There was a time (starting in the late 19C) when the terms “moron” and “imbecile” were considered scientific and enlightened; an improvement over the then commonly used “lunatic” or “mad.” As is often the case, such terms gradually acquired derogatory connotations are were consigned to the dust-bin of history, at least among official channels and the “better” parts of society. For a while, “mental retardation” was the preferred terminology, but in 2010, the official US government term was changed to “intellectual disability.”
Similar paths have been followed by a variety of ethnic and “racial” groups. The early 20C saw the establishment of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (1909), a term that by mid-century seemed outdated and burdened with considerable social baggage. At various stages, colored, negro, black, afro-american, african-american have all had their vogue. Names were often changed because of the negative connotations that had accumulated over time and a desire for a fresh and positive denominator for a group that sought a clear identity. Of course, some terms have been so heavily weighted with animus that they are de factor barred in common social discourse (e.g., the “N-word”).
In the last decade or so, “people of color” has gained in currency; sometimes as a larger grouping of all non-“White” peoples, sometimes as a grouping of all such peoples who are neither “Black” nor “White.” (As I have noted elsewhere, this is a particularly US issue since in most of the world, “White” people are the exception. (Not to mention that “White” people aren’t white and whatever color of their skin might be called, it’s a color; so that the whole discourse is heavily skewed by the history of global epistemological power.)
The linguistic history of labels for people with various physical or mental limitations or abnormalities is also the story of the interactions of medical/scientific nomenclature and theories, changing social perceptions; most recently seen in the differentiation of “disabled people” from “people with disabilities.”
At this point, I should acknowledge that I have not had the experience/perspective of any of these groups (i.e., I am “privileged”). I also believe that people should be able to choose the labels by which they wish to be addressed/referred to.
Historically speaking, the repeated restructuring of such terminology frames seems to be unique to the last century and a half (i.e., a product of modernity) and, I suspect, has contributed to the social confusion/disorientation that many have experienced.
The underlying issue, however, is not the labels by which groups are identified. It is the animus or disparagement with which such groups are regarded. The (repeated) efforts to change people’s minds by campaigning to change the socially acceptable language which they use seems to me to be at least ineffective, and sometimes counterproductive.
There is some research in linguistics which suggests that the language people use does reflect or cause a different epistemology. Inuit people have dozens of words for snow, while in the 21C US, we have dozens of words for salty crunchy plant-based foods. So, changing language perhaps can change minds. I certainly agree that mustering the forces of linguistics for social justice makes sense but, at the same time, let’s not pretend that new labels will give us much purchase for deeper social change. Indeed, I can’t help but suspect that arguments over labels and nomenclature is but a substitute for a meaningful dialogue (and the hard psychological work) about the feelings behind the words. Instead, we argue whether “person of color” means something different than “colored person,” or “deaf” means something different than “hearing impaired.”
There might be some (moral?) improvement in the shift from “disabled person” to “person with disabilities.” Is it better to refer to someone as “fat,” “obese,” “zaftig,” “weight-challenged,” or “full-figured”? I understand the effort not define such an individual by a particular aspect of their lives. However, there seems to be some degree of awkwardness about this change. It also runs against a general preference for using the “active voice” (perhaps as part of an effort to designate these individuals as passive subjects of the condition of their bodies). There is also something off-putting and distancing about this mode of construction; it carries a “scientific” and analytic connotation that seems disconnected from the realities of social relations. Perhaps, at the margin, this kind of language is OK, but it’s still no substitute for figuring out ways to stop derogating people for aspects of their lives that they 1) cannot change, and 2) have no moral significance.
In my own practice, I try to actually not use such adjectives at all. I find that the patterns of speech which I developed over the years, especially in referring to others as, e.g., the “young black woman in my class,” would be better I if just referred to that person as “a student.” Most of the time, identifying adjectives don’t really add anything to the point of my talking about them; and, where it’s relevant, I can add the appropriate adjective back in.
This requires some effort to be conscious of what I’m saying; an effort beyond that called for in terms of changing underlying attitudes of prejudice, not using terms designed to incite animosity and resentment, and actually seeing people for who they are.
Similar paths have been followed by a variety of ethnic and “racial” groups. The early 20C saw the establishment of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (1909), a term that by mid-century seemed outdated and burdened with considerable social baggage. At various stages, colored, negro, black, afro-american, african-american have all had their vogue. Names were often changed because of the negative connotations that had accumulated over time and a desire for a fresh and positive denominator for a group that sought a clear identity. Of course, some terms have been so heavily weighted with animus that they are de factor barred in common social discourse (e.g., the “N-word”).
In the last decade or so, “people of color” has gained in currency; sometimes as a larger grouping of all non-“White” peoples, sometimes as a grouping of all such peoples who are neither “Black” nor “White.” (As I have noted elsewhere, this is a particularly US issue since in most of the world, “White” people are the exception. (Not to mention that “White” people aren’t white and whatever color of their skin might be called, it’s a color; so that the whole discourse is heavily skewed by the history of global epistemological power.)
The linguistic history of labels for people with various physical or mental limitations or abnormalities is also the story of the interactions of medical/scientific nomenclature and theories, changing social perceptions; most recently seen in the differentiation of “disabled people” from “people with disabilities.”
At this point, I should acknowledge that I have not had the experience/perspective of any of these groups (i.e., I am “privileged”). I also believe that people should be able to choose the labels by which they wish to be addressed/referred to.
Historically speaking, the repeated restructuring of such terminology frames seems to be unique to the last century and a half (i.e., a product of modernity) and, I suspect, has contributed to the social confusion/disorientation that many have experienced.
The underlying issue, however, is not the labels by which groups are identified. It is the animus or disparagement with which such groups are regarded. The (repeated) efforts to change people’s minds by campaigning to change the socially acceptable language which they use seems to me to be at least ineffective, and sometimes counterproductive.
There is some research in linguistics which suggests that the language people use does reflect or cause a different epistemology. Inuit people have dozens of words for snow, while in the 21C US, we have dozens of words for salty crunchy plant-based foods. So, changing language perhaps can change minds. I certainly agree that mustering the forces of linguistics for social justice makes sense but, at the same time, let’s not pretend that new labels will give us much purchase for deeper social change. Indeed, I can’t help but suspect that arguments over labels and nomenclature is but a substitute for a meaningful dialogue (and the hard psychological work) about the feelings behind the words. Instead, we argue whether “person of color” means something different than “colored person,” or “deaf” means something different than “hearing impaired.”
There might be some (moral?) improvement in the shift from “disabled person” to “person with disabilities.” Is it better to refer to someone as “fat,” “obese,” “zaftig,” “weight-challenged,” or “full-figured”? I understand the effort not define such an individual by a particular aspect of their lives. However, there seems to be some degree of awkwardness about this change. It also runs against a general preference for using the “active voice” (perhaps as part of an effort to designate these individuals as passive subjects of the condition of their bodies). There is also something off-putting and distancing about this mode of construction; it carries a “scientific” and analytic connotation that seems disconnected from the realities of social relations. Perhaps, at the margin, this kind of language is OK, but it’s still no substitute for figuring out ways to stop derogating people for aspects of their lives that they 1) cannot change, and 2) have no moral significance.
In my own practice, I try to actually not use such adjectives at all. I find that the patterns of speech which I developed over the years, especially in referring to others as, e.g., the “young black woman in my class,” would be better I if just referred to that person as “a student.” Most of the time, identifying adjectives don’t really add anything to the point of my talking about them; and, where it’s relevant, I can add the appropriate adjective back in.
This requires some effort to be conscious of what I’m saying; an effort beyond that called for in terms of changing underlying attitudes of prejudice, not using terms designed to incite animosity and resentment, and actually seeing people for who they are.
RSS Feed