Dave's Progress. Chapter 54: Language and Stigma - How PC Should We Be?

As it is the Christmas hols, I thought, as I have time, that I would write down a few yuletide musings that I've been having. These are to do with the vexed question of political correctness and how far we should adhere to it. This is of particular interest to me, as, at The Media Action Group for Mental Health, we often debate what are and what are not appropriate terms to describe mental illness or those experiencing it.
It would seem, from my point of view, as one who has experience of mental ill health and, furthermore, has been labelled with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, that, in comparison with their racial or sexual counterparts, the use of pejorative terms to describe those experiencing mental ill health are still bandied about with relative impunity. It appears to me that while one would never use the "n" word, for example, to describe someone of a particular race, words like "bonkers", "nutcase", "schizo" and "loony" seem still to be used with a certain banal cruelty when describing those with experience of mental illness. This perhaps shows how we are somewhat behind other minority groups in the battle for equitable treatment. And as we are often reminded by various campaigns, mental illness perhaps remains the "last taboo" of society.
Having said this, if my experience is anything to go by, there seems to be a backlash against political correctness in society in general. Certainly, from the older generation of my parents' point of view, constantly being told what we can and cannot say has become something of a bugbear. My father, in particular, hates the imposition of being told what he should, or should not, say. This perhaps, though, stems from the fact that my parents appear to have come from a time when it was wholly acceptable to refer to black people as "darkies", and a woman's place was decidedly in the home. Indeed, before the radical political and social upheaval of the 1960's, it seemed one could say what one wanted without fear of reprisal. It is difficult to explain, then, to that generation, that political correctness is there for a reason. It prevents the use of language which dehumanises its subject and therefore justifies the bigotry and intolerance towards a certain group. Indeed, if language is the prism through which we see the world, if we essentially think though language, as many linguistic philosophers attest, then it is important that we use terms which are not offensive or justify bigoted views.
However, even I can see situations in which political correctness is taken too far. For example, on one occasion, my cousin went in to a shop to buy a "black" coffee and was told, in no uncertain terms, that she could not be served with a "black" coffee, but only a "coffee without milk". Also, there was the incident in which Prince Harry referred to members of the Taliban as "ragheads", for which he was castigated by many. While this may be an offensive term, it does throw up the question that while Harry could possibly be asked to shoot and kill members of the group to which he was referring, he could not call them a "name". One was reminded somewhat, therefore, of Marlon Brando's speech at the end of "Apocalypse Now!", where he states that members of the army can not write the "f" word on a wall for fear of being court marshaled, but then the following day will be asked to kill thousands of Vietnamese by dropping napalm on them, thus questioning the nature of what is truly obscene.
To my mind, such fear of being seen as racist and indeed, seeming misuse of the weapon of political correctness, only justifies those on the right who feel the whole thing to be ridiculous. Then, of course, the situation becomes one of throwing the baby out with the bath water, where we perhaps forget what the point of pc is and return to our old bigoted ways.
Further, there is also the issue of "reclaiming" words, where terms are appropriated and used by the group they were originally intended to deride. The most famous example of this, perhaps, is the word "queer", where certain groups in the homosexual community have adopted this term to describe themselves. There is, for example, "queer theory" and "the new queer cinema". The whole point of this appears to be to attempt to defuse the power relations embodied in the term, "reclaiming" that power for yourself. Lenny Bruce, the famous American comedian, made the remark that if only we used offensive terms often enough, their whole mystique and power would deteriorate. Richard Pryor did a similar thing for race in the '70's by continually using the "n" word to describe his own people. In terms of mental health, we have the group "Mad" Pride, and the radical psychologist Rufus May has said he prefers the term "mad" to many diagnostic labels. Indeed, having, in a recent conversation with someone, described myself as being "mad", I can attest to a certain kick of power brought on by using a term which once would have been used to insult.
Suffice to say then, there are many different approaches to the subject of political correctness, and it is no wonder that those not accustomed to such political wrangling often find the subject mind numbingly complex and indeed, pointless. To my mind, however, there is a point to political correctness, and it is only when it is used in an inappropriate way that it should be scorned. Otherwise we risk returning to the dark days when prejudice often went unchecked and discrimination was just an accepted part of life.
That's all for now from your normal, average, delusional and paranoid man.