Political correctness why

Others point to the early s, when the term was used pejoratively by conservatives to attack liberal legislation. There are, however, instances of legislation with politically correct intent. Proponents of such measures, however, contend that allowing names offensive to certain cultures exploits and demeans the less powerful and perpetuates stereotypes. If laws are made that penalize offensive speech, at least three points of possible contention are immediately apparent:. Questions arise as to whether language should be prohibited on the basis of one person being offended, a certain percentage of people taking offense, or simply decided by those in political power.

This is the crux of the problem. Political correctness seeks to put boundaries on offensive speech and behavior; but there is the risk that such boundaries are likely to be determined by the personal beliefs and values of those in power.

This means that the definition of what is offensive can change with each group that comes into power. Bailey has denied the allegations. This seemed to me like a corporate damage-control situation, where the publisher had screwed up by not taking seriously initial allegations against Bailey.

So they did damage control, in the form of pulling the book, which everyone I talked to seems to think was bad. Cancel culture, in many instances, if one bothers to look underneath the hood, is corporate damage-control culture. All it sees are dollar signs or lack thereof. In the end, books are products.

And the people who publish books are vulnerable to public opinion. Milo had said several things for many years beforehand that were controversial, but this was seen as one that was particularly commercially damaging. And then, suddenly, they had a very active role. One thing that does seem different to me about corporations now, though, is that they are often concerned about their employees and also the consumer.

I think that social media is part of this, because employees have their own outlet to talk about these things. And this also goes to the age difference you were talking about. In the book, I talk about something called growing pains.

This is a function or a feature of growing pains in a society. You get a situation in which you are stormed, as opposed to things happening in a regulated, modulated, sensible way. That I find concerning. You start then behaving like politicians, and you start thinking about reputational damage. You start thinking, Maybe we just throw this person under the bus to show that we are moving in the right direction.

And so that method is one I find extremely disconcerting, because real people are getting caught up in it. But to collapse all of it into that, I think, is not accurate.

Asking someone what their cultural or ethnic background is, rather than asking them where they are from. Can we have too much of a good thing? What can I do now? Think about how you relate to the people around you. Is there anything you could do to make your speech or actions more inclusive? Learn how to stand up to racism.

As the meeting is coming to a close, a white regional manager, who is married to a Japanese-American woman, openly voices his distress at the remark, though expresses his appreciation that the VP recognized his gaffe and apologized. The following day, everyone in the firm knows about the incident. Some people feel that the regional manager has inappropriately shamed Tom. That evening, more employees gather to recount numerous similar incidents from the past.

The next day, some staff members call for the company to create a forum for educating employees; others conclude that race is too hot to touch in any company forum and vow to assiduously avoid the topic. Sophia, an African-American, is a newly appointed member of the board of a regional bank. In the first few meetings, she is relatively silent, but when the agenda during one meeting turns to her area of expertise, she joins the conversation confidently and with a well-informed point of view.

The board chair interrupts while Sophia is talking, urging members to be brief so that they can get through the agenda. Sophia notes to herself that the chair never makes such comments when any of her white colleagues are speaking. It takes too much out of me. I just need to move on. Rob, a white partner at a management consultancy, has always been sensitive to the lack of diversity at his firm and would like to do his part to help women and other minorities succeed.

He mentors Iris, a young Latina associate who is competent, energetic, and well liked but is not doing enough to generate business. Rob thinks these concerns may have some merit but is reluctant to share them with Iris.

He fears that hearing the feedback would convince her that the partnership is simply not ready to promote a woman of color. Julie, an engineer, wants to prove to her overwhelmingly male colleagues that women are as good at engineering as men are. As a result, she isolates herself from potential sources of support, works harder and less efficiently than she needs to, develops skills more slowly, and contributes less to her firm than she otherwise might.

From then on, communication between them is minimal. Bill, a black associate in a consulting firm, consistently receives mediocre ratings from his white clients. He wonders whether these ratings reflect a racial bias and raises the issue with his white boss.

She balks, insisting that their clients are not biased. Bill is not convinced. He searches for evidence to bolster his claim, but the evidence is ambiguous, so he does not share it. He feels increasingly angry, resentful, and hopeless about his prospects at the firm. When we feel judged, it cuts to the core of our self-image as being good, competent, and worthy. To counter such identity abrasions, we deny our experiences, avoid difficult conversations, react angrily, and seek advice only to confirm our innocence.

These behaviors have only one goal: self-protection. While we have outlined these dynamics as they occur in the United States, we believe that the impulse to protect oneself manifests similarly in all interactions among members of groups that are marked by a history of prejudice, discrimination, or misunderstanding.

Short-circuiting these emotional reactions is not easy, but our research suggests that when people replace their need to defend themselves with a desire to learn, the possibilities for constructive cross-cultural interactions increase enormously. Learning requires people to acknowledge their limitations and to suspend their need to be right or to prove their competence.

Of course, those who consciously hold and defend their prejudices offer little opportunity for constructive engagement. Nevertheless, we have seen that far too often people draw conclusions about others prematurely, missing crucial opportunities for advancing mutually held goals.

The five principles that follow are not sequential steps. When we experience a threat to our identity, our first response is a negative emotion such as anger.

We react by casting blame and judgment, which most often incites defensiveness in others. Taking time—even a few moments—to identify our feelings and consider our responses will help us to respond more effectively. Consider the case of Mary, a year veteran of a large and venerable law firm in which she was partner.

In learning to step back and recenter herself when irritants arose, Mary found she could be more effective by drawing people in rather than pushing them away. When a male colleague told an off-color joke about women and others laughed, Mary felt her anger rising.

Yet instead of lecturing her colleagues on the errors of their ways, as she might have done earlier in her career, she paused and took several deep breaths. She then checked her anger and jettisoned her sense of self-righteousness. Mary recognized her anger as a signal, not as a springboard for reaction. Her feelings told her to be careful, that she was about to interpret reality in a way that might not be fully accurate or that might lead her to react in ways that would not serve her larger goals.

Rather than admonishing her colleagues when she was offended by their remarks, she stepped back, calmed herself down, and refocused on what was important to her. This response enabled her to enact the next principle. When we experience an identity abrasion, our impulse is to focus inward, to justify, explain, and defend ourselves.

Goals such as these connect us with others by infusing our lives with meaning. Meaningful goals remind us of what is at stake in a given situation, giving us a reason to engage with others even if we feel threatened. Mary, for example, learned to replace a defensive goal demonstrating her moral superiority with a generative one making the law firm a place where women could more easily advance to partner.

She was then able to see more clearly what was at stake in her interactions with her male colleagues. She could either alienate them or connect with them by focusing on a goal that mattered more to her than being right. Our intentions shape how we come across to others and influence how they, in turn, respond. When we enter into an interaction from a stance of anger or defensiveness, we are likely to deepen the fissure in the relationship.

In contrast, when we approach that interaction with the intention of broadening our understanding—whether of ourselves, the other person, the relationship, or the task—we are far more likely to repair the fissure and to move forward productively with our work. Mary demonstrated her intention to learn in the partner meeting. So, in the moments following the joke, she reflected: What experiences underlie their dispar-aging humor about women?

Her story was not a diatribe; her intention was not to teach or to blame but to engage and inquire.