To amplify (since it seems it was not clear in my initial email)
I am not AT ALL trying to encourage people in the UK to change their
language to suit American sensibilities, nor do I have any interest in
"converting" any readers to American linguistic usage. I apologize if
I came across in that fashion.
Larry Arnold said "I think the US needs to appreciate that there *is* a
difference in the way these things are expressed and just because it is
acceptable on one side of the pond it is not acceptable world wide"
Yes, exactly. Substitute "UK" for "US" and I could say the exact same
thing back to you. I agree that sometimes US folk are too insular, and
far more commonly so than in the UK and elsewhere. I often wish I
could lock up some of my fellow citizens into a room and force them to
repeat over and over, "The World Does Not Begin And End At the US
Border"! But, your terminology is not any more universal than US
terminology is!
I can't pretend to have extensive familiarity with the language used in
all 200 countries world wide, so I'm always interested in learning more
nuance about differing contexts if people know something to share. But
I do have exposure to people from quite a few countries. And the
phrase "disabled people" seems to be, not entirely, but mostly, unique
to the UK and maybe a few other countries heavily influenced by the UK.
Most, or at least many other English-speaking countries seem to prefer
either "people with disabilities" (US, Canada, some English-speaking
African countries, etc) or "persons with disabilities (the United
Nations, for example in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities; some English-speaking African countries).
I suspect possibly US folk could learn to understand the UK perspective
and perhaps even adopt it in time. But if it is to happen at all, it
will not be an instant process, nor can it be expected to be. People
in the US simply do not define the word "disabled" in the way it is
defined in the UK context. It would be as if you took the word "mud"
and tried to ask people to stop using it for "dirt mixed with water"
and instead use it for "sand mixed with wine or other alcoholic
beverages" and THEN attacked term as being offensive on the logic that
alcohol is offensive, and then asked them to use the term "wet soil"
where they now use mud, except as a nicer way of saying "sand mixed
with wine" instead of "dirt mixed with water! It's not just asking
people to see existing language from a different angle, it's asking
people to completely change the basis they use to [re]construct the
lexicon of that language in the first place. So it requires a fairly
fundamental shift to even UNDERSTAND the differing perspectives much
less assimilate a new one.
It took me many hours (weeks, months) of reading UK literature, and
UK-based discussion forums and so forth before I was able to finally
absorb why "PWD" was such anathema in the UK context, and why
"disabled" was not just acceptable but preferred. And given the
negative reactions I tend to receive when trying to explain the US
perspective, I suspect it would take many UK people a similar level of
effort to achieve a similar grasp of US rationale.
Andrea
[log in to unmask]
http://wecando.wordpress.com
On Mar 9, 2009, at 6:43 PM, Larry Arnold wrote:
> Whose language is it anyway? PWD is a clumsy usage and says everything
> to me
> about what is and always was wrong with American Politics, no guts
> since
> they kicked the Brits out.
>
> I am not bending my language to suit the US dialect variation I think
> the US
> needs to appreciate that there *is* a difference in the way these
> things are
> expressed and just because it is acceptable on one side of the pond it
> is
> not acceptable world wide any more than second rate TV is - but that
> is
> another thing because we have plenty of our own nowadays :(
>
> Same Bollox about autism, but at least US autists are in the lead in
> reclaiming the right to call ourselves what we will. I have refused to
> conform with my Uni's PC bollox on this and write it the way I mean it.
>
> The UK did have the same infection of people first language a couple of
> decades ago too, for the same reasons, however some of us got over it.
>
> The problem for me is that this pseudo politeness is inflicted by the
> non
> disabled hegemony on us, it is a language from above and I will not
> have it.
>
> Damn it if an American cannot realise that I am UK English and writing
> UK
> English and adjust what is the world coming to. The rot is with the
> (expletives deleted) US academic publishers, if more than a few
> journals
> went out of print the world would not be less informed we would be
> freer,
> hopefully this recession will have some worthy casualties.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: The Disability-Research Discussion List [mailto:DISABILITY-
>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Andrea Shettle
>> Sent: 09 March 2009 19:36
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Terminology: disabled students v students with
>> disabilities?
>>
>> In my own blog site (We Can Do, http://wecando.wordpress.com) I try to
>> alternate between "people with disabilities" and "disabled people."
>>
>> This is because people in different countries seem to have different
>> preferences. The preference for "disabled people" as far as I can
>> detect seems to be very dominantly and almost uniquely a British/UK
>> phenomenon that I don't think I have really seen elsewhere. In the US
>> and in Spanish speaking countries, the preference is very clearly for
>> "people with disabilities" ("personas con discapacidades" in Spanish).
>>
>> I have found that people from the UK sometimes misperceive this as
>> meaning that the social model has not caught on elsewhere, or is not
>> understood elsewhere. This is false. Please do not confuse
>> LINGUISTIC
>> choices with the MODEL of disability that you are accustomed to
>> associating with them (whatever your cultural context). We DO very
>> much have the social model in the US, in that it is very much
>> understood by most members of the disability community here that most
>> of our barriers to participation in society come from barriers in the
>> environment, rather than in our impairments. This understanding has
>> formed a critical basis for much of the advocacy movement here and has
>> informed some of the more enlightened legislation, such as the
>> Americans with Disabilities Act (equivalent of the UK Disabilities
>> Discrimination Act). It's just that much of the language that we have
>> developed around the discussion of these concepts has evolved along a
>> different path than it did in the UK. (Sometime it might be
>> fascinating and enlightening if someone more knowledgeable in both
>> cultures were to do a historical and etymological investigation of how
>> and why this came about...perhaps something co-written and
>> co-researched by one US researcher and one UK researcher ... but I
>> digress).
>>
>> In the US, the emphasis is on "person first" language -- the idea
>> being
>> that the PERSON is more important than the impairment. Except that,
>> some people perceive the word "impairment" itself to be offensive, as
>> if suggesting that the person themselves is "impaired" for having an
>> impairment. The word "disabled" is also considered very offensive in
>> many US circles. It is simply not interpreted as being connected to
>> disabling factors in the environment, as it is in the UK. In the US
>> context, "disabled" typically carries the connotation that the person
>> him/herself is impaired, incapable, etc., and that the
>> impairment/disability takes precedence over being a person. Thus, it
>> is perceived as a very dehumanizing term. So, many Americans with
>> disabilities find the term "disabled" about as abhorrent as many
>> disabled UK people find the term "people with disabilities."
>>
>> Personally, I understand the philosophy behind both terms well enough
>> to feel comfortable using either one . When writing for a
>> predominantly British audience, I typically use "disabled people" and
>> have no qualms about that. When writing for predominantly US
>> audiences, I use "people with disabilities," and for international
>> audiences I try to remember to use both in alternation.
>>
>> I agree that "disabled people" is shorter and easier to write. For
>> international audiences, I do sometimes tend to use that a little more
>> often just because of that.
>>
>> Andrea Shettle, MSW
>> [log in to unmask]
>> http://wecando.wordpress.com
>>
>
> ________________End of message________________
>
> This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for
> Disability Studies at the University of Leeds
> (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
> Enquiries about list administration should be sent to
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Archives and tools are located at:
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
> You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web
> page.
>
________________End of message________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
|