Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

The word, political correctness was rarely used or heard of until the middle of the

20th century. In 1973, the term “political correctness” had appeared in a U.S. Supreme

Court Session (Chisholm vs State of Georgia, 2 US: 2 Dall., 419, 1973) which described

the instances of insufficient conflation of references regarding the State and the citizens

even within the hallowed chambers of the legal institutions. [1]

Ancient Theories

Ancient thinkers and philosophers have long been interested in the relationship

between, communication, public speech, rhetoric and politics. Aristotle has had his own

theories concerning political correctness and he laid down his theory which is highlighted

on Aristotle’s Politics, Book 1, section 1253a, translated as: “Man is by nature a political

animal…for nature…does nothing without purpose: and man alone of the animals

possesses speech. The mere voice, it is true, can indicate pain and pleasure…but speech

is designed to indicate the advantageous and the harmful, and therefore also the right

and the wrong; …and it is partnership in these things that makes a household and a city-

state.” Political correctness can be an excess or lack of a few vital virtues which is based

on Aristotle’s virtue theory of means. It can be explained that a person should not be too

much of anything and keep things balanced as that means being virtuous. [2]

In the same sense, Plato also had his own theory of the ideal state which can be

inferred from his analogy of justice in one man and justice in the city-state as stated in

Republic, book 2, section 368-369a-c wherein Plato speaks of the state as “man writ-

large”. It is translated as: “What analogy do you detect in the inquiry about justice?...there
is a justice of one man, we say, and I suppose, also of an entire city…Is not the city larger

than the man?...Then perhaps, there would be more justice in the larger object and more

easy to apprehend.” (Konye, 2016)

These ancient insights have provided several theories on political correctness but,

political correctness has been more prevalent and solidified in the early 20 th century with

new advancements and innovations in communication, language, information, and

speech.

Marxism

In the beginning of the 20th century, the socio-cultural setting of the Industrial

Revolution had already set apart the society into classes of workers and classes of

capitalist. The French Revolution of 1789 was what inspired Karl Marx to develop and

formulate his theories in the nineteenth century. In 1867, Karl Marx, had published his

book entitled, Das Kapital and had written it as an analysis of the dialectal degeneration

of the capitalist system. The class-conflict themes upon which this labor was built not only

vilified the capitalist bourgeoise and aristocrats but it also predicted that this would

become the “seed of the revolution,” [1] In the 20th century, the success of the Bolshevik

Revolution of 1917 in Russia set off a wave of optimistic expectation among the Marxist

forces in Europe and America that the new proletarian world of equality was finally coming

into being. Russia, as the first communist nation in the world, would lead the revolutionary

forces to victory. The Marxist revolutionary forces in Europe leaped at this opportunity. [3]

However, events that happened during the period between World War 1 and World War

2 did not happen as Karl Marx had predicted. Under Marxist economic theory, the workers

were supposed to be the beneficiaries of a social revolution that would make them
become more powerful but, the workers did not comply and so, the blame was put on

them by the Marxist revolutionaries who did not blame their theory for the failures. To be

“correct”, at that time, was connoted the attitude of agreeing with the Communist political

agenda; and so, to be “incorrect” would mean to be a Socialist. [1]

An Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci, and Hungarian Marxist, Georg Lukas,

analyzed and focused on the society’s cultural “superstructure” rather than on the

economic substructures as Marx did which mostly contributed to the new cultural

Marxism. In 1923, Lukacs and other Marxist intellectuals who were associated with the

Communist Party of Germany founded the Institute of Social Research at Frankfurt

University in Germany which later became Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt School's

studies combined Marxist analysis with Freudian psychoanalysis to criticize the bases of

Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy,

hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity,

ethnocentrism, convention and conservatism. These criticisms, known collectively as

Critical Theory, were reflected in such works of the Frankfurt School as Erich Fromm's

Escape from Freedom and The Dogma of Christ, Wilhelm Reich's The Mass Psychology

of Fascism and Theodor Adorno's The Authoritarian Personality. [3]

The Authoritarian Personality, which was published in 1950, was based on the idea

that if Christianity, capitalism, and the patriarchal-authoritarian family is present in a

society, it will create an atmosphere susceptible to racial and religious prejudice and

German fascism. It became a basis for a national campaign that is against any kind of

prejudice or discrimination on the theory that if these evils were not eradicated, another
Holocaust might happen on the European continent. This provided a basis for Political

Correctness. [3]

Critical Theorist of the Frankfurt School recognized the traditional and existing

beliefs and social structures to be destroyed and replaced to usher in social revolution. It

is in the belief that everyone is equal.

In the Breivik Manifesto 2083, it is said that: “The parallels between the old,

economic Marxism and cultural Marxism are evident. Cultural Marxism, or Political

Correctness, shares with classical Marxism the vision of a "classless society", i.e., a

society not merely of equal opportunity, but equal condition.”

The first major parallel between classical and cultural Marxism is that both are

totalitarian ideologies which means that the vision of “classless society” contradicts the

nature of humans since people end up unequal regardless of the starting point. Hence,

society will not comply unless it is forced. This totalitarian nature of Political Correctness

is evident on universities where “PC” has taken over the freedom of speech, press and

even thought is all eliminated.

The second major parallel of both the classical, economical Marxism and the

cultural Marxism is that they have single-factor descriptions of history. Cultural Marxism

is based on the idea that history is solely explained by which groups have the power over

the other group that is defined by sex, race, religion and sexual normality or abnormality.

The third parallel is that both kinds of Marxism state that certain groups are virtuous

and other groups are evil without considering the actual behavior of the individuals. In

classical Marxism, the middle class and other owners of the capital are deemed evil and
the workers or peasants are deemed virtuous. In cultural Marxism, minority groups (e.g.

Feminist women, Muslim, homosexuals and others) are said to be virtuous and view ethic

Christian European men as evil. They also recognize Muslim, Asians, Africans who reject

Political Correctness as evil.

The fourth parallel is: expropriation. Based on the Breivik Manifesto 2083,

“Economic Marxists, where they obtained power, expropriated the property of the

bourgeoisie and handed it to the state, as the "representative" of the workers and the

peasants. Cultural Marxists, when they gain power (including through our own

government), lay penalties on native European men and others who disagree with them

and give privileges to the "victim" groups they favour. Affirmative action is an example.”

The final parallel is that both Marxists types employ a way of analysis which is

designed to show the correctness of their theory in every situation. Classical Marxists

analysis is economic and Cultural Marxists analysis is linguistic which is deconstruction.

Deconstruction means to “prove” that any “text”, past or present the oppression of the

minority groups by reading that meaning into words regardless of the actual meaning.