« Take Advantage of These Unique Opportunities | Main | Tapping the Power of Words, Actions »
February 13, 2008
Tearing Down Disability Language Barriers
Liz Seger writes:
“Recently in the Toronto Star newspaper the public
education editor wrote an editorial asking why terms
like ‘blind alley’ or ‘falling on deaf ears’ in
reporters' pieces are considered discriminatory
after a complaint by a member of the Canadian
Hearing Society.
“The editor considered it more of a 'style'
discussion for the editorial staff rather than
something about inclusion and discrimination around
the words people use that may be demeaning to those
of us with disabilities…
“What is frustrating to me is that most of society has evolved enough to not call people derogatory names when it relates to race, religion, ethnicity and they get pretty upset about it, but it still seems OK to talk about and to people with disabilities like they are invisible and not mentally competent.”
Glenda Watson Hyatt puts this issue of disability
language in perspective in a 2005 article, “What Is in
a Word?” for SPARC BC News. In that article, she
writes:
“An indicator of a society’s regard for the disabled
lays in the terms used to label them.
"For example, in English, invalid means 'not valid'
or 'not acceptable.' Handicap conjures up an image
of someone on the street corner with 'cap in hand,'
begging for handouts and charity.
"These labels degrade individuals by focusing on
their differences or incapabilities rather than on
the individuals themselves.
“Until recently, the prevalent model of disability
has been the medical model in which the disabled
person is seen as the problem. In the late 1980’s,
largely influenced by people with disabilities
themselves who argued that disability is a socially
constructed concept and society itself creates the
disability, there was a shift from the medical model
to the social model. In this model, prejudice,
discrimination, and inaccessible environments are
the disabling factors -- not the medical
conditions."
Glenda points out that the medical model, however, is
still alive and there is still some distance to go
before people with disabilities are acknowledged as
equals in society.
For example, she writes, “Able-bodied individuals
exercise, workout, and have personal fitness trainers,
while individuals with disabilities get rehab,
therapy, and have physiotherapists."
Why is disability language, especially in the
workplace, so important?
According to the Harvard psychologist, Steven Pinker,
in his book, “The Stuff of Thought: Language as a
Window into Human Nature,” people are "verbivores, a
species that lives on words."
He continues:
“If you want to understand how the brain works, how
it thinks about space and causation and time, how it
processes emotions and engages in social
interactions, then you need to plunge ‘down the
rabbit hole’ of language. The quirks of our
sentences are merely a portal to the mind.”
In short, “Words and their rules don't tell us about the world; they tell us about ourselves,” writes Jonah Lehrer in the Washington Post’s Book World. Words show us how we feel.
Below is an explanation that I find interesting about how words work by Jamie C. MacDougall, associate professor, Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal:
"Until very recently, philosophers, psychologists and
others concerned with epistemology (the theory of
knowledge) held a standard view concerning how we
perceive reality. The basic idea is that we know the
world mainly through sight and touch. When we see
something, we expect to be able to touch it. Unless
you are a bat using echolocation, hearing was mainly
reserved for communication.
"This point of view led to the powerful illusion that
our eyes were not only involved in sensory
processes but perception and higher order cognitive
processes as well. Similarly, the ear not only
processed sound waves but was also involved in
understanding language and thinking. This view is
considered 'common sense' even today.
"However, intensive research –- particularly in the
area of cognitive neuroscience -- has shown this view
to be completely false. We now know that it is the
brain that does the heavy lifting as far as higher
order processing involving perception of reality,
linguistic processing and thinking. The eyes and
ears and our other senses, while complex, are but
the messengers bringing information to the brain for
processing. There the information undergoes many
transformations arousing complex memories, feelings
and emotions...
"What does all this mean for the problem of
disability metaphors? The answer is simple. A large
part of why blind and deaf people were so
misunderstood in the past can be related directly to
our misunderstanding of what the eyes and ears
actually do. If you think with conviction that the
eye is the only window to reality then, if you can’t
see, you will be hopelessly confused and have little
capacity for understanding even the simplest things.
"Similarly, for the deaf, lack of hearing meant lack
of understanding language. Since language was
thought to be intimately related to thought, it was
only a short leap of logic to declare that the deaf
were mentally deficient -- a mental state nicely
captured by the now outmoded term ‘deaf and dumb.’
"No one should be surprised, therefore, that language
reflected this misunderstanding for about two
thousand years. The Bible is full of metaphors like
the “blind leading the blind,” and Shakespeare and
other literacy giants are close behind. Margaret
Atwood has a book called "The Blind Assassin," and I
don’t know anyone who thinks she is prejudiced
against blind people. She is just following a well-
worn literary path with no intention of malice.
"Probably the first major assault on this failed line
of thought was the appearance of Helen Keller, who
was, of course, both deaf and blind. Such was her
accomplishment that, according to all reports, her
global fame was rivaled only by Albert Einstein.
Why? Because she was living proof that it was the
brain, not the eyes and ears, that was important.
"In view of this, one would have thought the standard
view of the primacy of the senses would have been
thoroughly smashed, but what seemed to happen was
that her astonishing abilities were seen as super
human -- even miraculous (not of this world). An
unfortunate aspect of this view is the lingering
idea that people with a disability should strive to
reach this unworldly level and somehow 'overcome'
their disability against all odds.
"To summarize, the standard view is that the senses
do all the perceiving and thinking. If you lose the
sense -- well, you have diminished capacity, but, if
you try real hard, you will find other ways to
compensate.
"(The) language that incorporates this outmoded view
has been around for so long and is so thoroughly
embedded in all our everyday thinking and great
literature that there is no reason to give it up.
"In fact, we would be giving up a substantial part
of our literary heritage and collective identity.
Those involved in the long struggle to eliminate
sexist language will find this a familiar refrain...
"(But), if science can convince us that the earth is not
the center of the universe -- something the Catholic
Church only recently grudgingly admitted 300 years
after Galileo’s passing, then why not that our
senses, while important, are not the real story. It
is the magnificent brain. That’s where all the real
action is. Blind people, deaf people, people who use
wheelchairs and all others with a disability,
whether physical or mental, have functioning brains
-- that’s what makes them human."
Here's your opportunity to help tear down disability
language barriers. Please think about what these five
people above have said and then reply to this
question:
What is the most misleading description of your
disability you have encountered during your
pursuit of meaningful work?
Add your comments to this posting
Posted by Jim at February 13, 2008 09:47 AM
Comments
I've never really received a direct remark like that in my job search, but when I attended an office-skills training program at The Chicago Lighthouse for the Blind I was the brunt of some pretty negative remarks. During one of my staffings, for example, I was told that I'd most probably have a hard time finding a receptionist position just because I talk a bit slower than the average person. Yet look where I am now. I am on my second job in the nonprofit sector, and it happens to be an administrative assistant position where I do a lot of phone work. The same was true of my first job at a nonprofit organization. As a matter of fact I received only very positive comments during that job related to my performance, and the same is true now. I have always looked forward to work. It gives me great pride to be able to help out one of our callers, or to be able to make reminder calls. I was always told that if one doesn't have anything nice to say then that person should just keep quiet. I think the office-skills personnel probably saw their remark as constructive criticism, but I was quite offended by it. It really angers me that this kind of stuff is allowed to continue. One other thing about the blindness community which really saddens me is that a large portion have for years stated openly that they speak for all blind people. It would appear to me that people like that have a big problem with self-esteem. Besides this whole labeling issue, what really gets me is that a lot of people are still unaware of "people first" language.
Posted by: Jake at February 13, 2008 05:24 PM
I think words can and do hurt you. I have a friend, who is working at a nationally known non profit in Ontario, whose boss, does not call her by her given name, but calls her "Gimpy". My friend has a problem with her knee, she's not fully disabled ,it's a temporary thing, but being called "Gimpy" in front of not only her fellow workers but also the consumers of this non profit gives off the impression that it's ok to use disparaging terms about someone who is disabled. It's the old " oh it's can't you take a joke" mentality when in reality this organization is geared to those with intellectual impairments and should know better.
In my article for eSight.or " Bless the Mess" I recount how my boss referred to three legally blind and blind employees myself included as the " three blind mice." I told her it to her face that it's two blind mice and vi rat and I din't appreciate her calling me that. One has to stand up for oneself.
As both Dr. Phil and Maya Angelou have said in their own ways, you teach people how to treat you, for the better or for the worse.
At the moment I'm reading Eckhardt Tolle's book The New Earth and on pages 50 abd 51 he makes a very interesting point , that I believe speaks to the points made in this last ENN newsletter.
"Equating the physical sense perceived body that is destined to grow old , wither and die with "I" always leads to suffering sooner or later. To refrain from identifying with the body doesn't mean that you neglect, despise or no longer care for it. If it is strong , beautiful or vigorous you can enjoy and appreciate those attributes-while they last. You can also improve the body's condition through right nutrition and exercise.
If you don't equate the body with who you are , when beauty fades, vigor diminishes or the body becomes incapacitated , this will not affect your your sense of worth or identity in any way. In fact, as the body begins to weaken, the formless dimension, the light of consciousness can shine more easily through the fading form.
It is not just people with good or near perfect bodies who are likely to equate it with who they are. You can just as easily identify with a "problematic" body and make the body's imperfection, illness or disability into your identity. You may think and speak of yourself as a " sufferer" of this or that chronic illness or disability. ...You then unconsciously cling to the illness because it has become the most important part of who you perceive yourself to be . It has become another thought from which the ego can identify . Once the ego has found an identity, it does not want to let go."
So in order to not let others give us an identity with words that we do not wish to be , we must confront those who use words that are mis-communications of the facts or are demeaning or offensive.
It's part of maintaining our dignity and not being ranked as well as part of us being looked at as human beings first and not just our disabilities, diseases or illnesses.
Posted by: Liz S at February 14, 2008 11:16 AM
I read with interest this article. My reaction is that our actions and the actions of others speak far louder than any words anyone can ever say about me. I honestly have neither the time nor the energy to engage in a battle over semantics. I am happy to teach folks about the correct way but in the end I am more interested in how I am treated. The words, thoughts and intentions can be overt or covert but I feel that we are splitting far too many hairs to make this as productive as it needs to be. If I am offended, I need to speak up. It is the responsibility of the disabled populace to speak up to the world. History tells us the world will not readily provide for our dignity and respect so we may just have to fight for it. Remember that the folks who think this way should not pull us down to their level. Stand tall, be proud and speak when necessary. Disability is a natural part of the human experience.
Posted by: bmayse at February 14, 2008 01:04 PM
The use of terminology as described in the articles noted once again provides an exercise in semantics. The process of language is complex and, quite often, unintentional. What of the terms "white space", "black ice" and yellow journalism"? Are we to presume these terms are derrived from an attempted distain for specific racial characteristics? I think not.
Two different men of the latter 20th Century had it right. First Martin Luthur King noted we need to judge men by the content of their heart, not the color of their skin (and, may I add physical characteristics). Ronald Wilson Regan noted that we are a country of diversity and, it is this diversity that makes each of us unique contributors to the fabric of American society.
Hmmm. Clearly there are far more important issues/concerns on which to focus. While samantic games entertain the mind, the utility of their usefulness is questionable. Let's not lose focus on the primary issues at hand--enhanced employment opportunity, equitable/fair treatment and one's individual self worth. Without these, there is no foothold on which to step-up to other incidentals on the sidelines.
Posted by: James J. Elekes, M.Ed, MPA, CPM at February 14, 2008 01:48 PM
I wish to comment on one of the quotations in the article. ' Handicap conjures up an image of someone on the street corner with 'cap in hand,' begging for handouts and charity." Various disability rights publications like to tie the "cap in hand" image to the word handicap. If you consult an authoritative source like the Oxford English Dictionary, you will find nothing in the derivation to support this association. There is enough misinformation about disability; we don't need to perpetuate this one. Yes, Hand" and Cap" are both contained in the word, but the presence of those little words does not necessarily affect the larger word's meaning.
Posted by: Kathy Blackburn at February 18, 2008 11:21 AM