January 19, 2014

January 19, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

Most of us, sometimes use a harmless word or an expression, such as a euphemism, in place of one that may be found offensive or suggest something unpleasant. For instance, we say “he passed away” instead of “he died”; “the situation is screwed up” instead of “fucked up.” Not many misunderstandings arise from this use of euphemisms. When we say “he isn’t the sharpest tool in the box”, we usually know he isn’t very good at solving problems. There are no problems when there is consensus and when we know what we are talking about. This is also where euphemisms become tricky, because although we may agree, or, rather, have been conditioned to agree, we may actually not agree at all, but without even knowing it. How can that be? 

During a shaping experiment in a laboratory the organism, for instance a pigeon, is immediately reinforced for even the slightest approximation to the target behavior. The pigeon is conditioned to have superstitious behavior. The pigeon operates on its environment and the lawfulness of behavior is extrapolated, which generalizes to all living organisms. Now we can finally recognize that a euphemism is merely an operant that is maintained by social reinforcement. Our correct use of language is shaped by our verbal community. However, social acceptance can make us support ideas which are deeply problematic. Let’s look at the term “Political Correctness” and explore how that term came about.

“Political Correctness” refers to ideas, language and politics, which were considered to be discriminating, because they were against politically, socially and economically disadvantaged groups. At some point, because people no longer agreed with the language that was used to describe them, it became obvious that a lot of political rhetoric had been very inhuman. What changed was the derogatory language, but although the language changed, the cover up of many injustices still continued. Euphemisms play a big role in how language hides the reality. The Right Wing uses “Political Correctness” in a hostile manner to describe the Left Wing, while both Left and Right Wing use “Political Incorrectness” as a positive self-description. 

Historically, “Politically Correctness” dates back to the early-to-mid 20^th century when in political debates between Communists and Socialists the term was used referring pejoratively to the Communist “party line”, which provided for “correct” positions on many matters of politics. What the use of this term indicates is that changing our language makes talking more difficult. It isn’t “Politically Correct” to talk about the fact that America continues to kill innocent families with drones. Calling these deaths “collateral damage” that result from “protecting our interests” undermines the public debate about what is actually done in our name. There would be immediate outrage if a foreign agent would murder our civilians. 

Use of euphemisms is an attempt to "speak good" and "to speak well", to praise and to glorify, but it never leads to Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). Euphemisms are a function of a deliberate make-belief way of talking. This author calls it Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). When our positive sayings hides our ugly reality, they only make things worse. Thus, "speaking good" or "speaking well" indicates that horrible things must be happening. Fact is, however, that we don’t speak good and that we don’t speak well, that is why we should speak good and should speak well. Who needs all this praise and glorification? In SVB the need for praise and glorification never arises. The need for praise and glorification distracts from the harm we are doing to others. Only in SVB we can have authentic communication because we do no harm.