Unveiling the Metaphysical Foundations of Political Correctness: A Critical Examination

The Metaphysics of Political Correctness

In this essay I will briefly explain the abstract-concrete distinction and unpack the abstract object known as political correctness. An abstract object can be explained as something that doesn’t exist in space or time but rather exists as a type of thing or idea (Ney 62). The other type of objects are concrete objects. Concrete objects can be defined as existing in space and time as a physical object that has observable properties such as; shapes, colors, sizes etc (Ney 62). As a cultural studies major, I find the rising use of political correctness intriguing and it has grabbed my attention as a practice used by varieties of different people and institutions. Throughout this essay I will weigh arguments in favour and against the existence of such an object, I will also unpack some of the assumptions that go along with it. Firstly, I will touch on why political correctness exists and what people’s assumptions are about it. Secondly, how political correctness effects freedom of speech and finally, some arguments in favor and against the existence of political correctness.

Firstly, there are many assumptions people have about political correctness. The common assumption is that political correctness is a way to be considerate and inclusive by speaking in a way that won’t offend anyone. To myself and others included, it is simply an assault on freedom of speech. The Webster dictionary defines political correctness as, “conforming to a belief that languages and practices that could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of race or sex) should be eliminated”. Other presumed facts about political correctness that I see worth mentioning are how corporations and institutions adopt its use to not only conform to being politically correct, but to also appear virtuous or considerate. Political correctness is not so much about truth, but about what is virtuous, and who decides what is virtuous is something we need to consider. Sometimes what is true is not necessarily politically correct, and though political correctness tries to make the world more equitable (in theory) I see no correlation between political correctness and the infringement on freedom of speech to make the world so.

Do we need an entity called political correctness? The simple answer is No, we do not need an entity called political correctness. I would argue that we do not need a domain of interpretation called political correctness because political correctness does not intend to make sense out of reality. Political correctness means to blur the lines between one idea and another. When Hegel claims that being is the most abstract of all categories (51, Van Inawagen) he is right, and Political correctness takes advantage of the complexity of this being. Since, political correctness is highly intertwined with identity politics we see how it tries to change/police language for “virtuous” reasons. This attempt by political correctness is to create universal ways of identification that ignore peoples unique and individual identities and replaces it with a single universal category of people. Therefore, destroying the very idea of individual identity in a general matter.

These politically Correct tendencies emerged in sectors of the communist left of the 1930s such as feminism and other leftists’ movements. According to Derber and Magrass these movements can be very destructive to life and freedom if they seized power (176). These ideas of political correctness correlate with Van-Inwagen Example of how the USSR was prohibiting the use of certain speech because it was considered “indecent” (66). In Van-Inwagen’s example he speaks about how the USSR was prohibiting speech and how despite efforts to ignore or deny the existence of certain entities, it did not mean that these certain entities did not exist. Van-Inwagen also wrote that by,” Extending the meaning of a term so that that term will apply to objects beyond those it already applies to is precisely analogous to extending a geographical boundary: you can extend a geographical boundary to encompass new territory only if that territory is already there” (Van-Inwagen’s 69-70). This explanation helps show how political correctness tries to extend its meaning to be inclusive to all people, but it leaves behind negotiation and understanding that comes along with how we understand reality. It is in this way that political correctness attempts to deny the existence of other objects, by becoming a universal object that justifies itself by what is good, just and virtuous. Again, the question I brought to attention earlier becomes relevant, who decides what is good, just and virtuous? Political correctness resembles what many of us could consider as totalitarianism, as it essentially is telling us what is in our best interest without any negotiation or measurement of effectiveness.

Alternative domains of interpretation that lack the entity called political correctness are in the domains of freedom of speech. As mentioned previously political correctness has effects on freedom of speech and does so by creating limitations on interpretation. In the field of “cultural studies” (which I am a majoring in), I find political correctness to have deep roots in the course material, which is a big reason why I have chosen to expand my field of interest to that of philosophy. Moreover, political correctness has a double agenda that being of freedom and constraint. It is creating conformity and limitations on freedom of expression and avoiding controversial topics (Hughes 284). Hughes speaks of political correctness and how it has the power to constrain people from controversial topics and enables people to ignore some topics in the name of virtue. Arguably political correctness exists as a thing that tries to be inclusive and not offend anyone, but it fails to ask itself if changing language is an effective way in changing reality. In the domain of freedom of speech, there is no room for the object of political correctness, because political correctness attempts to undermine the idea of freedom of speech. In this sense if political correctness exists as an abstract object it cannot exist within the domain of freedom of speech because to be offended you must be able to contemplate why you are offended. Reasonable people can thus have dialogue on what is offensive or non-offensive speech. Without this dialogue political correctness paternalizes and keeps people away from speaking freely in fear of offending or not including someone. An example is in this video (Justin Trudeau Video) where Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau corrects a woman using the words “mankind” by responding, “we like to say people kind, instead of mankind”. This type of political correctness is an example of how Trudeau doesn’t want to offend anyone by saying Mankind. But less obviously it is a way to show virtue and a subtle way to silence people who don’t fit a certain agenda. To me this resembles that of religious shaming or the denouncing of people for different views or ways of interpreting the world. Why would saying mankind offend someone? Don’t words after all only have the power we want to give them? Perhaps I am being unreasonable, or perhaps this is what subtle totalitarianism looks like.

Furthermore, In the article, “Political Correctness and Organizational Nihilism” Schwartz, speaks of how political correctness has a dark side. This dark side, he explains, is the agenda to destroy organizational functioning which he calls “organizational nihilism” (4). This, he explains, is the destructive process that attempts to undermine “structure, meaning, motivation and language itself” (5). The theory proposed by Shwartz unpacks how political correctness exists as a force that should not be taken lightly. Though Shwartz article has some interesting points and takes a psychoanalytic approach, his article raises some questions about how political correctness undermines meaning and language.

In a linguistic sense, political correctness certainly exists, not only in definition but also because there is significant amounts of works about it. It seems foolish to omit that such a thing does not exist, because how else could we speak of something that has no place in existence. As Van-Inwagen says” existence has a univocal definition” (61), so by determining if one thing exists more than another it becomes redundant. Further, Quine writes “I feel no reluctance toward refusing to admit meanings, for I do not thereby deny that words and statements are meaningful” (30). Quine believed that we are free to uphold linguistic utterance as meaningful or significant and that this is an ultimate and irreducible matter of fact (Quine 30-1). In this sense political correctness must exist, for how else could I write an essay on such an object if it did not. Furthermore, if political correctness only existed in the mind, it certainly has real life effects. Though some may argue that it has positive effects, I am inclined to say that it breaches freedom of speech and does not justify itself as an effective tool in creating positive change. As I have identified throughout this essay by ignoring certain entities it does not mean that certain entities do not exist, it simply means that they are ignored. In examples of topics like race or gender (identity politics) we can understand that by ignoring these types of ideas we ignore the reality behind these ideas. Van Inwagen’s example of the USSR restricting speech about things that are “indecent” are perfect examples of political correctness and how by ignoring certain entities it doesn’t mean that those entities stop existing.

Does Political correctness exist? In Van Inwagen’s words “there are no things that do not exist”, and that he says there are only few responses a person can have to such a claim about the existence of anything. It is either yes, “that does too exist” or that no, “there is no such thing as that” (59). So, does political correctness exist? The simple answer is yes. Political correctness exists as an abstract object because it is an idea that has meaning and real-life effects. To claim that political correctness doesn’t exist, would mean that we live in an entirely free speaking society, but this we know is not true. There are some things we are not permitted to say, and for good reason. A person is not allowed to promote violence or hate upon another, and these are reasonable humane rules for people to follow. Though my problem with political correctness isn’t in these issues, my issue is in the grey area of what is hate. A person must be able to explain themselves reasonably why something is hateful in order to deem it politically incorrect. Until then, political correctness appears to be an absolute relativism, that is to say, it is entirely subjective. Moreover, I have an intuition about political correctness that I see only fitting for mention here. Political correctness appears to be univocal. In the sense that the entity wishes to encompass the existence of all people under one single meaning. Political correctness appears to give no accounts to the uniqueness or differences that individuals may have in relation to appearance, skills, culture, views etc. It attempts to encompass being under one inclusive form, but it does allow for the unique differences of what being is. As Hegel claimed that being is the most abstract of all categories (51, Van Inwagen), so how can political correctness as an abstract object hope to survive if it means to simplify the most abstract of all categories? It is here I may expose that Political correctness is highly irrational by ignoring the complexity of individual people. It does many injustices that wishes to control speech, thought and destroy the very idea that we ourselves are all complicated beings. Further, It has disguised itself as good and just but at the roots of its idea, it appears to only desire a unified idea of being. Of course, there is always another approach to the debating of the existence of such an object, and that is nominalism.

A simpler position one could take on the existence of political correctness is that there are no such thing as abstract objects. This position is called nominalism. Nominalism can be described as the view that there is no such things as abstract entities and universals (Ney 67). This view could claim that political correctness is only an object of the mind and that there is no difference between political correctness and Pegasus or political correctness and Santa Claus. Thus, it does not truly exist. Of course, this argument does not hold much grounds and Van Inwagen’s makes a good argument for such. He says “The univocity of number and the intimate connection between number and existence should convince us that there is at least very good reason to think that existence is univocal” (61). What this means is that existence has one meaning, so when claiming one thing exists more than another because of it being a concrete or abstract object is not a good explanation. Van Inwagen’s example of the connection between number and existence expresses this idea, and how we understand reality is highly connected to both abstract and concrete distinctions. So, one could argue as a nominalist, but it remains a tough position to maintain especially when considering how nominalism itself is an abstract idea. By nominalism claiming itself to be the belief that abstract objects don’t exist, it creates a paradox because it itself is an abstract object. In the nominalist sense political correctness doesn’t exist and neither does any abstract object for that matter.

Throughout this essay I have unpacked the distinction between abstract and concrete objects. Indicating that the abstract object is something that doesn’t exist in space or time but rather exists as a type of thing or idea. The other type of objects are concrete objects. Concrete objects I explained exist in space and time as a physical object that has observable properties. Furthermore, for my first point, I discussed some of the assumptions people may have about political correctness. These assumptions included; using language that does not offend someone. The other was that political correctness infringes on freedom of speech, and that to know what offends someone, must first be brought to attention before assuming what is offensive. My second point I discussed whether the abstract object political correctness need exist, and how the existence of political correctness effects freedom of speech. I also explained how by ignoring certain entities (as in the USSR example) it doesn’t mean that certain entities seize to exist. Lastly, I touched on the existence of political correctness and how one could argue for or against such an object. Specifically, I wrote how political correctness exists because it has a meaning and an effect on the reality we live in. I also spoke of nominalism and how it disbelieves in the existence of abstract objects. I also explained how this position is difficult to maintain as the idea of nominalism itself creates the very paradox it wishes to not be part of. Evidently, I determined that political correctness exists as an abstract object that threatens people’s ability to think and speak. It does so by attempting to encompass other entities within its domain in the name of virtue. Though it disguises itself as virtuous, we should be weary on how political correctness wishes to take away the way we identify and categorize things. We should also consider if this abstract object does more harm than good when it comes to having important conversations about important topics. Though its intentions seem good, I am sceptical on how effective political correctness is, and in what it tries to accomplish. I hope this essay shed some light on the metaphysics of political correctness, and how more research should be done to have a better understanding of how this abstract object is. I only wish political correctness could be the change we need in the world today, but I am sceptical of its total effectiveness in what it promises.

Works Cited

Derber, Charles, Yale R. Magrass, and Taylor & Francis eBooks A-Z. Morality Wars: How Empires, the Born-again, and the Politically Correct do Evil in the Name of Good. Paradigm Publishers, Boulder, Colo, 2008.

Hughes, Geoffrey. Political Correctness: A History of Semantics and Culture. Wiley-Blackwell, Maldon, Mass, 2011.

Ney, Alyssa, Metaphysics: An Introduction. Chapters 0 to 2, 2014

Quine, Willard V. On What There Is. Review of Metaphysics 2 (1): 21-38, 1948.

Schwartz, Howard S. "Political Correctness and Organizational Nihilism." Human Relations, vol. 55, no. 11, 2002, pp. 1275-1294.

Van Inwagen, Peter. Being, Existence, and Ontological Commitment. In David John Chalmers, David Manley & Ryan Wasserman (eds.), Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology. Oxford University Press, 2009.