Why I'm against "political correctness."

Recently a well-known presidential candidate was asked about his history of using derogatory language when speaking of women.  His reply: "I think the big problem that this country has is being politically correct..."

...and the crowd went wild...

For me, this scene captured an attitude that is certainly not new, but seems in recent months and years to be getting louder.  There's not only a reluctance to change the words that one is using, but a sort of pride in "telling it like it is." "Sugarcoating" the language that you use is seen as a weakness, and changing the way you speak just to appease others is like giving up ownership of your own mouth, or worse, your personal freedom. And that's just unAmerican.

Now I could easily go on a rant about close-mindedness or selfishness here, but this is a behavioral science blog, and if there's one thing that we've learned in the world of behavioral science, it is that attributing behavior to "minds" or "selfs" does not lead to better understanding, or to change. In the world of modern behavioral science, understanding human behavior is accomplished by understanding its context.

An important part of the context in this case seems to be a rapid shift in what is considered normal, or "correct." Just in the last few months, we've seen huge shifts in gay marriage rights and acceptance of transgender individuals, and heated conflicts over the Confederate flag.  Our cultural world is changing fast... and many people are having trouble keeping up.

But another, even more important part of the context is language itself. In gaining a better understanding of human language (and cognition), we've come to learn that one of the side effects of language, is a sort of inflexibility, or a tendency to get stuck.  In order for language to be useful for human beings, it needs to be consistent.  We can't just change the words that we use on a whim or language would become useless.  We also can't just change our thoughts and ideas about the world on a whim or people would become confused and wouldn't know what to do or what to expect.  And in order for words and thoughts to be useful, we need to behave as though they ARE the things that they refer to. In order for language to work, when your friend says the word "cup," you need to behave as though the noise coming out of his mouth is the same thing as a real cup. We have to treat thoughts and words as being "real."  These rules are built right into language, and are what help to make it useful.  But they have a cost. If we forget that we are playing this game of language, we forget that words are just words, and thoughts are just thoughts, it becomes very easy for us to get stuck.... we become inflexible... unable to change our behavior when it doesn't match with the words or thoughts we are used to.

So back to the issue of "political correctness." The difficulty that people experience with "political correctness" is that it breaks some of these basic rules of language. And when you are taking the game of language very seriously, that kind of thing freaks you out.  If you find that words that you've used your whole life are suddenly "incorrect," it can be disorienting.  And one of the things that happens when people get confused, is they get angry, and their responses become extreme. You'll hear people say things like "Everybody has to be politically correct nowadays, it's getting out of control!" almost as though if we keep changing the rules, no one will know what to say, and we'll all just have to stop talking to each other.  Or a common response is just to ridicule the issue of political correctness, to portray it as just a bunch of over-sensitive babies who need to learn how to have a thicker skin.  Or even worse, it's just groups of people with nothing better to do than to come up with new words that they want to be called by, just to inconvenience others, just for shits and giggles.

Breaking these rules can also feel as though reality itself is being challenged. For example, when a person begins hearing a new term like "transgender" or hears about bathroom signs being changed to accommodate transgender individuals, it is seen not just as a small change in words and signs but as an attack on reality itself.  To change those signs is to change the very structure of the universe, which up until this point has consisted of "males," and "females," and THAT'S IT.  With the issue of gay marriage, to allow two people of the same sex to marry is to destroy the "reality" of marriage.  How many times have you heard someone argue against gay marriage because it conflicts with the "definition of marriage" as being between a man and a woman? Like allowing two people of the same sex to marry is unwise because you might piss off your dictionary.  If you happen to be religiously-inclined, then reality and God are sometimes seen as one in the same, in which case you're not just changing signs on bathrooms, you are spitting in the face of the Almighty.

There's an irony in all of this, if we step back and really consider why people don't like political correctness.  On the one hand, there is the objection that people are just too sensitive... they're too picky about the words that others can say around them... "it's just words, why don't they get over it?" Yet, by being unwilling to change the words you are using, you are immediately guilty of the same crime. If "words are just words," then why get so angry about having to use different ones? What is so hard about just dropping one term and using another one instead?

What is telling about this whole thing is that children seem to have a far easier time dealing with this than adults do, because they are still new to the language game, and they haven't completely forgotten yet that it's a game.  (Check out these great examples:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibwLwpVAtTA, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiFDY6N33aw)

The problem here is that people are getting stuck inside the rules of language and are missing the point of "political correctness" altogether. In fact, I think that the term "political correctness" itself is partly to blame.  If we're battling over what is "correct" vs. "incorrect," we're missing what is really at the heart of this issue. The issue of "political correctness" is not really about "correct" vs. "incorrect" words.  It's not about groups of people arbitrarily picking new words and then forcing others to use them. No marginalized group ever gathered together in a small room and said, "Hey instead of people calling us _____, wouldn't it be fun if instead they called us ______?!" At its heart, this issue is about being considerate.  It's about taking taking an extra second to consider others as human beings, to consider their history, and their struggles.

The politician I was speaking of earlier followed up his response with, "I don't frankly have time for total political correctness." But what he is really saying there is "I don't frankly have time for being considerate." And if we look at that statement for what it really is, it is a lot less cool looking. It's not strong, or truthful, or "realistic." It's rude, and self-centered. It's inconsiderate. It is simply saying "I'm not willing to take the time to consider the impact of my words on other human beings." And you know what... if people said it in this way, there would actually be some truth to it. It takes time, and effort, to be considerate. It requires thoughtful consideration. It's hard. And it's possible that it might not be worth it to some people to put in that extra work. If you want your life to be about money, business, and things other than people, than maybe when it comes to being considerate and compassionate, for you the juice is not worth the squeeze. But if you want your life to be about compassion, caring for others, sharing your experience with other human beings, then you might want to make time for being considerate.

I'm going to make a move here that would most likely drive an opponent of "political correctness" up the wall.  I'm going to suggest that maybe the term "politically correct" isn't a great term.  In fact, I think it's a really bad term.  It completely misses the point.  It's not about being "correct."  And it's not about being "political" (i.e. making yourself look tolerant and accepting). It's about choosing to take the time to consider another person's perspective, for their sake, not for yours.  Maybe something like "verbally considerate" might fit the bill.  Or "linguistically compassionate." Doesn't really matter. The point is that it's not about being correct, it's about being considerate.

If people started relating to political correctness in this way, there would be no more missing the point.  There would be no more hiding behind the debate about "correct" vs. "incorrect."  It would be about being considerate vs. inconsiderate.  They'd have to stop and ask themselves some serious questions: What is more important? Being "right?" Or being compassionate? Keeping my thoughts and ideas about the "real" world clear cut and consistent? Or making room for other human beings whose path in life might break the rules that I'm used to.  What is more important? Words and ideas? Or people?

Life as Play

We human beings have a strange relationship with the idea of "life." Our capability for language and thinking makes us the only species that can sit back and ponder it... and interestingly, for many people, what results from that pondering is a distaste for "life." Just taking a look at some common sayings about life can give us a feel for this.  We've all heard variations of sayings like:  "Life sucks," "life is hard," "life sucks and then you die," "life is a bitch," "not fair? Well life isn't fair!"  There's also broader statements like "I don't know what's become of this world," or "the world is just going to s***." (Incidentally, I always want to ask such people how that makes them feel about themselves, being that by simply existing, you are the world that you're talking about).  Even those who don't feel quite that resentful towards life might agree with the general feeling of life being tough, hard, or a difficult assignment that must be carried out.  It's not often that you hear someone shout "Damn, life is easy!"  When it comes down to it, regardless of your level of distaste towards life, I think there is a particular way of relating to life that we've all bought into, which is that life... is serious.

But is life really serious?  Who says it has to be?

Let's look a little deeper into what we mean, or at least feel, when we think of life as being serious, and see how well it really holds up.  Generally, when we relate to something as being serious, there is a sense of it having some deeper meaning, and maybe some sense of danger or risk involved if we were to not take it seriously.

So let's start with the meaning part... When it comes to meaning, we tend to think of meaning as being something that exists outside of us, that is built into the world and is waiting for us to discover it.  The language that we use around meaning treats it as a "thing," or a noun, and makes it sound as though it's something we can find and be able to stick in our pocket and walk away with.  But another way of looking at meaning is as a verb, as something that human beings do... it is an interaction between us and the world.  Human beings create meaning, we put meaning onto the world.  Using language, we label the world around us, use those labels to talk about it, draw lines and divide it up, quantify it, compare and evaluate the different parts, and we do this in increasingly complex and refined ways (this is what science is all about).  But the words and ideas that we use to describe the world are not the same thing as the world. The symbol is not the same as the thing it represents.  You can't eat the word "a-p-p-l-e" or climb up the word "t-r-e-e." You can't tie up a pile of firewood with a line of longitude.  And ask yourself: If no humans remained on the planet, would there still be meaning?  What would the meaning of a sunset or constellations be if there weren't any human beings around?  What would written words on paper "mean" if there were no human beings to read them and make meaning of them?

Onto the danger part.... Even if you can agree that meaning is not already prepackaged and built into life, life must surely still be serious, because it's dangerous... after all, you could die from it! If you're going to argue with someone about whether or not life is really serious, the conversation will eventually boil down to the risk of dying: "If you don't take life seriously, fly straight, get a good job, be successful, pay your bills, you'll be poor... you'll starve to death!" But is death serious? We could question the seriousness of death just as easily as we question the seriousness of life.  Death is not some evil consequence.  It is simply the necessary flip-side of life.  In the same way that we can not know light without knowing darkness, black without white, back without front, we wouldn't know what life was without death to help us distinguish it.  Imagine a world where death did not exist.... we'd have no such word or concept as "life." Things would be stagnant, overcrowded, overgrown, and even worse, it would be mind-numbingly boring. Is that really the type of world you'd want? If your answer is no, then death is no longer an enemy.

So when we really get down into it, life doesn't come prepackaged with meaning already tied to it, and death is not the enemy of life any more than up is the enemy of down.  And so if life is not serious, than what is it? Well what do human beings tend to do when we're not doing "serious" stuff? We play. So what if life were play? What if life was really just one big, elaborate game?

Human beings come into this world knowing that life is play.  As a young child, everything is play. Beginning with the game of "peek-a-boo" as an infant, and later on exploring, discovering, drawing, hide and seek, and the games become more elaborate, with rules and stories behind them.  Even learning, which we later come to think of as being very serious business, is play at first.  If you are able, try to remember how excited you were to learn words and numbers as a small child.  And when you were successful in learning how to read or say a particular word... victory! However, as we grow older we're taught in a number of different ways that life is actually serious business, and that play is unimportant and should be limited.  Play must be confined to situations where it is appropriate, and as soon as it's over, it's back to real life... the serious stuff. 

But who says things have to be serious?  Do we really need to draw a line between play and "real life?"  What if all of the "serious" things that we do in life are just increasingly complex games.... games that we got so lost in that we forgot they were games.  Are grocery shopping, and bills, and work really serious? Do they really "mean" anything? And do you really have to do those things, or do them in the particular way that you do them? Says who? You could just as easily choose not to, if that was the type of game you wanted to play. And if you think "That's ridiculous, I wouldn't want to live that type of life..." then fine! But don't then say that the way you're living is the way life has to be.  That's the just the particular game you're choosing to play.  Own it. 

Just like life, games do not have any real meaning to them other than the meaning that we lend them. As human beings, when we play, we get together and make up rules and suddenly we have a game, and the game becomes meaningful. The longer we play it, and the more rules we add, and the more complex it gets, the more meaning it takes on.  But deep down, it's not really serious. It doesn't really mean anything.  What is the meaning of baseball, or football, or music, or painting? 

Just like life, games have to have some risk involved in order to be worth playing in the first place.  What fun would any game or sport be if there was no risk of losing? Even doing a puzzle or making art by yourself carries the risk of it not turning out the way you wanted it to.  In the same way, the risk of just being alive is that at some point you might get sick or injured, and at some point you will die.  The risk of getting into a relationship is that the person could betray you, or at some point you could lose them.  The risk of working is that you could get fired, or fail, or get really stressed out. 

When we forget that life is a game, it suddenly becomes something more than a game, it becomes serious.  We begin to feel that life really means something, and that meaning isn't something that we had anything to do with.  And at that point, it becomes an obligation, something that we were thrown into and have to suffer through or try to overcome. We become fearful of failure, fearful that we're going to do life incorrectly.  We become inflexible and fall into boring, old patterns. We approach life with caution, or just play the part of the spectator and don't engage in life at all.  Have you ever met someone who took a game way too seriously? They're no fun to play with.  They are overly cautious, they're boastful when they win, they're furious when they lose, they feel that things are unfair, and most importantly, they will never, EVER allow the rules to be broken.  In many cases they become unwilling to play the game at all, because it's not worth the stress.  You might chuckle thinking about this person in your life, but consider the things in life that you struggle with the most, that cause you the most suffering.  Are you not doing the same thing, but with a different game? You might respond "No but my thing is really serious..." but then we might just say that you've taken your game so seriously that you won't even dare to think of it as a game! Now that is an exciting game!

A strange thing happens when we choose to take the stance that all of life is a game. Life suddenly becomes something playful and intentional. You recognize that all of the things that we consider to be serious, are serious for no other reason than because we say that they are serious.  You become more flexible, more creative, more willing to break some of the "rules." You recognize that you don't really have to do any of the things that you do, but you choose to do them for no other reason than because you choose to play that particular game. The work game, the marriage game, the parenting game, the exercise game, the cooking dinner game, the politics game, the driving your car game, on and on.  You become more willing to jump into games that have high stakes, even games that you've lost in the past, that were painful or frightening, because games need to have risks in order to be worth playing! What would be the point of playing a game that involves zero risk? That would be like walking onto a playing field and saying "Listen everyone! I'm willing to come play with you... but NO ONE is allowed to score on me... is that understood?!"  And if you can welcome the losses and disappointments, as crucial parts of playing an exciting game, then you will have the opportunity to experience victory as well.

When you play life as a game, you are free to really play the game for all it's worth.  You are free to take it as seriously as you want, and really lose yourself in it.  It makes no sense to approach it cautiously, or sit the game out, because you chose to play this game, knowing full well that there were risks involved... that was the whole point!  So jump in there, make it interesting, play some games with really high stakes, trust people, love people deeply, go to work and play your job for all it's worth, do the dishes like you're competing in the dish olympics.... not for any good reason, just for play.  And maybe even break some rules once in a while... it's your game after all.

*In addition to the modern behavioral science that I typically draw from in these blogs, this particular blog was heavily influenced by a philosopher named Alan Watts, whom I would highly recommend reading and listening to.  Interestingly, Watts' philosophy, which was influenced by far eastern religious traditions as well as his study as an Episcopal priest, has many parallels with the philosophy underlying modern behavioral science. There are a number of his audio lectures available on Youtube.com and he published many books, my favorite thus far being "The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are."