Prof. Bhupa P. Dhamala

Regarding the language of political correctness, it would be worthwhile to refer to G.B. Shaw’s Pygmalion (1913). In this play, the playwright presented a character named Henry Higgins, Professor of Phonetics, who would like to improve the English society by teaching the Englishmen how to speak good English. As he saw a street flower-selling girl named Elizabeth Doolittle, he noticed that she spoke cockney dialect, which he thought was bad English. Then he decided to teach her to speak like a duchess in six months so that she could marry a duke. Surprisingly enough, she was able to speak exactly like a duchess in three months.

Prof. Higgins boasted of his task as a grand success, but Miss Doolittle, though a changed lady, was utterly dissatisfied with her achievement and objected to what he made her because she thought she could not become the duchess simply because she could speak like a duchess. Simple though it looks, this incident would raise a significant issue regarding the power of language – can language have the power to alter society? For Prof. Higgins, good language would improve the world. For Miss Doolittle, it wouldn’t. By good English, he meant the type of standard English that the upper-class people would use in daily affairs. By being a duchess, she meant that her socio-economic status should be raised alongside.

Social distinction
What can be the relationship between socio-economic class and language use? The answer to this question engenders another debate whether language is simply a marker of social hierarchy or the former would influence the latter in some way. Social hierarchy can be noticed in several things – age, caste/ethnicity, class, gender, geographical location, ethnic community, political or professional position, and the like. Parents control their children to behave as parents do. Higher caste people assume superior positions over the lower caste people. Upper-class people have more power than the ones who belong to the lower class. Men are supposed to be superior to women. People of certain geography or specific ethnic group are hailed as superior to others.

To some extent, people of higher political or professional positions are revered as superior because they have the power to assume authority. All these hierarchies are established through some degree of power. This system of social hierarchy is maintained because the inferior ones internalise that it is natural for them to behave with those in power as superior. These things are manifest in physical forms, both visible and invisible. They are social markers of distinction between superiors and inferiors. This unnatural hierarchy is a form of social inequality that has been experienced for ages.
Many of us may not have noticed that specific language forms have caused social hierarchy. The way we use different forms of language to address different people indicates this inequality. If we use derogatory terms to the people of inferior positions, for instance, they would feel dishonored, which would continue social inequality.

In most languages, social hierarchy can be noticed in the use of nouns, pronouns, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs. In some languages, people are distinguished with certain nouns. When the Englishmen use the word “Paki”, for instance, they mean that South Asian people are inferior to the white Englishmen. The distinction between men and women is seen in the use of the personal pronouns “he” and “she.” The word “handicapped” is used to talk about people with weaker body parts, or the term “ugly” is used to describe dark-skinned people. Likewise, even certain adverbs are used to talk about how certain groups of people act.

The same is in the case of the Nepali language too. Social hierarchy can be noticed in the use of words of the above-mentioned categories. Nouns to name males and females, personal pronouns to refer to them, and verbs to describe their actions are used to distinguish between masculine and feminine gender. Adjectives are used to describe certain groups of people, and to some extent, even adverbs are used to show unequal distinctions. In this sense, both English and Nepali are racist, sexist, and classist languages. While writing this article, I might be committing the mistake of using such discriminatory terms that would connote pejorative sense without my knowing

Based on the assumption that the specific use of language can also create social inequality, contemporary linguists claim that if it creates inequality, it can also be used as a vehicle for bringing about positive social change that would ensure an equitable society (Thomas and Wareing 1999). If we use the honorific terms to address the so-called lower-class people, they would feel honoured, which in turn would help bring equality. The type of language we use to equally honour all people irrespective of caste, class, and gender, or at least, ideologically neutral language, is the language of political correctness (PC). Following the advice of linguists, social activists nowadays are beginning to use such terms to address the people to create positive attitudes towards the people denigrated to the inferior positions.

Neutral terms
We can find ample evidence to suggest that linguists' claims are valid and genuine. Instead of using the term “negro” or “nigger” to the dark-skinned people, “Afro-American” is used in America today. To avoid gender discrimination through the generic use of “he” to refer to both men and women, the personal pronoun “they” is used in English-speaking communities. Likewise, the term “disabled” or “differently-abled” is used to talk about people with some deficient parts of the body.

Nepali speakers are also beginning to use terms that are neutral to caste, class, and gender. The words “dalit”, to avoid “achhut,” “bipanna” to avoid “gareeb”, and “mahila” to avoid “aimai” are examples. The attempt to avoid politically incorrect words and use the language of political correctness is a good initiation. This action alone cannot establish an egalitarian society. Yet it can undoubtedly help cultivate positive attitudes towards the people of inferior positions to a considerable extent.

(The author is the chairman of Molung Foundation. bhupadhamala@gmail.com)