Political Correctness: Analyzing the Discourse and Consequences

This essay delves into the concept of political correctness, examining its definition as the use of language to culturally approve or disapprove of certain expressions, with a focus on avoiding speech that might marginalize or discriminate against specific groups. It presents both sides of the argument, highlighting proponents who believe it promotes tolerance and inclusivity by discouraging offensive language, and opponents who view it as censorship that stifles free speech and critical thinking. The essay references academic sources to support its claims, exploring the impact of language choices on groups like people with disabilities and the LGBT community. It concludes by emphasizing the importance of considering the effects of language on society and the need to promote common good through culturally sensitive communication.

Running head: POLITICAL CORRECTNESS 1
Political Correctness
Name
Institutional Affiliation

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS 2
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
The term political correctness refers to the use of language to culturally approve or
disapprove some speeches. In other words, it is the avoidance of expressions or even actions that
stay perceived to exclude, insult, and marginalize groups of individuals who are socially
discriminated against or disadvantaged (Schwartz, 2018).
Proponents or advocates of non-discriminatory language argue that PC works and that it
has not gone mad but has made us more beautiful. They say that it is time we reclaim the term
which bigots are using to criticize tolerant, open-minded discourse. They argue that opponents to
PC are those out to shut down dissent. The advocates say that unwritten deterrence on racial
epithets enhances Americans culture, for example, since it boosts the probability of coexistence
and avails incentives for treating a person’s neighbor and colleague citizen with respect
(Newfield, 2018).
People who say it is PC gone mad to argue that it has become too restrictive and look at
PC as censorship which makes them not to be autonomous in what they can say. They hold that
there is a need to restore free speech. For example, they are opposed to how campus faculty and
students are wrongly probed and punished for controversial discomforting or dissenting speech.
They hold that PC has gone mad, making campuses and colleges fail to live up to their own core
mission of promoting critical thinking by being restrictive to what people can say. They believed
that we could not learn by coddling and protecting students from different viewpoints. They
argue that PC is increasingly ruining education by coddling people’s minds (Goncalo et al.,
2015).
Language choices can negatively or positively impact some segments of society like
persons with disabilities, LGBT, or differing ethnic origins. For example, using negative words

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS 3
can discriminate against these different groups while using positive words can help them feel
more valued and included in society (Schwartz, 2017). The use of language dictates whether this
group will feel dignified or not and, therefore, there is a need for us to culturally disapprove
some of the speeches to ensure common good for all.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS 4
References
Goncalo, J. A., Chatman, J. A., Duguid, M. M., & Kennedy, J. A. (2015). Creativity from
constraint? How the political correctness norm influences creativity in mixed-sex work
groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(1), 1-30.
Newfield, C. (2018). After political correctness: The humanities and society in the 1990s.
Routledge, 13(4), 23-56.
Schwartz, H. (2017). The revolt of the primitive: An inquiry into the roots of political
correctness. Routledge, 12(1), 11-45.
Schwartz, H. S. (2018). Society against itself: Political correctness and organizational self-
destruction. Routledge, 16(3), 11-49.