The use of language to frame disability discourse in health care by those with disabilities, those who are ‘fellow travellers’ and health professionals has been debated for many years. There are, however, differing views between those who are disabled and those who are not as to who owns the language, the forms of language, the contents of discourse, how discourse is played out and how that language is to be used.
Take, for example, the word ‘invalid’, as I saw on a sign reading ‘invalid toilet’. From 1971 to 1995 there was a welfare benefit in the UK called the ‘invalidity benefit’ and until fairly recently people could be ‘invalided’ out of the military. Although the noun came into use to mean ‘ill person’, with a sense of ‘not healthy’ or ‘not strong’, its roots have been forgotten and English speakers are far more familiar with the adjective, meaning ‘not valid’ or ‘not acceptable’. This has significant implications for disability discourse, since an out-dated term carries discriminatory meanings.
Disability discourse could also involve the use of the phrase ‘human person’, which can be found in many academic philosophical, theological, and nursing journal papers. However, the term implies four sets of word dyads (pairs of linked but contrasting words), which have implications:
- Both human and person
- Human but not a person
- Person but not a human
- Neither human nor person.
The first and last of these sets are relatively easy to dispose of, being either tautological or nonsense. However, the middle two cause problems and have potentially serious implications for those with disabilities. What does it mean to be a person? What does it mean to be human? Can those with a disability, be it physical, sensory, neurological, or neurodiverse in nature, be denied either their ‘human’ or ‘person’ status and rights? If, as an autistic, I am seen as ‘a person but not a human’ would I be protected by human rights, for example?
The use of the word ‘disorder’, as in ‘autism spectrum disorder’, could cause problems for some. Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is the standard notation that is used in much of professional and academic as well as public discourse relating to autism. However, many on the autism spectrum, myself included, would use and would prefer the word ‘condition’, which is ‘value neutral’, rather than ‘disorder’, which implies that there is something wrong with the condition of autism and, therefore, with the autistic person. It could be argued that there is but a short step from viewing autism as a ‘disorder’ to viewing those with autism as ‘disordered’, as ‘damaged’ or ‘broken’. If and when this occurs, the potential for significant discrimination, harmful treatment, denial of human and person rights, rejection and even destruction of the person with autism becomes possible and even permissible. In the words of Greg Schneider (Elbaum, 2021):
‘Around the world, it’s become more acceptable to hate, to demonize, dehumanize other people. People don't wake up one day to say: “I want to commit mass murder today”, but it's a process that over time people are dehumanized and that starts with words and ideas.’
Discrimination and hate crimes targeted at any group or person starts with words and ideas. If those who have a disability are seen as ‘in-valid’ or ‘not valid’, ‘persons but not human’, ‘human but not persons’ or ‘disordered’ rather than ‘living with a condition’ are these mere words? Does it matter in the long term who owns language and how it is used? In a ‘mature society’ that accepts, values and validates all people, discussions of this nature should be of historical interest only. Yet, the still prevalent and culturally validated non-acceptance, discrimination, disability hate crimes and ultimately the rejection and destruction of the person starts with words and ideas. Words frame disability discourses in the public, disability, academic and professional arenas for good or ill and whether we like it or not. So, understand, take control, and use language appropriately before it is too late.