Synogenes.com

We've all heard the phrase "political correctness gone mad" and it almost always indicates an attempt to discredit some action, but its common use now obscures and undermines what are really important arguments.

What is considered "politically correct" is almost always the actions of those fighting prejudice and discrimination and the idea that it has gone mad is almost always directed at some well-intentioned action that is perceived to have gone too far.

To say some action has been taken too far is one thing. To claim that it is political correctness itself that has gone mad, is quite another. The latter aims to undermine the idea of doing something which is seen as politically correct. It aims to make the politically correction action itself seem as though it smacks of madness.

In this insidious way, actions designed to protect people from prejudice and discrimination are undermined by attacking the basically sound idea on which they are based. One newspaper columnist objected to the idea of black children's dolls on the grounds that it was political correctness gone made. They considered themselves anti-racist of course, but didn't want to see an action that raised the profile of the colour assumptions in children's toys.

Another example is one I experienced myself some time ago when I worked as a teacher: I was told that I could no longer use a red pen to mark a student's work on the grounds that it conveyed a negative impression. I had to use a green pen instead. The result of this policy was mass opposition from students and parents who insisted on the reinstatement of the red pen. It was an example of a well-intentioned policy of not being unduly negative when teaching students, being taken too far, beyond what was actually useful.

But no-one then criticised the aim behind the action, namely to avoid being unduly negative. Teachers remained positive and helpful, praising achievement and correct work, correcting that which was incorrect.

Had we adopted the "political correctness gone mad" stance, we would have been demanding an end to positive comments altogether.

In the political arena, the claim that political correctness has gone mad is simply a reactionary response to actions which challenge prejudice and discrimination, making some people uncomfortable. Many would rather simply acknowledge that discrimination takes place, condemn it, and then simply leave it alone.

The use of the phrase is really a kind of reactionary apologism gone mad. Instead of recognising the need for change to fight discrimination and acting to implement it, these apologists would rather dismiss it glibly, turn away, and think about something else. Selfishness gone mad? Political blindness gone mad? Political indifference gone mad? These are far more accurate terms to describe those who complain about political correctness.

In an interesting twist, the Pope appears to be changing his mind on allowing the use of condoms but this poses rather a dilemma for papal infallibility.

Either he was right to condemn the use of condoms under every circumstance, or he was wrong. If his new decision to permit the use of condoms in certain circumstances is right, then his previous decision was certainly wrong which demonstrates, as if it is was ever needed, that the pope is indeed fallible.

On the other hand, if he is wrong now in changing his stance, as certainly the more conservative elements in the clergy will feel, then that too demonstrates his fallibility.

Of course, what will actually happen is that the theologians will weave a new web of casuistry to justify this sudden new insight into the meaning of the Christian faith so that the Pope can be let off this dilemma.

But coming alongside his change of heart, ought to be a willingness to accept responsibility. For years and years, he has been condemning the use of condoms in the fight against AIDS and as a consequence, countless thousands of people have become infected and died. He bears a responsibility for the consequences of his advice and we might reasonably expect him to acknowledge that.

Of course though, he won't. Just as he won't accept the responsibility of the CEO of the world catholic corporate business in holding himself ultimately culpable for allowing paedophile priests to hide from the law, he won't now hold himself responsible for his own actions.

In the peculiar world of religious hierarchies, he thinks he is outside of the law, answering instead to an invisible super-being. How much longer is this reactionary anachronism going to be allowed to influence world opinion? As the catholic church lurches from one crisis to another, we can hope that more and more people will see through the nonsense and take control of their own lives.