- Email: [email protected]
Perverse political correctness and personality traits
Medical Hypotheses 78 (2012) 146–150
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Medical Hypotheses journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mehy
Perverse political correctness and personality traits Alexander Neduva, Michael Kanevsky, Vladimir Lerner ⇑ Division of Psychiatry, Ministry of Health Mental Health Center, Faculty of Health Sciences Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 9 August 2011 Accepted 11 October 2011
a b s t r a c t Political correctness (PC) commonly refers to a mutual respect for the views and beliefs of others, including enemies, and while differing in opinions, the willfulness to overcome the existing disagreements, and to prevent animosity. To date however, the term PC is sometimes used in a perverted sense aimed for disintegration of solidarity in a society, thus giving birth to a new powerful conceptual tool, the perverse political correctness (PPC). PPC ideology resides in people with certain psychological types. We assume that there are basic psychological variations of personality traits and the mechanisms of their formation that promote not only insertion, but rapid distribution of modern PPC ideology. Although the dimension of their behavior is very similar, the personality traits of these persons can be divided into three groups: The subjects from the first group are characterized by general traits of one’s personality, such as kindness, empathy, and humanism. This is true PC – an expression of proper humanistic personality traits, which are developed in a specific kind of environment. The subjects from second group are usually artistic, theatrical, vain and narcissistic, poseurs who need attention at any cost. Their views on life in general, as well as on questions of PC are characterized by colorfulness, picturesqueness and emotional satiety. The subjects from the third group, conjoined with the previous variety of demonstrative–theatrical PC, use mystical and religious contents as part of their propaganda of PPC activity. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
‘‘It is easier to fight for one’s principles than to live up to them.’’ Alfred Adler
Introduction During the last few years the term ‘‘political correctness’’ became one of the most significant points of reference in society’s life and activity. The term ‘‘politically correct’’ have been already found as early as the 18th century in various contexts, which may not relate to the current terminology [1,2]. From 1970s, the New Left, feminists, and progressives began to use this term ironically, as ‘‘a guard against their own orthodoxy in social change efforts’’ [3,4]. Widespread use of the phrase ‘‘politically correct’’ and its derivatives began when it was adopted as a pejorative term by the political right in the 1990s. Politically correct or political correctness (PC) is a complex topic. Though to this day there is no clear definition for this term, it commonly refers to mutual respect for the views and beliefs of others, enemies included, and, while differing in opinions, strive and willfulness to overcome the existing disagreements, and to ⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Be’er-Sheva Mental Health Center, PO Box 4600, Be’er-Sheva 84170, Israel. Tel.: +972 8 6401408; fax: +972 8 6401491. E-mail address: [email protected] (V. Lerner). 0306-9877/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2011.10.013
prevent animosity. In theory, PC should be the main condition for not accepting cruelty and aggression in conflict situations. There are some definitions of this phenomenon. According to Browne [5] page 4, ‘‘political correctness is an ideology that classifies certain groups of people as victims in need of protection from criticism, and which makes believers feel that no dissent should be tolerated’’ or ‘‘political correctness is the dictatorship of virtue’’ [5], page 7. According to Atkinson’s opinion, PC is the communal tyranny that erupted in the 1980s. It was a spontaneous declaration that particular ideas, expressions and behavior, which were then legal, should be forbidden by law, and people who transgressed should be punished [6]. According to Kelly and Rubal-Lopez [7], PC is ‘‘the process of making judgments from the vantage point of a particular ideology.’’ In the early stages of forming, the concept of PC played, no doubt, a positive role, as it meant the development of ideas of humanism and tolerance, opposing a prolonged period of animosity, cruelty and mutual killing. The central uses of the term relate to particular issues of race, gender, disability, ethnicity, sexual preference, culture and worldviews, and encompass both the language in which issues are discussed and the viewpoints that are expressed [8]. PC can be expressed in many ways, such as in social media and press, in some cases the attempt to be always ‘‘politically correct’’ may alter the original writings of some authors. For example, in a
A. Neduva et al. / Medical Hypotheses 78 (2012) 146–150
new edition of Mark Twain’s ‘‘The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn’’, the editor has replaced all appearances of the word ‘‘nigger’’ with ‘‘slave’’, and also edited use of the slur ‘‘injun’’ [9]. Furthermore, lately there seems to be a tendency to manipulate the term ‘‘political correctness’’, even to misuse it, in order to obtain benefits for some and to oppress others. PC reflects the humanistic, progressive tendencies of society’s growth. It should never take form of passive adaptiveness, of sheer conformism for the acceptable norms of life. PC is based on mutual acceptance of the existing order of things, and mutual understanding, with a flexible approach to viewing situations, with a comprehension of the political and social values, without rigid, unsparing settings and stereotypical thinking, allowing amiable, non-aggressive and constructive criticism of each of the opponent sides. The modern day PC that grew from ideas of humanism, ideas of non-violent opposition that were once conceived by genius humanists (such as Rousseau, Voltaire, Gandy, Roerich, Tolstoy and others), was formed in a particular stage of human development, after suffering through many wars, cataclysms, crises, etc. It is well known that social ideas are planted by ideologists and take over the public only when the masses are ready to receive those ideas. In order that the masses could accept those ideas and be spanned by them, there is a need to form not only the appropriate social-political environment, but also suitable psychological settings. Yet in present day, the term PC is sometimes used in a perverted sense aimed for disintegration of solidarity in society. Those who manipulate the term PC use it as a political-psychological maneuver, designed to sabotage the ideological base of their political opponents, to crush their self-conviction, to reduce political stability, moral strength, and the political, social and any other form of activity of the masses, in order to push them under the influence of the opposite side. The final goal of using PC that way is shifting the mass consciousness from contentment within their side, to discontent and willingness to protest or even take destructive actions [10], thus giving birth to a new powerful conceptual tool, the perverse political correctness (PPC). Along with the socio-economic factors, there is another underestimated and under-analyzed psychological factor in the expansion of PPC – its exaggeration and even distortion, which can lead to the self-destruction of Western society. This factor is the fuel that makes PPC into an ideal, which humanity is allegedly supposed to endeavor, while ignoring the fact of that the very essence of this potentially progressive occurrence was perverted by modern politicians. PPC today became a universal demand, a norm of social living, and as such it evens out the means for its achievement, and ignores the unquestionable need to keep the principles of mutual, nonbiased, and if not benevolent, at least respectful attitude towards others’ views. PPC does not strive towards truth or rightfulness. The truth simply does not concern it. Its goal is to guarantee tolerance or acceptance even for that, or who, is blatantly deceptive, or even untruthful. The peculiarity of PC is depicted in this once popular aphorism by Voltaire: ‘‘I disagree with your point of view, but I would die defending your right to express it!’’ The main principle of PPC stands in absolute indifference to the truth. According to the German philosopher Bolz [11], within the PPC ideology, the Western civilization detaches itself from the concept of truth, which was laid in its very fundament. This rejection of truthfulness by PPC is also clearly stated by a well-known modern Russian sociologist Ionin: ‘‘ we are not talking about equality in the eyes of the law, but about compulsory acknowledgment and respect. This demand seems reasonable at first glance, but in reality it’s not only impossible to apply, but also contradicts common sense and elementary logic’’ [12], page 23.
147
The Islamic fundamentalism is the foremost factor, the common denominator that ties all major terrorist acts of our time, from 9/11 to Times Square, from Moscow subway to London subway, and so on. The epicenter of the modern Islamic terrorism is Israel, a country that leads defensive wars throughout its existence. Opposing all facts, many European leftwing organizations, political parties and politicians insist on not equating reasons for terrorism in the West with reasons for terrorism in Israel. Against all reason and logic they not only refuse to justify any sort of defense on Israel’s part, but take a steady position that unquestionably supports the struggle against occupation, achieved by all means. Doing so, the European Left delegitimizes Israel and legitimizes terror. The actions of Islamic extremists, however horrible crimes they may commit, do not evoke any protest from those PPC adherents, leftwing human rights defenders from all over the world and even from Israel, which is especially unnatural. Those ‘‘defenders of rights and freedoms’’ do not even see the intent for genocide in those who speak of ‘‘drowning Jews in the sea’’ and ‘‘wiping Israel off the map’’. Data about terrorist acts victims is ignored, though those who were killed and injured in exploding buses or by rockets falling on their streets had the same full right for life and freedom. Their basic rights are trampled, but any resistance is acclaimed as crime and violation of PC. The presence of certain personal characteristics, such as gender and Machiavellianism (doing anything to succeed), may increase the potential to engage in political behavior. But the environment in which individuals interact may have just as strong an influence. For example, if people feel they will be able to secure a valued outcome by engaging in political behavior, they may be more inclined to do so. Political activity will be high in organizations that reward those who engage in political behavior [13,14]. Those who did not use political behaviors and did not receive a reward may decide to use political behaviors in the future because they saw their politically acting counterparts receiving rewards for their actions [13]. Since the psychological factors are so varied, there is a need to differentiate certain groups, according to the basic individual features of their aspiration to the so-called PPC ideology.
The hypothesis We propose that PPC ideology resides in people with certain psychological types. Although the dimension of their behavior is very similar, the personality traits of these persons can be divided into three groups. The subjects from the first group are characterized by general traits of one’s personality, such as kindness, empathy, and humanism. This is the true PC – an expression of proper humanistic personality traits, which are developed in a specific kind of environment. The environment would typically manifest positive personal values, such as kindness, peace and understanding. If these values do not grow to be outlandish and grotesque, the individuals who possess them become the finest part of society, the very portrait of decency. Though various personality manifestations are individual and unique, all members of this group share some common characteristics of social and domestic traditions, conditions of upbringing and development in childhood and youth, certain traits of social environment, personality settings, views on professional career that are accepted in the given social circle. Such families combine trendy liberal views with deep personal conservativeness – they tend to be puritans at heart. These families raise their children with care, kindness and mutual respect. From early age they nourish the idea that good forever prevails over evil. Already in childhood, there forms the conception that others have the same notion of
148
A. Neduva et al. / Medical Hypotheses 78 (2012) 146–150
good and evil as you. The very possibility of a different understanding, the possibility that someone might be thinking and acting outside of your perception of good, is ignored, and so there forms a disposition for benevolence, which can sometimes overgrow into piety. A characteristic feature of such families is teaching kids from an early age to enjoy helping those younger than you, while using ‘‘grownup’’ examples of helping the poor and the weak. At the same time there also forms rejection towards those who hurt the weak. The relations in these families are characterized by decency, by intent to see only good and beauty, while avoiding experiences that may be realistic, but unpleasant. Also, there develops the ability to enjoy forgiving those who hurt you or do wrong by you. This aspiration for unconditional forgiveness is nurtured in childhood, later becoming a defining part of the adult personality. More so, an unwillingness to recognize and to actively defend oneself against danger forms. Passive aversion is preferred, avoiding not only participation, but even presence in dangerous or simply unpleasant situations. From there gradually develops the need to ignore the very fact of aggression’s existence, both in individuals as in whole groups. Later on, entering adulthood, this leads to not accepting that any political group, party or organization may be radical and aggressive. Raised surrounded by care, kindness and mutual respect, these individuals cannot imagine a different kind of social relations, or they simply avoid discussing ‘‘distasteful’’ matters. PPC became fashionable in these circles, a sort of need to appear kind, a certain conformism is formed: ‘‘this is acceptable’’, ‘‘this is how it should be’’. One cannot hold a different opinion. The trait of protecting those younger and weaker, which has been nurtured since childhood and gradually became exaggerated, leads to feelings of guilt towards the poor and the oppressed. Ideas of sinfulness emerge, notions that richness and well-being are sinful. The mentality of these individuals contains (sometimes secretly) a guilt complex towards the poor and the oppressed, while those poor and oppressed ones (of course, we’re not speaking of a whole other category of decent people in trouble), may be causing the situation they are in, and their mentality does not contain traits of kindness and hard-work, but more likely carry parasitical and aggressive settings. This shows that positive, adequate personality traits, nurtured within liberal and democratic society, when manifested to excess and turned to grotesque, can become not only dangerous for those who possess the positive traits, but also for the weaker societies, as they are being denied of orientation towards hard-work and achievement of economic prosperity by making an effort, not expecting others to take care of you. The tendency to enjoy helping those younger and weaker, grafted in childhood, turns into exaggerated and distorted altruism in ones, and leads to parasitical and aggressive tendencies in others. For this type of personality, PPC offers self-sacrifice for the wellbeing of thy neighbor, but unfortunately, more often it turns into perverted self-sacrifice, which often leads to deriving satisfaction from giving – despite negative consequences. Sometimes this tendency carries a certain egoistic feature. The personality can no longer separate itself from the ability to give out such aid. In these cases, altruism turns into egotistical self-assertion. This is why PPC became fashionable; this is why people are forming all sorts of ‘PC’ associations, parties, seminars, aid missions, etc. The ideas and the personality traits that were nurtured since childhood are being cleverly used by others, turning PC into a shield that covers some very non-PC and even dangerous goals. Today’s media, with its often bias tendencies, extols the role of PPC and relishes the necessity ‘‘to overcome the suffering of masses’’, striking a chord in the hearts of PPC personality traits de-
scribed above. The term ‘‘hyper-morality’’ is used to form self-sacrifice. In cases like these, positive personality traits, exaggerated to a point of grotesque, exploited for specific purposes, make the PPC position not only harmful, but suicidal. The subjects from the second group are less numerous, yet still a very important group of personalities with PPC aspirations is defined by very different personality traits. These people are usually artistic, theatrical, vain and narcissistic, poseurs who need attention at any cost. Their views on life in general, as well as on questions of PC are characterized by colorfulness, picturesqueness, emotional satiety. Their parents are often people of public creative professions, such as actors, artists, and journalists. Their children, who will grow up to be activists, are raised being used to public interest. From an early age they become accustomed to recognition of their talent. They are asked to recite poems, sing songs for company of adults, who, sincerely or not, would show how awestricken they are by the unique, supposedly unparallel giftedness of the child. Later, in adolescence, they participate in creative activities, such as singing, painting, acting. Doing so, they must always be the center of attention. If they take part in some mass activity, they organize it; if they sing in a choir, they’re doing the solo; if they act in a play, they demand leading roles and turn down smaller parts. They simply cannot be unnoticed. As they reach adulthood, the concept of their supposed uniqueness is reinforced, in cases when life and career are going well. But in cases when hardships and obstacles shatter their dreams and ideals, they develop a ‘‘discontentment with life’’, feeling that they’re misunderstood and condemned to live out ordinary lives, just like everyone else. This leads to a fixation on thoughts of being ‘‘misunderstood’’ and ‘‘unappreciated’’. This feeling of abnormality, combined with nurtured narcissism, dramatic and theatrical traits, a desire for notoriety, forms the overpowering need to ‘‘show yourself’’ by any means, to ‘‘stand out’’, ‘‘not to be a face in the crowd’’. Gradually, the setting for achieving fame and notoriety at any means is fixed. With favorable circumstances and proper skills, they might become famous artists, writers, scientists, activists. But in those who were perhaps less strong-willed, who were less lucky, or lacked the patience and concentration to succeed, this setting of achieving fame at any cost leads straight to peace and protest marches, picket lines and demonstrations. Here they can much more easily satisfy their need for attention. Carried on the wave of popularity, they no longer consider any moral criteria. Not being able to find acceptance in an ordinary environment set on contributory labor, these individuals are driven by their conscious or non-conscious need of popularity up to a point of active collaboration with forces hostile to their own people, their own society. This ‘‘Herostratus complex’’, pushes them under the wing of those who seek to destroy them, into the terrorist groups. Insecure people who fail to receive acceptance from their own environment seek any kind of acceptance and notoriety, good or bad. This desire to use PPC ideology to create provocation, combined with relentless need of self-assertion, is what characterizes this group of narcissistic types. The difference between the first version of PPC formation and the second one, is that the idealistic PPC, as a manifestation of the generally correct personality traits is formed since childhood, while in the second version PPC is formed on basis of the already formed personality, which is characterized by desire for self-demonstration and self-assertion. These individuals, driven by their theatrical tendencies, are acting out a role in a play written for them by PPC adepts, the plot of which speaks of a fight for ideals of equality and justice, which they understand very tendentiously, completely ignoring the need for truthfulness.
A. Neduva et al. / Medical Hypotheses 78 (2012) 146–150
In the subjects from the third group, the psychological mechanism of PPC activity reflects even more strongly, but quite similar to the previous group, yet with its own distinctiveness. This group, conjoined with the previous variety of demonstrative–theatrical PPC, uses mystical and religious contents as part of their propaganda of PPC activity. Along with truly religious people, there are pseudo-religious groups of PPC adepts, who take advantage of the special psychological settings in those who follow some of the more radical mystic-religious beliefs and mystic-philosophical ways of thought. In these cases, we see a hyperbolic, even caricature-like understanding of the different postulates of spirituality and goodwill, detached from reality. The well-known propaganda of not fighting evil with violence is elevated here to a state of absurd. These individuals are usually brought up in radical religious communities, unusual branches and variations of existing religions, lead by unconventional religious authorities, often with totalitarian attributes. The insertion and distribution of PPC ideas in such environments have got a solid psychological ground, as these individuals already believe in ideas of sinfulness and the need for individual and collective atonement. Redemption through suicide is part of the propaganda. Same ideas are used to justify historical horrors, mass-murders and genocides such as the Holocaust. Rabkin writes in his book: ‘‘The Hangman – whether it’s Pharaoh, Amalek, or Hitler, is nothing but an instrument of divine punishment, a very cruel means to bring Jews towards repentance’’ [15]. Similar ideas are heard from leaders and ideologists of several pseudo-religious (often totalitarian) sects in many countries. In USA, Germany, Russia there are waves of group suicides aimed to ‘‘pay for sins’’. In light of these tragic cases, one that seems especially grotesque, is the radical Judaism branch called Neturei Karta, also a sect of sorts, which calls for destruction of their own state of Israel, which was created for them by ‘‘people of no divine blessing’’. The truly religious adepts of this movement do not usually resort to active protests of any kind, as they trust God to resolve their problems. But those who are connected with PPC ideology use provocation and are even befriending hostile elements. Those adepts have gone so far in their PPC conception, that not only do they encourage believers to fight against their own country, but even organize gestures of amity towards enemies of their own country. These examples show how exaggerated pseudo-religious conceptions can also serve as a psychological basis for insertion, distribution, distortion and speculation of PPC ideas, as they reach the stage of perverted self-denial and self-destruction.
Consequences of the hypothesis and discussion We looked into the basic psychological variations of personality traits and the mechanisms of their formation, that promote not only insertion, but rapid distribution of modern PPC ideology. In conclusion, we must state that our times are characterized by the triumphant March of principles of democracy and equality. This principle reached its culmination point in the doctrine and ideology of PC. Ionin writes: ‘‘We may say that PC and modern democracy are tied closely together, one cannot exist without the other’’ [12], page 17. Distribution of liberalism and democracy, despite the fact that not all societies are ready to receive it, explains the formation of the modern conception of PPC. Yet unfortunately such wide current distribution of those ideas cannot be explained only by increase in humanistic values, but often by greed and other
149
interests. In Western countries there are a number of economical interests (such as oil), demographical (the rapidly increasing immigrant population), also fear of radical movements and other factors that explain the wide and rapid propagation of PPC ideology, which provide the West some temporary security by ways of appeasing the enemy and offering other countries as sacrifice. Political Correctness can have deadly consequences, even for an army at war. In November 2009, US Army Psychologist Nidal Malik Hassan killed 13 people (one pregnant) by opening fire on a US Army base, all while shouting ‘‘Allah akbar’’ (‘‘God is Great’’) in Arabic, a misappropriation of Muslim prayers, but used in the 9/11 attacks). It happened in a military base. Unbelievably, the Pentagon knew of Hassan’s emails to radical imams, and his increasingly bizarre policy recommendations for Muslims serving in the US armed forces. Many coworkers and colleagues referred to him as a ‘‘ticking time bomb.’’ Red flags appeared everywhere showing that Hassan was seriously conflicted about being a Muslim in the US military, but the Army’s middle management ignored these signals because they were ‘‘afraid to be accused of racial profiling.’’ That PC fear may have cost 13 people their lives [16]. Alongside those factors, there are also personal psychological factors that come to play in certain groups of people, who get swept by PPC ideology. Their mechanisms are not homogenous, and can appear separately or combined, forming the different variations of PPC personality. Among those captivated by PPC ideology we can highlight these three groups: 1. The Ideological PPC, nurtured in a specific environment, manifests itself as a hyperbolized and even distorted general correctness, accentuated humanistic ideals of non-violent resistance to evil. 2. The Demonstrative–theatrical PPC, which has an attentionseeking, pretentious feature, and manifests in histrionic and narcissistic personalities as a tool of self-assertion, demonstration of their uniqueness even at a cost of harming their own environment (the ‘‘Herostratus Complex’’). 3. The Pseudo-Religious PPC, when fanatical religious beliefs are used for propagation of individual and collective atonement, categorically rejecting any right for self-defense, stating that solution to the conflict can only come from higher powers. This is the general overview on the psychological mechanisms of today’s usage of the PPC. Revealing those mechanisms allows us to look into the reasons of such widespread and rapid insertion of this conception. Unfortunately, this causes the expiry of the unrealized and rational progressive pathos, which was the foundation of the idea of correctness in general and political correctness in particular, leading PC into the realm of demagogy and falsehoods, endangering the very principles of life and society.
Financial/non-financial disclosures No financial arrangements have been made; the authors have not received significant payments of other sorts.
Conflict of interest No significant conflicts of interest exist with any companies/ organizations whose products or services may be discussed in this article. All authors have contributed substantially to the scientific process leading up to publishing of this paper. All authors have ap-
150
A. Neduva et al. / Medical Hypotheses 78 (2012) 146–150
proved the manuscript in its final form and they have consented to its publication.
References [1] USS Court. Chisholm v. State of GA, 2 US. 419; 1793. http:// www.caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=2&page=419 [accessed 26.07.11]. [2] Newman F. The journals of Arnold Bennett. Hesperides Press; 2006. [3] Perry R. A short history of the term ‘politically correct’. In: Aufderheide P, editor. Beyond PC: toward a politics of understanding. Saint Paul, Minnesota: Graywolf Press; 1992. [4] Schultz DL. To reclaim a legacy of diversity: analyzing the ‘‘Political Correctness’’ debates in higher education. New York: National Council for Research on Women; 1993. [5] Browne A. The retreat of reason: political correctness and the corruption of public debate in modern Britain. London: Civitas; 2006. [6] Atkinson P. The tyranny of political correctness; 2007..
[7] Kelly RJ, Rubal-Lopez A. Political correctness and mutticulturalism: Who supports PC? J Social Distress Homeless 1996:111–37. [8] Fraser S, editor. The bell curve wars: race intelligence and the future of America. New York: Basic Books; 1995. [9] Messent P. The Cambridge introduction to mark twain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007. [10] Epstein BL. Political correctness and collective powerlessness. Soc Rev 1991;21:14–35. [11] Bolz N. Diskurs uber die Ungleicheit. Ein Anti-Rousseau. Munchen; 2009. [12] Ionin LG. Obschestvo Men’shinstv: Politcorrectnost’ v Sovremennom Mire. [Society of Minorities: Politcorrectness in the Modern World], Moscow; 2010. [13] Kacmar KM, Ferris GR. Politics at work: sharpening the focus of political behavior in organizations – office politics, business horizons, July–August; 1993. [14] Ammeter AP, Douglas C, Gardner WL, Hochwarter WA, Ferris GR. Toward a political theory of leadership. Leader Quarter 2002;13:751–96. [15] Rabkin Y. Evrei Protiv Evreya. Iudeiskoe Soprotivlenie Sionizmu. [Jew against Jew. Judaic Opposition Zionism], Tekst, Moscow; 2009. [16] Karlson J. 10 Ridiculous cases of political correctness; 2010.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Medical Hypotheses journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mehy
Perverse political correctness and personality traits Alexander Neduva, Michael Kanevsky, Vladimir Lerner ⇑ Division of Psychiatry, Ministry of Health Mental Health Center, Faculty of Health Sciences Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 9 August 2011 Accepted 11 October 2011
a b s t r a c t Political correctness (PC) commonly refers to a mutual respect for the views and beliefs of others, including enemies, and while differing in opinions, the willfulness to overcome the existing disagreements, and to prevent animosity. To date however, the term PC is sometimes used in a perverted sense aimed for disintegration of solidarity in a society, thus giving birth to a new powerful conceptual tool, the perverse political correctness (PPC). PPC ideology resides in people with certain psychological types. We assume that there are basic psychological variations of personality traits and the mechanisms of their formation that promote not only insertion, but rapid distribution of modern PPC ideology. Although the dimension of their behavior is very similar, the personality traits of these persons can be divided into three groups: The subjects from the first group are characterized by general traits of one’s personality, such as kindness, empathy, and humanism. This is true PC – an expression of proper humanistic personality traits, which are developed in a specific kind of environment. The subjects from second group are usually artistic, theatrical, vain and narcissistic, poseurs who need attention at any cost. Their views on life in general, as well as on questions of PC are characterized by colorfulness, picturesqueness and emotional satiety. The subjects from the third group, conjoined with the previous variety of demonstrative–theatrical PC, use mystical and religious contents as part of their propaganda of PPC activity. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
‘‘It is easier to fight for one’s principles than to live up to them.’’ Alfred Adler
Introduction During the last few years the term ‘‘political correctness’’ became one of the most significant points of reference in society’s life and activity. The term ‘‘politically correct’’ have been already found as early as the 18th century in various contexts, which may not relate to the current terminology [1,2]. From 1970s, the New Left, feminists, and progressives began to use this term ironically, as ‘‘a guard against their own orthodoxy in social change efforts’’ [3,4]. Widespread use of the phrase ‘‘politically correct’’ and its derivatives began when it was adopted as a pejorative term by the political right in the 1990s. Politically correct or political correctness (PC) is a complex topic. Though to this day there is no clear definition for this term, it commonly refers to mutual respect for the views and beliefs of others, enemies included, and, while differing in opinions, strive and willfulness to overcome the existing disagreements, and to ⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Be’er-Sheva Mental Health Center, PO Box 4600, Be’er-Sheva 84170, Israel. Tel.: +972 8 6401408; fax: +972 8 6401491. E-mail address: [email protected] (V. Lerner). 0306-9877/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2011.10.013
prevent animosity. In theory, PC should be the main condition for not accepting cruelty and aggression in conflict situations. There are some definitions of this phenomenon. According to Browne [5] page 4, ‘‘political correctness is an ideology that classifies certain groups of people as victims in need of protection from criticism, and which makes believers feel that no dissent should be tolerated’’ or ‘‘political correctness is the dictatorship of virtue’’ [5], page 7. According to Atkinson’s opinion, PC is the communal tyranny that erupted in the 1980s. It was a spontaneous declaration that particular ideas, expressions and behavior, which were then legal, should be forbidden by law, and people who transgressed should be punished [6]. According to Kelly and Rubal-Lopez [7], PC is ‘‘the process of making judgments from the vantage point of a particular ideology.’’ In the early stages of forming, the concept of PC played, no doubt, a positive role, as it meant the development of ideas of humanism and tolerance, opposing a prolonged period of animosity, cruelty and mutual killing. The central uses of the term relate to particular issues of race, gender, disability, ethnicity, sexual preference, culture and worldviews, and encompass both the language in which issues are discussed and the viewpoints that are expressed [8]. PC can be expressed in many ways, such as in social media and press, in some cases the attempt to be always ‘‘politically correct’’ may alter the original writings of some authors. For example, in a
A. Neduva et al. / Medical Hypotheses 78 (2012) 146–150
new edition of Mark Twain’s ‘‘The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn’’, the editor has replaced all appearances of the word ‘‘nigger’’ with ‘‘slave’’, and also edited use of the slur ‘‘injun’’ [9]. Furthermore, lately there seems to be a tendency to manipulate the term ‘‘political correctness’’, even to misuse it, in order to obtain benefits for some and to oppress others. PC reflects the humanistic, progressive tendencies of society’s growth. It should never take form of passive adaptiveness, of sheer conformism for the acceptable norms of life. PC is based on mutual acceptance of the existing order of things, and mutual understanding, with a flexible approach to viewing situations, with a comprehension of the political and social values, without rigid, unsparing settings and stereotypical thinking, allowing amiable, non-aggressive and constructive criticism of each of the opponent sides. The modern day PC that grew from ideas of humanism, ideas of non-violent opposition that were once conceived by genius humanists (such as Rousseau, Voltaire, Gandy, Roerich, Tolstoy and others), was formed in a particular stage of human development, after suffering through many wars, cataclysms, crises, etc. It is well known that social ideas are planted by ideologists and take over the public only when the masses are ready to receive those ideas. In order that the masses could accept those ideas and be spanned by them, there is a need to form not only the appropriate social-political environment, but also suitable psychological settings. Yet in present day, the term PC is sometimes used in a perverted sense aimed for disintegration of solidarity in society. Those who manipulate the term PC use it as a political-psychological maneuver, designed to sabotage the ideological base of their political opponents, to crush their self-conviction, to reduce political stability, moral strength, and the political, social and any other form of activity of the masses, in order to push them under the influence of the opposite side. The final goal of using PC that way is shifting the mass consciousness from contentment within their side, to discontent and willingness to protest or even take destructive actions [10], thus giving birth to a new powerful conceptual tool, the perverse political correctness (PPC). Along with the socio-economic factors, there is another underestimated and under-analyzed psychological factor in the expansion of PPC – its exaggeration and even distortion, which can lead to the self-destruction of Western society. This factor is the fuel that makes PPC into an ideal, which humanity is allegedly supposed to endeavor, while ignoring the fact of that the very essence of this potentially progressive occurrence was perverted by modern politicians. PPC today became a universal demand, a norm of social living, and as such it evens out the means for its achievement, and ignores the unquestionable need to keep the principles of mutual, nonbiased, and if not benevolent, at least respectful attitude towards others’ views. PPC does not strive towards truth or rightfulness. The truth simply does not concern it. Its goal is to guarantee tolerance or acceptance even for that, or who, is blatantly deceptive, or even untruthful. The peculiarity of PC is depicted in this once popular aphorism by Voltaire: ‘‘I disagree with your point of view, but I would die defending your right to express it!’’ The main principle of PPC stands in absolute indifference to the truth. According to the German philosopher Bolz [11], within the PPC ideology, the Western civilization detaches itself from the concept of truth, which was laid in its very fundament. This rejection of truthfulness by PPC is also clearly stated by a well-known modern Russian sociologist Ionin: ‘‘ we are not talking about equality in the eyes of the law, but about compulsory acknowledgment and respect. This demand seems reasonable at first glance, but in reality it’s not only impossible to apply, but also contradicts common sense and elementary logic’’ [12], page 23.
147
The Islamic fundamentalism is the foremost factor, the common denominator that ties all major terrorist acts of our time, from 9/11 to Times Square, from Moscow subway to London subway, and so on. The epicenter of the modern Islamic terrorism is Israel, a country that leads defensive wars throughout its existence. Opposing all facts, many European leftwing organizations, political parties and politicians insist on not equating reasons for terrorism in the West with reasons for terrorism in Israel. Against all reason and logic they not only refuse to justify any sort of defense on Israel’s part, but take a steady position that unquestionably supports the struggle against occupation, achieved by all means. Doing so, the European Left delegitimizes Israel and legitimizes terror. The actions of Islamic extremists, however horrible crimes they may commit, do not evoke any protest from those PPC adherents, leftwing human rights defenders from all over the world and even from Israel, which is especially unnatural. Those ‘‘defenders of rights and freedoms’’ do not even see the intent for genocide in those who speak of ‘‘drowning Jews in the sea’’ and ‘‘wiping Israel off the map’’. Data about terrorist acts victims is ignored, though those who were killed and injured in exploding buses or by rockets falling on their streets had the same full right for life and freedom. Their basic rights are trampled, but any resistance is acclaimed as crime and violation of PC. The presence of certain personal characteristics, such as gender and Machiavellianism (doing anything to succeed), may increase the potential to engage in political behavior. But the environment in which individuals interact may have just as strong an influence. For example, if people feel they will be able to secure a valued outcome by engaging in political behavior, they may be more inclined to do so. Political activity will be high in organizations that reward those who engage in political behavior [13,14]. Those who did not use political behaviors and did not receive a reward may decide to use political behaviors in the future because they saw their politically acting counterparts receiving rewards for their actions [13]. Since the psychological factors are so varied, there is a need to differentiate certain groups, according to the basic individual features of their aspiration to the so-called PPC ideology.
The hypothesis We propose that PPC ideology resides in people with certain psychological types. Although the dimension of their behavior is very similar, the personality traits of these persons can be divided into three groups. The subjects from the first group are characterized by general traits of one’s personality, such as kindness, empathy, and humanism. This is the true PC – an expression of proper humanistic personality traits, which are developed in a specific kind of environment. The environment would typically manifest positive personal values, such as kindness, peace and understanding. If these values do not grow to be outlandish and grotesque, the individuals who possess them become the finest part of society, the very portrait of decency. Though various personality manifestations are individual and unique, all members of this group share some common characteristics of social and domestic traditions, conditions of upbringing and development in childhood and youth, certain traits of social environment, personality settings, views on professional career that are accepted in the given social circle. Such families combine trendy liberal views with deep personal conservativeness – they tend to be puritans at heart. These families raise their children with care, kindness and mutual respect. From early age they nourish the idea that good forever prevails over evil. Already in childhood, there forms the conception that others have the same notion of
148
A. Neduva et al. / Medical Hypotheses 78 (2012) 146–150
good and evil as you. The very possibility of a different understanding, the possibility that someone might be thinking and acting outside of your perception of good, is ignored, and so there forms a disposition for benevolence, which can sometimes overgrow into piety. A characteristic feature of such families is teaching kids from an early age to enjoy helping those younger than you, while using ‘‘grownup’’ examples of helping the poor and the weak. At the same time there also forms rejection towards those who hurt the weak. The relations in these families are characterized by decency, by intent to see only good and beauty, while avoiding experiences that may be realistic, but unpleasant. Also, there develops the ability to enjoy forgiving those who hurt you or do wrong by you. This aspiration for unconditional forgiveness is nurtured in childhood, later becoming a defining part of the adult personality. More so, an unwillingness to recognize and to actively defend oneself against danger forms. Passive aversion is preferred, avoiding not only participation, but even presence in dangerous or simply unpleasant situations. From there gradually develops the need to ignore the very fact of aggression’s existence, both in individuals as in whole groups. Later on, entering adulthood, this leads to not accepting that any political group, party or organization may be radical and aggressive. Raised surrounded by care, kindness and mutual respect, these individuals cannot imagine a different kind of social relations, or they simply avoid discussing ‘‘distasteful’’ matters. PPC became fashionable in these circles, a sort of need to appear kind, a certain conformism is formed: ‘‘this is acceptable’’, ‘‘this is how it should be’’. One cannot hold a different opinion. The trait of protecting those younger and weaker, which has been nurtured since childhood and gradually became exaggerated, leads to feelings of guilt towards the poor and the oppressed. Ideas of sinfulness emerge, notions that richness and well-being are sinful. The mentality of these individuals contains (sometimes secretly) a guilt complex towards the poor and the oppressed, while those poor and oppressed ones (of course, we’re not speaking of a whole other category of decent people in trouble), may be causing the situation they are in, and their mentality does not contain traits of kindness and hard-work, but more likely carry parasitical and aggressive settings. This shows that positive, adequate personality traits, nurtured within liberal and democratic society, when manifested to excess and turned to grotesque, can become not only dangerous for those who possess the positive traits, but also for the weaker societies, as they are being denied of orientation towards hard-work and achievement of economic prosperity by making an effort, not expecting others to take care of you. The tendency to enjoy helping those younger and weaker, grafted in childhood, turns into exaggerated and distorted altruism in ones, and leads to parasitical and aggressive tendencies in others. For this type of personality, PPC offers self-sacrifice for the wellbeing of thy neighbor, but unfortunately, more often it turns into perverted self-sacrifice, which often leads to deriving satisfaction from giving – despite negative consequences. Sometimes this tendency carries a certain egoistic feature. The personality can no longer separate itself from the ability to give out such aid. In these cases, altruism turns into egotistical self-assertion. This is why PPC became fashionable; this is why people are forming all sorts of ‘PC’ associations, parties, seminars, aid missions, etc. The ideas and the personality traits that were nurtured since childhood are being cleverly used by others, turning PC into a shield that covers some very non-PC and even dangerous goals. Today’s media, with its often bias tendencies, extols the role of PPC and relishes the necessity ‘‘to overcome the suffering of masses’’, striking a chord in the hearts of PPC personality traits de-
scribed above. The term ‘‘hyper-morality’’ is used to form self-sacrifice. In cases like these, positive personality traits, exaggerated to a point of grotesque, exploited for specific purposes, make the PPC position not only harmful, but suicidal. The subjects from the second group are less numerous, yet still a very important group of personalities with PPC aspirations is defined by very different personality traits. These people are usually artistic, theatrical, vain and narcissistic, poseurs who need attention at any cost. Their views on life in general, as well as on questions of PC are characterized by colorfulness, picturesqueness, emotional satiety. Their parents are often people of public creative professions, such as actors, artists, and journalists. Their children, who will grow up to be activists, are raised being used to public interest. From an early age they become accustomed to recognition of their talent. They are asked to recite poems, sing songs for company of adults, who, sincerely or not, would show how awestricken they are by the unique, supposedly unparallel giftedness of the child. Later, in adolescence, they participate in creative activities, such as singing, painting, acting. Doing so, they must always be the center of attention. If they take part in some mass activity, they organize it; if they sing in a choir, they’re doing the solo; if they act in a play, they demand leading roles and turn down smaller parts. They simply cannot be unnoticed. As they reach adulthood, the concept of their supposed uniqueness is reinforced, in cases when life and career are going well. But in cases when hardships and obstacles shatter their dreams and ideals, they develop a ‘‘discontentment with life’’, feeling that they’re misunderstood and condemned to live out ordinary lives, just like everyone else. This leads to a fixation on thoughts of being ‘‘misunderstood’’ and ‘‘unappreciated’’. This feeling of abnormality, combined with nurtured narcissism, dramatic and theatrical traits, a desire for notoriety, forms the overpowering need to ‘‘show yourself’’ by any means, to ‘‘stand out’’, ‘‘not to be a face in the crowd’’. Gradually, the setting for achieving fame and notoriety at any means is fixed. With favorable circumstances and proper skills, they might become famous artists, writers, scientists, activists. But in those who were perhaps less strong-willed, who were less lucky, or lacked the patience and concentration to succeed, this setting of achieving fame at any cost leads straight to peace and protest marches, picket lines and demonstrations. Here they can much more easily satisfy their need for attention. Carried on the wave of popularity, they no longer consider any moral criteria. Not being able to find acceptance in an ordinary environment set on contributory labor, these individuals are driven by their conscious or non-conscious need of popularity up to a point of active collaboration with forces hostile to their own people, their own society. This ‘‘Herostratus complex’’, pushes them under the wing of those who seek to destroy them, into the terrorist groups. Insecure people who fail to receive acceptance from their own environment seek any kind of acceptance and notoriety, good or bad. This desire to use PPC ideology to create provocation, combined with relentless need of self-assertion, is what characterizes this group of narcissistic types. The difference between the first version of PPC formation and the second one, is that the idealistic PPC, as a manifestation of the generally correct personality traits is formed since childhood, while in the second version PPC is formed on basis of the already formed personality, which is characterized by desire for self-demonstration and self-assertion. These individuals, driven by their theatrical tendencies, are acting out a role in a play written for them by PPC adepts, the plot of which speaks of a fight for ideals of equality and justice, which they understand very tendentiously, completely ignoring the need for truthfulness.
A. Neduva et al. / Medical Hypotheses 78 (2012) 146–150
In the subjects from the third group, the psychological mechanism of PPC activity reflects even more strongly, but quite similar to the previous group, yet with its own distinctiveness. This group, conjoined with the previous variety of demonstrative–theatrical PPC, uses mystical and religious contents as part of their propaganda of PPC activity. Along with truly religious people, there are pseudo-religious groups of PPC adepts, who take advantage of the special psychological settings in those who follow some of the more radical mystic-religious beliefs and mystic-philosophical ways of thought. In these cases, we see a hyperbolic, even caricature-like understanding of the different postulates of spirituality and goodwill, detached from reality. The well-known propaganda of not fighting evil with violence is elevated here to a state of absurd. These individuals are usually brought up in radical religious communities, unusual branches and variations of existing religions, lead by unconventional religious authorities, often with totalitarian attributes. The insertion and distribution of PPC ideas in such environments have got a solid psychological ground, as these individuals already believe in ideas of sinfulness and the need for individual and collective atonement. Redemption through suicide is part of the propaganda. Same ideas are used to justify historical horrors, mass-murders and genocides such as the Holocaust. Rabkin writes in his book: ‘‘The Hangman – whether it’s Pharaoh, Amalek, or Hitler, is nothing but an instrument of divine punishment, a very cruel means to bring Jews towards repentance’’ [15]. Similar ideas are heard from leaders and ideologists of several pseudo-religious (often totalitarian) sects in many countries. In USA, Germany, Russia there are waves of group suicides aimed to ‘‘pay for sins’’. In light of these tragic cases, one that seems especially grotesque, is the radical Judaism branch called Neturei Karta, also a sect of sorts, which calls for destruction of their own state of Israel, which was created for them by ‘‘people of no divine blessing’’. The truly religious adepts of this movement do not usually resort to active protests of any kind, as they trust God to resolve their problems. But those who are connected with PPC ideology use provocation and are even befriending hostile elements. Those adepts have gone so far in their PPC conception, that not only do they encourage believers to fight against their own country, but even organize gestures of amity towards enemies of their own country. These examples show how exaggerated pseudo-religious conceptions can also serve as a psychological basis for insertion, distribution, distortion and speculation of PPC ideas, as they reach the stage of perverted self-denial and self-destruction.
Consequences of the hypothesis and discussion We looked into the basic psychological variations of personality traits and the mechanisms of their formation, that promote not only insertion, but rapid distribution of modern PPC ideology. In conclusion, we must state that our times are characterized by the triumphant March of principles of democracy and equality. This principle reached its culmination point in the doctrine and ideology of PC. Ionin writes: ‘‘We may say that PC and modern democracy are tied closely together, one cannot exist without the other’’ [12], page 17. Distribution of liberalism and democracy, despite the fact that not all societies are ready to receive it, explains the formation of the modern conception of PPC. Yet unfortunately such wide current distribution of those ideas cannot be explained only by increase in humanistic values, but often by greed and other
149
interests. In Western countries there are a number of economical interests (such as oil), demographical (the rapidly increasing immigrant population), also fear of radical movements and other factors that explain the wide and rapid propagation of PPC ideology, which provide the West some temporary security by ways of appeasing the enemy and offering other countries as sacrifice. Political Correctness can have deadly consequences, even for an army at war. In November 2009, US Army Psychologist Nidal Malik Hassan killed 13 people (one pregnant) by opening fire on a US Army base, all while shouting ‘‘Allah akbar’’ (‘‘God is Great’’) in Arabic, a misappropriation of Muslim prayers, but used in the 9/11 attacks). It happened in a military base. Unbelievably, the Pentagon knew of Hassan’s emails to radical imams, and his increasingly bizarre policy recommendations for Muslims serving in the US armed forces. Many coworkers and colleagues referred to him as a ‘‘ticking time bomb.’’ Red flags appeared everywhere showing that Hassan was seriously conflicted about being a Muslim in the US military, but the Army’s middle management ignored these signals because they were ‘‘afraid to be accused of racial profiling.’’ That PC fear may have cost 13 people their lives [16]. Alongside those factors, there are also personal psychological factors that come to play in certain groups of people, who get swept by PPC ideology. Their mechanisms are not homogenous, and can appear separately or combined, forming the different variations of PPC personality. Among those captivated by PPC ideology we can highlight these three groups: 1. The Ideological PPC, nurtured in a specific environment, manifests itself as a hyperbolized and even distorted general correctness, accentuated humanistic ideals of non-violent resistance to evil. 2. The Demonstrative–theatrical PPC, which has an attentionseeking, pretentious feature, and manifests in histrionic and narcissistic personalities as a tool of self-assertion, demonstration of their uniqueness even at a cost of harming their own environment (the ‘‘Herostratus Complex’’). 3. The Pseudo-Religious PPC, when fanatical religious beliefs are used for propagation of individual and collective atonement, categorically rejecting any right for self-defense, stating that solution to the conflict can only come from higher powers. This is the general overview on the psychological mechanisms of today’s usage of the PPC. Revealing those mechanisms allows us to look into the reasons of such widespread and rapid insertion of this conception. Unfortunately, this causes the expiry of the unrealized and rational progressive pathos, which was the foundation of the idea of correctness in general and political correctness in particular, leading PC into the realm of demagogy and falsehoods, endangering the very principles of life and society.
Financial/non-financial disclosures No financial arrangements have been made; the authors have not received significant payments of other sorts.
Conflict of interest No significant conflicts of interest exist with any companies/ organizations whose products or services may be discussed in this article. All authors have contributed substantially to the scientific process leading up to publishing of this paper. All authors have ap-
150
A. Neduva et al. / Medical Hypotheses 78 (2012) 146–150
proved the manuscript in its final form and they have consented to its publication.
References [1] USS Court. Chisholm v. State of GA, 2 US. 419; 1793. http:// www.caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=2&page=419 [accessed 26.07.11]. [2] Newman F. The journals of Arnold Bennett. Hesperides Press; 2006. [3] Perry R. A short history of the term ‘politically correct’. In: Aufderheide P, editor. Beyond PC: toward a politics of understanding. Saint Paul, Minnesota: Graywolf Press; 1992. [4] Schultz DL. To reclaim a legacy of diversity: analyzing the ‘‘Political Correctness’’ debates in higher education. New York: National Council for Research on Women; 1993. [5] Browne A. The retreat of reason: political correctness and the corruption of public debate in modern Britain. London: Civitas; 2006. [6] Atkinson P. The tyranny of political correctness; 2007.
[7] Kelly RJ, Rubal-Lopez A. Political correctness and mutticulturalism: Who supports PC? J Social Distress Homeless 1996:111–37. [8] Fraser S, editor. The bell curve wars: race intelligence and the future of America. New York: Basic Books; 1995. [9] Messent P. The Cambridge introduction to mark twain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007. [10] Epstein BL. Political correctness and collective powerlessness. Soc Rev 1991;21:14–35. [11] Bolz N. Diskurs uber die Ungleicheit. Ein Anti-Rousseau. Munchen; 2009. [12] Ionin LG. Obschestvo Men’shinstv: Politcorrectnost’ v Sovremennom Mire. [Society of Minorities: Politcorrectness in the Modern World], Moscow; 2010. [13] Kacmar KM, Ferris GR. Politics at work: sharpening the focus of political behavior in organizations – office politics, business horizons, July–August; 1993. [14] Ammeter AP, Douglas C, Gardner WL, Hochwarter WA, Ferris GR. Toward a political theory of leadership. Leader Quarter 2002;13:751–96. [15] Rabkin Y. Evrei Protiv Evreya. Iudeiskoe Soprotivlenie Sionizmu. [Jew against Jew. Judaic Opposition Zionism], Tekst, Moscow; 2009. [16] Karlson J. 10 Ridiculous cases of political correctness; 2010.