---
title: Why PC is not quite the end of democracy
date: 2018-06-21
tags: [philosophy, discussion]
description: Jürgen Habermas explains that there are two different concepts for democracy. How does PC fit into that?
---

In his article "Drei normative Modelle der Demokratie: Zum Begriff
deliberativer Politik.", Jürgen Habermas explains that there are two different
concepts for democracy. I will call the first one the "vote"-concept. In this
concept, democracy is mostly about aggregating individual opinions into a
collective one via votes. I will call the other one the "let's talk about
it"-concept. It is about exchanging arguments and finding a common solution.

You may notice that individual opinions are treated as static in the
"vote"-concept, but changeable in the "let's talk about it"-concept.
I personally prefer the second approach a lot. I believe that discussion and
exchange of ideas can greatly improve the quality of a decision. I also
feel much more included in the process if I can engage with other opinions.

But there is one major issue with this approach. And this is where PC
(political correctness) comes in. If I have learned one thing from engaging
with PC culture, it is that we can not "just talk about it".  Words can
severely hurt people.  What is more, saying (or omitting) the right words can
escalate a friendly discussion into an open conflict.

So in short, one core proposition of PC is that "let's just talk about
it"-democracy just does not work. However, this is not the end of all.  The
"let's just talk-about it"-concept does certainly not work on the global level.
But I have often seen it in action in personal discussion between friends.

The key is to realize that there are different arenas of democracy.  Every
arena has its own rules. A discussion with a single close friend (or close
enemy) works very differently from a discussion in a group. The discussion of
national politicians on TV is something different altogether.

In smaller arenas, "let's just talk about it" often works really well and
should be preferred. But it is not the only option. "Vote"-democracy is always
there as a backup, especially in larger arenas. In general terms: Bigger arenas
result in less nuanced discussions.

I often hear how people claim that PC culture is oppressing differing views and
therefore democracy. I think that is a misinterpretation of the kind of arena
you are in. Most PC advocates I know are very open to criticism, but not in
large, public arenas. Just like everyone else.

So the next time you are in an argument, try to think about what kind of arena
you are in: Is it ok to dig deep into the topic or is it more appropriate to
have a shallow but inclusive debate?