearing is sometimes seen as an act of purposeful reproach
(Eccleston, 2018).
Considering the facts, social constructs are indeed imposing and fascist (Philipsen &
Hart, 2015). With the elimination of offensive language a society can never construct the
utopian world free of biasness towards caste, language rather it is ammunition used for mass
suppression of feelings. A controlled environment would only accentuate the construed
implications of swearing which can e used by an individual in multiple contexts. Imposing
restrictions on language denotes the rise of speech community with a shared set of norms for
communications, interpretation and deconstruction of speech (Kramsch & Vinall, 2015). This
could be used by the politicians to achieve common goal like suppressing democracy in a
group, domination of the minority group and their culture and forcing others to abide by the
linguistic norms in order to achieve common good. The inter-relation between language and
ideology which is formed by a shared group of notions about the usage of language is highly
individualistic (Philipsen & Hart, 2015). Language manipulation can lead to the birth of
cultural vulnerability. Therefore it can be asserted that language domination would serve

3
LANGUAGE AND POLITICS
no great cause but lead to a capitalistic regime where the intellectual class in possession of
materialistic values have the inherent right to introduce an atmosphere of falsity, where in the
words of Friedrich, “the other fellow’s ideas” come to dominate the public discourse.
Theorists have concluded that it is a form of mass domination and linguacultural ideology is
the most conscious and dangerous form of domination which decides somebody’s right to get
offended (Govers & Vermeulen, 2016). The stigmatization of language basically controls the
flow of words that an individual produces from different perspectives (Newman, Hartman &
Taber, 2014).
Therefore one can conclude stating that speech restrictions would serve very little but
insinuate a reign of dissent and intervention into a person’ democratic rights. It should be
stopped at the outset before it seeps into the subconscious part of every citizen.

4
LANGUAGE AND POLITICS
Reference List:
Cavazza, N., & Guidetti, M. (2014). Swearing in political discourse: why vulgarity
works. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(5), 537-547.
Eccleston, R. (2018). [online] Available at:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/warning-contains-coarse-language/
storye6frg8h6-1111116556611?nk=a00ce3c15b2c780198bd3a12972c494d [Accessed
23 Apr. 2018].
Govers, C., & Vermeulen, H. (Eds.). (2016). The politics of ethnic consciousness. Springer.
Jay, T. (2009). Do offensive words harm people?. Psychology, public policy, and law, 15(2),
81.
Kramsch, C., & Vinall, K. (2015). The cultural politics of language textbooks in the era of
globalization. Language, ideology and education: The politics of textbooks in
language education, 11-28.
Newman, B. J., Hartman, T. K., & Taber, C. S. (2014). Social dominance and the cultural
politics of immigration. Political Psychology, 35(2), 165-186.