{"id":60114,"date":"2018-07-06T07:06:25","date_gmt":"2018-07-06T12:06:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ou.org\/life\/?p=60114"},"modified":"2018-07-19T02:23:34","modified_gmt":"2018-07-19T07:23:34","slug":"putting-people-before-disabilities","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ou.org\/life\/health\/putting-people-before-disabilities\/","title":{"rendered":"Putting People Before Disabilities"},"content":{"rendered":"

Did you ever read George Orwell\u2019s dystopian novel <\/span>1984<\/span><\/i>? Written in 1948, it takes place in the then-far-flung future of\u2026 well, 1984. In the superstate of Oceania, the official language is called Newspeak. This language has been artificially constructed to control thought. In addition to eliminating bothersome concepts from the language, the Party (rulers of Oceania) have three slogans that are repeated at and by the populace: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength. The people are told what to think and this is reinforced by the words they are given to express themselves.<\/span><\/p>\n

1984<\/span><\/i> may be a fiction but Orwell was illustrating a real phenomenon: what we think is influenced by what we say and hear. This phenomenon can be utilized for good or evil. For example, <\/span>the Sefer HaChinuch tells us<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0that the reason we are commanded to recite Shema twice daily is to constantly reinforce within us the idea of God\u2019s Kingship, which serves to keep us on the proper path. Advertising slogans like \u201cCoke is it\u201d serve to make the populace hungry for particular products. Of course, there\u2019s political propaganda, all too often used to smear one\u2019s opponents. To give a mild-by-our-standards example, 1952 presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson was labeled an \u201cegghead\u201d by his opponents, not intended as a compliment; it was an epithet and a perception that stuck. Perhaps most similar to the slogans of the Party, consider the motivations to inscribe \u201cArbeit Macht Frei\u201d \u2013 \u201cwork will set you free\u201d \u2013 over the gates of numerous Nazi concentration camps. <\/span><\/p>\n

So, taking it as a widely-accepted reality that what we say and hear influences what we think, what words do we use to describe others? We <\/span>addressed this topic once before<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0but there the focus was on calling others what they want to be called. Here, I wonder what our choice of words does to <\/span>ourselves<\/span><\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n

I recently became aware of the importance of using person-first language when it comes to persons with disabilities. You will note that I said \u201cpersons with disabilities\u201d and not \u201cdisabled people.\u201d The former choice of words more likely conjures an image of individuals first and disabilities second; the latter almost invariably causes one to envision an indistinguishable mass exclusively defined by those disabilities. <\/span><\/p>\n

Historically, people with disabilities have been perceived as infirm or imperfect, as evidenced by such pass\u00e9 terms as \u201chandicapped\u201d and \u201ccrippled,\u201d which focus on what a person is imagined to be unable to do. These terms unfairly lump people into groups based on inaccurate assumptions and unfair generalizations. When we define people by what we think they cannot do, what they <\/span>can<\/span><\/i> do never even has a chance. And if a group of people is defined by what they <\/span>cannot<\/span><\/i> do, the popular perception becomes that they are a burden on society rather than productive members of it.<\/span><\/p>\n

Person-first language puts the individual before his disability. It describes what a person <\/span>has<\/span><\/i>, it doesn\u2019t presume to define what a person <\/span>is<\/span><\/i>. Examples of person-first language are given below. (These are only examples; there can be numerous person-first ways to phrase the same disability):<\/span><\/p>\n