I disagree with Dobbs - I think that his behavior and language de-humanize people - if you still believe in the respect for human beings - what he says is an atrocity. Yet, if most of the country thought that, his ratings would be much lower.
Some people say that the demise of politically correct language is ok - since when it was obligatory to be PC, in public, people seemed very respectful - but in private they remained nasty as they were before the Civil Rights movement.
After seeing the cover of this week's New Yorker in which the magazine insulted Barack Obama - it is clear that PC is dead in the U.S.
-----
Post-PC dignity
Political correctness has come in for a battering, but ethically sensitive language remains crucial
by
- The Guardian,
- Tuesday July 15, 2008
Now that politically correct language has fallen from favour, demonised and discredited, where should we go next? Can we afford to ignore the return of derogatory language directed at black, Muslim, gay, disabled or elderly people, anyone deemed different?
Derogatory words make way for degrading treatment. Language is more than our basic tool of communication; it shapes perceptions and so influences behaviour. Referring to "faggots" or "wrinklies" strips people of respect, and it's just a short step to thinking them less equal. Terms such as "cripples", "spastics", "thick" and "retarded" stigmatise disabled people as less human. A recent increase in attacks has its roots in such language. If "terrorism" is constantly linked to the "Muslim community", as though it is one monolithic entity, it is not surprising if 69% of Britons see all Muslims as terrorists and feel fear and loathing towards them.
We shape our language, but language also shapes us. Giving a currency to demeaning language can blind us to the fact we have embraced demeaning perceptions about other people. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, where I am a commissioner, believes language should play an important part in our strategy to promote equality. It makes a contribution to social inclusion, fighting alienation, promoting good relations and democratic participation.
Instead of going back to pre-PC days, we need to move forward. In the commission's discussion paper, The Language of Equality, I advocate ethically sensitive language. I see ethics in terms of four moral precepts: equality, dignity, respect and value. Everyone has an equal right to be described in a dignified and respectful way. However, equal treatment does not mean the same treatment; that is why equal value is a necessary component. Descriptions of individuals, groups and communities should enhance human dignity and value while respecting self-descriptions, cultural concerns and practices.
Consider the much abused asylum seekers. The word "seeker" suggests those requesting asylum are scroungers on welfare, exactly the clarion call raised in the tabloids. Asylum is a legal process, it does not and should not cast doubt on the moral worth of anyone engaged in the process. Would a more ethically sensible, neutral and accurate term not serve us better - such as "asylum applicant"? Is replacing "the Muslim community" with "Muslim communities" not more sensible, and ethically sound, emphasising the plethora of diversities we should recognise?
To be ethically sensitive is not necessarily to be relativist. Ethical sensitivity is embedded in human rights; cultural practices that violate the basic principles of human rights, such as female genital mutilation and forced marriage, cannot be "respected" or "valued". The aim of ethically sensitive language is to promote the use of words that do not undermine but enhance a person's human dignity and value. This also applies to those the subject may be associated with - for example, "carer" includes the idea of the "cared for" and denies the latter's independence. Individuals, groups, communities - all need and deserve dignity, respect and value.
Our experience with PC language argues this is not something we can, or should, police. But that does not mean being indifferent and taking no action to promote civility through language that is neither jargon nor the ungainly, unspeakable invention of impersonal committees. What we need is common sense and a commitment to a sensibility that values the dignity of all.
The objective is clear, but the task will be unending. Words and their meanings, particularly in relation to equality, do not remain static. A word seen as fair and inclusive yesterday can acquire new unfair, biased or pejorative meanings. In the past century it was acceptable to refer to disabled people as "handicapped" or "invalids".
Today these terms reinforce stereotypes, making the person behind the disability invisible and denying their dignity and humanity. People and communities change constantly, producing new terminology and understanding of language along the way. Subtle changes in meaning can be exploited to oppress people and discriminate against groups and communities.
There's nothing old-fashioned about politeness; a sensibility for civility is what we need to make a better future.
· Ziauddin Sardar is the author of The Language of Equality, and blogs on a different theme of the Qur'an weekly at blogs.guardian.co.uk/quran
This article appeared in the Guardian on Tuesday July 15 2008 on p28 of the Comment & debate section. It was last updated at 00:03 on July 15 2008.
for link to Guardian article click here
No comments:
Post a Comment