Dick wrote:
>Kate, I'm sure you're right that there's no such thing as a truly neutral
>term. However, some seem to be less controversial than others (at least for
>the present) and my plea was simply for terminology that allows us to talk
>about disability in various settings (medical, psychological, academic, etc)
>without getting sidetracked by unwinnable (and apparently unendable)
>arguements. I want to be sensitive to people's feelings, but I also would
>like to get on with business.
>
I think Kate's point about there being no neutral language is right on the
ball, and I don't think it is possible to develop a language that crosses
disciplinary and national boundaries without causing offence or
misunderstanding somewhere. For example, this mailbase was set up in the UK
and is very clear in its 'policy' about content. Over here 'the social
model' means a body of work that was stimulated by disability
activists/disabled intellectuals and their allies. We use the collective
term 'disabled people' to signify affiliation with the disabled people's
movement and its 'world view'. It marks a 'positive' collective
socio-political identity not a 'negative' personal identity, as some people
intimate. From the terms 'disabled people' and 'the social model', we have
begun to make other distinctions, for example, between 'disability
awareness training' and 'disability equality training' (our preferred
term). So gradually we are building a lexicon that is ours.
A lot of people in the movement regard the term 'people with disabilities'
as denying the existence of both institutionalised oppression and of the
movement itself. In other words, it is used mainly by people who don't
acknowledge the political achievements of disabled people or who are
uncomfortable with the idea that there is such a thing as disability
politics. However, PWDs is used in the USA in a way that (I think) is
synonymous with our 'disabled people'. Therefore PWDs is a 'double'
performative that is capable of both offending and affirming, and it's very
easy to get confused about how it's being used if we're not careful in our
reading. I call it a 'fluffy term'.
I imagine, perhaps naively, that everybody on *this* list supports the
list's policy, so I think it's not a question of trying to find a neutral
term, which as Kate suggests is a futile task anyway, but a lexicon that is
*unique* to us and owned by us internationally. We can then use it in any
context and if it goes against the grain in that context, we explain what
we mean by it and why we use it (something I hope we can agree on). What
actually stops this happening is usually 'national pride' - 'I didn't think
of it, so I don't own it,' but it's still the 'fluffy' terms that cause the
problems.
One final point - a lot of people seem to think that 'saying' is not
'doing'. I think if we 'say' something often enough, it certainly 'does'
something. These days, because physical and sexual abuse are punishable by
law (except it seems in relation to unwanted medical treatment), emotional
and psychological abuse are the most common forms of abuse experienced by
disabled children and adults alike. 'Saying' is a major means of
perpetuating these forms of abuse and of stimulating internalised
oppression, and yet so many people think the terminology debates waste time
when they could be getting on with 'doing' things.
Best wishes
Mairian
Mairian Corker
Senior Research Fellow in Deaf and Disability Studies
Department of Education Studies
University of Central Lancashire
Preston PR1 2HE
Address for correspondence:
Deafsearch
111 Balfour Road
Highbury
London N5 2HE
U.K.
Minicom/TTY +44 [0]171 359 8085
Fax +44 [0]870 0553967
Typetalk (voice) +44 [0]800 515152 (and ask for minicom/TTY number)
*********
"To understand what I am doing, you need a third eye"
*********
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|