M.G.Peckitt wrote-
>Another shft in opinion. Ther term Disabled, not very nice
>but consideted better than above by most. Simply a
>negation of the term abled. The use of negation
>introduction applied, to assume the opposite to the word
>abled.
Interestingly, the "dis" part of disabled does not (always, just, have to)
simply imply a negation of ability (although that is often the first
definition found in dictionaries). The etymology is slightly more
complicated, and much more interesting. Dis- comes down to us through
French from the Latin, with additional original meanings (beyond "mere"
negation) of apart, aside, asunder, as well as to strip of, free or rid of,
to bereave or deprive of, to turn out, put out, expel, or dislodge from the
place or receptacle implied (I'm getting this from my _American Heritage
Dictionary of the English Language _, 1975, and the _Compact Edition of the
Oxford English Dictionary_, 1971).
What intrigues me about these other meanings of dis- is the activeness or
"acted-upon-ness" which they impart to the word. They imply that
people/culture/society DID stuff in order to make others not able, which is
in alignment with my feelings about dis/ability as a social and cultural
construct: some act on others or think about others in ways that force
those others to inhabit particular cultural territories, to marginalize, to
expel or exclude from the normalized dominant landscape.
In these senses, dis/ability becomes perhaps more heinous to those wearing
the label, but certainly complexifies meaning and places the term
culturally in what I think are useful ways.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|