Friday, October 1, 2010

Politically Correctness

Barack Obama president of the United States of America approaches the podium of a news conference. The reporter from the Los Angeles Times asks, “Mr. President, why are the tax cuts for middle class Americans taking so long to be passed through congress?" The president answers, "Well the rich bastards, that call themselves the republican party, agreed to the tax cuts, but they also want to add tax cuts for millionaires, that do not need them." the president's actual  response was far more tactful, but  can you imagine the controversy if he would have addressed the republicans as" rich bastards"? Political correctness is a vital part of communicating with known adversaries.
Political correctness is a style of language, created by American culture, which we use when presenting ideas to an audience of diverse social, economical, and ethnic backgrounds. On the surface it may seem like it is used to spare the feeling of particular groups. In actuality it is much more about the speaker developing his ethos with the audience. In the response by the president in the earlier paragraph, Barack calling the republicans "rich bastards" was counter productive to getting his goal of tax cuts accomplished. The republicans that were on the fence about tax cut have been swayed negatively by the president’s response. Now it will be even more difficult to get the tax cuts passed. It would have been more helpful to his cause to refuse to answer the reporter.
Political correctness is used in much more intimate situations than the political world. A person very rarely shows you there true self upon the first few encounters. We all wear a mask of civility to shape the perception of the people we are communicating with.  There is a certain amount of “feeling out" you go through before you get a clear picture of who a person is. We use political correct language to give people a presentable appearance of who we are, and to not offend them. Eventually we develop a comfort level with a person and open up to them about are view that may not be part of popular opinion.
Political correctness is a tool of persuasion. When a speaker is not sure of the audience’s background, he uses a certain amount of tact to keep them receptive to his cause. Political correctness also creates a respect with the audience despite agreement or disagreement with the speaker’s ideas.
 A person that feels disrespected is less receptive to persuasion. The speaker may have an idea that can change your life for the better, but their approach can destroy there discussion at the introduction.
Political correctness is a necessary part of communication. It would be nice if you could talk to everyone frankly and they would get exactly what is being communicated to them, but it is not possible. There is a strong belief that what a person implies, is more important than what they communicate. Political correctness is a safe guard to get you ideas transmitted as clearly as possible.

2 comments:

  1. There are things I like and dislike about political correctness and I thought I would share since you decided to discuss this issue. When I think of this issue I think of why it is even an issue in the first place. You bring up a good point “can you imagine the controversy if he would have addressed the republicans as" rich bastards"?” Of course if the president had chosen this route, the backlash from the opposing party would have been tremendous, but I have other thoughts as well.
    Why does the president have to be “politically correct?” Why is it that he cannot just come out and say what he believes, and let his true feeling be known to the public? Understandably, in order to create a situation where the president can work with members of an opposing party, he must remain civil in his choice of words. This is where I get angry. Just like when you have a sibling or significant other who is angry with you, the president needs to “sweet talk” his way to a compromise.
    Why should he have to? I would think that many Americans would agree when they say that they want a president who is “Honest,” but at the same time, if a president does decide to express himself honestly he would have to deal with major public backlash. So in essence, we don’t really want a president who is “honest” but a president who can “sweet talk” us in the way we like. This situation angers me more than you know. I do not need the sweet talk anymore, better yet, let’s not talk at all. I want to see action. Hopefully there are some individuals from my generation that share the same view, and we can be done with the empty sweet talk.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I’m sort of an old fuddy-duddy. I like things like courtesy and etiquette. Well, I think part of it is that I’m extremely introverted and so I usually feel very uncomfortable in social settings. I’m one of those people who actually has a book on etiquette so I know the proper way to make introductions, and what all those little eating utensils are for. Etiquette was originally based on the French notion of chivalry. A lot of those rules are outdated, and etiquette—it could be called communication—has evolved with the culture. Before the 1960s political and religious conversation really wasn’t considered polite. Perhaps it wasn’t necessary in that case to be politically correct.
    I see political correctness as just another form of etiquette. When you visit a foreign country you should learn at least some of the customs of courtesy so that you don’t give offense. Our culture is really a mix of many cultures and etiquette can be seen as a bridge to help us communicate and coexist peacefully. So I’m not offended if a person prefers one form of address over another just as long as they afford me the same courtesy.

    ReplyDelete