|
People-First Language:
An Unholy Crusade
by C. Edwin Vaughan
Copyright 1997 by the National Federation of the Blind.
From the Editor: Dr. Vaughan is a frequent contributor to these
pages and a scholar in the field of disability. His most recent book, The
Struggle of Blind People for Self-Determination, published by Charles C.
Thomas, is available for $40 in bookstores or from the National Center for
the Blind. Many of us who write and speak frequently about blindness and
the
problems that blind people face have struggled in recent years against the
increasing pressure to use what has come to be called "people- first" or
"preferred" language. It is unwieldy and repetitive, and any ear tuned to
appreciate vigorous, precise prose must be offended by its impact on a
good
sentence. But proponents of this formulaic circumlocution have decided
that
mention of the person must always precede reference to his or her
disability
or the effect will be to show disrespect for the individual under
discussion. The result has been to shame many good speakers and writers
into
forms of expression to which they would never otherwise have stooped.
Dr. Vaughan has had enough, and so have many of the rest of us.
We
are ashamed neither of who we are nor of the characteristics that help to
shape us. Here is what he has to say:
From the editorial concerns of academic journals to the opinions
of individual educators and agency directors, I encounter a continuing
agenda for bringing uniformity in the language used to describe disabled
people. Proponents would have everyone use people-first language, such as
"people who are blind" rather than "blind people" or "a person who is
deaf"
rather than "a deaf person." By so doing they claim to focus on the whole
person rather than the disability. In April, 1993, an agency executive,
expressing his concern for uniform usage, wrote to Dr. Jernigan, "The
point
is that the language is now putting people first rather than our
disability." He went on to say that there had been agreement about this in
the Independent Living movement for several years.
In that same month, in a meeting of the editorial board of a
major
journal in the field of rehabilitation, a prominent educator argued that
the
blindness field should "get on with it." I have also received specific
instruction from journal editors to use the preferred language--"people
who
are blind." I regret to say that I have sometimes acquiesced in order to
get
an article past the gatekeepers. The issue has become so important to some
that it has even led to empirical research published in major journals.
One of the most recent is an article by Jan La Forge (1991)
which
tabulated the use of preferred language in all major articles in three
major
rehabilitation journals in 1988 (p. 50). She concluded that, despite
fifteen
years of professional effort, preferred language is used only about fifty
percent of the time (p. 50). "Perhaps those of us in the rehabilitation
profession may need to confront our own possible limiting attitudes before
we are enabled to lead the public in consistently employing language
signifying positive regard for all human-kind--including those with
disabilities" (p. 51). Using the preferred language-- persons first--puts
the so-called correct user on the side of humanity and human
rights--surely
a good place to be. However, near the end of her research, she includes
what
I judge to be a crucial observation: "We do not even have data to support
the claim, and belief, that those who are disabled themselves prefer what
is
now called nondisabling language" (p. 51). Most of the arguments I have
encountered are put forward by the proponents of preferred language, who
are
so immersed in their crusade that they do not even demonstrate an
awareness
of other points of view. But these other views, the subject of this paper,
make the people-first crusade appear not very holy and perhaps even
harmful.
Sometimes preferred language is rejected for literary reasons;
it
is awkward, tiresome, and repetitive, and it makes articles needlessly
long.
Reading repetitions of the phrases "persons who are blind" or "people who
are visually impaired" becomes tiresome to anyone after ten to fifteen
occurrences. This criticism is certainly on the mark; however, it is the
least significant of the arguments against the preferred language crusade.
I wonder if the proponents of people-first language believe that
putting disabled people first on the printed page accomplishes anything in
the real world? Does it alter attitudes, professional or otherwise, about
disabilities? What is their evidence? The awkwardness of the preferred
language calls attention to a person as having some type of "marred
identity" (Goffman, 1963). But the misconceptions that diminish the lives
of
disabled people must still be countered directly.
There are at least two ways to look at this issue. First, the
awkwardness of the preferred language focuses on the disability in a new
and
potentially negative way. In common usage positive pronouns usually
precede
nouns. We do not say, "people who are beautiful," "people who are
handsome,"
"people who are intelligent," etc. Under the guise of the preferred
language
crusade, we have focused on disability in an ungainly new way but have
done
nothing to educate anyone or change anyone's attitudes.
Second, we are told that preferred usage will cause us to focus
on
the whole person. In the best of all possible worlds, where ignorance,
stereotypes, and advantages over others do not exist, this might be the
case. But until we reach that condition- -and that will be a long time
coming--might it not be preferable to use language that reflects the
actual
experiences of most disabled people? In interaction with others,
disabilities are almost never ignored. Disabled people learn to manage
such
situations. If we are going to expend this concentrated effort, why not
launch a broader-based, more substantive crusade which would change images
and ideas about conditions that are sometimes frightening and seldom well
understood? For example, why not work on changing the connotations of what
it means to be blind--to challenge old understandings with new insights
about blindness? Many blind people are proud of the accomplishments of
their
brothers and sisters. Just as black became beautiful, blind is no longer a
symbol of shame. To say, "I am blind" or "I am a blind person" no longer
seems negative to many, particularly those groups with existential
interest
in the topic.
Finally, in the broadest sense this issue is a political one.
From
the first book of the Judeo/Christian Bible to the work of Michel
Foucault,
giving a name is important and suggests domination (Vaughan, 1993, pp.
115-142). There are many different kinds of people with various
disabilities. Some groups may have progressed more than others in their
effort to redefine their situations in the wider society. Some individuals
and groups of individuals wish to name themselves (or at least not have
new
labels, preferred usage, created for them by experts who would do them
good.) So why the current people-first language crusade? Why not respect
the
wishes and diversity of many directly involved individuals and consumer
groups? Is this not in part what empowerment is about? No one objects to
other people's use of awkward phrases such as "persons with blindness," if
they want to be tedious writers. But isn't it pretentious to make such
convolutions the preferred or even the only acceptable constructions? Is
this not rather the effort of some misguided professionals who, without
listening, are trying to change the world of those they purport to serve?
I know that many well-meaning professionals will disagree and
wonder how anyone could question the benevolence of the preferred language
crusaders. To me, however, this is a measure of their isolation from the
very thinking and actions within disability groups that hold the greatest
prospect for changing attitudes and behavior. The concept of preferred
language is merely academic--in the worse sense of the term. It means very
little with respect to anything of consequence in the everyday world. We
can
only hope that the day will come when editors will retreat from their
misguided demands and once again allow language to become the carrier of
positive images as well as letting it reflect the wishes of disabled
people
themselves.
References
Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled
Identity.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
La Forge, Jan. 1991. Preferred language practice in professional
rehabilitation journals. The Journal of Rehabilitation, 57 (1):49-51.
(January, February, March)
Vaughan, C. Edwin. 1993. The Struggle of Blind People for Self-
Determination; the Dependency-Rehabilitation Conflict; Empowerment in the
Blindness Community. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas.
[Blue Cloud Bar Image.]
Blindness Information Pages.
Go to General Information About Blindness.
Go to A Philosophy Of Blindness.
Go to Who Are The Blind Who Lead The Blind.
Go to Organizations OF The Blind.
Go to Organizations FOR The Blind.
Go to Companies Specializing In Products For The Blind.
Go to Other Resources For The Blind.
Go to How You Can Help The Blind.
Go to The Blind Net Home Page.
[Rainbow Bar Image.]
Send your comments to [log in to unmask]
[Rainbow Bar Image.]
This page is located on the server of Net Connections of Bakersfield.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
