Interaction between a minority social group like kids with disabilities and other social segments goes necessarily through language and it is that same language that subsequently shapes attitudes. This is a universal phenomenon which is present in every society. Once the visual description does not match the mental picture we have of what is “normal” or “ok”, labels stored in the subconscious and passed from generation to generation begin to surface.
Handicapped or incapacitated are the most rude of them all. The “H” word used to refer to someone using assistive devices or simply different from the standards is loaded with devaluating and demeaning unspoken messages. It automatically segregates and separates this social group and categorizes it as a second class group versus a first class group. The rudeness of the “H” word equates that of the “N” word used to describe black American before they obtain their civil liberties and earn the label African American. Today the use of the “H” word seems to be on the wane as new labels are coined, but in the rush of coming up with politically correct words, it seems that the negativity that has always accompanied disability was perpetuated.
The word “disabled” began gradually replacing the word handicapped and many perceived it as an accomplishment for political correctness. This term does not really differ that much from the word handicapped. In fact, it worsened the situation as it divided society into two groups: the able and the disabled. The use of the prefix “dis” gives the word a dimension of incapacity and inability. It is like the first group is qualified for a good lifestyle and the other is “disqualified”. One is advantageous and the second is “disadvantageous”. Once this separation is made initially in language, attitudes and behaviours that common sense deems inappropriate would emerge as legitimate and valid.
The first group considered as “better”, “fit” or “normal” begins referring to the second as “the others” or “the dysfunctional” component of community which entitle it to treat them as a “less than us” people. Marginalization, stigmatization, discrimination (you name it) would ensue. How can we seek social inclusion while we are doing our best to achieve exclusion by using derogatory labels?
It seems that the root of the problem is that we are unable to see the human being behind the disability and respect him/her for what he/she is: a value-added, unique member of society whose presence “strengthens the universal web of kindness” -–in the words of US writer Andrew Solomon–. The person is not defined by colour, sexual orientation, religious beliefs… An individual is defined by who he/she is: a father, a professor, a sister, a physician…an equal person. According to Kathy Snow, owner of Disability is Natural website: “Words are powerful. Old, inaccurate descriptors and the inappropriate use of medical diagnoses perpetuate negative stereotypes and reinforce a significant and incredibly powerful attitudinal barrier. And this invisible but potent force –not the diagnosis itself- is the greatest obstacle facing individuals who have conditions we call disabilities.”
The word disabled was again changed into something less offensive. We use a person “has a disability” instead of a person is disabled. Many would use the two interchangeably without thinking of the huge difference from the viewpoint of the people concerned, and I guess spending a day with a person with a disability could help put things into perspective.
The word disabled overshadows the person as somebody who does have other aspects of strength and focuses only on what is perceived as a “weakness” or “defect”. Disability becomes the identity of the person for the rest of his/her life no matter how hard he/she tries and thrives in turning his/her life around. “Having a disability” is less harmful in this regard as it conveys the message that disability constitutes a part of and not the whole person. If Mr X has a disability that requires using a wheelchair, we simply say Mr X “uses a wheelchair” instead of Mr X is wheelchair-bound or is a cripple.
The need for new euphemistic expressions to describe disability became pressing. The expression “Special needs” or “Special Kids” came out and took over. Even in Morocco, the transition from the use of the “H” word to the special needs expression took place especially among academics and field experts. The new label seemed to have gained the satisfaction of many inside and outside the world of disability. The word was better but not the best that we can come up with. In fact, at a second thought, the “special needs” has also a negative stereotypical import. And again the verbal dichotomy is triggered: the special vs the regular / normal. Aren’t we again excluding while seeking inclusion? By terming a kid “special needs” aren’t we separating him from his/her peers and condemning him/her to be treated as the odd one out? A special needs kid is in need of special therapy, special devices, special institutions and classes? Why are we instilling in kids this feeling of difference which will turn later into a feeling of shame.
The term “Challenged Kids” also exists but it is not used very often. These kids are faced with a daunting task of living in a disability-unfriendly environment which is challenging. They strive twice as hard to achieve things others take for granted. So, the expression might reflect, to some extent, reality, but do we always succeed in addressing challenges thrown in our way? Sometimes we face up the challenges and thrive, but other times we simply fail and give up. Is this the message we want to transmit to these little ones?
Extraordinary is another rarely used term. It seems rather a sympathetic label to address these kids. Extraordinary excels and exceeds the ordinary, but if these kids are really extraordinary, wouldn’t other parents wish to have them as part of their families? In fact, no parent wishes to have a kid with medical issues, to have a kid that will stand out as different. The traditional sentence pregnant women say is a striking example of it: “I do not mind if it is a boy or a girl as long as he/she is healthy”.
So are we idealizing and romanticizing something that many will consider horrible? And why are we trying to idealize or patronize these people instead of finding an in-between ground that states the obvious fact: they are different and it is ok.
And the list goes on… kids with Down Syndrome are referred to as “Mongoloid”, people with eye or ear-impairment are blind or deaf… With disrespectful, highly offensive labels comes low expectations, prejudice and marginalization, all is reflected in our attitudes and behaviour. The often embraced-rejected term “differently-abled” is also very present while surfing the internet, and it might sound relevant to people who believe their kids are just doing things in their own way, behind schedule.
The ensuing attitudes, mainly from uneducated people, can be dangerous. Unspoken messages and behaviours like staring makes instantly the person, I mean the one stared at, uncomfortable and embarrassed. The looks, whether full of pity or curiosity (by adults not children), are alienating and judgemental. Attitudes are placing invisible barriers that are hard to overcome. Whispering, pointing, laughing, turning around… all convey the same message: the different person does not belong to the “normal” group and therefore she/he is unwelcomed.
Humanity has a long way to go before claiming that it has reached the needed linguistic maturity and it is now using “inclusive language.”