Where did PC culture come from?
People whose ideas are anti-PC are increasingly arguing that political correctness violates freedom of speech. However, there is a misconception that PC culture is a new invention. While the term was popularised in the 20th century, there has always been a changing face to the values a society deems politically correct. And the ones they call politically contemptible. Limiting freedom of speech is crossing into territory which resembles censorship and censorship affects creativity. But how to temper this movement is by and large, something that there is no consensus on.
How does political correctness function in society?
During the early years of Nazi power in Germany, there was a clampdown on journalistic freedom. The New York Times said the following about the changes being implemented in 1934: “All journalists must have a permit to function and such permits are granted only to pure ‘Aryans’ whose opinions are politically correct. Even after that they must watch their step.” The main target of this clampdown erased Jewish German’s voice. As well as other ethnic minority group’s. Silencing them so that the terrors they began to face would see little to no mainstream media coverage. Clearly, the term politically correct has a very different use in the modern age.
In 1970s USA, the term became more popular in connection to Toni Cade Bambara’s The Black Woman. Bambara was active in the civil rights movement. She stated, in this famous anthology, that some black men within the movement behaved hypocritically. Fighting for equal rights as black men but continuing to show prejudice against their own black mothers and sisters. Bambara famously claimed “A man cannot be politically correct and a chauvinist, too.”. She encouraged black men to see their own part in discrimination. Instead of only viewing themselves as victims, they should look at their treatment of women. Personal accountability was Bambara’s intention. But when the term was picked up outside of progressive communities, it began to be used by conservative groups who believed that political correctness was censoring their views and right to express them.
Who is the target of political correctness?
Is encouraging people to mind what they say and the consequences of their words censorship? Political correctness can violate freedom of speech when it leads to people with unpopular views losing their jobs or social status for airing their views. Today, PC culture generally refers to ideas associated with liberal values. But it hasn’t always been this way. Many of the views progressives are proud to hold today were once the text-book anti-politically acceptable views. Such as calling for desegregation and protesting for women’s equal rights. This is why we should all be cautious of censoring views we disagree with.
What political correctness can achieve
PC culture attempts to hold people responsible for dangerous, harmful or prejudicial behaviour. The recent spotlight on powerful men like Harvey Weinstein has encouraged open conversations about the abuse of power. People with enormous power in their industries are being held responsible for their actions today more than ever before. As a society, we are further discussing how the impact of sexual assault and rape is lifelong for survivors.
PC culture has encouraged people to confront difficult topics of conversation that would otherwise be suppressed. By holding powerful people accountable for their actions, like Harvey Weinstein or Joss Whedon, we’re able to be more certain that their inappropriate and dangerous behaviours and views don’t trickle down into the movies/ TV shows we consume.
Milo Yiannopoulos, British far-right commentator, public speaker and writer, is known for his dismissive commentaries on feminism and social justice. In 2017, his appearance on the Drunken Peasants podcast in the year previous went viral. He was criticised for calling sexual relationships between adults and children sometimes “harmless”. Yiannopoulos has made a reputation out of being a contrarian but these views of his are objectively dangerous. People began protesting Simon & Schuster, a publishing company that had planned to publish Yiannopoulos’ upcoming book. Due to the pressure of protests, Simon & Schuster eventually rescinded their support of him and Yiannopoulos eventually resigned from Breitbart. ‘De-platforming’ people with harmful ideas and offensive speech so they cannot spread their dangerous influence is one function of political correctness.
But what happens when we see a person being cancelled for something much more benign? Or being cancelled for expressing views we actually identify with?
The problems with PC culture
PC culture is accused of encouraging a mob mentality or witch-hunt. Where people take sides on significant topics after only reading newspaper headlines, instead of delving into the often nuanced evidence required to make an informed opinion. This is especially common with the way people make up their minds about scandals based on subjects like sexual or political misconduct. This has led to many considering that PC culture pushes ‘trial by media’. Where large groups decide on a person’s guilt without waiting until all of the details are present or giving the accused a chance to fairly defend themselves.
The fear of being cancelled is often on the minds of people with public platforms. Prominent figures such as writer Kazuo Ishiguro believes that PC culture has turned into censorship. Debut writers are having to curate their ideas around PC concepts instead of writing what they truly believe. Not only is it creating a smaller pool of acceptable ideas to write about in fiction or journalism; it’s also making a lot of us more disingenuous. Political correctness violates freedom of speech when writers are too afraid to voice opinions that differ from the mainstream.
Who’s cancelling who?
The examples of online witch-hunts hitting out at the wrong people is becoming increasingly commonplace. In 2020, Avengers actor Sebastian Stan was threatened on Twitter with cancellation. His girlfriend, actress Alejandra Onieva, was seen in photos wearing a Japanese Geisha costume. This led her to be accused of cultural appropriation. Perhaps due to Stan’s bigger platform, the angry mob targeted him significantly. After blocking some of his harassers, the narrative surrounding Stan only worsened. He was accused of not taking the situation seriously and for that, some people only harassed him more. Within days of the controversy beginning, the hashtag #sebastianstanisoverparty began to trend on Twitter. Wherever Stan commented online, the angry mob followed and flooded his comment sections with abuse. Political correctness violates free of speech when it forms the basis of a misguided campaign to destroy a person’s career.
Actress Vanessa Ann Hudgens found herself in hot water at the beginning of 2020 after she made insensitive comments. She called the high death-rate of people during virus-caused pandemics “inevitable”, with many accusing her of carelessness. Angry online mobs descended to her social media pages to flood her with death threats and insulting messages. Instead of using the opportunity to educate Hudgens on why she was careless, her life was threatened repeatedly. Even in more trivial instances like this, political correctness violates freedom of speech.
Everyone is the next target
Lately, I find I’m being asked to take sides on scandalous news stories by friends and colleagues before I’ve had the chance to make an informed opinion. Decide whether a celebrity should be cancelled forever for a small transgression. There’s judgement attached to waiting for all of the necessary information before condemning accused people. Rather than joining the crowd in their vitriol, I’m trying increasingly to reserve an opinion until I have all the facts that are necessary before I say whether I think celebrities who have made mistakes are completely beyond redemption.
There are regular calls in the news for unpopular figures to be silenced forever i.e. Milo Yiannopoulos or Woody Allen. Many of these individuals face boycotts of their products or inventions. More and more, these calls for cancelling everyone for life appears to be the trendy thing to do. Too often have I overheard the people around me admit to not having all the details and yet they still jump at the opportunity to assert their moral superiority. Instead of educating themselves about a scandal and exercising the critical thinking necessary to look at both sides of the story, people feel pressured to take sides and cancel others with very little information at their disposal. Or face being cancelled themselves for going against the tide.
Self-cancellation?
There is the argument that PC culture favours leftist values and because of this, it leaves conservative figures at a higher risk of being censored. In March 2020, Piers Morgan, TV presenter and journalist, recently stepped down from his presenting role on GMTV after his controversial criticism of Meghan Markle’s royal family comments. On his way out he proclaimed “if I have to fall on my sword for expressing an honestly held opinion about Meghan Markle…so be it”. This encapsulates the limit to PC culture’s tolerance as Morgan hinted that his resignation was forced.
Should you be cancelled?
If people with simply unpopular, or even objectively false views, are forced to self-censor themselves to save face publicly, we’re not educating them about their views, we’re just silencing them. How are we supposed to understand perspectives we don’t like if we’re not willing to hear them at all? But if we’re not held responsible for the people we give a platform, we face the risk of lifting up people who don’t reflect our values.
Today, books are being re-written to suit PC requirements and movies edited, with the fear of offending audiences ever-present. Recently, two big name debut authors faced the wrath of cancellation all over social media. Keira Drake’s The Continent was accused of depicting a tribal community as barbaric and uncivilised, with many attempting to draw parallels between her fictionalised group and stereotypical depictions of Native Americans. Amelie Wen Zhao’s Blood Heir faced similar criticism with the author being accused of not depicting the true horrors of slavery accurately – she was then consequently labelled a racist. These two major stories demonstrate how even the world of fiction is being threatened with constant limiting demands with political correctness violating freedom of speech and expression.
Disturbing controversies exposed
In the February 2021 issue of Poetry Magazine, ‘The Practice of Freedom’ the editors of the magazine published work by a convicted child sexual abuser Kirk Nesset. It conjured up heated discussions in the literary magazine community that I am a part of. Poetry Magazine was scrutinised heavily for giving a platform to this man instead of survivors of abuse instead. Some editors began considering screening each and every person who submitted work to their magazines in future. Many editors are contending with the fear that if they were to accidentally miss these details in future contributor’s, that they will be the next to face permanent cancellation for a genuine mistake.
How do you avoid being cancelled?
Even the social media platforms housing these discussions about cancellation are facing criticism for not taking a stand directly against creators labelled harmful or dangerous. Or, whose ideas and concepts are more controversial in a trivial way. As a Creative Writing graduate, I remember being told by teachers to avoid including topics that might potentially offend a demographic. For fear it could lead to me being cancelled before I even make a name for myself. For writers, this fear is a bubbling undercurrent that persists with every word we write.
Nella Rose, a popular social media influencer, recently made a video about the fear of being cancelled. She stated that despite her success making online content, she makes her content with “anxiety” now. Worrying whether a small throwaway joke in a single video could end her career. She claimed that this fear was sucking the “life” out of her hobbies and everyday life. That it had led to her lacking “motivation” to continue posting any new content at all and it was stressful.
There is always a power imbalance with who decides whose alternative views are okay and whose are not. Even those in favour of political correctness should be mindful that the tide of PC culture can sweep them up at any moment. Political correctness violates freedom of speech in countries we associate with a lack of freedom but it covertly exists even in our forward-thinking culture.
In a PC world, can you separate the creator from their work?
People seem to be split on whether they’ll listen to a Michael Jackson album today or watch Roman Polanski movies. Just saying the names Weinstein or Spacey makes people visibly cringe in conversation. So, is it still okay to consume their work?
Recently, the family of Dr. Seuss made a public pledge to discontinue six of their books that were racially insensitive. While some used this news as proof of cancel culture gone too far, it is important to note the difference between being cancelled and being responsible for your own platform. As most readers of Seuss’ books are children, the company thought it was important to be responsible with the messages their stories put out. I commend them for it. Being responsible for the work you promote when you’re in a position of power and influence doesn’t equal censorship, it equals personal responsibility.
There are so many celebrities who have been cancelled recently, like Lana Del Rey, and their work will be scrutinised by people who believe that cancelled peoples’ work should not be consumed. That cancelled people should be excluded from any future in their industry as punishment. I tend to take the opinion that if I can consume the work of someone I disagree with without putting money in their pocket, then I can justify it. Some work has merit in it even if I don’t look up to the individual who created it. But if there would be no other option but to support a less than desirable company or celebrity, I can happily abstain from buying their work, going to their shows or promoting what they do. The onus is on audiences to make people who deserve fame and riches have it.
Is PC culture here to stay?
Joking about being the next person to be cancelled is a topic I hear often as of late. The topic is clearly weighing on the minds of my fellow artists and writers. People must be aware that staying true to your values and ideas will come with a price if you’re unlucky enough to have views that aren’t politically correct. Considering how different politically correct views looked in 2010 vs. 2020 should serve as a warning to people that PC culture does not remain stagnant. What is acceptable is ever-changing and the change of cultures is accelerating with our access to the internet. The truth of cancelling people or companies is that any one of us could be next.
Cancelling people needn’t be the first action on our list when we find someone we disagree with. But it is a useful tool for holding people responsible for what they preach. Some transgressions are ones people can learn and grow from and those are the ones people should be given the second chance to educate themselves about. If they are willing to. Sympathy, empathy and education are vital.
One day you might find that your sincerely held beliefs on important subjects are the next to make you a target for cancelling. There have been countless moments in history where political correctness violates freedom of speech. Every idea I hold sincere to me: gender equality, racial equality, LGBTQ+ rights, has at some point in history been considered a radical and cancellable offense. I try to remember that next time I hear someone say something I object to and my instant internal reaction is: “You’re so cancelled.”
Find more lifestyle articles here >
Written by Chanté-Marie Young
Illustrated by Francesca Mariama
