For centuries, the disabled community has been condemned, feared, shunned, ridiculed, and subjected to violence. The ancient Greeks and Romans who believed disability to be a manifestation of God’s wrath, often abandoned their disabled children to die in the woods. In medieval times, people with visible deformities were used for entertainment as court jesters and circus freaks. Scientific advancements of 19th and early 20th century led to the birth of modern eugenics which was later adopted by Nazi Germany in the 1930s. In pursuit of the ‘master race,’ disabled people were subjected to brutal experimentation, forced sterilisation, and mass euthanasia under Nazi eugenic programs.
Societal perceptions of disability are reflected in language, which in turn influence public policy, clinical practices as well as the treatment and living conditions of disabled people. It was not until the late 20th century that the importance of language in addressing disability was acknowledged. The people-first convention, a self-advocacy conference for people with developmental disabilities held in 1974, Oregon, marked the origin of the person-first language.
Person-first language endorses linguistic constructions that put the ‘personhood-noun’ before the phrase referring to the disability (eg. a ‘person-with disability’). It promotes the notion that a person is not defined by or limited to their diagnosis by reducing the diagnostic label to a mere characteristic. Moreover, it frowns upon the use of monolithic terms in reference to the disability (eg. a schizophrenic, an amputee) as they reflect an essentialist view whereby the disability is perceived to be the dominant trait of the individual, eclipsing their personality and interests. The person first approach also aims to prevent sweeping generalizations that lump people together on the basis of a shared diagnosis, irrespective of the variation in their adjustmental and functional capacities.
On the other hand, in identity-first constructions, the disability, usually an adjective, precedes the personhood-noun and remains the focus of the sentence (eg. a disabled person). Proponents of identity-first language believe that this allows disabled persons to claim their disability, a choice that gives them a sense of autonomy, agency, even empowerment. Identity first language views disability as a neutral, natural characteristic, no different than other demographic characteristics like race and ethnicity, rather than a moral failing or a medical problem requiring a cure.
In recent years, multiple disability groups including the deaf and blind communities, and more notably, the autism community have denounced person-first language. Some have gone as far as to argue that insistence on the use of person-first language is a sign of ableism. One of the primary criticisms of person-first language has to do with its inevitable verbosity. By replacing ‘disabled person’ with ‘person with disability’, the initially succinct prose becomes cluttered. Economy of language is sacrificed in the name of political correctness. In some cases, person-first alternatives can be especially cumbersome; for instance, when ‘deaf or blind person’ is replaced with ‘person with visual/hearing impairment.’ In publications, these phrases are typically abbreviated (e.g., a person with disability becomes PWD), which may seem as something of an overcorrection rather than an improvement on the pre-existing terminology.
And perhaps these linguistic gymnastics would be worthwhile, if person-first language did in fact efficiently de-emphasize disability. The structure of English language is such that emphasis naturally occurs at the end of the sentence. Therefore, this distinctive and round-about phrasing may prove counterproductive in its objective of discretion. Advocates of identity first language have also argued that the placement of disability in shadows of the noun-phrase subtly implies that there is something inherently negative about disability, thereby fuelling the very stigma it seeks to reduce.
A related school of thought speaks to the redundancy and short-sightedness of these structural euphemisms. MIT Professor Steven Pinker coined the term ‘euphemism treadmill’ to describe the phenomenon whereby ‘polite’ neologisms replace emotionally laden or distasteful words, only for them to be tainted by the negative connotations that colour the original concept. As these new euphemisms inevitably acquire the stigma they were trying to outrun, the process starts all over again. The most commonly cited example of a euphemism treadmill is the ever-changing acceptable terminology for intellectual disability. Henry H. Goddard, a pioneer of American intelligence testing and a known eugenicist, is notorious for his rather colourful classification of intellectual quotient; people with IQs between 50 and 70 were classified as ‘morons’ (a term Goddard coined himself), those with IQs between 50 and 25 were classified as ‘imbeciles’ and those with IQs below 25, as ‘idiots.’ In the following decades, these terms, once neutral, medical short-hands, became the playground insults we know them to be. By the late 20th century, these terms were replaced by ‘mental retardation’ out of a need for more respectful terminology. Soon enough, ‘retarded’ became an insult, prompting the DSM 5 to replace it with ‘intellectual developmental disorder.’ Other diagnostic terms to have suffered similar abuse include dementia, bipolar disorder, even schizophrenia; the implied psychological disturbance gives an edge to this ever-expanding arsenal of contemporary insults. Since euphemisms seem unlikely to solve the underlying issue, perhaps it is time to reclaim and defend these labels instead.
The ideological concerns related to person-first language may be best illustrated by the controversy it has sparked in the Autism community. While there is no consensus in literature regarding the language preference of people diagnosed with Autism, survey research suggests that person-first constructions are among the least preferred. Those who prefer identity-first language (autistic person) argue that autism is central to their identity and not something that can or should be separated from their person. Person-first constructions (person with autism) are thought to invoke the presence of pathology (e.g., person with cancer, person with a heart disease), the unnecessary dissociation implying that there is something very wrong about being autistic.
According to the disability activist Lawrence Carter-Long, “If you ‘see the person, not the disability’ you’re only getting half the picture.” Lawrence Carter-Long started the #SayTheWord movement, a digital campaign to encourage people to reclaim the word ‘disability’. Well-meaning euphemisms like ‘handicap’, ‘differently abled’, ‘special needs’, ‘physically challenged’ only serve to aggravate a sense of shame and awkwardness invoked by disability.
So how exactly do we navigate what has seemingly become a hyperwoke minefield of acceptable terminology? To quote Steven Pinker, “Respect means treating people the way they wish to be treated, beginning with names.” Building on that, the simplest resolution to the aforementioned dilemma is to ask people how they wish to be addressed. When that is not an option, disability advocates recommend alternating between person-first and identity-first constructions, while being mindful of the type of disability and the culture around it. Afterall both person-first language and identity-first language share a common objective; to de-pathologize disability and inspire respect.
Isha Puntambekar
