Of course language carries a great deal more than just words. But,
if we invent new words and phrases to describe disabilities, won't those
new terms eventually acquire the cultural significance of the ones they
were intended to replace? Then we'll need another set of terms to
repeat the process.
I am clear about my own disability. I have a visual impairment,
which means that there are some things that I can not do or can not do
as well as my sighted counterparts. Thus I am unable to do those things
effectively. Therefore, as a result of my visual impairment, I am
disabled from doing those things effectively. Therefore I have a
disability. Now, this is all very long winded, so it is much easier to
say that I am almost blind, or even legally blind. We don't mind
talking about a green lawn, so why should we not talk about a blind
person?
I would suggest that to do other than I am proposing is to obscure
the facts. If we keep the language simple and straightforward, then
there is a greater chance that a larger proportion of the population
will be able to understand it. If we use more complex or indirect
language, we lay the foundations for a whole industry to translate,
interpret and argue about the facts. This latter is not helpful to
people who are disabled, although it may make a very great deal of money
for many who are not.
Brendan.
--
BRENDAN MAGILL
Business and Information Technology
Consultancy, Training and Research
Yew Tree Cottage
Winnall Common
Allensmore
Herefordshire
HR2 9BS
England
Phone: +44 (0)1981 570660
Fax: +44 (0)870 127 7856
Web: www.magill.co.uk
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|