The issue that I plan to explore revolves around social discourse, language, how words are used, and how the culture of a community effects personal and collective perceptions. Specifically, I am working to add to the conversation around the purpose and effect of language. How does language and the way it is used influence how someone is perceived? How does this perception then effect how an individual seems himself? Further, how does labeling language impact a group of individuals within a given community? Lastly, for the purposes of this project, I will center this discussion on individuals with physical and cognitive disabilities at Stone Belt, while looking into the language of disability in the wider community, in hopes of building a discussion around what language can do: limit, empower, provide access, etc.
In order to add to this discussion, I will focus on several sources. First, I will use Catherine Prendergast’s “On the Rhetorics of Mental Disability.” Prendergast’s area of study includes topics around composition and rhetoric. Her specialization specifically involves “tracking the effects of social formations-disciplines, institutions, texts-on the creation and management of knowledge” (45). Presengast looks into how formal institutions impact personal wisdom, to understand the development of knowledge in relation to mental disability. This relates to the issue I seek to develop in multiple capacities.
First, Predergast argues how the lack of language for mental disabilities leaves those with interest in mental disabilities unable to speak on the topic. Not only does she have to leave her “usual terrain” (within academia) to discover a language that addresses mental disability, she argues that “no one can hear” individuals with disabilities when they themselves speak of it (47). How does this affect the language that is deemed acceptable toward individuals with disability?
Often times disabilities are broken down into categories. Disability is categorized in texts (like the DSM), in public documents, and in medical diagnosis. Prendergast even notes how the prison system has a place for those with disabilities, a “mental hospital within the facility”. This small example point to how people with a disability are often categorized in greater society, broken off from the rest of the population. Her work adds to the discussion by outlining how language, or a lack thereof, often leads to an overall misunderstanding of individuals with disabilities. This is important to my issue in that I feel these misunderstandings shape perceptions that can essentially influence personal feelings of empowerment or disempowerment.
The second source to bring into the conversation is titled “Socially and Culturally Sensitive Communication: Using First Person Language” by Margaret Ellmer. Although Ellmer’s work is not long in length and has minimal sources connect to it, I believe her piece adds to the conversation of perception, language, and disability in a multitude of ways. First, Ellmer explores the importance of Person First Language. As a Special Education teacher, Ellmer values the importance of talents, self-worth, and ability before disability. By quoting Carols Russell’s article Teaching Exceptional Children, Ellmer deepens her view of the importance of First Person Language; “Person first is a philosophy reflected through language and actions by putting the person first and the disability second.” This topic also reflects the Stone Belt community’s views, they too believe in the value of Person-First Language.
She recommends using Person-First Language, researching how this Person-First Language influences perception, and lastly seeks to raise awareness on the benefits of sensitive language. What I liked most about Ellmer’s article was her “history” of the terms used to describe individuals with disabilities. From using words like “handicapped” and “crippled”, to replacing terms like “mentally retarded” with “intellectually disabled” we see a change in the meanings/perceptions of words. It’s interesting to note why the words we use in today’s language have evolved…to be more inclusive and respectful, but what meanings do the terms of disability still carry? How is it that language can be so empowering or highly disempowering?
Both works are important to the issue of language, perception, and disability because both add to the idea of discovering a way to use language in an empowering way…in a way that is not labeling, limiting, or stereotypical.
