>Simi, I'm also interested in when "people first" language came into
>circulation. Over the next couple of months I am to write a paper on
>the subject designed to generate discussion for a series of roundtables
>we (the Roeher Institute) intend to organize with policy-makers,
>self-advocates, and other disability activists. Our aim is to motivate
>them to change from the people-first lexicon to language that fits with
>a social model. This will be a daunting task. As Maria and Tanis
>recently indicated on this list, the people-first language is very, very
>entrenched in the Canadian context, with activists and government
>officials alike upholding it.
Hi, Shelly --
I'd like to hear details on the language you're recommending. I do see
problems with people-first, but I'm not sure what lexicon would fit the
social model better. I may not be following all of the posts on this, but
one post I recall from Canada referred to the popularity of language like
"physically challenged". That's objectionable, but not because it's
people-first.
The "PWD" phraseology does seem inconsistent with the social model, at least
as long as the term "disability" is understood as the outcome of social
oppression (as UPIAS uses it, but ICIDH does not use it). "Person with
oppression" doesn't make sense, where "oppressed person" does. But that
particular difference seems pretty small, at least in casual speech. Do you
have a more specific lexicon?
Ron
--
Ron Amundson
University of Hawaii at Hilo
Hilo, HI 96720
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|