Political correctness and the apostle Paul

A look at the surprising history of a phrase that’s been much a part of this year’s presidential campaign.

Andrew Harnik/AP
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and Democratic vice presidential candidate, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., look to the audience as they finish speaking during a rally at McGonigle Hall at Temple University in Philadelphia.

A friend has remarked that something she admires in her preferred presidential candidate is a lack of “political correctness.”

She may be in tune with the zeitgeist. The Pew Research Center has come out with a new survey that found “In ‘political correctness’ debate, most Americans think too many people are easily offended.” 

Specifically, Pew found that 59 percent of the public say “too many people are easily offended these days over the language that others use.” On the other hand, 39 percent think “people need to be more careful about the language they use to avoid offending people with different backgrounds.” 

There is a partisan split here – quelle surprise: Republicans, independents, and supporters of Donald Trump hold the view, even more firmly than the nation as a whole, that “too many people are easily offended.” Democrats, much less so. Hillary Clinton supporters’ numbers are the exact reverse of the national ones: 39 percent for “too many too easily offended” and 59 percent for “people need to be more careful.”

The entry in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) for politically correct has two parts: (a) appropriate to the prevailing political or social circumstances ... (b) spec. (orig. U.S., sometimes depreciative) conforming to a body of liberal or radical opinion, esp. on social matters....” 

The phrase itself actually goes back to – brace yourself – 1793. James Wilson, associate justice of the US Supreme Court, complained in an opinion about what he saw as a common failure to appreciate how “the state” is subordinate to “the people of the United States,” in whom true sovereignty lies. He noted that at dinner parties, when a toast would be called for, it would all too often be to “the United States,” instead of to “the People of the United States.” This, he thundered, “is not politically correct.” 

The item on the OED’s list of usage examples for “politically correct” that I found most surprising, though, is one mentioning the apostle Paul’s letter to the Galatians.

In his 1936 book, “In the Steps of St. Paul,” the British travel writer H.V. Morton says, “It has often been asked why Paul addressed his converts as ‘Galatians.’ ” 

Galatia was a great sprawling territory, newly a province of the Roman Empire. Its diverse population – Romans, Greeks, and Jews – also included two communities with real image problems. “Phrygia was famous for its slaves ... and Lycaonia was notorious for bandits and thieves. To use such words would have been equivalent to calling his audience ‘slaves and robbers.’ But ‘Galatians,’ a term that was politically correct, embraced everyone under Roman rule, from the aristocrat in Antioch to the little slave girl in Iconium.”

Morton’s usage has a foot in each part of the OED definition. Like Wilson, he was thinking in terms of concrete political facts – the lines on the map of the Roman Empire. But he was also pointing to Paul’s desire for a kinder, gentler term to address his converts – one without any baggage.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.