Does political correctness harm society?

Encyclopedia of Opinion

Question: Does political correctness harm society?
Position‹2 of 2: No, political correctness doesn't harm society
Argument1 of 4›: Language is formative

If we view disparaging speech about disadvantaged people as socially acceptable, we will cultivate disparaging sentiments toward this community, because language influences the way we think.

The argument

As a society, we should require public figures to use politically correct speech, because language is deeply formative. Although we are reluctant to admit this, wider cultural forces influence the way that we think and behave.This is not to say that humans are doomed to follow wider cultural trends, but that the society we are immersed in does have an impact on our actions. Because of this, politically correct speech should be a requirement for public discourse. If we allow people to share sentiments that harbor prejudice without criticism, we allow our culture to spread the popularity of these ideas. Our society's political correctness is not an impediment of free speech or a pointless rule of propriety. It is a measure that discourages widespread affirmation of prejudice.

Premises

[P1]Language is deeply formative—the wider culture we are immersed in shapes how we think and behave, even if it does not wholly determine our actions. [P2] Allowing prejudiced sentiments to circulate without criticism lets a culture spread those ideas, so requiring politically correct speech in public discourse discourages the affirmation of prejudice rather than impeding free speech. [C] Therefore, because language is formative, political correctness does not harm society.

Counter-arguments

As creatures with free will, humans can choose to embrace or reject particular opinions. We can choose our beliefs for ourselves and are not doomed to accept popular ones. In a society with politically correct standards, people will still choose to embrace problematic beliefs. For this reason, political correctness does not prevent prejudice. It simply prevents people from sharing their opinions.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise states the formative claim in a strong and a weak version at once. That culture shapes thought is widely accepted; that it does so strongly enough for public speech norms to alter what people believe is the contested empirical claim, and no evidence is offered for it. The hedge "even if it does not wholly determine our actions" concedes the gap without closing it. [Rejecting P2] The move from criticising prejudice to requiring politically correct speech swaps a voluntary practice for a mandatory one. Criticism is more speech; a requirement is a restriction, and calling it a mere discouragement of "affirmation" does not show the restriction is costless. It also assumes that expression suppressed is belief abandoned, when the opposite outcome is available — sentiment that goes unchallenged precisely because it is no longer said aloud. [Rejecting C] The conclusion answers a narrower question than the one asked. Establishing one benefit of political correctness does not establish that it does no harm; that requires weighing costs against benefits, and the premises examine only one side of the ledger.