I tutored foreign students in a variety of subjects in college. Have you ever tried to explain to a non-native speaker why "person of color" is acceptable versus "colored persons" which is verboten? It's especially ironic that I was trying to explain the difference to actual racial minorities (at least in the US) who were baffled by th…
I tutored foreign students in a variety of subjects in college. Have you ever tried to explain to a non-native speaker why "person of color" is acceptable versus "colored persons" which is verboten? It's especially ironic that I was trying to explain the difference to actual racial minorities (at least in the US) who were baffled by the "difference".
At some point I had to stop and wonder if the whole point wasn't a shibboleth to indicate who was and who wasn't in the club.
Think of it as a class and status marker. Especially as keeping up with the ever-changing demands of political correctness requires leisure time and the desire to be part of the in-crowd.
At the onset of the 'people of color' use in 2007/8, it was abundantly clear that enforcement of word choice was a power move, and was being used to differentiate between those who would fall in line and those who would not.
It's a little gratifying to see people picking up on this in a broader way now, if still frustrating because those 15 years were...suboptimal.
That's exactly what it is - virtue signaling. The elites have always used language (and other behavioral markers) as a gate or code - to keep out the riff raff. I would venture that much of the focus at elite schools is to teach people how to speak and act so that they will be perceived as a member of the UMC or wealthy. The rules of etiquette and propriety also work in this fashion.
My own experience as an autodidact buttresses this argument. I am very well read but grew up blue collar so I didn't hear certain words pronounced correctly and often pronounce them incorrectly in polite company. The looks on people's faces is instructive. I have outed myself as “not one of them” and you can literally feel their energy shift upon this discovery.
Another gate is school name dropping. I was in a gathering of women in tech and we were instructed to make a connection with those around us by revealing what school we went to. The looks on the faces of of my small group was quite humorous when they dropped names like Brown and Sarah Lawrence and I said I had 2 AA degrees from community colleges. They were so embarrassed that they didn't know what to say. It was quite funny.
The whole culture war over language is about signaling what tribe you belong to so they can assess your “worth” and treat you accordingly. It's a form of dehumanization as old as the hills used by the powerful to keep their little club sacrosanct.
Having the views and attitudes of a member of the "right" class is critical, especially for someone seeking entry into that class. Paul Fussell writes extensively on this.
BTW, this is also why things like "free museum entry" often are a disguised subsidy to the educated classes.
My barn cat relatives don't go to museums, and it's not because they can't sneak in. It's because knowing Manet from Monet is not important to them.
I tutored foreign students in a variety of subjects in college. Have you ever tried to explain to a non-native speaker why "person of color" is acceptable versus "colored persons" which is verboten? It's especially ironic that I was trying to explain the difference to actual racial minorities (at least in the US) who were baffled by the "difference".
At some point I had to stop and wonder if the whole point wasn't a shibboleth to indicate who was and who wasn't in the club.
Think of it as a class and status marker. Especially as keeping up with the ever-changing demands of political correctness requires leisure time and the desire to be part of the in-crowd.
At the onset of the 'people of color' use in 2007/8, it was abundantly clear that enforcement of word choice was a power move, and was being used to differentiate between those who would fall in line and those who would not.
It's a little gratifying to see people picking up on this in a broader way now, if still frustrating because those 15 years were...suboptimal.
That's exactly what it is - virtue signaling. The elites have always used language (and other behavioral markers) as a gate or code - to keep out the riff raff. I would venture that much of the focus at elite schools is to teach people how to speak and act so that they will be perceived as a member of the UMC or wealthy. The rules of etiquette and propriety also work in this fashion.
My own experience as an autodidact buttresses this argument. I am very well read but grew up blue collar so I didn't hear certain words pronounced correctly and often pronounce them incorrectly in polite company. The looks on people's faces is instructive. I have outed myself as “not one of them” and you can literally feel their energy shift upon this discovery.
Another gate is school name dropping. I was in a gathering of women in tech and we were instructed to make a connection with those around us by revealing what school we went to. The looks on the faces of of my small group was quite humorous when they dropped names like Brown and Sarah Lawrence and I said I had 2 AA degrees from community colleges. They were so embarrassed that they didn't know what to say. It was quite funny.
The whole culture war over language is about signaling what tribe you belong to so they can assess your “worth” and treat you accordingly. It's a form of dehumanization as old as the hills used by the powerful to keep their little club sacrosanct.
Having the views and attitudes of a member of the "right" class is critical, especially for someone seeking entry into that class. Paul Fussell writes extensively on this.
BTW, this is also why things like "free museum entry" often are a disguised subsidy to the educated classes.
My barn cat relatives don't go to museums, and it's not because they can't sneak in. It's because knowing Manet from Monet is not important to them.