Friday 18 October 2013

Language and Disability


I want to write about the issue of language and disability mainly for my non-disabled readers, but I also want to explain the words I have chosen to use within future posts. There are a few different opinions about certain terms, and I think it is fine for each disabled person to use whatever words they feel comfortable with. I want to share my views here not just to educate non-disabled people but also to justify my choices to disabled readers who may or may not share my opinions.

Please be aware that I do not speak for all of the disabled community. If you are not sure which words a disabled person prefers, just ask them.

Many disabled people and all social workers (I hope!) will be familiar with the social model of disability. This article basically explains the social model and why some people prefer the term 'disabled person' rather than 'person with a disability'. If you aren't disabled, I strongly advise you read the article.

It is worth saying that some disabled people do not like either term. I once watched a documentary where a guy who used a wheelchair was designing a brand new type of wheelchair, and he said that when the army dispose of a bomb they disable it, then it ceases to function. He felt as though saying he was disabled was like being compared to something which ceases to function.

Generally speaking, in the UK we prefer 'disabled person' and in the US 'person with disabilities' is the preferred term. There are also differences between the US and UK about the term used to describe discrimination against disabled people. This blog post and this one explain about that.

I am intending to use the following terms:

Disabled person/people I have chosen this because I subscribe to the social model (despite it's limitations, which I will explore another time). I will not be offended if you describe me as a person with a disability, because I do not feel as strongly about the issue as others do. But I will always describe myself as a disabled person because that is how I identify.

Disablism The word used in the UK to describe discrimination against disabled people. I am using it for the same reasons as I use the word disabled. However I do disagree with the term ableism (mainly used in the US). I feel it is misleading and I was very confused by it when I first came across it.

Living with As in, I live with ME. Yes, sometimes I suffer with it, but I do not like to dwell on that and it is not the case the majority of the time. This term also has no emotional connotations, it is simply a statement of fact.

Experience/experiencing I experience symptoms such as headaches. Again I am going to use this term as it has no emotional connotations. My experience of symptoms is never a good one (unless I am experiencing fewer symptoms relative to, say, the number I was experiencing yesterday) but it isn't necessarily bad. Often it is indifferent, sometimes even funny (I tend to fall over quite a bit and sometimes muddle up words*)

Accessible/Disabled (facilities e.g. car parking space, toilet) I will probably use these words interchangeably, but I am trying to move towards using the term 'accessible' because it is becoming more widely used in the UK and has a positive connotation; I can go there because it is accessible.

Impairment(s) Again, this is to do with the social model. An impairment is what a disabled person has; a condition, illness, or something else. There is no emotion attached, and it is a good way of talking about these things without having to call it 'a disability', because some people don't feel comfortable with that.  It is also easier to explain your access needs using this term, rather than having to explain the confusing medical names of the condition(s) you have.

Because of my impairment, I need to do X this way, instead of that way.

My impairment means I need to use a wheelchair.

Wheelchair user/using a wheelchair I vastly prefer this term to 'wheelchair bound' or 'confined to a wheelchair'. This is because there are connotations of pity with those terms, and no-one, no matter how severe their mobility impairment, is glued into their wheelchair. Someone might need a harness or lap belt for their own safety, they might spend a lot of time in their wheelchair, but they almost certainly get out to go to bed at least, even if they use a hoist to do so. More people than you think can get out of their chair and walk a bit (I can), and even people who cannot walk at all might get out to sit on their sofa or a comfy chair.

I prefer the term 'reliant on a wheelchair' if someone cannot get around without one, or describing wheelchair use as 'full-time' /'part-time' or 'indoor'/'outdoor'. These are factual statements which describe how and where someone uses their wheelchair. I am a part-time wheelchair user and I use my wheelchair outdoors and in large indoor spaces such as shops.

Non-disabled I feel this is currently the best term we have for describing people who are not disabled. I don't like the term 'able-bodied' (although I sometimes use it because I am still training myself to use 'non-disabled') because it implies that disabled people can't do things because of problems with their body, and this is in direct conflict with the social model.

It also implies that non-disabled people do not have impairments. It is possible for someone to have an impairment, yet not be disabled. My husband has dyslexia, but it now has very little impact on his daily life and he does not face barriers to normal participation in society. I was the same before I had ME. I have mild dyspraxia, but I never considered myself disabled because of it.

Carer By this I mean an 'informal' carer such as a friend or family member, not a paid carer. This is a very difficult term. I have become aware since reading disability blogs that many disabled people are not comfortable with this term, however, no alternative has been thought up as yet (please correct me if I am wrong about this). I think many carers are ok with this term, certainly the main organisations which represent carers still use the term. However, I am very aware that my husband hates the word, although technically he would be considered to be my carer. As there is no alternative, I will be using this term, although sometimes I might put it in quote marks if I am finding that it doesn't feel comfortable in a particular context.

You will have noticed that I try to steer away from anything emotional in the terms I have chosen to use. This is because, when talking about my condition, the fact that I'm disabled or my access needs, I have no desire or need to invoke emotion in the person I am talking to. It is not that becoming disabled and being ill is not an emotional experience, far from it. But there is a time and a place for discussing such things, and I have no desire to discuss them with total strangers like shop assistants when all I need from them is to tell me where the lift is.

I think that pretty much sums it up for me. I might edit to add further terms as and when I use them. If you would like some further reading on the issue of language and disability, you can find some herehere and here. You do not have to agree with everything you read, but I encourage you to read different perspectives to aid your understanding of various points of view.

EDIT: This is another different perspective to read and consider.

*Please note: not all disabled people will find it funny if they fall over or muddle up their words. For people with communication difficulties, the experience can be quite frustrating. Also, for some people falling over means they hurt themselves. This is clearly not a laughing matter. The best thing to do is to take the cue from the person. If they laugh, it is ok for you to laugh along with them.

No comments:

Post a Comment