Dear Keith and all,
I really do agree with what you wrote about terminology, Keith. In a
similar vein, what really gets to me is when the word 'suffering' is
so readily used to describe people who have a medical condition of
some kind - as though by simply having such a condition, they are
automatically a victim or sufferer. On the radio yesterday, the views of
parents of children who 'suffer' from Down's syndrome were discussed
(in connection with health services). Why couldn't the broadcaster
be non-colourful and neutral in simply saying 'people who *have* Down's
syndrome'? My sister (soon to be 16) has Down's syndrome, yet - in
spite of mild related health 'problems' (hole in the heart) - she really doesn't
'suffer' at the hands of the syndrome at all. She is an
inspirational, happy and fun-loving person.
Why should an entire group of people - many of whom love life,
and happily get on with it ... often unaware of even having a medical
condition - be assumed to be 'suffering', just because they have been
identified as having a medical condition? Negative terminology
(like 'suffering') - freely used on national radio - widely
encourages people to feel only useless and patronising pity towards people
who have Down's syndrome (or dyslexia, diabetes etc. ... anything
'different'), and to perceive them as unhappy and dependent. From my
experience of working with many adults and children who have Down's
syndrome - and from knowing and loving my younger sister - this just
isn't what it's all about! Words like 'respect', 'inspiration', 'fun', and 'love'
paint a totally different - and often more accurate - picture.
Words have the potential to build a bridge of mutual understanding and
respect between non-disabled and disabled people ... or to drive a wedge
of ignorance and misunderstanding between them. It is *SO* important
that we choose the right ones in the right contexts.
Best wishes,
Zoe Holland
([log in to unmask])
On Sunday 7 March 1999, Keith Ripley wrote ...
Dismay at the language surrounding children with Special educational needs
Am I just a pedant, or are there others whose spirits sink when they open
newly published books, from the likes of the Open University & others
(e.g. Mackinnon, D et al 1997 Education in Western Europe. Facts & figures
) & find these terms used physically & mentally disadvantaged (page
13) severity of the child, handicap or problem mild mental handicap,
serious mental handicap (page28).
A book such as this could be published in the UK using either the
terminology of the 1981 Education Act or the current terminology used to
define schools in this country. It could include a glossary of terms
highlighting the variations across European countries, & a statement from
1 or more organizations for disabled people, stating why they do not want
to be known as handicapped, & the term(s) that they do prefer.
The Open University & other publishing bodies have a duty to educate as
well as to maintain standards. This includes challenging sloppy &
inaccurate use of language, such as special needs oh for a world where
people did not refer to themselves as oh I work with special needs, as
though children in this country exist in 2 separate bodies & that such
categorization could inform so completely ..
If Im the only one who feels like this I promise I will desist from
highlighting such facts in student assignments.
Yours hopefully,
Keith Ripley [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|