Orthodoxy

It is not uncommon to deride people for being politically correct. In my experience, however, politically correctness contains two ideas - one of those is regulating language to establish an unchangeable orthodoxy, but the other is to speak in a way that does not cause others to feel slighted: common courtesy in other words. Those of us who still see value old-fashioned conservative values like being polite to others should be careful in entirely rejecting everything that is meant by choosing politically correct figures of speech.

We should, however, be scornful of orthodoxy. One such orthodoxy is the idea that PC culture is entirely evil. Certainly one can argue "I did not mean it that way" but when words leave our mouths, we lose some control over them. I know I am not the only one that feels politically correct speech is mostly a manifestation of courtesy toward others.

At the same time, it is clearly not only used to ensure respect. It is undoubtedly used to further orthodoxy too, and I decry that.

The popular wisdom holds this is primarily a problem for the left. I think that existence of the term RHINO (Republican in name only) is fairly convincing proof that the right has an orthodoxy that some chafe under as well. Still, though I'm not aware if compelling studies one way or another, it would not surprise me if it were shown the left today shows more tendency to push one or another "anointed" view. This is slippery ground, however, because it would be hard to account for differences in coverage by conventional media, amplification by social media, and differences in actual diversity of viewpoint (If there is little diversity of actual viewpoint, there is little need to coerce a unified stance, for instance). So it's complicated. Beyond asserting this is more a feature of humans than of the left or the right, there is just not enough space here.

The first amendment to the constitution is our critical hedge against unquestioned orthodoxy [1]. It ensures that ideas in the public forum can be examined. But it only provides the ground in which the true battle must be waged. "Unquestioned orthodoxy" is an outward view, and in a democracy we are better off without it. But as individuals, the true battle is for us to avoid "unquestioning acceptance of orthodoxy." This is a task I can only do for myself, and a task that only you can do for your self [2]. But it may be the critical task of any democratic society.

--

1)  We tend to see free speech as a constitutional guarantee. In his writing, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn develops the theme that it is only when all else is taken away from us that we are free. Thus, in common with thinkers on both the left and the right, free speech is always a freedom that must be asserted. Whether or not government condones it, speaking out against orthodoxy is always a difficult act of courage.

2) This internal/external duality seems vaguely reminiscent of the multiple senses of the word jihad, which as I understand it, can either be a physical and political battle against forces seen as hostile to the Muslim faith and peoples, or can be seen as an inner struggle against the flaws and temptations that keep an adherent from true submission to the will of Allah. (I am not Muslim, so I expect my understanding is far from perfect)