Special Issue "Political Correctness—Towards a Global Ethos"

A special issue of Philosophies (ISSN 2409-9287).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (31 December 2017) | Viewed by 27940

Special Issue Editors

Prof. Dr. Jean-Yves Beziau
E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Philosophy, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, 20051-070 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Interests: universal logic; square of opposition; history and philosophy of logic; truth; critical thinking; semiotics; aesthetics; theology; imagination, emotion, understanding
Dr. Thalia Magioglou
E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
St Mary’s University, Twickenham TW1 4SX, UK
Interests: young adults; democracy; social representations; lay thinking; qualitative methodology

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

The journal Philosophies is being launched, providing a world perspective on philosophy. At a time of increasing globalization, with interconnectedness and communication intensifying, humanity is beginning to unify. It is interesting to inquire according to which ethos, if any. The idea of this Special Issue is to study this question by focusing on the notion of Political Correctness.

Political correctness reflects a process wherein moral and religious values increasingly share the stage with, and often defer to, more general imperatives and strictures governing social conduct. However, what are these imperatives and strictures? In which sense are they proposed, formulated, followed, enforced by politicians and other social actors?

Political correctness is presently culturally embedded in a particular socio-historical context, that of the political debates of Western Societies. It stigmatizes some values and promotes norms from the point of view of these societies. We may wonder if it will evolve, and how, into a more open and inclusive perspective.

It is important to investigate the concepts, assumptions, contentions and controversies of political correctness, to understand how it is practiced, how it develops, how it can be constructed. Many issues can be addressed:

  • Origin and development of the expression “political correctness” and its correlated semantical network in lay thinking and in the public debate.
  • The sensible topics of political correctness: liberty, economy, religion, human and animal rights, sexuality, health, education, nature preservation.
  • The, so to say, “ten commandments” of political correctness: what is good or/and bad according to political correctness, which actions, for which reasons in what contexts? And why?
  • How political correctness is related to central philosophical questions, such as the meaning of life, truth and happiness.

If you wish to respond to this call, send a paper to and/or by Decmebr 31st, 2017.

Prof. Dr. Jean-Yves Beziau
Dr. Thalia Magioglou
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All papers will be peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Philosophies is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • rights
  • prohibition
  • democracy
  • equality
  • freedom
  • virtue
  • wisdom

Published Papers (6 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Article
Political Correctness: Implosion of Politics
Philosophies 2017, 2(3), 18; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies2030018 - 08 Aug 2017
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 2869
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to develop a critical understanding of political correctness as regressive process of incrimination based on a utopia of non-differentiation. According to our hypothesis, this utopia represents the ideological product of a double process of identity dissolution under [...] Read more.
The purpose of this article is to develop a critical understanding of political correctness as regressive process of incrimination based on a utopia of non-differentiation. According to our hypothesis, this utopia represents the ideological product of a double process of identity dissolution under the impact of abstract universalism and contemporary individualism which leads to the implosion of politics. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Political Correctness—Towards a Global Ethos)
Article
The Unreasonable Destructiveness of Political Correctness in Philosophy
Philosophies 2017, 2(3), 17; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies2030017 - 03 Aug 2017
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 9640
Abstract
I submit that epistemic progress in key areas of contemporary academic philosophy has been compromised by politically correct (“PC”) ideology. First, guided by an evolutionary account of ideology, results from social and cognitive psychology and formal philosophical methods, I expose evidence for political [...] Read more.
I submit that epistemic progress in key areas of contemporary academic philosophy has been compromised by politically correct (“PC”) ideology. First, guided by an evolutionary account of ideology, results from social and cognitive psychology and formal philosophical methods, I expose evidence for political bias in contemporary Western academia and sketch a formalization for the contents of beliefs from the PC worldview taken to be of core importance, the theory of social oppression and the thesis of anthropological mental egalitarianism. Then, aided by discussions from contemporary epistemology on epistemic values, I model the problem of epistemic appraisal using the frameworks of multi-objective optimization theory and multi-criteria decision analysis and apply it to politically correct philosophy. I conclude that philosophy guided by politically correct values is bound to produce constructs that are less truth-conducive and that spurious values which are ideologically motivated should be abandoned. Objections to my framework stemming from contextual empiricism, the feminine voice in ethics and political philosophy are considered. I conclude by prescribing the epistemic value of epistemic adequacy, the contextual value of political diversity and the moral virtue of moral courage to reverse unwarranted trends in academic philosophy due to PC ideology. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Political Correctness—Towards a Global Ethos)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Article
Political Correctness—Between Fiction and Social Reality
Philosophies 2017, 2(3), 15; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies2030015 - 04 Jul 2017
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 3180
Abstract
Nowadays political correctness (PC) is blamed by its opponents because of a failed model of multiculturalism, an influx of migrants and the threat of terrorist acts. Obviously, a definition of tolerance given by UNESCO in 1995 has lost its meaning. In order to [...] Read more.
Nowadays political correctness (PC) is blamed by its opponents because of a failed model of multiculturalism, an influx of migrants and the threat of terrorist acts. Obviously, a definition of tolerance given by UNESCO in 1995 has lost its meaning. In order to argue a possibility of a global ethos based on new understandings of PC, the authors refer to contemporary achievements of semiotics, hermeneutics and philosophical anthropology. We use a critical method developed in the hermeneutical tradition of P. Ricoeur, J. Kristeva, Tz. Todorov and others. Criticism is directed at (1) paradoxes of postmodern philosophical attempts for justification the idea of political correctness; (2) the way of introducing new terminology, as on a language level it leads, not to inclusion, but to exclusion, of disadvantaged people because as E. Benveniste states, the third person is rather the non-person. The conclusion is that politically correct speech should be grounded on a basis which takes into account the three persons of verb conjugation. Similar philosophical and ethical ideas can be found in works of J. Kristeva, Tz. Todorov, P. Ricoeur. An example is given for how these ideas can be implemented in the fields of film and art. This is one of the possible ways of overcoming the exclusion of disadvantaged people who are only named in politically correct terms, and not as participants, in social and political dialogue. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Political Correctness—Towards a Global Ethos)
Article
“Political Correctness” from a “Border Reason”: Between Dignity and the Shadow of Exclusion
Philosophies 2017, 2(2), 13; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies2020013 - 14 Jun 2017
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 2262
Abstract
The concept of political correctness highlights a set of principles and structures that should (or, in other cases, must) be followed to pursue a specific social behavior that characterizes a society and endorses an ideal identity. Nevertheless, even when this behavior implies a [...] Read more.
The concept of political correctness highlights a set of principles and structures that should (or, in other cases, must) be followed to pursue a specific social behavior that characterizes a society and endorses an ideal identity. Nevertheless, even when this behavior implies a sense of social recognition and acceptance by a specific group, it also encompasses a risk of imposing a particular model of life, halting the emergence of criticisms and differences as far as it could be misguided to promote discrimination and exclusion. All of these raise the question of whether it is possible to conceive political correctness from a perspective of inclusion that transcends this layer of exclusion. If this is the case, following Eugenio Trías’ philosophy about the limit, the concept needs to be reconsidered through a “border reason” that enables one to conceive the benefits it brings as well as the criticisms that come from the analysis of the “shadowy” practice of the concept. This approach will lead to accepting that political correctness fulfills a function for society but that it requires a reflexive attitude along with its practices as part of a border relation between its benefits and the risks that it also has to tackle. Finally, a concept that could serve as a hinge to reinforce the perspective of a border limit is dignity, which could lead to an ethical reflection that underpins politically correct actions. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Political Correctness—Towards a Global Ethos)
Article
Implicit Bias, Stereotype Threat, and Political Correctness in Philosophy
Philosophies 2017, 2(2), 12; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies2020012 - 24 May 2017
Cited by 8 | Viewed by 5984
Abstract
This paper offers an unorthodox appraisal of empirical research bearing on the question of the low representation of women in philosophy. It contends that fashionable views in the profession concerning implicit bias and stereotype threat are weakly supported, that philosophers often fail to [...] Read more.
This paper offers an unorthodox appraisal of empirical research bearing on the question of the low representation of women in philosophy. It contends that fashionable views in the profession concerning implicit bias and stereotype threat are weakly supported, that philosophers often fail to report the empirical work responsibly, and that the standards for evidence are set very low—so long as you take a certain viewpoint. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Political Correctness—Towards a Global Ethos)
Article
Political Correctness between Wise Stoicism and Violent Hypocrisy
Philosophies 2016, 1(3), 261-274; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies1030261 - 08 Dec 2016
Cited by 3 | Viewed by 3105
Abstract
This article aims at commenting in a novel way on the concept of political correctness, by showing that, even if adopting a politically-correct behavior aims at promoting a precise moral outcome, violence can be still perpetrated, despite good intentions. To afford in a [...] Read more.
This article aims at commenting in a novel way on the concept of political correctness, by showing that, even if adopting a politically-correct behavior aims at promoting a precise moral outcome, violence can be still perpetrated, despite good intentions. To afford in a novel way the problem of political correctness, I will adopt a theoretical strategy that adheres to moral stoicism, the problem of “silence”, the “fascist state of the mind” and the concept of “overmorality”, which I have introduced in my book Understanding Violence. The Intertwining of Morality, Religion, and Violence: A Philosophical Stance (Springer: Heidelberg/Berlin, Germany, 2011). I will demonstrate that political correctness certainly obeys the stoic moral rule, which teaches us that we have to diminish conflicts and, so, the potential for derived violence, by avoiding to pronounce words and expressions that can be offensive and so conflict making. Unfortunately, political correctness often increases the so-called already widespread overmorality, typical of our era, and postulates too many minor moral values (or rights) to be attributed to individuals and groups, which must be respected. Therefore, engaging in political correctness obscures more serious issues regarding social, political and economic life, committing a sin of abstractness and idealization. At the same time, by discouraging the use of words and expressions, the intrinsic overmoralization at work creates potential new conflicts and potential derived violence. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Political Correctness—Towards a Global Ethos)
Back to TopTop