Disability Awareness: It's All in the Name
Written by: Michael S. True, M.Ed
This article is copy protected and should only be reproduced by permission of the author. For information contact me at:
The older I get, the more confusing communicating seems to get. Even excluding "foreign" languages, (those foreign to me at, least), within the complex realm of American English, my best efforts often go awry. And when it comes to communicating to a specific group, look out!
I have been writing articles, reports, and speeches for nearly twenty-five years. Most of these pieces are aimed at talking about or providing for the needs of "persons with disabilities". My dilemma, to be specific, has been the choosing of a descriptive name with which to address this group. It seems especially critical since this community has already had its share of "put-downs".
So here I stand, preparing to speak to a room full of "those people". They have come from all over the country and are gathered to hear me give a talk on the topic of discrimination. I see people in wheelchairs, a contingency watching a sign-language interpreter, people with white-tipped canes and seeing-eye dogs, individuals wearing protective helmets, braces, crutches, and with one-on-one attendants. In other words, a cross-section of this group commonly labeled, "the disabled".
Labeling, indeed, is the issue here. Over the years, labels have had a tendency to change. As in most groups who are trying to achieve a dignified status in a diverse society, labeling does play a major role in defining their existence. People can become empowered when considered collectively, as opposed to being the few amongst the many.
If they were all one ethnic group, for instance, it would be appropriate to provide identity and a sense of solidarity by referring to common ethnic origins. Historically, our embracing of the cultural nature of such groups has been achieved through the defining of ancestral connections. Persons in America previously called Negroes, Colored, Black, have chosen the "politically correct" term Afro-Americans, those of Spanish or related Central and South American descendants, Hispanic, and so on. Persons affiliated with emerging religious organizations have also gained credibility and respect by promoting the use of popular names, as opposed to being referred to as a cult, or a non-mainstream religious faction.
Those seeking inclusion in our society have successfully given themselves relevant, meaningful names, decreasing the chances of being ostracized by the use of bigoted terms and prejudiced slurs.
Terms, by which people with "limiting physical and mental conditions" have been referred, within my own lifetime, have gone through a fair amount of evolution. Labels such as: cripples, idiots, retarded, insane, and deaf and dumb, for example, have been modified to a more collective description, "the handicapped". Although this "new" name was evoked for political purposes, it has had its downside. The challenge is, and always will be, for this collective to be identified in a more positive light. Connotation, or how we perceive a person's status, can be positive or negative. Does the term "handicapped" instill a sense of worth and connectedness?
Political movements on behalf of "handicapped citizens" have met with more success as a result of this effort to form alliances. Physical barriers have been examined and altered. Educational and vocational opportunities have been expanded, social integration enhanced. All of this directly associated with the wide acceptance of the term "handicapped" as a descriptor for all those who may be individually disadvantaged through no fault of their own. Owning a common label has been a very powerful factor in this regard.
Within the past two decades, with the explosion of the age of mass communication, persons within and persons supporting such groups have re-examined this generic term. How things sound has become very important. Now, a handicapped person is seen as one who cannot go as far or do as much as "the rest of us". Recently, individuals within this broad classification have opted for the use of the term "disabled" to describe their collective condition. I believe this is thought of as being more optimistic. The emphasis has been placed on decreasing the degree of disability by obtaining more equalized access to community resources, vocational outcomes, adaptive equipment, individual support, and so forth. This, in essence, could encourage persons within this general group to take advantage of opportunities to become more independent, more enabled. As far as the public is concerned, the label is, perhaps more straightforward, with little room for misinterpretation.
However, once again, this uniquely diverse group has been scrutinizing the term "disabled" for its negative implications. The prefix "dis", meaning not, opens the door to a mental image of persons being unable or not able to perform tasks or skills at a level that is equal to "the rest of us".
Within the inner circles of this collective, there seems to be two current thoughts on the subject. One is to broaden the base of the group by giving it a catch phrase as opposed to a singular name. A popular example is "people involved with disabilities". I suppose this would keep people outside of this group guessing as to whether the reference is to those with disabilities, themselves, or "non-handicapped" people assisting or related to those with handicapping conditions.
Another tact has been to rally support by using a more recognizable synonym, "challenged", as a descriptor. Persons who are visually or mentally challenged, for instance, are looking to fight the good fight. NASA used the name Challenger for one of its space shuttlecrafts. This was done in hopes that the public would stand behind the concept and, likewise, the project itself.
Legally speaking, the term "challenged" has limitations on a political level. Lobbying for the rights of a specific group will certainly require a more concrete label. If you think about it, in some respects we are all challenged! Identifying and determining needed resources requires a clearer picture of the population for which it is intended. And, again, there are groups that have considered this label as being somewhat demeaning. In the minds of some, "challenged" is equivalent to having limited resources or faculties.
An acronym P.W.D. is circulating currently. This stands for Persons with Disabilities. As catchy as it sounds, this may suffice until someone asks, "What does it mean?" "Persons" is good. In a time when asexual vocabulary is politically correct, "persons" hits the mark. Ultimately, being a person is certainly more dignified than being retarded or crippled. Likewise, "with disabilities" may have a more medical ring to it. This would put it in the same category as, "people with asthma" or "persons diagnosed with cancer". Finding a cure may or may not be the political implications previously intended, however.
Meanwhile, "ladies and gentlemen", I will attempt to play it safe whenever possible until the matter becomes resolved.
(C) 2003-2024 Michael S. True - TruEnergy Enterprises
