Language Vs. Intent

In the debate between language (politeness/manners/decorum/political correctness) and intent, I mostly side with intent. How often have we said the meanest words to the people we love the most (in anger or frustration or just because we had the audacity to take them for granted)? And how often do we end up using the politest/sweetest words with people we barely tolerate (for social decorum, professional courtesy or simply as “small talk”)? Too often, is my guess. Intent matters more. We may mean well but be unable to articulate it or worse still, communicate just the opposite. What’s important, I think, is that we mean/intend/wish well.

But in some cases, I choose to contradict myself. When it comes to fundamental subjects where the language we use holds the power to perpetuate stigmas and dogmas and stereotypes and cruel myths or any disrespectful, reckless, entitled, discriminatory, oppressive, dehumanizing practices and mindsets in general. For these societal and humanitarian subjects, just meaning well isn’t sufficient. Because the language used can completely nullify years of research and progress and make us inadvertent tools of regression. These issues have existed forever, you may think. True. They have. But they continue to evolve because our understanding of them is being nourished and fine-tuned with education and research. 

And while no one person can (or be expected to) be an expert in all such matters, what’s stopping us from consciously improving our awareness? If we can stay abreast of the latest smartphone models and features…of the latest fashion trends…and even current news, no reason not to dive a little deeper into subjects that may not be “trending” but are never irrelevant. Because these matters matter. And so does our language.

Last year, I had the opportunity to look into how our language frames the subject of masculinity (and its stereotypes). Today, in preparation of a great initiative by a dearest friend (more details coming soon!) and the release of a movie by one of my favourite Indian actors (about time!), I looked up the language guide for talking about disability (a resource from PWDA Australia, and written by  people with disability “to assist the general public and media outlets in talking about and reporting on disability”). To be honest, I started looking into it because I wasn’t sure what words were considered informed and respectful when talking about people with disability. In fact, I wasn’t even aware that the preferred term is “people with disability”, because many other words have crept into popular vocabulary. In reading this, I know now that many euphemisms that we commonly use (e.g. special needs, differently abled, with different abilities), are “at best condescending…at worst, they are offensive”.  

If you have the time, please read the guide. If not, here’s a summary you may find useful:

• Where possible, ask the person how they like to be described. If in doubt, use person-first language or refer to that person by name.
• Reference a person’s disability only when it’s relevant. 
• Focus on the person, not the disability.
• Avoid descriptions that suggest pity. Terms such as ‘suffers from’, ‘afflicted by’, ‘stricken with’, and ‘victim’ imply a person with disability is suffering or has a reduced quality of life. Use neutral language, instead. For example: ‘He has muscular dystrophy.’
• Don’t describe a person as ‘being’ their condition – for example, do not use ‘Vanessa is paraplegic’ or ‘Karim is autistic’. Instead using ‘Vanessa has paraplegia’ or 'Karim has autism' is correct.
• Don’t describe a person without disability as “normal” or “able bodied” or “of sound mind”. Instead, saying “person without disability” or “person is neurotypical” is correct.

The key takeaway for me, from reading this is “Paying attention to the language you use when talking about people with disability is not about being politically correct, it’s about being respectful.” And coming back to the language vs. intent debate, I’d like to think that most of us intend well. But about time we back that intent up with the choices we make about language.