PROVEN LEADERSHIP

Home

Columns

You know, there are some folks who just can't leave a good thing alone, they simply have to mess it up. Our language, in particular. English has a lot going for it. It's the most widely used language on earth, the common tongue of business and other fields. It has a larger vocabulary, and greater subtlety than almost any other. It's so flexible you can say most things several different ways, and there are some ideas that only it can express. It can handle anything from the most profound solemnity, to the most manic hilarity. But all this is under threat. Because there are people who want to take the language, and twist and warp it to their own ends. You know them, they're the political correctness police.

Political correctness (PC) is another one of those misguided ideological byproducts of the 60's. It assumes that every man, woman and child lives in hair trigger sensitivity to every operation of language - just quivering at the possibility of having their self esteem assaulted. PC makes no distinction between intentional insults and mere habits of common speech. It's the opposite of "sticks and stones": an assumption of oppressive malice in any potential word or phrase.

PC's goal is to reduce all communication to complete neutrality and inoffensiveness, so every phrase must be laundered. Pronouns are specially scrutinized. The word "man" is toast, because the very existence of masculine gender is deemed oppressive. All descriptions are reduced to euphemism, for fear that unwashed adjectives and adverbs might scalp someone's ego. Choice of verbs is fraught with danger, since so many carry menacing undertones. Shoot, if you keep dialing up the sensitivity, as some call for, you could make the language unusable. I mean, just how much can you express when all you have to use is proper names and conjunctions?

The rules of PC would cut the legs off of history's greatest utterances. Take one of the most famous: "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind" (Neil Armstrong, obviously). It's a regular PC minefield. We already know "man" and "mankind" are in trouble. The use of "step" and "leap" could offend those who are "ambulatory challenged". "Small" and "giant" have devastating implications, depending on your height; which might also affect whether you saw the distance involved as "one" or more steps or leaps. Thank Heaven Neil wasn't intimidated into saying "That's a single minor unit of upward movement for an adult human being, an extremely large technological advance for the collective mass of humanity."

Such an abortion quickly clarifies the other reason PC should be opposed, tooth and nail. It just guts the potential beauty of a spoken phrase. Were everyone to bend to the strictures of this mania, we'd all sound like nameless, faceless bureaucrats from the very bowels of a limitless federal immensity. The only things published would be textbooks, manuals and some hyper-sanitized version of newspeak, for there would be no creativity.

PC is the very antithesis of creativity. It cuts every sentence down to a lowest common denominator of blandness. I'd much rather hear expletives than such drivel. Heck, in the Army, I heard sergeants cut loose with continuous blue streaks of profanity so inventive and outrageous that I couldn't help but admire. Creativity is at least interesting!

So I will go on my way using the English I learned from the masters of old, be they novelists, orators or sergeants. It doesn't mean that I'm intentionally out to offend (I'll make such amply clear, if I wish to). I just can't stomach seeing an exquisite tongue sullied by mindless ideologues.

With others, I'll listen closely if your phrases are rendered well, and ignore you if they're bland mush. And ignoring things is something I'm pretty good at, since I have a significant hearing loss. Call me half deaf, not "auditorily challenged" - I won't mind a bit. Just don't euphemize me!

Copyright ã, Douglas Holt, 2002