One can see that there is a tendency for the terms which replace politically incorrect terms to become tainted by the connotations of the previous ones. Steven Pinker refers to this as "the Euphemism Treadmill." It shows up clearly in the progression of terms used for persons with physical handicaps, where terms like physically challenged, differently abled, and people with disabilities have been proposed to replace the term disabled. A similar progression has occurred in the terms used to describe cognitive or developmental delays, with the terms idiot, imbecile, and moron being replaced by mentally retarded. That term eventually also became pejorative and was replaced with others like mentally challenged, intellectual disability, learning difficulties, and special education. If we take history to be our guide, it seems quite possible that these new, politically correct terms will also become the insults of tomorrow. I know that I already hear the terms special and different often being used in a mocking tone.
I don't believe that it is just the negative associations of the words themselves, however, that lead to their replacement. I agree with Aimee that the words themselves can have qualities that lead us to think and act a certain way. As she explains:
There has been an attempt, with words like difficulties and challenged, to move away from emphasis on the absence of ability towards language which allows possibility. That seems very promising to me. Are these terms specific enough, however? Do they sufficiently express the extent of the impact of more severe conditions on the lives of affected individuals? Not all those who are affected agree.
I also can also appreciate the desire to use People-first Language, (i.e. people with disabilities) rather than use language that emphasizes the disability (i.e. disabled person). I also know that this language has been criticized for separating the person's identity from their trait or condition (by using the word with in-between the person and the condition), implying that trait is somehow bad or lesser. This doesn't sit well with those who wish to identify with their distinctive traits, such as those who identify with the Deaf culture and the Autism Rights Movement. Others criticize the term as being awkward and thus drawing undue negative attention to the condition.
Either way, one can see that it is a challenge to find terms which adequately communicate the intended meaning without conveying unintended negative ones.
In both the terms people with disabilities and intellectual disabilities, you can also see that it has been hard to leave the term disability completely behind. It has been carefully defined in law and in documents by various jurisdictions and organizations. In the United States, for example, IDEA remains in force, having been updated and revised a couple of times, and the term disability has become all tied up with issues of funding and qualifications and requirements for programs and equipment. This is also true in many other countries. It seems to me, then, that it has become less a decision of whether or not to use terms like disabled and disability, but when and how to use them sensitively and respectfully.
In the mean time, Aimee has come up with her own way of handling the issue. She uses disable in its verb form, and she makes up her own improved thesaurus entry:
"It's about what we believe about people when we name them with these words. It's about the values behind the words, and how we construct those values."I am sympathetic to the values and intentions behind the more recent terminology. I also understand that they also have their limitations.
There has been an attempt, with words like difficulties and challenged, to move away from emphasis on the absence of ability towards language which allows possibility. That seems very promising to me. Are these terms specific enough, however? Do they sufficiently express the extent of the impact of more severe conditions on the lives of affected individuals? Not all those who are affected agree.
I also can also appreciate the desire to use People-first Language, (i.e. people with disabilities) rather than use language that emphasizes the disability (i.e. disabled person). I also know that this language has been criticized for separating the person's identity from their trait or condition (by using the word with in-between the person and the condition), implying that trait is somehow bad or lesser. This doesn't sit well with those who wish to identify with their distinctive traits, such as those who identify with the Deaf culture and the Autism Rights Movement. Others criticize the term as being awkward and thus drawing undue negative attention to the condition.
Either way, one can see that it is a challenge to find terms which adequately communicate the intended meaning without conveying unintended negative ones.
In both the terms people with disabilities and intellectual disabilities, you can also see that it has been hard to leave the term disability completely behind. It has been carefully defined in law and in documents by various jurisdictions and organizations. In the United States, for example, IDEA remains in force, having been updated and revised a couple of times, and the term disability has become all tied up with issues of funding and qualifications and requirements for programs and equipment. This is also true in many other countries. It seems to me, then, that it has become less a decision of whether or not to use terms like disabled and disability, but when and how to use them sensitively and respectfully.
In the mean time, Aimee has come up with her own way of handling the issue. She uses disable in its verb form, and she makes up her own improved thesaurus entry:
Disable, (verb).
To crush a spirit, to withdraw hope, to deflate curiosity, to promote an inability to see beauty, to deprive of imagination. To make abject.
Ant. to make poss-able
No comments:
Post a Comment