A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing?

Photo: ElvertBarnes via flickr.com

The avowed aim of political correctness, or ‘PC’ for short, is to wipe out all prejudice and intolerance, so that everybody can lead life to the full regardless of sex, race, health or whatever. This is a noble aim. But in its methods the movement often veers towards prejudice and intolerance itself.

Thus was this phenomenon summarised by Nicholas Jones in 1992, in a handy guide to recent additions to the English language. Jones, with evident disapproval, gave examples of it in action, and listed several words and phrases of ‘PC jargon’ that were then in vogue.¹ Whilst some of these, such as ‘differently abled’ for ‘disabled’, do not seem to have attained lasting popularity, political correctness itself has, although frequently criticised, gathered increasing strength in the Western world.

More recently, the right-wing journalist Anthony Browne, in his controversial pamphlet The Retreat of Reason, has criticised the phenomenon on the grounds that it prevents public bodies from addressing certain ‘truths’, for fear that doing so might offend particular groups of people. In reply, it has been argued that these alleged ‘truths’ are mere theories, put forward without substantiating evidence. Not having read Browne’s book, I am in no position to judge the validity of his arguments. However, I fully agree with Jones in that, whilst the aim of political correctness is honourable, its methods are less so.

This aim, as defined by Jones, is indeed noble, being in accordance not only with secular humanitarian ideals but also with the teachings of Christianity and other world faiths. Furthermore, the phenomenon may well take some of the credit for the widespread reduction or elimination of many old prejudices and inequalities over recent years. (There are other reasons for this, however; for example, the increased presence and visibility of ethnic minorities in this country has tended to disprove the old stereotypes and preconceptions that were once fostered by ignorance.)

In practice, however, political correctness bears worrying similarities to the fabled wolf in sheep’s clothing. From the outside, its essentially humanitarian and Christian intentions give it an attractive appearance. Beneath this garment, however, lies a less attractive truth. Its methods, steeped in hypocrisy, are at best un-Christian means to a Christian end; at worst, they can be cruel and inhuman.

We must ask: does political correctness provide the best means of achieving its own purpose? Outwardly, it has certainly achieved much. But has it really changed people’s inward attitudes towards those who are different from themselves, or has it merely forced old prejudices, still widely held, underground? In view of the fact that extremist parties such as the BNP continue to enjoy a significant level of support in the UK and elsewhere in Europe, it is to be feared that the latter may be, to some extent, the case.

Political correctness seeks to foster tolerance and respect through compulsion and fear; although this tends to encourage people to conform outwardly to its dictates, it hardly seems to be the best way to change people’s inward attitudes, and thus to foster true love of one’s neighbours. In fact, it could be dangerous: if prejudices are suppressed but not actually eliminated, they could flare up under provocation, with potentially disastrous consequences!

The hypocrisy of the PC mindset is manifested in its tendency to show prejudice in the name of eliminating prejudice, by promoting the interests of some groups of people over those of others. For example, as Lizzie Freear has noted in previous issues of Christis, it has created a climate in which it is acceptable to promote women’s interests at the expense of those of men, whereas to do the opposite is strongly discouraged! Although this may be justified on the grounds that it redresses previous unjust balances, this does not foster true equality, but merely replaces one injustice with another.

It is similarly hypocritical in showing intolerance and disrespect, in the name of their opposites, to those who speak against its precepts or fall foul, even unwittingly, of its dictates. Thus freedom of opinion is stifled, when people who express opinions that offend a favoured group are castigated and marginalised for doing so, even if they speak with the interests of another worthy group of people, or of society as a whole, at heart. For example, Wiltshire County Council has excluded Ed Greening, an evangelical Christian, from serving on its adoption panel, because he is unable to support adoptions by same-sex couples, which he believes are not in the best interests of children.²

Such intolerance and disrespect all too easily beget cruelty and inhumanity. A few years ago, I read that a pregnant American had been ejected from a bus for mentioning her Christian faith to a fellow-passenger, because the driver or conductor feared that non-Christian passengers might be offended! It is likewise cruel in its unforgiving nature. Take Ron Atkinson for example: obliged to resign as a football commentator after unintentionally using a racially offensive word in speaking of a black player, sections of the media have continued to dwell on this unfortunate incident, even amplifying his crime into that of ‘making racist comments’³ — even though the fact that he has championed black players for many years strongly implies that he is no racist at heart!

Another potential problem with political correctness is that, being much concerned with ‘diversity’, it tends to emphasise differences. Whilst I agree with Lizzie Freear (Honouring Difference, issue 98) that it is right in teaching that such differences should be respected and appreciated, its artificial emphasis upon them may in fact tend to divide rather than unite. Our appreciation of human diversity should therefore be counterbalanced by an appreciation of the essential unity of the human race, in the face of which differences in appearance or culture become unimportant.

For various reasons, Christianity and its adherents have, in recent years, become widely regarded as ‘soft’ targets for attacks from the PC lobby. The cases of Ed Greening and the American bus passenger, and the controversial banishment of references to Christmas by a number of organisations in recent years, are among several examples that could be cited as evidence of this trend. However, as Christians, placing the interests of others above our own, such attacks upon our religion should not provide our primary motive for opposing political correctness. After all, as Christ preached on the Mount,

Happy are you when people insult you and persecute you…because you are my followers. Be happy and glad, for a great reward is kept for you in heaven…

(Matthew 5, v.1 1–12, Good News Version)

We should instead oppose its hypocritical and inhuman tendencies by promoting a better and more effective way of achieving its avowed purpose. Tolerance and respect are best promoted through love and understanding, rather than through the compulsion and fear by which political correctness operates. Furthermore, whilst not condoning hate crimes, we should show tolerance and respect to the intolerant and disrespectful, since it is by being kind to them, seeking to understand their prejudices, and gently persuading them that they are wrong, that we have the best chances of changing their attitudes. To condemn them without seeking to understand them, as is the tendency of the PC lobby, is surely more likely to confirm and intensify their prejudices and hatreds!

It is significant that Dr Sentamu, Archbishop of York, has declared that he opposes racism and other forms of discrimination, not because it is the politically correct thing to do, but because it is the Gospel imperative. In fact, although some of those who side with the PC lobby were among the loudest in rejoicing at his appointment, largely on account of his ethnicity, his own views and character — shown by his hope that he will not be remembered primarily for being the first black Archbishop in the Church of England, his deep respect for England’s historic culture and for the central place of the Christian faith within it, and, above all, his Christ-like forgiveness of those who sent him racist hate mail following his election — place him at some distance from the wolf-like PC mindset. His is indeed an example that we would do well to follow.

Peter Tylor

¹ [Nicholas Jones,] Hackers, Hotting and Hooray Henrys. A Guide to New Words and Words in the News (London, The Reader’s Digest Association Limited, 1992), pp. 50–1.

² Johanna Thomas-Corr, ‘Adoption panel ban for Christian’, The Church of England Newspaper, 13 January 2006.

³ For example, in the Pandora column of The Independent, 6 February 2006. The Radio Times similarly misdescribed the offence some time ago.