Politically Correct Speech

I want to begin this post by articulating what seems to be a common account of expression in continental philosophy. I first encountered it clearly in M.C. Dillon's Merleau-Ponty's Ontology, and Charles Taylor, early on in his Hegel, for instance, articulates its development in the late 18th century, focusing on Herder. I will draw primarily from Taylor's account.

Expression in this technical sense means an articulation which at the same time defines what it articulates. That is, rather than simply referring to something, saying something about something outside it which exists independently of it, an expression contributes to what the thing it is about is. When I express myself in this way, then, I not only give vent to something about myself, make myself known to others, but I also give voice to something which may not quite have existed otherwise. I actualize a potential in me by giving voice to it, and may make something my goal by claiming it as my goal. My nature does not pre-exist my development in the way that a blueprint pre-exists a building, although it may be latent in me as the tree is latent in the acorn.

On this account, whenever we speak we give voice to a view of reality, we articulate a relationship between ourselves and ourselves, others, and nature. Our speech, perhaps especially our spontaneous speech, therefore shapes us, and it shapes us whether or not we are aware of it. By using sets of words which are burdened with particular associations in the language we find ourselves in, we are molded by those associations. The truth of the claim that we should speak in a politically correct manner is that words do more than come together to form propositions, they express views on the world, and even a single word or phrase might warp our vision of reality simply be remaining in use.

If this is right, then the conflict about political correctness is a conflict over how to view reality. It might merely be a conflict over whether this account of expression is accurate, except that many of those who object to being politically correct have their own terms which they would exclude, at least in some domains. It might merely be about how free we should be to express ourselves how we want, except that those who are against political correctness are also against some forms of self-expression. Instead, I suspect hesitancy about being politically correct occurs where people hold that the terms being excluded are necessary to (or express concepts necessary to) an accurate understanding of reality.

Another consequence of this view is the old view that we should be careful what we put in our minds, or what we sing, or otherwise what we do. That is, if expression forms us, forms our view of ourselves and reality, molds our desires and natures, then the words we sing and dance to mold us too. The movies we watch and the stories we tell, likewise, shape us. To endorse political correctness requires endorsing a view of entertainment as having an edificational dimension: a movie can corrupt us or edify us, and very few, if any, do neither. We can thus critique movies based on the account of reality and the good life which they tell, and both liberals and conservatives do. The objections of some liberals to casting decisions is quite like the objections of some Christians to sex scenes--both believe that consuming such media forms us in a bad way. The disagreement is merely as to what is good and bad in entertainment. What does edifying speech look like? That is the question raised in the conflict over politically correct speech.