When examining representations of disability, there are a myriad of articles and videos that criticize the overt misrepresentation which are often manifested in the media (films, television programs, telethons, etc.). By contrast, Susan Robinson’s TED Talk, “How I Fail at Being Disabled”, addresses the subtler factor: our everyday language that leaves a considerable impact on the misrepresentations of disability. Using Robinson’s argument as a foundation, this blog post will analyze our everyday language (which erroneously represents the disability community) in order to identify how it shapes the way we perceive them.
Robinson condemns the usage of the word “disabled”, as it constructs an incorrect perspective of individuals with disabilities – “ability” following the “dis” undermines their capacity and emphasizes the lack. The term disability stresses one’s incapability and reflects society’s perception that individuals with disabilities are always in need of help from a non-disabled person. It therefore illustrates the disability community as heavily dependent, often disregarding their potential. Stella Young’s TED Talk, echoes the misrepresentation of the disability community, in which she states:
“I subscribe to what’s called the ‘social model of disability’, which tells us that we are more disabled by the society we live in, rather than our bodies and diagnoses.”
Young’s quote implies that people with disabilities are often constrained – not by their own mental or physical barriers – but by society’s view of them which categorizes them into a specific group that is deemed inferior and eternally reliant on non-disabled people. This one-sided, limited perspective on individuals with disabilities proceeds to affect other aspects of their lives, such as education and employment (Statistics Canada reported the employment rate of Canadians with disabilities was 49%, compared with 79% for Canadians without a disability). Modifying the terminology/language, however, refines the representation of the disability community.
Laura Gillson addresses the problem (widely faced by a large portion of society) of many people who are unacquainted with appropriate, accurate, and inclusive terminology (Gillson, 2009). With countless resources that are immediately accessible thanks to technology, we are able to answer the pressing question: what exactly are the accepted terminologies? Rick Hansen Foundation critiques our descriptive language, specifically our usage of phrases such as “suffers from,” “inflicted with,” or “challenged”. These terms automatically imply that the individual lives a substandard life because of their disability and associates endless discomfort with it as well. This ties in with the aforementioned misrepresentation of the disabled community, as the non-disabled population wrongly perceives disabilities as an obstacle/barrier and that individuals with disabilities are in constant need of guidance when taking the necessary steps in overcoming their disability (or so-called “challenge”).
Moreover, Syracuse University’s Disability Cultural Centre introduces “people-first language”, which is a way of describing disability that places the word “person” or “individual” prior to “disability” (for example, “the man with cerebral palsy”). This method of referral is empowering, as it emphasizes the individual, as opposed to enabling the disability to be the defining characteristic (which is often the case when we say “disabled man”). Lydia Brown notes that there are, however, certain groups (a number of Autistic people, for instance) who prefer to refer to themselves using disability-first language. By analyzing such articles and posts written by people with disabilities, it becomes apparent that there are a number of unspoken rules which the non-disabled community must follow for the respect of individuals with disabilities; however, the counterargument of many Canadians, who refuse to take the previously mentioned critiques to heart, is that they feel that the culture of political correctness has gone too far.
Being “politically correct” in today’s society is widely debated and many individuals maintain their firm stance by refusing to abide by the guidelines that respect marginalized groups. Although the concept of “freedom of expression” is commonly used to support their argument, it fails to adequately justify their avoidance in using the appropriate terminologies, especially in our era, where we have a multitude of resources that address our privileges (as the majority, non-disabled population). It is the appropriate descriptive language used by the non-disabled community that has the power to shape the overall representation of disability. Correcting these problematic terminologies would therefore result in the reconstruction of society’s flawed perspective of disability.