Dear all
I joined this argument latterly so there will be several points raised in
answer to several of the contributions.
First, I would say that I think the language we use is very important & not
because of its grammatical accuracy, rather because of its social (including
historical, political, economic) context & usage. It is important because of
issues of power & self determination more than any other. Disabled
Person/People (there is a move, as in the Deaf community, to capitalise the
words in order to distinguish its use as a political statement) is a
political statement as is the Black people, Deaf people. For me it is also
more consistent with the Social Model.
Second, I will own that I decribe myself as a person with an obvious
impairment & a Disabled Person. The two are not synonymous.
************************************************************
Sarah Supple wrote: "Yea, I guess you only need a term such as disabled
whilst it's put in
opposition to being 'able'. Once we move on from such categorisations and
dichotomies we won't need it anymore, I look forward to this time."
We will only need the term Disabled People whilst the oppression of people
based on their having (whether by accident of birth or acquisition in later
life) an actual, perceived or reputed impairment (physical, cognitive,
emotional, sensory, hidden or otherwise) continues & we face daily
discrimination, barriers to our full participation in the life of our
societies.
I think that in order to resolve this issue we have to look at who is saying
what:-
Yes, individual Disabled People will have preferences, whether that be here
in Britain, or the rest of Europe, or the US, or Oz, or Latin America, or
the Arab states, or African states, or China, or India, or anywhere else I
haven't included & when dealing with those individuals, on a one to one
basis we hae to respect their language (though that doesn't mean we cannot
debate it with them).
However, where, in any of these states, the Movement of Disabled People
adopt a terminology to fight the cause of Disabled People, challenging this
terminology in forums where we seek to redress the power imbalance, is to
undermine Disabled People's right to self determination as a collective. It
is for the Movement of Disabled People to debate internally & revise the
language & Disabled People who wish to debate it at a political level should
do so there, but outside adopt the current terminology of the Movement. As
should anyone that calls themself an ally to us - irrespective of sematic,
personal or professional differences of opinion. To do anything else is not
to be an ally.
****************************************************
Shelley Tremain wrote "For my own part, I use the term "disabled," though I
think the term "people with impairments" needs to be trashed for some of the
same reasons that "people with disabilities" should be put to rest. I think
that proponents on the social model have not gone far enough with their
critique of disability and have languished on a rather simplistic
juridico-discursive conception of social power that does not (and cannot)
account for the productive forms that power takes in modern liberal
societies."
The term 'juridico-discursive' is meaningless to me so totally obscured the
point for me without my having to go & look it up.
She also wrote, "I did want to remark on the indignant and rather
self-righteous tone adopted by some of the UK contributors to this
discussion... It was suggested by some that those who use the term "people
with disabilities" err in their "logic;" these UK contributors rhetorically
(and quite pointedly) asked whether those in the discussion who use the term
"people with disabilities" (and Mary E. in particular) would endorse terms
like "people with racism" or "people with sexism". In (rhetorical?)
response, I would like to suggest that anyone who spends any good amount of
time reading (social model) disability literature (popular and academic)
that comes out of the UK can find the same sort of (apparently grievous)
equivocation.My current favorite is the term "disability equality training".
I guess proponents of the social model would (on pain of logical error)
endorse terms like: "racism equality trainer," or how about "homophobia
equality trainer" or "classism equality training"? Shouldn't we rather (on
pain of logical error) want to use terms like: "racial/cultural equality
training," "class equality training" and "sexual equality training," or even
better "anti-disability equality training," "anti-racist equality training,"
"anti-homophobia equality training"?"
This 'feels' very much in the same offensive tone as she accuses the other
contributors. It is sniping & dismissive, as are other of the responses. If
it isn't helpful from the protaganists of one side it isn't any more helpful
from the other.
Many of us are in the Movement are 'dissatisfied' with the term 'impairment'
it has negative overtones. However, until such times as we identify better
(more accurate/positive) terms, we should, in solidarity, use the agreed
language in public.
****************************************************************
Paul Curry wrote, "I think that a lot of this is best left to how an
individual sees themselves. I have a congenital disability. Long before I
was a person I had what is considered (by any model) a disability/disabling
condition/reason for society to exclude me etc. Growing up with my
disability has totally shaped how I see the world and how the world sees me
therefore, as far as I am concerned I am disabled first because that
defines, good and bad, who I am. So, I'm a disabled person. Not proud, not
ashamed, just me. Equally I know many people who look at it from the point
of being a person first (although a lot are people who have acquired
disabilities) and that's how they see themselves. Basically I'm saying that
there is no right and no wrong answer to this and by trying to lump everyone
into a single description we risk moving away from being able to see people
as individuals which is what we want to
achieve."
Using this terminiology does not deny individuality, its usage is political
not personal. At the end of the day I want to be known as Hazel..... in all
my complexity, by those I relate to as an individual. When I say 'I am a
person with an obvious impairment & a Disabled Person' I'm not introducing
myself to people at a party, or people I meet on holiday or elsewhere. Here
I say, 'Hi, I'm Hazel'. It's what I choose to use when I am in a forum where
need to assert that I am representing Disabled People & am seeking to be
heard as such & to endorse my commitment to the Movement of Disabled People.
It is an expression of solidarity & political identity.
*****************************************************
Timothy Lillie wrote, "You assert that using "people with disabilities" is
oppressive while "disabled people" is empowering, if I understand you. I
have to confess that this looks to me like a distinction without a
difference and a shibboleth of Biblical proportions."
Again the term 'shibboleth' (also used elsewhere in the debate) is
meaningless to me so rather makes reduces my understanding of your meaning.
I understand it to be a 'put down' anyway.
There are major differences between the language used in North America &
Britain (I will support the language adopted by the Movement of Disabled
People there if that is what it is & we can enjoy comradely debates about
context & meaning to better understand each other - though there are terms
that if used here in Britain are deeply offensive not only to ardent
supporters of the Movement - anything with 'handicapped' or 'retardation'
amongst them).
You assert that "what counts is what happens in the lives of people with
disabilities".
I would put it to you the language used about us DOES count & is part of
what 'happens' in our lives & has been & continues to be used to maintain us
in postitions of powerlessness.
Elsewhere you have noted that the term 'disabled person' is offensive to
some individuals. I accept that - largely because to be a 'disabled person'
(lower case) is to be second-class or third-class or even lesser. The thing
here is not to further oppress them as individuals by insisting they call
themselves that, rather provide opportunities for their empowerment &
involvement in the Movement & engagement in the debate about language.
Here endeth my contribution!
Best wishes,
Hazel Peasley
A World of Difference
Diversity Enriches
Tel/Fax 023 8077 7113
Mobile 07775 741696
Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked with virus
detection software prior to transmission, but you should carry out your own
virus check before opening any attachment. The contents of this e-mail and
any attachments are the property of A World of Difference and are intended
for the confidential use by the named recipient(s) only. They should not be
communicated to, or relied upon, by any other party without my written
consent. If you are not the addressee please notify me immediately at the
address below or by e-mail to [log in to unmask]
________________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.
|