Does Political Correctness Empower or Disempower - Essay Example

Does political correctness empower or disempower Political correctness has become so piercing as it has permeated to such an essential thing as language. English has become a global language that breaks the cultural differences of global citizens. However, the language has become a source of power to those who grasp it and especially the native speakers. The native speakers of English have used it to impose controls on how the language is used and anything straying from what they stipulate is considered not English. As it empowers the native speakers, on the flipside, it dis-empowers non-native speakers of English as their lack of fluency is used to relegate them to subordination. It is certain that global interaction that insists on a one-traffic way of using English renders those who speak English as second language receptacles who cannot contribute to the development of the language by adopting their own way of using it. Political correctness is flawed for it encourages trends of dominance by those who regard themselves the custodians of the language and strip others of their power and ability to assimilate English to their contexts. Doris postulated that “the most powerful mental tyranny in what we call the free world…Political Correctness is the natural continuum of the party line. What we are seeing once again is a selfappointed group of vigilantes imposing their views on others.” (DorisLessing, as cited in Hughes, 2010, pp. ix, 4).This points to how political correctness can be a way of dictating the mental faculties of people. By political correctness, the views of some are made conventions to which everyone is subject (Hughes 2010 ix. 4). In this way, those who insist on conventions rein in to people’s ability to suit a language to their prevailing circumstances. The native speakers of English appoint themselves as the custodians of the English language and what they deem correct want to impose it to apply universally to all contexts. This disempowers people’s ability to manipulate language to conveniently serve the needs of users. By laying down rubrics for language use which are imposed to people based on narrow confines of those who create them, human beings are reduced to mere robots whose abilities are checked (Çubukçu 2010, 102). The ‘free world’, which guarantees freedom of thought and speech, is compromised as how English is used and spoken in different contexts is dictated and predetermined. Hale and Basisdes also bring in another view of political correctennes where humans lack any influence to the existing structures.They wrote that, “perhaps the best way of viewing PC is to regard it as a system of language where the power over lexical items is returned to the people who are most likely to suffer loss of power from the existing forms of reference” (Hale & Basides, 2013, p.77) The disempowerment in the sense of Hale and Basides is when political correctness eliminates chances of creating alternative or different ways of using language. Human beings as creators and agents of change need impact on their environment. This is by having the allowance to depart from common and obvious thought and to generate things that never were (Hale & Basides, 2013, p.79-86). This is the power that political correctness disallows. In this regard, people are before the norms set to delineate the Use of English helpless and powerless and cannot employ their power of recreating and manipulating to effect some change. In this sense people are rendered slaves of rules and conventions. some change. In this sense people are rendered slaves of rules and conventions. It is true that rules should be set that guide the use of English to avert any possible mutilation of the language in the course of using it. But this should not mean that rules that are set cannot be brought to scrutiny for possible revision. One thing that is implicit in freedom of speech is to create a diversity of language and allow a functional use of language. Nonnative speakers of English are rendered receptacles that, presumed to lack knowledge of English, will continuously be dictated by native speakers of English on grammar, semantics and other aspects of the English language(Battistella 2005). For instance, insisting on correct ordering of words and strict phonology is limiting to people. Language should serve people rather than people serving it. Political correctness in using English especially in international negotiations is used to label those who do not observe grammar as being backwards in spite of the fact that it is a second language to them. English as a language of disempowerment is seen in the way most nonnative speakers are kept out of forums such as international discussions and deliberations and allowed slim chances in acting especially in Hollywood. Political correctness carries in it much censorship to any divergent views. The English spoken by the natives of it is used as a yard stick to censor the English spoken in places as far and wide as Asia and Africa. Nonnatives speak on the Whims of the rules set by natives whom they do not understand and regurgitate language rules that are to them far-fetched. This amounts to oppression and defeats the essence of freedom of speech. The English spoken in Africa which in a native’s judgment is hardly English relegates Africans on account of this to inferiority. They are not even excused on the basis that they are either multi-or bilingual something that puts them an edge over the native speakers of English who are monolingual. Nonnative speakers of English have been disempowered by insisting on ‘theological’ norms that native speakers insist should be used in English (Hale & Basides, 2013, p.79-86). They have been labeled daft for their inability to regurgitate the English presented to them but instead have been stamping their linguistic background onto it. Power in this day and age is judged based on the extent to which people can control their surroundings, how they can influence things and if they can feel themselves of consequence. This cannot be in environment that is dominated by political correctness. The things as were done decades ago should not be applied in the same way a century later (Moore 2001). This is by allowing people to cause English to reflect a global culture rather that one, that of the natives. As a global language, every people have a right to contribute to it in their way. Africans, Asians, Latinos, Slavs, Europeans and Americans all alike have a stake on English. The way of appropriating English should not be based on pre-set rules but allow room for dynamism, for people to use English in a way that facilitates creativity and dynamism (Lerner 2010, 34). Political correctness has the flaw of excluding those who have alternative opinions. Alternative ways of consummating the English language are rendered illegitimate. Those who insist on correctness of English based on rules are throwbacks that eliminate from consideration what would have been course changing alternatives. It is tyrannical, colonial and enhances trends of dominance by natives over nonnative speakers of English. Reference Hale, A. & Basides, H. (2013). The Keys to Academic English. South Yarra (Melb.):Macmillan. Hughes, R. (2010). Political Correctness: A History of Semantics and Culture. Chichester (UK): Wiley-Blackwell. Rassool, N. (1998). Postmodernity, Cultural Pluralism and the Nation-State: Problems of Language Rights, Human Rights, Identity and Power. Language Sciences, Vol. 20,(1), pp. 89-99. Lerner, L. (2010). You can't say that!: English Usage Today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Battistella, E. L. (2005). Bad language: Are some words better than others?. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Moore, B. (2001). Who's Centric Now?: The Present State of Post-Colonial Englishes. South Melbourne: Oxford Univ. Press. Çubukçu, F. (2010). Empowerment or Disempowerment: That is the Question.(English as an international language) in EIL. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences , 98-109. Read More