To all
This posting is a reply of some sort to Anita's posting
about politically correct langauge and attitude change.
As someone very interested in language and disability I
always treat a new "PC" word about disability with
suspicion This is because some of the time the word seems
to me (and perhaps to me alone) to make those who do not
have a disabily feel more comfortable. This is in some
ways positive, if people feel more comfortable then the
conditions for people of all abilities to interact are
created.
However, I get very angry when I'm told by the latest
survey not only what term is preferred but what you MUST
call people with disabilities. I am very weary of the
effect of collectives on the individual. Even if such and
such a word is better what moral right do they have to
impose a defining word on anyone. When I was Equal
opportunities officier at my college I was given a list by
a member of staff which I had to tell the rest of the
college at a committee to call disabled people.
This list eliminated disabled, disability as PC terms
allowing only Person/s With A Disability left. While this
MAY be an approvment , personally saying " I have a
disability or I am disabled" is fine to me, but I do not
impose these titles on any other person with disability,
make them speak my language.
As to whether it changes attitudes, I if ind is down to a
kind of psychology. If the word replacing is different from
the word being replaced then people notice a difference.
By different I mean phonetically and semantically e.g
Handicapped to disablility is a big difference but Persons
with Disability, while it does separate the person from the
condition is not so noticeable.
----------------------
M.G.Peckitt
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|