To think "politically correct" is one of the most over-used and misused terms around?

[Nennypops]

I keep seeing the term 'politically correct' being used all over the place as a catch-all terms of abuse by people who clearly have no idea what the term means but want to convey that whatever it is that they disapprove is in some way unnecessary, wet, lentil-knitting, left-wing, or even positively harmful.

For the sake of convenience, I'll adopt the definition of political correctness given in Wikipedia - "a term that refers to language, ideas, or policies that address perceived or actual discrimination against or alienation of politically, socially or economically disadvantaged groups. The term usually implies that these social considerations are excessive or of a purely "political" nature. These groups most prominently include those defined by gender, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation and disability."

I accept that it can be valid to criticise over-sensitive concerns about discrimination, but I've seen the term used in defence when someone is called out for blatant racism/sexism/homophobia etc and richly deserves it. It usually signals to me, frankly, that the person in question is even more of an a*hole than their original conduct suggested - they are trying to suggest that they are in some way justified and that complaining is ludicrously over-sensitive.

If I see the term incorrectly used in support of what otherwise might be a valid argument, it instantly annoys me and changes the way I view the person using the term. It tends to be used in relation to things which seem to me to be self-evidently beneficial - e.g. breastfeeding, the right to a fair trial, the right of children not to be left with abusive parents, etc. It is also quite often used for things that have no conceivable element of political correctness at all; I once saw it used in relation to the suggestion that it would be an idea to take an umbrella out when it's raining.

Seems to me that it's time to make the term completely redundant. If you find yourself about to use the term "politically correct" just stop, and find some other way of expressing your views.

The terms 'patient' and 'client' are not interchangable in my opinion (as a HCP for what it's worth).

Client indicates a level of choice about one's use of health & social care. However in the days of personal budget holding then effectively you are a chooser and consumer of services.

The original debate around the word 'client' was not related to customer services and consumption but more a case of looking at how the term 'patient' can imply inequality and dependency. Whilst the terms may have become skewed and incorrectly perceived by some, I don't think it is a bad debate to have with yourself and the services in general. Anything that causes us to question how we see patients/clients and therefore how we treat them is not wasted time.

If they showed us the reality of homeless people on TV and called them homeless and showed them sleeping in doorways on streets, then we would rise up and demand that something was done about it. But when they refer to them as "clients", we don't get a sense of the real hardship that affects people.

'Client indicates a level of choice about one's use of health & social care. However in the days of personal budget holding then effectively you are a chooser and consumer of services. '

Fascinating. I think that gets close to what is wrong with it. "Client" implies some level of choice like a customer chooses, i.e. a level of agency. But what choice does a homeless person have? Implying they have choice allows the agencies to be partially absolved of their responsibility.

If personal budget holding meant that one could choose services based upon criteria other than cost effectiveness then yes, it would be no bad thing.

However this is not the case.

Yet the origin of the 'client/patient' debate did have its origins in how people were seen and the rolesand behaviours ascribed and proscriobed to them when in the health care system as opposed to a merely fiscal and more sinister rationale.

Think Talcott Parsons.

'Client indicates a level of choice about one's use of health & social care. However in the days of personal budget holding then effectively you are a chooser and consumer of services. '

Fascinating. I think that gets close to what is wrong with it. "Client" implies some level of choice like a customer chooses, i.e. a level of agency. But what choice does a homeless person have? Implying they have choice allows the agencies to be partially absolved of their responsibility.

But they do have a choice. They can go to the CAB, to a lawyer offering legal aid, to an organisation such as Shelter, etc. Shelter and the lawyer are funded in the same way, but you are saying they should describe the people they deal with differently. I cannot understand why.

I think Claig is really illustrating my original point: she is defining the term "politically correct" in a manner different from the accepted definition, and is in essence using it as a stick to beat those whose views she disagrees with - even when, properly examined, they have nothing to do with political correctness at all.

'But they do have a choice.'

I think this is wrong and bad for society. Next you will say that they have the choice to go to their MP's sugery too.

They need to be housed because they are homeless and society must sort it out. They are not "clients" choosing between apples and oranges. The responsibility of "choice" must not be placed on them, but responsibility and duty should be placed on our public services to solve their problems.

"They need to be housed because they are homeless and society must sort it out. They are not "clients" choosing between apples and oranges. The responsibility of "choice" must not be placed on them, but responsibility and duty should be placed on our public services to solve their problems."

claig, you and I rarely agree, but when we do, we DO.

Well said.

Thanks, tethersend. You may not agree with me often, but I always agree with you

Tethersend, I still think there's a distinction between 'customer' and 'client' - I agree 'customer' would be profoundly disturbing for all kinds of reasons. 'Client' does just mean 'the user of a specific service', though, and I think is comparatively dignified and neutral, and less passive than patient. I've no objection, certainly, to being referred to as a client when I've been seeing a counsellor.

kim147, PC has become an all-encompassing term as its influence has spread over the years. There are people who use it to try and justify being offensive and that is wrong. I am not in favour of offensiveness.

I am saying that PC is more than just being offensive. it is about holding views or expressing views that oppose a political orthodoxy, just as it was in the days of the communists when they branded dissidents as being "philosophically intoxicated" for challenging what they decreed was the political orthodoxy. That is where it becomes a danger to freedom. Eliminating offensiveness and rudeness is a good thing, but eliminating challenges to political orthodoxies carries dangers for liberty.

Political correctness is about what type of language is acceptable and should and should not be used. Language matters because it conveys our thoughts. That is why agencies have changed their use of language to increasingly move to a view of people as "clients". I think it is a move in the wrong direction because it places responsibility on "clients" who become responsible for their "choices" and absolves our public services of serving people as opposed to "clients", which is a term that can be used for companies as well as people.

kim147, there will always be people who oppose the political consensus or political orthodoxy. Solzhenitsyn was one even though they locked him up. They can never stifle all dissent.

So people will always say things that are un-PC.

PC means what is considered "correct" to say, but there will always be people who say "incorrect" things.

The DM is considered politically incorrect by many people who apologise for linking to its articles etc. It is sometimes viewed as an outcast in polite society. But it still exists and is in fact the second highest selling newspaper in the country.

"Tethersend, I still think there's a distinction between 'customer' and 'client' - I agree 'customer' would be profoundly disturbing for all kinds of reasons. 'Client' does just mean 'the user of a specific service', though, and I think is comparatively dignified and neutral, and less passive than patient. I've no objection, certainly, to being referred to as a client when I've been seeing a counsellor."

I understand your point, Burren- but would you therefore be ok with your DC's school referring to you as a client? Because, by that definition, that is what you are. I think the word 'client' has perhaps lost its impact in some areas (counselling is a good example) due to common usage, yet it's implications remain.

But yes, I am getting sidetracked, and this is a discussion about Political Correctness. I was bowled over by claig's flattery

'So is there an issue with people not being allowed to say things in this country?'

In this country you will not be treated as a "traitor" or be "thrown in jail" if you are a global warming sceptic. We are not there and I don't think we will get there because people will not accept it.

So people can say anything. But will they be heard? Are all voices heard or does the media filter what it wants to hear and say? Is there an orthodoxy that prevents the voicing of views?

They need to be housed because they are homeless and society must sort it out. They are not "clients" choosing between apples and oranges. The responsibility of "choice" must not be placed on them, but responsibility and duty should be placed on our public services to solve their problems.

Absolutely right. But the fact is that our public services don't solve their problems, and our esteemed government has demonstrated that this is an extremely low priority for them. I don't understand why you think it is wrong for homeless people then to have a choice as to how they go about getting a roof over their heads and enforcing their legal rights.

I am saying that PC is more than just being offensive. it is about holding views or expressing views that oppose a political orthodoxy, just as it was in the days of the communists when they branded dissidents as being "philosophically intoxicated" for challenging what they decreed was the political orthodoxy. That is where it becomes a danger to freedom. Eliminating offensiveness and rudeness is a good thing, but eliminating challenges to political orthodoxies carries dangers for liberty.

So, I ask again: what challenges to political orthodoxy do you claim are being eliminated by political correctness? Who precisely is being prevented from expressing politically unpopular opinions? You cite the Mail, but manifestly it is not being prevented from expressing its editorial line in any way. No action was taken even when their columnists said that the murder of prostitutes was insignificant, and that a transexual teacher shouldn't be allowed to keep her job.

I find people who use the term 'political correctness' quite controlling. As others have said, I've only ever heard it used (outside this thread) to justify racist/sexist/homophobic comments. My FIL frequently refers to me as politically correct because I don't like women belong in the kitchen jokes and object to him saying all foreigners should be sent home. He does it to belittle my opinions.

I do feel it's been used in a controlling way on this thread. How is it possible to say it's wrong to use terminology to stop people from expressing their opinions, but then say a random professor or environmentalist shouldn't be allowed to express their views because it is politically correct and controlling. Sure, it's dangerous if the prime-minister says people should be jailed for denying global warming but if you are arguing for free speech then an individual with no power should be allowed to express that as his own opinion.

Personally, I don't think free speech is the most important thing. I think some things shouldn't be said. I'm quite happy for social pressure to stop people expressing hate.

I do agree that some word changes are about changing / challenging thought - but I don't think that's a bad thing. The word 'client' is about seeing someone in front of you not as a generic drug addict, homeless person whatever but as the individual it is your job to support. Outside the professional setting, I don't think the word client has any impact. I live in a city, I see the reality of homelessness. I have never once dismissed it on the grounds of them just being clients, and I don't see how someone seeing a person living in a shop doorway could or would.

So people can say anything. But will they be heard? Are all voices heard or does the media filter what it wants to hear and say? Is there an orthodoxy that prevents the voicing of views?

The right of free speech is not a right to demand that you be given a platform for that free speech. In fact, nowadays people have more opportunity than ever to publicise their views with no filter at all.