Equality in view of political correctness, cancel culture and other oxymora

IF 2 Q1 LINGUISTICS International Journal of Legal Discourse Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.1515/ijld-2023-2003
R. Neuwirth
{"title":"Equality in view of political correctness, cancel culture and other oxymora","authors":"R. Neuwirth","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2023-2003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract “Political correctness” and “cancel culture” are two concepts frequently invoked to control speech and influence debates with a view to establishing greater equality across the globe. Even though their usage has also been met with criticism, there is a strong merit in these attempts, as language change is indicative of wider cognitive changes that are eventually also transformed into changes in the law and society. Based on the wider trend of a rise in so-called “essentially oxymoronic concepts” in public discourses in general and equality debates in particular, this article proposes to analyse the present linguistic trends in order to better understand the deeper causes and related challenges to legal reasoning posed by “political correctness”, “cancel culture” and other terms that have been qualified as oxymora or paradoxes. Based on the view that oxymora and paradoxes are not mere aspects of language but also expressions of deeper layers of human cognition, the article ponders the need not merely to control the external aspects of language use but also to inquire more deeply into the inner workings of the brain and its underlying cognitive processes. In this endeavour it critically examines the dominant modes of dualistic or dichotomized thinking and binary logic, which – when regarded in isolation – appear to cause most discriminatory acts and violations of the principle of equality.","PeriodicalId":55934,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2023-2003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract “Political correctness” and “cancel culture” are two concepts frequently invoked to control speech and influence debates with a view to establishing greater equality across the globe. Even though their usage has also been met with criticism, there is a strong merit in these attempts, as language change is indicative of wider cognitive changes that are eventually also transformed into changes in the law and society. Based on the wider trend of a rise in so-called “essentially oxymoronic concepts” in public discourses in general and equality debates in particular, this article proposes to analyse the present linguistic trends in order to better understand the deeper causes and related challenges to legal reasoning posed by “political correctness”, “cancel culture” and other terms that have been qualified as oxymora or paradoxes. Based on the view that oxymora and paradoxes are not mere aspects of language but also expressions of deeper layers of human cognition, the article ponders the need not merely to control the external aspects of language use but also to inquire more deeply into the inner workings of the brain and its underlying cognitive processes. In this endeavour it critically examines the dominant modes of dualistic or dichotomized thinking and binary logic, which – when regarded in isolation – appear to cause most discriminatory acts and violations of the principle of equality.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
平等观中的政治正确、取消文化等矛盾
“政治正确”和“取消文化”是两个经常被用来控制言论和影响辩论的概念,以期在全球范围内建立更大的平等。尽管它们的使用也遭到了批评,但这些尝试有很强的优点,因为语言的变化表明了更广泛的认知变化,这些变化最终也会转化为法律和社会的变化。基于所谓的“本质上矛盾的概念”在公共话语中普遍兴起的更广泛趋势,特别是在平等辩论中,本文建议分析当前的语言趋势,以便更好地理解“政治正确”、“取消文化”和其他被视为矛盾或悖论的术语对法律推理构成的更深层次的原因和相关挑战。基于矛盾和悖论不仅是语言的一个方面,而且是人类认知更深层次的表达这一观点,本文思考不仅需要控制语言使用的外部方面,还需要更深入地探究大脑的内部运作及其潜在的认知过程。在这项工作中,它批判性地审查了二元或二分思维和二元逻辑的主要模式,如果孤立地看待这些模式,似乎会造成大多数歧视性行为和违反平等原则的行为。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
80.00%
发文量
10
期刊最新文献
The de-legitimation of Machine Learning Algorithms (MLAs) in “The Social Dilemma” (2020): a post-digital cognitive-stylistic approach Language ideologies and speaker categorization: a case study from the U.S. legal system That-complement clauses signalling stance in Nigerian Supreme Court lead judgements: a corpus-based study Discourse patterning and recursion in the EU case law Repair in Ghanaian judicial discourse
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1