Third World

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World

Political alignments in Europe during the Cold War after 1961

The term Third World arose during the Cold War to define countries that remained non-aligned with either NATO or the Warsaw Pact. The United States, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, the Southern Cone, Western European countries and other allies represented the "First World", while the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Romania and the rest of the Warsaw Pact and their allies represented the "Second World". This terminology provided a way of broadly categorizing the nations of the Earth into three groups based on political divisions. Due to the complex history of evolving meanings and contexts, there is no clear or agreed-upon definition of the Third World. Strictly speaking, "Third World" was a political, rather than economic, grouping.

Since most Third World countries were economically poor and non-industrialized, it became a stereotype or a derogatory euphemism to refer to developing countries as "third-world." In political discourse, the term Third World was often associated with being underdeveloped. China was labeled "Third World" for several decades in the 20th century before its robust development in the 21st century. Some countries in the Eastern Bloc, such as Cuba, were often regarded as Third World. The Third World was normally seen to include many countries with colonial pasts in Africa, Latin America, Oceania, and Asia. It was also sometimes taken as synonymous with countries in the Non-Aligned Movement. In the dependency theory of thinkers like Raúl Prebisch, Walter Rodney, Theotônio dos Santos, and others, the Third World has also been connected to the world-systemic economic division as "periphery" countries dominated by the countries comprising the economic "core".

In the Cold War, some European democracies (Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, and Switzerland) were neutral in the sense of not joining NATO, but were prosperous, never joined the Non-Aligned Movement, and seldom self-identified as part of the Third World.

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, other terms have also been used instead of Third World such as developing countries, least developed countries or the Global South.

Etymology

The demographer, anthropologist, and historian Alfred Sauvy, in an article published in the French magazine L'Observateur, August 14, 1952, used the term third world (tiers monde), referring to countries that were playing a small role in international trade and business. His usage was a reference to the Third Estate (tiers état), the commoners of pre-revolutionary France, who, in the Estates General, opposed the clergy and nobles, respectively the First and Second Estates (hence the use of the older form tiers rather than the modern troisième for "third"). Sauvy wrote, "This third world ignored, exploited, despised like the third estate also wants to be something." In the context of the Cold War, he conveyed the concept of political non-alignment with either the capitalist or communist bloc. Simplistic interpretations quickly led to the term merely designating these unaligned countries.

Although Sauvy is commonly credited with coining the phrase in 1952, the concept may have already been in circulation at the 1947 Asian Relations Conference in New Delhi.^[8]

Related concepts

Third World vs. Three Worlds

Main articles: Three World Model and Three Worlds Theory

The Three Worlds Theory was developed by Mao Zedong following the Sino-Soviet Split. Mao grouped the Soviet Union and United States together into the First World as he began to view both as hegemonic superpowers. Mao Zedong began to articulate the Three Worlds Theory in the early 1970s, and in 1974, Vice-Premier Deng Xiaoping pronounced the Three Worlds Theory at the UN General Assembly.

The "Three Worlds Theory" developed by Mao Zedong is different from the Western theory of the Third World. For example, in the Western theory, China and India belong respectively to the second and third worlds, but in Mao's theory both China and India are part of the Third World which he defined as consisting of exploited nations.

Third-worldism

Main article: Third-worldism

Third-worldism is a political movement that argues for the unity of third-world nations against first-world influence and the principle of non-interference in other countries' domestic affairs. Groups most notable for expressing and exercising this idea are the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the Group of 77 which provide a base for relations and diplomacy between not just the third-world countries, but between the third-world and the first and second worlds. The notion has been criticized as providing a fig leaf for human rights violations and political repression by dictatorships.

.Initially, the term third world meant a nation was under-developed or impoverished.

Great Divergence and Great Convergence

Many times there is a clear distinction between First and Third Worlds. When talking about the Global North and Global South, the majority of the time the two go hand in hand. People refer to the two as "Third World/South" and "First World/North" because the Global North is more affluent and developed, whereas the Global South is less developed and often poorer.

To counter this mode of thought, some scholars began proposing the idea of a change in world dynamics that began in the late 1980s, and termed it the Great Convergence. As Jack A. Goldstone and his colleagues put it, "in the twentieth century, the Great Divergence peaked before the First World War and continued until the early 1970s, then, after two decades of indeterminate fluctuations, in the late 1980s, it was replaced by the Great Convergence as the majority of Third World countries reached economic growth rates significantly higher than those in most First World countries".

Others have observed a return to Cold War-era alignments (MacKinnon, 2007; Lucas, 2008), this time with substantial changes between 1990–2015 in geography, the world economy and relationship dynamics between current and emerging world powers; not necessarily redefining the classic meaning of First, Second, and Third World terms, but rather which countries belong to them by way of association to which world power or coalition of countries, such as the G7, the European Union, OECD; G20, OPEC, N-11, BRICS, ASEAN; the African Union, and the Eurasian Union.

History

Most Third World countries are former colonies. Having gained independence, many of these Nations, especially smaller ones, were faced with the challenges of nation- and institution-building on their own for the first time. Due to this common background, many of these nations were "developing" in economic terms for most of the 20th century, and many still are. This term, used today, generally denotes countries that have not developed to the same levels as OECD countries, and are thus in the process of developing.

In the 1980s, economist Peter Bauer offered a competing definition for the term "Third World". He claimed that the attachment of Third World status to a particular country was not based on any stable economic or political criteria, and was a mostly arbitrary process. The large diversity of countries considered part of the Third World, ranged widely from economically primitive to economically advanced and from politically non-aligned to Soviet- or Western-leaning. An argument could also be made for how parts of the U.S. are more like the Third World.

The only characteristic that Bauer found common in all Third World countries was that their governments "demand and receive Western aid," which he strongly opposed. The aggregate term "Third World" was challenged as misleading even during the Cold War period, because it had no consistent or collective identity among the countries it supposedly encompassed.

Development aid

Main article: Development aid

A map of the world with Least Developed Countries, as designated by the United Nations, highlighted in red and countries formerly considered least developed highlighted in yellow

During the Cold War, unaligned countries of the Third World were seen as potential allies by both the First and Second World. Therefore, the United States and the Soviet Union went to great lengths to establish connections in these countries by offering economic and military support to gain strategically located alliances (e.g., the Soviet Union in Cuba). By the end of the Cold War, many Third World countries had adopted capitalist or communist economic models and continued to receive support from the side they had chosen. Throughout the Cold War and beyond, the countries of the Third World have been the priority recipients of Western foreign aid and the focus of economic development through mainstream theories such as modernization theory and dependency theory.

By the end of the 1960s, the idea of the Third World came to represent countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America that were considered underdeveloped by the West based on several characteristics: low economic development, low life expectancy, high rates of poverty and disease, and others. These countries became the targets for aid and support from governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and individuals from wealthier nations. One popular model, known as Rostow's stages of growth, argued that development took place in five stages: traditional society, pre-conditions for take-off, take-off, drive to maturity, and age of high mass consumption. W. W. Rostow argued that "take-off" was the critical stage with which the Third World was struggling, which some argued could be facilitated through foreign aid.

Perceived "End of the Third World"

Since 1990 the term "Third World" evolved to denote countries with less economic development. The term "Third World" is increasingly perceived to be politically incorrect or outdated, as it is a historical term that isn't as relevant in modern day geopolitics. Around the early 1960s, the term "underdeveloped countries" was frequently used to refer to roughly the same group of countries. This term was in turn replaced by 'developing' and 'less-developed' countries, as politician found that the earlier term contributed to stereotypes or disrespect of this group of countries.

The general definition of the Third World can be traced back to the history that nations positioned as neutral and independent during the Cold War were considered as Third World Countries, and normally these countries are defined by high poverty rates, lack of resources, and unstable financial standing.

The differences among nations of the Third World are continually growing throughout time, and it will be hard to use the Third World to define and organize groups of nations based on their common political arrangements since most countries live under diverse creeds in this era, such as Mexico, El Salvador, and Singapore, which each have their distinct political systems. The Third World categorization becomes anachronistic since its political classification and economic system are distinct to be applied in today's society. Based on the Third World standards, any region of the world can be categorized into any of the four types of relationships among state and society, and will eventually end in four outcomes: praetorianism, multi-authority, quasi-democratic and viable democracy.

Reverse discrimination

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_discrimination 

Reverse discrimination is a term used to describe discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, in favor of members of a minority or historically disadvantaged group. Reverse discrimination based on race or ethnicity is also called reverse racism.

Equality of opportunity and substantive equality

Philosopher Richard Arneson argues that while a program of reverse discrimination favoring non-White candidates over White ones may violate equality of opportunity in a formal sense, it may more effectively promote substantive equality. The Dilemma of difference refers to the difference between the two equality concepts.

Affirmative action

Main article: Affirmative action

Affirmative action is a set of practices that attempts to promote diversity in areas such as employment, education, and leadership, typically by reserving some positions for people of traditionally disadvantaged groups. This may result in discrimination towards successful majority groups who have greater technical qualifications than minority applicants.

Philosopher James Rachels posited that reverse discrimination as a factor in affirmative action in the United States may disadvantage some Whites, but without it, African Americans would likewise be disadvantaged by pervasive racial discrimination in society. Critics of racial preferences in affirmative action such as William Bennett and Carl Cohen have argued that explicitly using race for the purpose of ending racial discrimination is illogical and contrary to the principle of non-discrimination. Conversely, Alan H. Goldman argued that short-term violations of such a principle could be justified for the sake of equalizing social opportunities in the longer term. It is often argued by majority groups that they are being discriminated against for hiring and advancement because of affirmative action policies. However, critics of this argument often cite the "symbolic" significance of a job has to be taken into consideration as well as qualifications.

By race, ethnicity or caste

See also: Reverse racism

China

See also: Affirmative action in China, One-child policy, and Liangshaoyikuan

The affirmative action of the Chinese government has been called into question, especially from the ethnic group of Han Chinese. Unfair policies on Chinese college entrance exams (Gaokao) as well as human rights considered to be favoring the national minority have both been believed to be causing reverse discrimination in the mainland. Han chauvinism has been becoming more popular in mainland China since the 2000s, the cause of which has been attributed to the discontent towards Chinese affirmative action. The one-child policy was only introduced for Han Chinese, with minorities being allowed two or more babies.

However, under Xi Jinping, the concept of a Chinese Dream is believed to have distinctly Han dimensions, and it is also believed to support Han chauvinism even if it is unwittingly doing so. The fusion of traditional Han chauvinism with Chinese nationalism as practised by the modern Chinese state has been described as Han-centrism.

India

In India, in higher education institutions and in employment by Government, around 49.5% seats are reserved for members of socially disadvantaged castes. Reserved category candidates can select a position from the Open 40% also.

In India, the term is often used by citizens protesting against reservation in India.

Russia

See also: Korenizatsiya

The 1921 Soviet recruitment to the Military Education poster with the Ukrainization theme, using the Ukrainian language instead of the Russian language.

In the Soviet Union, korenizatsiya was the process of promoting the culture and power of non-Russian ethnicities in their specific Soviet republics. The early Bolshevik authorities saw it as a means to counteract Great Russian chauvinism. By the 1930s, Joseph Stalin had ended the policy, and promoted Russification.

United States

Opponents of affirmative action in the United States use the term reverse discrimination to say that such programs discriminate against White Americans in favor of African Americans. In the U.S., affirmative action has focused on the under-representation of ethnic minority groups and women, and attempted to remedy the effects of past discrimination in both government and the business world. Historian Nancy MacLean writes that during the 1980s and 1990s, "so-called reverse discrimination occurred on an inconsequential scale". The number of reverse discrimination cases filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) doubled in the 1990s and continued to reflect a growing percentage of all discrimination cases as of 2003.

Colleges

White college applicants who have felt passed over in favor of less-qualified Black students as a result of affirmative action in college admissions have described such programs as "reverse discrimination". Elizabeth Purdy argues that this conception of reverse discrimination came close to overturning affirmative action during the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and '90s after being granted legitimacy by the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, which ruled that Alan Bakke had been discriminated against by the school's admissions program.

In 1996, the University of Texas had to defer the use of racial preferences in their college admissions after the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit barred the school from considering race in admitting students. The ruling determined that diversity in education could not justify making race-based distinctions. Hopwood v. Texas in 1996 was a lawsuit brought by four white applicants to the Texas Law School who were denied admission even though their grade point averages were greater than minority applications that were accepted. The four white students also had greater Law School Admission Test scores.

However, in Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003, the Supreme Court allowed the University of Michigan Law School to continue to consider race among other relevant diversity factors. The decision was the only legally challenged affirmative-action policy to survive the courts. However, this ruling has led to confusion among universities and lower courts alike regarding the status of affirmative action across the nation.

In 2012, Fisher v. University of Texas reached the Supreme Court. The University of Texas allegedly used race as a factor in denying Abigail Fisher's application, denying her a fair review. The lower courts upheld the program, but the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the lower courts and sent the case back to the Fifth Circuit for review.

Complaints

A draft report on claims of reverse discrimination was prepared for the United States Department of Labor in 1995. Its analysis of employment discrimination cases in federal courts between 1990 and 1994 concluded that between 1 and 3 percent involved claims of reverse discrimination; and that a "high proportion" of the claims were found to be without merit.

Newer reports by the EEOC have found that less than 10% of race-related complaints were filed by whites. When national samples of whites were asked if they personally have experienced the loss of job, promotion, or college admission because of their race, 2%–13% say yes.

By sex, gender or sexual orientation

See also: Reverse sexism

A 2019 study by S. K. Camara & M. P. Orbe collected narratives of individuals describing situations where they were discriminated against based on their majority-group status (cases of reverse discrimination), a smaller portion reported gender discrimination. A 2008 study found 18% of gender-related complaints and 4% of the court cases were filed by men.

A small number of heterosexuals reported experiencing discrimination based on their sexual orientation.

By economic status

In Reservation in India, a 10% quota is reserved for members of Economically Weaker Section, which has been criticized as reverse discrimination.

By citizenship or nationality

European Union

Main article: Reverse discrimination (EU law)

In European Union law, reverse discrimination occurs where a Member State's national law provides for worse treatment of its own citizens or domestic products than other EU citizens/goods under EU law. This is permitted in the EU because of the legal principle of subsidiarity, that EU law is not applicable in situations purely internal to one Member State.

Upper class

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_class

Upper class in modern societies is the social class composed of people who hold the highest social status. Usually, these are the wealthiest members of class society, and wield the greatest political power. According to this view, the upper class is generally distinguished by immense wealth which is passed on from generation to generation. Prior to the 20th century, the emphasis was on aristocracy, which emphasized generations of inherited noble status, not just recent wealth.

Because the upper classes of a society may no longer rule the society in which they are living, they are often referred to as the old upper classes, and they are often culturally distinct from the newly rich middle classes that tend to dominate public life in modern social democracies. According to the latter view held by the traditional upper classes, no amount of individual wealth or fame would make a person from an undistinguished background into a member of the upper class as one must be born into a family of that class and raised in a particular manner to understand and share upper class values, traditions, and cultural norms. The term is often used in conjunction with terms like upper-middle class, middle class, and working class as part of a model of social stratification.

Historical meaning

Portrait of the family Fagoaga Arozqueta, about 1730. Painter unknown. The family was part of the upper class in Mexico City, New Spain.

Historically in some cultures, members of an upper class often did not have to work for a living, as they were supported by earned or inherited investments (often real estate), although members of the upper class may have had less actual money than merchants. Upper-class status commonly derived from the social position of one's family and not from one's own achievements or wealth. Much of the population that composed the upper class consisted of aristocrats, ruling families, titled people, and religious hierarchs. These people were usually born into their status and historically there was not much movement across class boundaries.

Ball in colonial Chile by Pedro Subercaseaux. In Spain's American colonies, the upper classes were made up of Europeans and American born Spaniards and were heavily influenced by European trends.

In many countries, the term "upper class" was intimately associated with hereditary land ownership. Political power was often in the hands of the landowners in many pre-industrial societies despite there being no legal barriers to land ownership for other social classes. Upper-class landowners in Europe were often also members of the titled nobility, though not necessarily: the prevalence of titles of nobility varied widely from country to country. Some upper classes were almost entirely untitled, for example, the Szlachta of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Great Britain and Ireland

Main article: Social structure of the United Kingdom § Upper class

The upmarket Harrods department store in London, 1909

In Great Britain and Ireland, the "upper class" traditionally comprised the landed gentry and the aristocracy of noble families with hereditary titles. The vast majority of post-medieval aristocratic families originated in the merchant class and were ennobled between the 14th and 19th centuries while intermarrying with the old nobility and gentry. Since the Second World War, the term has come to encompass rich and powerful members of the managerial and professional classes as well. In the years since Irish independence in 1922 the upper class has all but vanished in the Republic of Ireland. Aristocratic titles within the Peerage of Ireland granted by the British monarch have no recognition in the Irish Constitution. Contemporary Ireland is generally perceived to have a two-tier social class system composed of working class and middle class (with the exception of a small number of wealthy billionaires).

United States

Main articles: American upper class and African-American upper class

First edition dust cover of Edith Wharton's 1920 Pulitzer Prize-winning novel The Age of Innocence, a story set in upper-class New York City in the 1870s

The American upper class is a social group within the United States consisting of people who have the highest social rank primarily due to economic wealth. The American upper class is estimated to constitute less than 1% of the population. By self-identification, according to this 2001–2012 Gallup Poll data, 98% of Americans identify with the five other class terms used, 48–50% identifying as "middle class".

The main distinguishing feature of the upper class is its ability to derive enormous incomes from wealth through techniques such as money management and investing, rather than engaging in wage-labor salaried employment, although most upper-class individuals today will still hold some sort of employment, which differs from historical norms. Successful entrepreneurs, CEOs, investment bankers, venture capitalists, heir to fortunes, celebrities, and a few number of professionals, are considered members of this class by contemporary sociologists, such as James Henslin or Dennis Gilbert. There may be prestige differences between different upper-class households. An A-list actor, for example, might not be accorded as much prestige as a former U.S. President, yet all members of this class are so influential and wealthy as to be considered members of the upper class. At the pinnacle of U.S. wealth, 2004 saw a dramatic increase in the numbers of billionaires. According to Forbes Magazine, there are now 374 U.S. billionaires. The growth in billionaires took a dramatic leap since the early 1980s, when the average net worth of the individuals on the Forbes 400 list was $400 million. Today, the average net worth is $2.8 billion.

Upper-class families... dominate corporate America and have a disproportionate influence over the nation's political, educational, religious, and other institutions. Of all social classes, members of the upper class also have a strong sense of solidarity and 'consciousness of kind' that stretches across the nation and even the globe.

— William Thompson & Joseph Hickey, Society in Focus, 2005

Since the 1970s, income inequality in the United States has been increasing, with the top 1% (largely because of the top 0.1%) experiencing significantly larger gains in income than the rest of society. Alan Greenspan, former chair of the Federal Reserve, sees it as a problem for society, calling it a "very disturbing trend".

According to the book Who Rules America? by William Domhoff, the distribution of wealth in America is the primary highlight of the influence of the upper class. The top 1% of Americans own around 34% of the wealth in the U.S. while the bottom 80% own only approximately 16% of the wealth. This large disparity displays the unequal distribution of wealth in America in absolute terms.

In 1998, Bob Herbert of The New York Times referred to modern American plutocrats as "The Donor Class" (list of top donors) and defined the class, for the first time, as "a tiny group – just one-quarter of 1 percent of the population – and it is not representative of the rest of the nation. But its money buys plenty of access."

Political correctness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness 

Political correctness (adjectivally "politically correct"; commonly abbreviated to P.C.) is a term used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society. Since the late 1980s, the term has been used to describe a preference for inclusive language and avoidance of language or behavior that can be seen as excluding, marginalizing, or insulting to groups of people disadvantaged or discriminated against, particularly groups defined by ethnicity, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. In public discourse and the media, the term's use is generally pejorative, with an implication that these policies are excessive or unwarranted. It can also be humorous, or ironic in nature.

The phrase politically correct first appeared in the 1930s, when it was used to describe dogmatic adherence to ideology in totalitarian regimes, such as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Early usage of the term politically correct by leftists in the 1970s and 1980s was as self-critical satire; usage was ironic, rather than a name for a serious political movement. It was considered an in-joke among leftists used to satirise those who were too rigid in their adherence to political orthodoxy. The modern pejorative usage of the term emerged from conservative criticism of the New Left in the late 20th century, with many describing it as a form of censorship.

Commentators on the political left in the United States contend that conservatives use the concept of political correctness to downplay and divert attention from substantively discriminatory behavior against disadvantaged groups. They also argue that the political right enforces its own forms of political correctness to suppress criticism of its favored constituencies and ideologies. In the United States, the term has played a major role in the culture war between liberals and conservatives.

Conceptual background

Several researchers describe political correctness not only as a political label but also as a practice of linguistic reform aimed at reducing exclusionary or derogatory expressions in public language, often in line with egalitarian or inclusive norms. Geoffrey Hughes and Norman Fairclough both note that these language reforms are intertwined with broader social efforts to reshape public discourse and social relations.

History

Early-to-mid 20th century

Main article: Party line (politics)

In the early-to-mid 20th century, the phrase politically correct was used to describe strict adherence to a range of ideological orthodoxies within politics. In 1934, The New York Times reported that Nazi Germany was granting reporting permits "only to pure 'Aryans' whose opinions are politically correct".

The term political correctness first appeared in Marxist–Leninist vocabulary following the Russian Revolution of 1917. At that time, it was used to describe strict adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, that is, the party line. Later in the United States, the phrase came to be associated with accusations of dogmatism in debates between communists and socialists. According to American educator Herbert Kohl, writing about debates in New York in the late 1940s and early 1950s.

The term "politically correct" was used disparagingly, to refer to someone whose loyalty to the CP line overrode compassion, and led to bad politics. It was used by Socialists against Communists, and was meant to separate out Socialists who believed in egalitarian moral ideas from dogmatic Communists who would advocate and defend party positions regardless of their moral substance.

— "Uncommon Differences", The Lion and the Unicorn

1970s

Main article: New Left

In the 1970s, the American New Left began using the term politically correct. In the essay The Black Woman: An Anthology (1970), Toni Cade Bambara said that "a man cannot be politically correct and a [male] chauvinist, too". William Safire records this as the first use in the typical modern sense. The term political correctness was believed to have been revived by the New Left through familiarity in the West with Mao's Little Red Book, in which Mao stressed holding to the correct party line. The term rapidly began to be used by the New Left in an ironic or self-deprecating sense.

Thereafter, the term was often used as self-critical satire. Debra L. Shultz said that "throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the New Left, feminists, and progressives... used their term 'politically correct' ironically, as a guard against their own orthodoxy in social change efforts". PC is used in the comic book Merton of the Movement, by Bobby London, which was followed by the term ideologically sound, in the comic strips of Bart Dickon.^[12][29] In her essay "Toward a feminist Revolution" (1992) Ellen Willis said, "In the early eighties, when feminists used the term 'political correctness', it was used to refer sarcastically to the anti-pornography movement's efforts to define a 'feminist sexuality'."

Stuart Hall suggests one way in which the original use of the term may have developed into the modern one:

According to one version, political correctness actually began as an in-joke on the left: radical students on American campuses acting out an ironic replay of the Bad Old Days BS (Before the Sixties) when every revolutionary groupuscule had a party line about everything. They would address some glaring examples of sexist or racist behaviour by their fellow students in imitation of the tone of voice of the Red Guards or Cultural Revolution Commissar: "Not very 'politically correct', Comrade!"

1980s and 1990s

Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind, a book first published in 1987, heralded a debate about political correctness in American higher education in the 1980s and 1990s. Professor of English literary and cultural studies at CMU Jeffrey J. Williams wrote that the "assault on ... political correctness that simmered through the Reagan years, gained bestsellerdom with Bloom's Closing of the American Mind". According to Z.F. Gamson, Bloom's book "attacked the faculty for 'political correctness'". Sociologist Anthony Platt says the "campaign against 'political correctness'" was launched by Bloom's book in 1987.

An October 1990 New York Times article by Richard Bernstein is credited with popularizing the term. At this time, the term was mainly being used within academia: "Across the country the term p.c., as it is commonly abbreviated, is being heard more and more in debates over what should be taught at the universities." Nexis citations in "arcnews/curnews" reveal only seventy total citations in articles to "political correctness" for 1990; but one year later, Nexis records 1,532 citations, with a steady increase to more than 7,000 citations by 1994. In May 1991, The New York Times had a follow-up article, according to which the term was increasingly being used in a wider public arena:

What has come to be called "political correctness", a term that began to gain currency at the start of the academic year last fall, has spread in recent months and has become the focus of an angry national debate, mainly on campuses, but also in the larger arenas of American life.

— Robert D. McFadden, "Political Correctness: New Bias Test?", 1991

The previously obscure far-left term became common currency in the lexicon of the conservative social and political challenges against progressive teaching methods and curriculum changes in the secondary schools and universities of the U.S. Policies, behavior, and speech codes that the speaker or the writer regarded as being the imposition of a liberal orthodoxy, were described and criticized as politically correct. In May 1991, at a commencement ceremony for a graduating class of the University of Michigan, then U.S. President George H. W. Bush used the term in his speech: "The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land. And although the movement arises from the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism and sexism and hatred, it replaces old prejudice with new ones. It declares certain topics off-limits, certain expression off-limits, even certain gestures off-limits."

After 1991, its use as a pejorative phrase became widespread amongst conservatives in the US. It became a key term encapsulating conservative concerns about the left in cultural and political debates extending beyond academia. Two articles on the topic in late 1990 in Forbes and Newsweek both used the term "thought police" in their headlines, exemplifying the tone of the new usage, but it was Dinesh D'Souza's Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (1991) which "captured the press's imagination". These trends were at least in part a response to multiculturalism and the rise of identity politics, with movements such as feminism, gay rights movements and ethnic minority movements. That response received funding from conservative foundations and think tanks such as the John M. Olin Foundation, which funded several books such as D'Souza's.

Herbert Kohl, in 1992, commented that a number of neoconservatives who promoted the use of the term "politically correct" in the early 1990s were former Communist Party members, and, as a result, familiar with the Marxist use of the phrase. He argued that in doing so, they intended "to insinuate that egalitarian democratic ideas are actually authoritarian, orthodox, and Communist-influenced, when they oppose the right of people to be racist, sexist, and homophobic".

During the 1990s, conservative and right-wing politicians, think tanks, and speakers adopted the phrase as a pejorative descriptor of their ideological enemies, especially in the context of the culture wars about language and the content of public-school curricula. Roger Kimball, in Tenured Radicals, endorsed Frederick Crews's view that PC is best described as "Left Eclecticism", a term defined by Kimball as "any of a wide variety of anti-establishment modes of thought from structuralism and poststructuralism, deconstruction, and Lacanian analyst to feminist, homosexual, black, and other patently political forms of criticism".

Liberal commentators have argued that the conservatives and reactionaries who used the term did so in an effort to divert political discussion away from the substantive matters of resolving societal discrimination, such as racial, social class, gender, and legal inequality, against people whom conservatives do not consider part of the social mainstream. Jan Narveson wrote that "that phrase was born to live between scare-quotes: it suggests that the operative considerations in the area so called are merely political, steamrolling the genuine reasons of principle for which we ought to be acting...". Commenting in 2001, one such British journalist, Polly Toynbee, said "the phrase is an empty, right-wing smear, designed only to elevate its user", and in 2010 she wrote "the phrase 'political correctness' was born as a coded cover for all who still want to say Paki, spastic, or queer". Another British journalist, Will Hutton, wrote in 2001:

Political correctness is one of the brilliant tools that the American Right developed in the mid–1980s, as part of its demolition of American liberalism.... What the sharpest thinkers on the American Right saw quickly was that by declaring war on the cultural manifestations of liberalism – by levelling the charge of "political correctness" against its exponents – they could discredit the whole political project.

— Will Hutton, "Words Really are Important, Mr Blunkett", 2001

Glenn Loury wrote in 1994 that to address the subject of "political correctness" when power and authority within the academic community is being contested by parties on either side of that issue, is to invite scrutiny of one's arguments by would-be "friends" and "enemies". Combatants from the left and the right will try to assess whether a writer is "for them" or "against them". Geoffrey Hughes suggested that debate over political correctness concerns whether changing language actually solves political and social problems, with critics viewing it less about solving problems than imposing censorship, intellectual intimidation and demonstrating the moral purity of those who practice it. Hughes also argues that political correctness tends to be pushed by a minority rather than an organic form of language change.

Right-wing political correctness

"Political correctness" is a label typically used to describe liberal or left-wing terms and actions but rarely used for analogous attempts to mold language and behavior on the right. Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute referred to the right's own version of political correctness as "patriotic correctness".

As a socio-linguistic phenomenon

In subsequent academic scholarship, some scholars have examined political correctness as a form of linguistic and moral reform. Linguist Geoffrey Hughes described political correctness as "liberal in its aims but often illiberal in its practices," identifying a tension between its reformist intentions and its perceived coerciveness. Similarly, Norman Fairclough has analyzed political correctness as part of a broader discourse of linguistic and moral reform, in which "changing language practices is part of changing social relations" and "critical awareness of language" is linked to the pursuit of "fairness and inclusiveness".

Usage

The modern pejorative usage of the term emerged from conservative criticism of the New Left in the late 20th century. This usage was popularized by a number of articles in The New York Times and other media throughout the 1990s, and was widely used in the debate surrounding Allan Bloom's 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind. The term gained further currency in response to Roger Kimball's Tenured Radicals (1990), and conservative author Dinesh D'Souza's 1991 book Illiberal Education. Supporters of politically correct language have been pejoratively referred to as the "language police".

Education

Modern debate on the term was sparked by conservative critiques of perceived liberal bias in academia and education, and conservatives have since used it as a major line of attack.

Preliminary research published in 2020 indicated that students at a large U.S. public university generally felt instructors were open-minded and encouraged free expression of diverse viewpoints; nonetheless, most students worried about the consequences of voicing their political opinions, with "[a]nxieties about expressing political views and self-censorship ... more prevalent among students who identify as conservative."

As a conspiracy theory

Main article: Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory

Some conservative commentators in the West argue that "political correctness" and multiculturalism are part of a conspiracy with the ultimate goal of undermining Judeo-Christian values. This theory, which holds that political correctness originates from the critical theory of the Frankfurt School as part of a conspiracy that its proponents call "Cultural Marxism". The theory originated with Michael Minnicino's 1992 essay "New Dark Age: Frankfurt School and 'Political Correctness'", published in a Lyndon LaRouche movement journal. In 2001, conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan wrote in The Death of the West that "political correctness is cultural Marxism", and that "its trademark is intolerance".

Media

See also: Media bias

In the US, the term has been widely used in books and journals, but in Britain the usage has been confined mainly to the popular press. Many such authors and popular-media figures, particularly on the right, have used the term to criticize what they see as bias in the media. William McGowan argues that journalists get stories wrong or ignore stories worthy of coverage, because of what McGowan perceives to be their liberal ideologies and their fear of offending minority groups. Robert Novak, in his essay "Political Correctness Has No Place in the Newsroom", used the term to blame newspapers for adopting language use policies that he thinks tend to excessively avoid the appearance of bias. He argued that political correctness in language not only destroys meaning but also demeans the people who are meant to be protected.

Authors David Sloan and Emily Hoff claim that in the US, journalists shrug off concerns about political correctness in the newsroom, equating the political correctness criticisms with the old "liberal media bias" label. According to author John Wilson, left-wing forces of "political correctness" have been blamed for unrelated censorship, with Time citing campaigns against violence on network television in the US as contributing to a "mainstream culture [that] has become cautious, sanitized, scared of its own shadow" because of "the watchful eye of the p.c. police", protests and advertiser boycotts targeting TV shows are generally organized by right-wing religious groups campaigning against violence, sex, and depictions of homosexuality on television.

Inclusive language

Main article: Inclusive language

Inclusive or Equity Language is a language style that avoids expressions that its proponents perceive as expressing or implying ideas that are sexist, racist, or otherwise biased, prejudiced, or insulting to any particular group of people; and instead uses language intended to avoid offense and fulfill the ideals of egalitarianism. This language style is sometimes referred to as a type of "political correctness", either as a neutral description or with negative connotations by its opponents. At least some supporters deny an association between the two ("Political correctness is focused on not offending whereas inclusive language is focused on honoring people's identities.").

Satirical use

Political correctness is often satirized, for example in The PC Manifesto (1992) by Saul Jerushalmy and Rens Zbignieuw X, and Politically Correct Bedtime Stories (1994) by James Finn Garner, which presents fairy tales re-written from an exaggerated politically correct perspective. In 1994, the comedy film PCU took a look at political correctness on a college campus. Other examples include the television program Politically Incorrect, George Carlin's "Euphemisms" routine, and The Politically Correct Scrapbook. The popularity of the South Park cartoon program led to the creation of the term "South Park Republican" by Andrew Sullivan, and later the book South Park Conservatives by Brian C. Anderson. In its Season 19 (2015), South Park introduced the character PC Principal, who embodies the principle, to poke fun at the principle of political correctness.

The Colbert Report's host Stephen Colbert often talked, satirically, about the "PC Police".

Science

See also: Politicization of science

Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, climate change, race and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term political correctness to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community that they believe has been corrupted by liberal politics.

 

Virtue signalling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling 

Virtue signalling is a pejorative neologism for the expression of a moral viewpoint with the intent of communicating good character, frequently used to suggest hypocrisy. An accusation of virtue signalling can be applied to both individuals and companies.

Virtue signalling often describes behaviour meant to gain social approval without taking meaningful action, such as in greenwashing, where companies exaggerate their environmental commitments. On social media, large movements such as Blackout Tuesday were accused of lacking substance, and celebrities or public figures are frequently charged with virtue signalling when their actions seem disconnected from their public stances. However, some argue that these expressions of outrage or moral alignment may reflect genuine concern, and that accusing others of virtue signalling can itself be a form of signalling. This inverse concept has been described as vice signalling and refers to the public promotion of negative or controversial views to appear tough, pragmatic, or rebellious, often for political or social capital.

Definition and usage

According to the Cambridge Dictionary, virtue signalling is "an attempt to show other people that you are a good person, for example by expressing opinions that will be acceptable to them, especially on social media... indicating that one has virtue merely by expressing disgust or favour for certain political ideas or cultural happenings". The expression is often used to imply that the virtue being signalled is exaggerated or insincere.

The concept of virtue signalling is most often used by those on the political right to denigrate the behaviour of those on the political left. It is similar to the idea of grandstanding. One practice sometimes cited as an example of virtue signalling is greenwashing, when a company deceptively claims or suggests that its products or policies are more environmentally friendly than they actually are. Some sustainability advocates have suggested ecological virtue signalling by corporations is not necessarily negative, as long as it is accompanied by taking responsibility for past environmental harms. Merriam-Webster editor Emily Brewster has likened virtue signalling to the term humblebragging.

History

David Shariatmadari writes in The Guardian that the term has been used since at least 2004, appearing for example in religious academic works in 2010 and 2012. Nassim Nicholas Taleb cites Matthew 6:1 as an example of "virtue signalling" being condemned as a vice in antiquity ("Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven").

British journalist James Bartholomew claims to have originated the pejorative usage of the term "virtue signalling" in 2015. He wrote in The Spectator that:

No one actually has to do anything. Virtue comes from mere words or even from silently held beliefs. There was a time in the distant past when people thought you could only be virtuous by doing things...[that] involve effort and self-sacrifice.

Examples

Social media

Angela Nagle, in her book Kill All Normies, described Internet reactions to the Kony 2012 viral video as "what we might now call 'virtue signaling'", and that "the usual cycles of public displays of outrage online began as expected with inevitable competitive virtue signaling" in the aftermath of the killing of Harambe. B. D. McClay wrote in The Hedgehog Review that signalling particularly flourished in online communities. It was unavoidable in digital interactions because they lacked the qualities of offline life, such as spontaneity. When one filled out a list of one's favourite books for Facebook, one was usually aware of what that list said about oneself.

Blackout Tuesday, a 2020 collective action that was ostensibly intended to combat racism and police brutality mainly by businesses and celebrities through social media in response to the killings of several Black people by police officers, was criticized as a form of virtue signalling for the initiative's "lack of clarity and direction".

Recycling and trash separator paired with a single can that co-mingles all waste, pretending to sort waste.

In 2024, the pro-Palestinian political slogan "All Eyes on Rafah" went viral after an AI-generated image of the phrase was shared on social media. Some users criticized the campaign as a form of virtue signalling and compared it to Blackout Tuesday, and believed that it would be more important for people to post actual pictures of Rafah.

Marketing

In addition to individuals, companies have also been accused of virtue signalling in marketing, public relations, and brand communication. Companies have also been accused of using virtue signalling as a form of marketing.

Film industry

See also: Oscar bait and message picture

Actors and other celebrities may be accused of virtue-signalling if their actions are seen to contradict their expressed views.

Reception

Psychologists Jillian Jordan and David Rand argue that virtue signalling is separable from genuine outrage towards a particular belief, but in most cases, individuals who are virtue signalling are, in fact, simultaneously experiencing genuine outrage. Linguist David Shariatmadari argues in The Guardian that the very act of accusing someone of virtue signalling is an act of virtue signalling in itself. Zoe Williams, also writing for The Guardian, suggested the phrase was the "sequel insult to champagne socialist".

Vice signalling

Financial Times editor Robert Shrimsley suggested the term vice signalling as a counterpoint to virtue signalling:

A vice-signaller boasts about sneaking meat into a vegetarian meal. He will rush on to social media to denounce as a "snowflake" any woman who objects to receiving rape threats, or any minority unhappy at a racist joke ... Vice-signallers have understood that there is money to be made in the outrage economy by playing the villain. Perhaps, secretly, they buy their clothes at the zero-waste shop and help out at the local food bank, but cannot be caught doing so lest their image is destroyed.

Stephen Bush, also in the Financial Times, describes vice signalling as "ostentatious displays of authoritarianism designed to reassure voters that you are 'tough' on crime or immigration", and that it "risks sending what is, in a democracy, the most dangerous signal of all: that politicians do not really care about their electorate’s concerns, other than as a device to win and to hold on to their own power". In particular, Bush cited Donald Trump's Mexican border wall pledge and Boris Johnson's Rwanda asylum plan.

Examples of vice signalling have been described as "show[ing] you are tough, hard-headed, a dealer in uncomfortable truths, and, above all, that you live in 'the real world'", in a way that goes beyond what actual pragmatism requires, or to "a public display of immorality, intended to create a community based on cruelty and disregard for others, which is proud of it at the same time".

According to Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò, "a vice signaler is trying to look bad—but not to everyone. A vice signaler typically violates moral or other standards of an out-group precisely in order to look good to the fellow members of some in-group...The moral commitments of the in-group are basically irrelevant: all that matters is owning the enemy."

Austrian linguist Ruth Wodak described the "antisemitic and revisionist utterances" of Austrian politician Jörg Haider in the 1980s as an example of vice signalling.

Aristocracy (class)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy_(class)

The Ladies Waldegrave, a portrait of three English aristocrats from the Waldegrave family by Joshua Reynolds

The aristocracy (from Greek ἀριστοκρατία aristokratía, "rule of the best"; Latin: aristocratia) is historically associated with a "hereditary" or a "ruling" social class. In many states, the aristocracy included the upper class with hereditary rank and titles. They are usually below only the monarch of a country or nation in its social hierarchy.

Etymology

2nd Earl and Countess Harcourt, in their coronet and coronation robes by Joshua Reynolds. The countess was a confidant of Queen Charlotte.

The term aristocracy derives from the Greek ἀριστοκρατία (aristokratia from ἄριστος (aristos) 'excellent' and κράτος (kratos) 'power'). In most cases, aristocratic titles were and are hereditary.

The term aristokratia was first used in Athens with reference to young citizens (the men of the ruling class) who led armies at the front line. Aristokratia roughly translates to "rule of the best born". Due to martial bravery being highly regarded as a virtue in ancient Greece, it was assumed that the armies were being led by "the best". This virtue was called arete (ἀρετή). Etymologically, as the word developed, it also produced a more political term: aristoi (ἄριστοι). The term aristocracy is a compound word stemming from the singular of aristoi, aristos (ἄριστος), and the Greek word for power, kratos (κράτος).

From the ancient Greeks, the term passed to the European Middle Ages for a similar hereditary class of military leaders, often referred to as the nobility. As in Greece, this was a class of privileged men and women whose familial connections to the regional armies allowed them to present themselves as the most "noble" or "best" of society.

History

A château, the primary form of residence for the French aristocracy

In some societies, such as ancient Greece, ancient Rome, or ancient and medieval India, aristocratic status came from belonging to a military class. It has also been common, notably in African and Southeast Asian societies, for aristocrats to belong to priestly dynasties. Aristocratic status can involve feudal or legal privileges.

Plato’s Symposium offers a glimpse into the intellectual and cultural life of aristocracy in ancient Athens. The dialogue takes place at a banquet attended by prominent Athenian aristocrats, illustrating how the elite not only wielded political and military power but also shaped philosophical and artistic discourse. Their discussion on love, centered around Eros, reflects how aristocrats engaged in intellectual refinement and rhetorical debate, reinforcing their status as the cultural and moral leaders of society.

Early modern aristocracy

The ancient world had bequeathed to early modern Europe (notably via Aristotle's Politics) a political and personal definition of aristocracy as the rule of the best men. According to his 1602 political treatise República Mista, Tomás Fernández de Medrano describes an aristocrat as someone who is distinguished by virtue, morality, and wisdom, holding authority over the rest, whether broadly or in specific matters, governing solely for the benefit and welfare of the public.

While family background and wealth could enhance one’s suitability for public office, they were not definitive. Prominent families could produce unworthy heirs, while talented newcomers might possess the qualities necessary for political leadership. This notion of social status clashed with the medieval system, which divided society into three estates and defined aristocrats primarily as warriors, gradually making aristocracy more rigidly tied to noble birth.

Across Europe, the aristocracy wielded immense economic, political, and social influence. In England, a small high aristocracy—about two hundred families—controlled roughly a quarter of the kingdom’s land, while in seventeenth-century Bohemia, an even smaller noble class owned two-thirds of the land. This dominance extended beyond landownership, as aristocrats and gentry often monopolized high-ranking positions in the church, military, and administration. Before the French Revolution, aristocratic privilege was deeply embedded in Europe’s social order, shaping both governance and ideology.

The centralization of royal courts in early modern Europe reshaped aristocratic power, shifting influence from regional noble domains to the monarchy’s court. This transition reflected a broader shift across European aristocracies, where status and influence became increasingly tied to proximity to the sovereign, court patronage, and administrative roles, rather than independent territorial rule.

Modern aristocracy

Despite their decline in the 19th and 20th centuries, aristocrats and gentry remained influential, adapting to modernization as industrialization and democracy eroded traditional claims to privilege. Their response to these changes played a crucial role in shaping the broader transformation of European society.

In modern European societies, the aristocracy has often coincided with the nobility, a specific class that arose in the Middle Ages, but the term "aristocracy" is sometimes also applied to other elites, and is used as a more general term when describing earlier and non-European societies. Aristocracy may be abolished within a country as the result of a revolution against them, such as the French Revolution. Revolutionary leaders, aiming to dismantle hierarchical structures, labeled even non-noble opponents as "aristocrats" in their push for a society without inherited privilege.