The feminist origins of ‘political correctness’: PC terms in JSTOR

Author:

Ullén Magnus1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Stockholm University, Sweden

Abstract

When ‘political correctness’ became a public concern in the USA in the early 1990s, it was almost immediately suggested that the term had long been something of a self-ironic slur in left-wing circles. While a number of people testified to this, the evidence advanced was almost entirely anecdotal, and to date no systematic attempt to gauge the reliability of these testimonies has been made. The present article seeks to rectify this. On the basis of a statistical account of politically correct (PC) terms – ‘politically correct’, ‘politically incorrect’, ‘political correctness’, ‘political incorrectness’ – in the Stockholm University version of the JSTOR database up to 1990, it challenges the received view that the term originated as a left-wing in-group marker which was used self-ironically. The evidence suggests, on the contrary, that the modern understanding of political correctness as a form of censorship first emerged in debates internal to the North American women's liberation movement. The article tables all uses of PC terms in JSTOR up to 1990. Before 1980, PC terms are used very sparingly and practically always non-ironically, with the possible exception of the one area in which the term gains ground in the 1970s: feminism. In JSTOR, prior to 1990, PC terms appear most frequently in feminist activist journal Off Our Backs (OOB). Usage in OOB makes evident that the notion of political correctness in the feminist context at the time was tied to a theoretical discussion concerning female sexuality. Climaxing at an academic conference arranged at Barnard College in 1982, this debate was pivotal for establishing the ironic understanding of political correctness we live with today, including the modern understanding of the concept as a means for the ‘closing of debate’. In sum, evidence suggests that the received view of the origins of the term ‘political correctness’ must be reconsidered.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Reference80 articles.

1. Adler Jerry, Mike Starr, Farai Chideya, et al. (1990) ‘Taking Offense: Is this the New Enlightenment on Campus or the New McCarthyism?’. Newsweek, 24 December, pp. 48–55.

2. Berenson Tessa (2015) ‘Here Are Some of the Tough Questions Megyn Kelly Asked at the Debate’. Time, 6 August. Available at: https://time.com/3988288/republican-debate-megyn-kelly/ (accessed 7 August 2023).

3. Bernstein Richard (1990) ‘The Rising Hegemony of Political Correctness’. New York Times, 28 October, Section 4: 1, 4.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3