Hi Beth, I hold the same reservations as you about the utility of such
endeavors. Usually they attempt to legislate language and behavior in ways
that prove more detrimental than helpful. Bob deFelice has a comedic
routine where he points out that the recommendation of squatting when
speaking to someone in a wheelchair proves difficult (and even dangerous)
if you have a disability such as CP. Thus, the establishment of "etiquette"
always excludes people with disabilities themselves as potential
addressees. The idea that individuals need to be tutored into how to talk
to or approach people with disabilities already implies that we are a
different species who must be "handled" in a manner that diverges from
usual social intercourse. Thus, reenforcing the idea that disability
disqualifies one from participating in the ranks of the normals. While
there are a few terms/phrases that I always balk at -- such as the use of
"the disabled" -- because they insert a rhetorical distance that is
demeaning, no committee I have ever heard of is capable of legislating an
acceptable language. Since language is fluid and ever changing the attempt
to legislate language inevitably fails -- by the time the guidelines are
distributed they're often outdated and outdistanced.
The result of etiquette books is that they tend to place one's attention
upon the protocols of interaction, and those who have trouble navigating
their relationships to disabled people already become even more
uncomfortable (and usually more inept). By placing the emphasis upon the
"rules of interaction" we further run the risk of enhancing, rather than
reducing, the alienness of disability in our personal lives and toward
disability in general. I'd rather see such committees devoting themselves
to establishing disability studies programs or architectural access. Best,
David Mitchell
Hi everyone!
A committe at the university where I work is designing a "disability
etiquette" brochure for the purpose of "educating temprarily
able-bodied people" about "dealing with people with disabilities."
At the risk of injecting bias into my inquiry to you all, I must say
that I am very nervous about this project and pretty much opposed
to it altogether. I am already in disagreement with much of the
language that is being used and also don't see how they will be able
to keep from making broad generalizations that do not apply to
individuals with particular impairments.
I would most appreciate input/opinion/experience with this sort of
publication. Do you think ithis type of brochure is a good education
tool?
If not, why?
If so, how best to go about it?
How do you personally react when you read materials that describe
how people with disabilities "should" be treated by nondisabled
people?
Thank you in advance for your feedback.
Best,
Beth Omansky Gordon
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|