Are our measures of success in the current landscape changing the world one person at a time?
Thank you Bradford university for inviting me to speak in Disability History Month. A few thoughts on language...
[no right answers I’m afraid, relationships and context are crucial]
How do we define the disadvantage disabled individuals face, without running to risk of euphemism creep in ‘vulnerable’, pretty much everyone, or the embarrassment of having to identify individuals within a crowd? Either way it’s difficult no to introduce extremity to orifice in the time old tradition.
Let’s face it, the way we talk to each other is not the way talk about a group. When I talk with another person, I leave it to them to define themselves. They may refer to themselves as disabled, a person with a disability or as gay, B/black or Muslim. But, I tend to be as respectful as possible by mirroring the language they choose to describe themselves.
This is because I feel identity is both complex and personal. I could choose a number of badges, if put on the spot. But in one to one conversations these descriptions are rarely needed because the topic or shared interest is the focus of conversation - not me. The personal, if professional, nature of most interaction means I’m at liberty to choose what I call myself. Most often Mole will do, because whatever the conversation, my badges, labels and impairments rarely come into it.
Talking about groups is an entirely different thing. When I talk about the disabled population, I’m typically referring to the stuff I know through research and literature. The Ideas, numbers and theories in the public domain. I use a choice of words that is guided by groups too, such as D/deaf and Disabled People’s Organisations, Disability Studies, and disability literature. This is less the stuff of media, although many sources are now well informed. I came across the term rainbow literature recently, to indicate public texts often sharing personal experience, and non-academic writing now available beyond library paywalls.
The way I speak or write for public scrutiny avoids private choice where possible. I use evidence and testimony already available to many. This doesn’t mean I disregard personal choice, on the contrary I’m aiming to respect individuality. However, as a professional and a community member, I’m aiming to follow the leadership of Disabled people as a group, their interests, their activism, their politics. That’s why I’m guided by the theory, the Social Model, to define the oppression many face. Like feminism, ideas and interpretation will change over time. Defining disablism and ableism has evolved to reach ever more nuanced meaning. However, not referring to the early thinkers or understanding a smattering of history is like referencing feminism without feminists such as Pankhurst, de Beauvoir, Roosevelt, Angelou, hooks, Lorde, Fawcett… I don’t need to agree to acknowledge the way they changed the mindset of many, shifting paradigms on the landscape over time.
This blog is in no way a replacement for the amount of work required for a literature review, but I do find myself glancing over reference sections looking for evidence that the Disabled writers have been acknowledged. I am hesitant to even allude to a handful, as aware I would no doubt privilege one or two or forget a key thinker altogether.
While words vary depending on context, when using disabled individuals I mean those for whom dis/ableism has an impact. Because seeking to identify who is or isn’t is fraught with issues, none more than drawing personal choice into a public arena. I use ableism as I would racism, ageism, classism, homophobia, sexism and the intolerance of many marginalised groups. Not to define human beings, but the specific oppression they may face.
The point I’m trying to make is that to have legitimacy, public writing needs to acknowledged group and a degree of shared storytelling. While I’m more than happy to share my experience it is a decision I make. Neither friend, peer, or colleague can demand it of me. Equally, when I speak about group, disabled people or women, I am mindful to have articulated a shared perspective. I’ve taken time to inform my writing with background, I’ve done my homework, the text is case sensitive. Ifnot as intersectional as it could be, I’m working on it, for the sake of accountability.
In the end I’m Mole or Dr Chapman, my interests are human rights and accountability, but disclosure is a choice that is down to me.
Resources added at: https://padlet.com/molechaps/ashgatedsability
No comments:
Post a Comment