Well, good evening ladies and . I'm giving a talk on correctness. Can you hear me the back?

What is ? Well, let's look at the appearance of the term. In 1980s, in the United States then in this country, we had a number of strange in the language. For example, the Washington Post newspaper, on 12th of March 1984, we about a writer called Langer. is saying that novelists have duty higher than the one owe to their art, that the art of writing, of , and their private vision of world, they have a duty be politically correct. And again the Washington Post in the year, "it is the only coffee served by the waitpersons," they're called in the politically Tacoma Cafe in Tacoma Park. , what's all this about? What politically correct mean in its sense? Well, I would suggest in the original sense in States, politically correct meant socially according to the views of who were politically left of . It was a descriptive term .

Now let's look at examples of politically correct language. are at least three categories, suggest, of politically correct language. 's call them A, B and . So A. There are new of saying things, avoiding giving to members of minority groups. , what's a minority group here? group referred to as a is one which is in ways disadvantaged or oppressed. So traditional categories here of minority would include women, and in countries blacks, perhaps the elderly so on. So there are ways of saying things. For , instead of man or woman, could say person. That would politically correct usage because it be regarded as discriminatory to between men and women, we're persons. Or again, there's a of examples, it became very or even orthodox to use "Ms", ms, instead of "" or "" as a title for a . Or again "s/he", or "he she", "he or she", that , in place or "he" or "". Or again, "black" or "negro". quality of the language here rather important. Blacks, themselves, in States came to dislike the "negro", preferring to be called , with a capital "B". Again, of "poor", poor people, we of "disadvantaged" people or perhaps "", but "disadvantaged" seems more neutral. then, what about male homosexuals, example? Well, the term "gay" its meaning dramatically. In my , it's changed its meaning dramatically, fact in the last little of my lifetime, it's changed meaning dramatically. "Gay" used to cheerful, happy and so on, now, normally, it's taken to male homosexual. Then there is suffix "challenged". So, some people say, not "disabled", perhaps somebody a damaged leg, not "disabled" "physically challenged". And for "", we might say "experientially enhanced", something of that sort. So, much for ways of saying without giving offence to minority .

Next among these examples. B, let's call it. Terms to attack those thought to politically incorrect. Now, such terms very important weapons and can used to destroy a person's . So, for example, "sexist", a is somebody who talks disparagingly women or worse. A "racist" somebody who regards himself or as a member of a race. An "ageist" is somebody, youngish, who despises older people. the use of the suffix "". It's often, but not always, hostile suffix. If you say is sexist, racist, ageist or , you are attacking them. You're them as morally uncouth. The, are other terms used in offensive people in politically correct . For example, "Eurocentric". A Eurocentric is somebody who thinks that culture is the centre of culture and talks and behaves if that were so. European is somehow superior to the of other centres. Or a "". Have you heard this term? homophobe is somebody who is to discriminate against homosexuals. Phobe, P H O B E, being the Greek root for somebody dislikes or fears something.

third category, let's call it here, for example. Terms indicating positive programme for addressing wrongs. example, "multiculturalism". Now, multiculturalism is attitude which recognises many centres cultural interest in the world than only a white male , European, as it were. And " action" is another expression which used to indicate putting things that are wrong. So affirmative might include promoting people with groups and so on.

. So much for some . Now, let's just have a at the nature of the of politically correct language, PC or politically correct language. It an important part of a process of persuasion. It's part a powerful rhetoric and the seems to go something like . First, a social group claims be a minority, in this of minority. Women are, in , I suppose, numerically a majority, they can still be referred as a minority in this . The group asserts its rights. , the language of rights is here. It's almost always used. second part of this process this. That among the claimed is the right not to referred to in ways which thought to be offensive to of the minority. Thirdly, notice to claim a right to is in effect to claim one has already won the . Rights are rather like trump in a pack of cards. rights trump other considerations. It's hard to argue against somebody says, "that's my right." Well, 's not very hard, but it's often done well.

Now come to the reasons why correct became, in some quarters, pejorative term. A pejorative term a term used to express and disapproval was indeed expressed. now, not of the politically , but of the concept itself political correctness. First, some who the use of politically correct attempted to enforce it on . And PC language became an , especially in some academic circles. to use politically correct language regarded as quite unacceptable. Pressure applied. Job prospects could be . Well, there was very soon reaction against those who tried enforce uniformity in these new within the language. Some critics political correctness compared it to , as George Orwell called it his novel, 1984. The Newspeak Orwell's novel was of course new form of language imposed a totalitarian government on the . The Thought Police was also concept that comes straight from . Now, I'm not suggesting that became quite dreadful here, but , analogies were drawn between Orwell's and the sort of political that could get a little hysterical in pressing people to politically correct.

What about ? Well, humour was applied as weapon against the more extreme of political correctness. It was good weapon; it came readily hand. And it ranged between parody on the one hand harsh ridicule on the other. , for example, people might say what they regarded as extreme , oh well perhaps we shouldn't the term "Manchester", what "Personchester"? Or what we call "manhole " in the road should be "personhole covers" like this. Again, had fun with the suffix "". So instead of referring to , for example, you would speak the "morally challenged". And instead referring to the stupid, you talk of "cerebrally challenged people". of referring to the old, , "chronologically challenged". And dirty people simply "hygienically challenged". Ugly people "aesthetically challenged". Well, these examples verging on the ridiculous, if already there, and suggest ways which political correctness came to regarded as rather naff, in ways.

Next. More seriously, points in favour of political . We have to understand how main social process, a main process, or political process, which was. We have to understand, to understand, how it came and how it so rapidly and then became in some challenged. Points in favour then. there not some very strong in favour of political correctness? , I think there are. Members some social groups feel, and good reason, that they have injustice. That is, they have discriminated against in the past still are in the present. 's have a look at some . Women, for example, were commonly , not very long ago, by men to be pretty useless conversational partners, they lacked any conversation. They could simply listen their men and celebrate the and wisdom of their menfolk. , you can sometimes still see if you go into a and look about, after a of drinks, it's normally the who are talking still and women who are nodding in , smiling obviously, which is of their traditional role. Again, women no power of their own important respects and still don't some respects. It wasn't, for , until the married women's property in Victorian times in this that women who were married the right to own property. had to defer to their 's wishes in the disposition of and this had gone back many centuries. In Chaucer's Canterbury , there's a rather merry woman, Wife of Bath, who is fact a widow, she'd been more than once, and she's because she's independent. She has of her own, she can what she wants and joins pilgrims on the way to . Well, it wasn't until the century that this state of came to an end, that women could own property. Or . Blacks have been subjected, as 's too easy to forget, to , appalling cruelty and the total of, what are now recognised , normal human rights. Liverpool, for , in this country, grew up seaport depending, to a considerable , on the slave trade. And Atlantic ports of Europe did same, all over the place. much, they still feel they treated in a discriminatory way indeed they might be quite in this. So if members such minority groups themselves feel they have been, and are, against, is it not only to respect their views? In their views we are respecting choices, their autonomy, as we , a very popular word, especially the States, in political philosophy. not to be too Eurocentric it, it was a European , Kant, in the eighteenth century Germany, who laid down a law that we ought to people as ends in themselves, is, as people who have own choices to make, there lives to live. We all people as ends, I'm sorry, all treat people as means ends for various purposes. For , we trade and make a . We treat people as means that end, but Kant says should always treat people also ends in themselves, treat them people who have to have views respected.

OK. So for some points in favour political correctness. Now, let's have look at one or two against it. First, some of who insist, most loudly, on use of politically correct language not themselves belong to the said to be discriminated against. example, and I've seen this very close quarters over a of years. White, middle-class people insist on black rights within college. Now some of the themselves may find this rather and prefer to speak for . Furthermore, people who insist on correctness may be seeking their advantage. For example, a politically group gaining power and promotion a college. Next, it may said that any imposed orthodoxy wrong. It smacks of totalitarianism, if it is in some right. For it to be is, you might say, wrong. think we have to impose things, don't we? We have impose restraints on certain sorts behaviour, like shooting school children. , orthodoxies in language, and so , are somehow interfering with our capacity to think. Again, political may have effects opposite to intended. It may bring about reaction against itself as we seen, all those jokes about, know, vertically challenged people or it is. Then again, it be said that we should the English language itself against crude attempts to change it . People do this if they to get policy change, they to change the language and should be on our guard it. Then again, there is attempt to equate political correctness the whole of morality. If are not a racist and a sexist, not a this-ist not a that-ist, then you be morally OK. That's the , isn't it, and that is course, simply, that. You may be a sexist, you may be a racist, you may be an ageist, but you be a quite appalling person other respects. So, there's a of totalism at work in correctness. There's a simplification of moral agenda, which is itself .

So. What have we ? We've had a look at first appearance of the term correctness. We've had a look some examples of politically correct . We've examined the power of language. We've asked how it that it became a term abuse, or a pejorative term. 've had a look at some funny examples of humour. We've at points in favour of correctness, points against and now come to some concluding remarks.

I want to do is to ask a question. should we weigh the points favour of political correctness and should we weigh the points it? It is a serious . We see it does have good reasons for it, so speak. And it seems there fairly good reasons against it. question then is, how should weight the points in favour the points against? OK, then, me try to answer the and it's a rather unexciting , but I hope a balanced . I would suggest that it wise to recognise the force each set of points, the for and the points against to welcome the good effects avoiding or even opposing the .

Well, thank you for .