I approach this topic with some trepidation, partly because I've been
accused of being politically incorrect myself in the past, but mainly
because, as a member of one of the minority ethnic groups that has been
abused in recent postings to this list, I do not want to court the
additional accusation of suppressing discussion.  I think it must be
said, though, that some comments to this list on the topic of race have
been deeply offensive.    

Language matters, and the way in which people express themselves
matters.  Some of the terms in which social policy has been discussed in
the past, and some which are used in the present, are objectionable.
'Political correctness' has been concerned with the sensitive use of
language.  There are three main reasons for attempting to be politically
correct.  First, sensitivity in language is part of respect for others.
Describing people in terms of a stigmatised characteristic - like
"cripple" or "cretin" - is offensive, and there are many words which it
is difficult to imagine being applied in present-day society without an
offensive intention.  Second, awareness of the implications of
particular words is important for communication.  When people
communicate, they convey not only the direct sense of their words, but
also tone and secondary implications, which are no less important for
meaning.  Third, discrimination and prejudice are important parts of the
ways in which disadvantage is generated in society.  

I agree with those sentiments, but I also agree with many of the
criticisms of the approach.  Social policy is often characterised by
desperate attempts to be politically correct, in the belief that this
will help to reduce offence and limit the scope of disadvantage.  Sadly,
the experience has often been very different.  There is a long history
of altering the names of stigmatised groups, in the belief that this can
lessen  the stigma.  It has nearly always been unsuccessful.  Matza
gives the example of references to poor people: they have been described
as a lumpenproletariat, the submerged tenth, the undeserving poor, the
abyss, degenerates, problem families, multiple problem families, the
"hard to reach",  people in a "culture of poverty", and most recently as
an "underclass".  People with learning disability have successively
described as idiots, degenerates,  morons, subnormal, mentally retarded,
mentally handicapped, and people with "learning difficulties".  We may
think of the terms up to the present as a series of insults, but the
position is not so simple.  The word "moron", for example, was
deliberately coined in  the US to replace the previously stigmatising
language; the idea of "subnormality"  was introduced in UK legislation
in the 1950s to  replace the stigmatising terms of "idiot", "imbecile"
and "cretin" used in the law of 1913; "mental handicap" replaced the
stigmatising language of subnormality in the 1970s (Bayley's seminal
book on mental  handicap, published in 1973, apologises for the residual
references to subnormality), and "learning disability" replaced mental
handicap in the 1980s.   The idea of an "underclass", which I've been
pilloried for using - one of the other contributors to this debate once
walked out of a paper I gave on the subject - was used by Titmuss and
Townsend before Auletta and Murray took it up.

Part of the problem, too, is that despite the claim of commentators to
be sensitive, politically correct speech has often been desperately
insensitive to the uses of language. The WHO's  concept of "handicap"
was introduced as the basis for a social understanding of disability,
but it has been roundly attacked by groups representing disabled people.
The political choice of  "learning difficulty" in place of mental
handicap was seen as inappropriate by many people engaged in the field,
which is why the term was altered subsequently in the UK to "learning
disability".   The term "black" has been used to lump people of diverse
ethnic origins, culture and descent into one indistinct, stigmatised
category, defining groups in terms of their oppression rather than their
own identity: some people are still using it.  In the 1950s, Nunally
devised a powerful technique, the "semantic differential",  to establish
whether particular words carried negative connotations.  To the best of
my knowledge, the test has not been used since; it's work which someone
on this list might usefully think of taking up.  Adopting new
terminology in disregard of its potential implications, and insisting
that others use it, rather undermines any claim we can make to
sensitivity. 

None of those reservations, however, excuses the posting on this list or
elsewhere of material that is directly abusive.   We have now had two
mailings which have crossed the line, one insulting African Americans,
the other insulting Jews.  Part of the long memorandum recently
circulated to members - it is in a small section headed "artistic
ability" - suggests that the attack on the Twin Towers was
understandable because Jews behave like Shylock.  This comes perilously
close to incitement to racial hatred. This is not just a matter of
choosing the wrong words, or even discussing the wrong issues.  Academic
discussion does not legitimate bigotry, intolerance and abuse. There are
elements in this discussion which should go no further.   

Paul Spicker
Professor of Public Policy
Centre for Public Policy and Management
Aberdeen Business School
The Robert Gordon University
Garthdee Road
Aberdeen AB10 7QE

Tel:  (0) + 44 1224 26 3120
Fax: (0) + 44 1224 26 3434

Website:  http://www.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy

******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************