Until very recently, I didn’t think much of words like cripple, lame, blinded, retard, obtuse, autistic, crazy and words of their kind that could be used in a totally mainstream context.
For instance, it’s all too common these days to say that the pandemic had a “crippling effect” on the economy or despite so many complaints, authorities turned a ‘blind eye’ to the problem. The words conjure up image of physical limitations with a subliminal message that people with disability are less valuable as human beings. In short, this kind of language only emphasises the prejudice and discrimination we work so hard to get rid of.
Two articles I read in recent times shone light into ablest language and how sometimes even those participating in perpetrating discrimination in general aren’t aware of what they’re doing. In fact, they could be basically decent people with good intentions and just keep doing or saying things they aren’t aware of being discriminatory.
Some weeks ago, Buzz Feed News published an excellent piece on the ubiquity of ablest language right from “slurs to euphemisms”, pointing to some of the most common usages like “turning a deaf ear” etc.
It quotes Merriam-Webster’s definition of the adjective “crippling” in sentences like “disease, disaster or dispute having a crippling effect on local life and economy” and it’s quite telling on ablism.
The dictionary definition goes like this: “to deprive of capability for service or of strength, efficiency, or wholeness.”
“To reach this definition however,” Buzzfeed writes, “you have to scroll past a more literal definition of the verb (“to deprive the use of a limb and especially a leg”) and the offensive noun “cripple” (“a lame or partly disabled person or animal”).”
I had a detailed two-part Clubhouse discussion on the subject, where some activists even suggested that “language policing” is a waste of time, especially when we’ve so many issues harming disability community such as poor infrastructure, lack of access to jobs/education and the mainstream’s penchant to view people with disability as object of pity.
“What’s viewed as problematic language today could be changed and, in a decade from now, what you’ve changed could appear problematic. Policing language can even discourage people from getting into some topics because they’d be afraid of using wrong language,” said an activist.
This’s precisely the ablest problem. Most people use ablest language or take ablest stance quite unintentionally. It’s because language is subliminal and what we say is usually subconscious and deeply embedded with cultural meanings.
“Ableist language equates disability with deficit, focuses on individual shortcomings rather than systemic failings and involves terms that historically entrenched segregation without regard for their origins,” the same Buzzfeed News article quotes Emily Macrae’s article in Ricochet Media (a wonderful read for anyone wanting more on the subject).
Equating disability with deficit or limitation is one of the most harmful ways of understanding common human problems and also an implicit endorsement of how disability should be viewed. It masks discrimination and reverses the hard work by several activists to dispel mental blocks.
“Language is problematic because it embodies value systems excessively reliant on one sensory perception,” said my blind friend and activist Thomas Tajo from Belgium while speaking on the subject. Thomas has been a proponent of echolocation, the concept that allows the blind to navigate physical spaces by using sound ricocheting from objects around them. Thomas has also submitted research papers on how culturally the pre-eminence of visual sense has been established and how we should design physical spaces that allow us to use all senses.
“We can’t get lost in the language dispute and not do anything about it,” Thomas elaborated.
“For example, we call anyone with visual problem either ‘low vision, ‘visually impaired’ or ‘blind’. This rarely reflects the different degrees of visual acuity. I use ‘people with varying visual abilities’ to cover the entire spectrum of visual impairment.”
Similarly, our cultures put so much emphasis on visual sense that we describe reason and understanding in terms of sight using “I See” or “I Don’t see it.”
“We can highlight the value system that couple certain sensory perception with understanding and do something about it,” Thomas said.
Although we can’t be fussy or have petty squabbles over every word and phrase someone is using, we need to understand the overall impact of ablest language and replace it with acceptable alternatives wherever possible.
We may not absolutely agree with everything the Buzzfeed news article says, but it certainly offers a link to a list of terms that we could use to represent reasoning, understanding, negligence or adverse effect of a phenomenon, all of which currently carry ablest labels and are widely deployed by professional writers.
Language must adjust itself to reflect equality and empowerment. It shouldn’t implicitly support age-old binary of ability and disability. With research in neuro plasticity, we’re getting into new definitions of abilities which is bolstered by technology, Artificial Intelligence and Internet of Things.
We need inclusion to pool together skills, potentials, and strengths of every human being, irrespective of her disability, ability, gender, colour or creed—so that we’ll defeat issues threatening to wipe off humanity. It obviously starts with language.