THE WAR OF THE WORDS:
LANGUAGE, PERCEPTION AND DISABILITY
by Carol Sowell
- The president of the United States is described in a national newsmagazine as being "confined to a wheelchair."
- A television report says the prosecutor in a high-profile criminal trial has been "stricken with multiple sclerosis."
- A writer for a nationally circulated disability magazine refers to himself as a "gimp."
- A wheelchair user says, "I'm considered a quad."
- A physician speaks of people "suffering from" muscular dystrophy.
- A bill introduced in Congress is concerned with "victims of ALS" whose "struggle" is "heroic and an inspiration."
- A letter criticizing a newspaper story about polio concludes, "Don't you think that we victims have suffered enough without being callously called cripples?"
These aren't quotes from the 1950s. These are actual examples of language spoken or written in 1997 by educated, well-meaning people who were sincerely trying to convey the impact of disability. Yet each of the examples contains terms considered, by at least some people with disabilities, offensive, belittling or stereotyping.
| Sticks and stones may break my bones, But words can never harm me.
--Old English rhyme
* * *
Every vital development in language is a development of feeling as well.
--T.S. Eliot.
* * *
A word carries far -- very far -- deals destruction through time as the bullets go flying through space.
--Joseph Conrad, Lord Jim
* * *
When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.
--Humpty Dumpty in "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland," Lewis Carroll |
Language is one of the most troubling issues in the realm of disability today. Questions about language are perplexing to the media, the medical profession and just about everybody else who has occasion to talk or write about disability.
It's widely accepted that such terms as "deaf and dumb," "dwarf," "a retard" or "a cripple" are dated, insensitive and best abandoned. Words such as "victim" and "impaired" imply negative judgments about an individual's worth or status. But other choices aren't so clear.
Many advocates urge the public to follow the "people first" rule: saying "a person with a disability," not "a disabled person." This guideline helps people avoid labeling someone according to a disability, but it can lead to awkward, unwieldy language. And on first blush, many people new to the issue have difficulty understanding why it's better to refer to someone as "a person with a visual disability" than as "a blind man." The latter seems factual enough, or does it imply a moral judgment?
Further confusing the issue is the fact that people with disabilities disagree among themselves about what constitutes appropriate, acceptable language and what's objectionable.
In an effort to open up discussion on the topic of language, Quest offers the following questionnaire. We want to know what our readers think, and we'll report the results in a future issue. Please send completed questionnaires to: Editor, Quest, MDA, 3300 E. Sunrise Drive, Tucson, AZ 85718, by Dec. 1, 1997. |
