It’s unlikely that you haven’t noticed this before, but there is a war against words going on. It’s not a new war. Words have always been subject to scrutiny, arising when they’re acceptable, then declining when deemed pejorative.
Same word. Different feeling. Usually accompanied by a tedious explanation for why the word that was once the savior of hard feelings is now the cause of them. This isn’t true of all epithets, some of which arose as pejorative terms, and were always intended as insults, but those aren’t the words under discussion.
A perfect example is offered in Dan Barry’s op-ed about the “intellectually disabled.”
For many years, the preferred term was, simply, idiot. When Massachusetts established a commission on idiocy in the mid-1840s, it appointed Dr. Samuel G. Howe, an abolitionist and early disability rights advocate, as its chairman. The commission argued for the establishment of schools to help this segment of society, but made clear that it regarded idiocy “as an outward sign of an inward malady.”
After Howe established the Experimental School for Teaching and Training Idiotic Children — the first of its kind — there gradually developed a profession to provide services to people with intellectual disability, as well as efforts to diagnose, define and categorize. “The term ‘feebleminded’ began to be used as a catchall,” Dr. Wehmeyer said — as in, say, the Pennsylvania Training School for Feeble-Minded Children.
Each succeeding term that entered the lexicon developed a pejorative connotation; consider the idiot-and-moron banter of the Three Stooges. At the same time, the medical community continued to refine its understanding of — and language for — intellectual disability.
We wondered whether readers would instantly understand what the phrase meant. What’s more, advocates and academicians were recommending that I suppress my journalistic instinct to tighten the language. I was told that it was improper to call these men “intellectually disabled,” instead of “men with intellectual disability.” Their disability does not define them; they are human beings with a disability.
Experience suggests this will continue to change. Whether to the once-fashionable “idiot” or the wholly meaningless “differently abled” is anyone’s guess. The rationales for change will be spoken in deeply earnest tones, and the differently abled will nod their heads in agreement.
A friend of mine who is blind told me a story of his taking a cruise, and being met at the gang plank with a wheelchair. Why? The cruise ship was informed he was differently abled, but not what his disability was. He wasn’t defined by his disability. But he could walk just fine. He just couldn’t see. He also noted, laughingly, that no one seemed to understand why he was using a white cane. “What a buncha idiots,” he remarked. Apparently, no one told him that idiot was out of style.
The Department of Justice, in a fit of linguistic compassion, has decided that it can undo some of the harm it caused by linguistic fiat.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch, for example, gave a speech in Mobile, Ala., two weeks ago on re-entry programs in which she avoided objectifying nouns — like “felons” or “ex-convict” or “ex-offender” — that define people by the worst moment of their lives.
So have they changed their position on the viability of permanent smearing by sex offender registries? Maybe chosen to put their resources into education and training in prison? Opposed the Scarlet Letter on passports? Don’t be ridiculous.
The Justice Department’s Office of Justice Programs, which supports law enforcement and criminal justice efforts across the country, on Wednesday announced that it would no longer use the words “felon” or “convict” on its website, in grant solicitations or in speeches, but would instead use “person who committed a crime” or “individual who was incarcerated.” (Emphasis gleefully added.)
And like magic, this will change everything. And, wait for it, here come the earnest tones:
Writing in The Washington Post, Karol Mason, the assistant attorney general who leads that office, said the office adopted this change in language “to solidify the principles of individual redemption and second chances that our society stands for.”
For those of us who would support the notion that once a person has paid his debt to society, he should be able to return to society as a productive, law-abiding citizen rather than be saddled with his conviction forever. Except we have oodles of ways to make sure that isn’t possible, and tons of folks who will argue that once a criminal, always a criminal, and society has a right to protect itself from these inchoate recidivists. Do your really want the pedo next door to be able to babysit your kids?
But words have power, or so I’m told, and so we should adjust our words accordingly.
When others complained that expressions like “people who have committed crimes” did not roll easily off the tongue, Mr. Ellis made clear that those extra words acknowledged the humanity of people who, having paid their debts, should not have to feel shut out forever.
In support, other words are brought into play. Words like “solidify” and “feel shut out.” Perfectly nice words. Totally worthless words. These words don’t “solidify” a concept that has been long abandoned with very hard and real rules. They make some people “feel” less shut out, but they are still totally shut out.
There is a belief that by first changing the words, the reality will follow. Because calling an ex-con “a person who committed a crime” will change everything, will make us appreciate his humanity, his dignity. The same people say similar things in support of the animal abuse registry, without the slightest hint of hypocrisy.
When it comes to the mentally retarded, a descriptive word that informs that a person’s intellectual capacity falls below the threshold medicine has determined to be within the range of normal, they are entitled to enjoy life without ridicule and abuse. But they will still be mentally retarded. Pretending otherwise won’t make them any more capable of doing things they cannot do.
My blind friend will still be blind, no matter what you call it. It’s not that he doesn’t enjoy the occasional ride in a wheelchair, but it doesn’t help him to see.
And calling a guy with a felony conviction “differently incarcerated” or whatever euphemism DoJ picks won’t get him a job, medical care, drug rehab, off a registry, vocational training or the acceptance of his fellow citizens. Solidify that.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This process is similar to the one that led to the term bowel movement.
And toilet paper.
This is the process by which the differently-abled self-identify, much like a flashing beacon mounted on their heads, to warn us of their presence. Use caution.
SHG has grown bitter from being called a “blogger” and a “lawyer.” A few years of being called “a multifaceted human person who, among many other dazzlingly special talents, blogs” and “a poly-abilitized human being who carries out legality-related actions” and he’ll sweeten right up!
I am not a blawger. I am a person who blawgs. It’s entirely different. I feel so much more dignified now. Oh wait.
As the “inherent” (whatever that means today) meaning of words change, I am becoming more alienated from society and more stupid. That is probably the real intention of government and SJWs.
I am beginning to think that maybe I really am headed for (thanks to Tom Lehrer) “the state home for the bewildered”.
Dibs on the lower bed.
“inherent”, “incontinent”, whatever…
As far as I’m concerned, the upper bed is much better.
I would agree, but I can’t get up there anymore.
Meh, “felon” has lost most of its punch, anyway. Most of us have already committed at least one felony this year, so what’s the big deal? It’s not like it means you raped somebody, and even if it did, I hear “rape” might be about to lose most of its punch as well.
Maybe we should call them, “individuals with whom other individuals have disagreed about the propriety of certain acts and against whom the government has rendered judgment favoring the interpretation of the other party”.
FTFY: at least one felony this hour
I don’t know about you, but all I did for the last hour was spray paint some shelves and toss the empty cans in the trash . . . Well, fuck I guess you’re right.
SHG,
Your post, and the next one “Hating Redskins,” caused me to think about the U.S. Code on an otherwise beautiful Sunday. For that, you should be punished.
Indeed, you should be banished to “Indian country.” 18 U.S.C. § 1151. There you can’t possess your fancy, favorite New York liquor upon pain of a year in prison. 18 U.S.C. § 1156.
In short, don’t fuck with my Sunday ever again you non-indigenous person.* All the best.
RGK
*If you don’t know what defines a non-indigenous person like you, please take time to read and seriously contemplate Brian Davey, What Is a Non-Indigenous Person?, Resilience (Feb., 10, 2015) (After attending the rights of nature conference at the Nottingham Contemporary Arts Centre and Gallery, the author concluded: “At the risk of over simplifying all indigenous people belong to particular places. In contrast non indigenous people belong no where in particular – although places may belong to them – which is not at all the same thing.”)
I’m quasi-indigenous. Is it my fault I ended up in a homeless tribe?
SHG,
Yes.
All the best.
RGK
So… indigenous people are serfs?
If a place belongs to me, and there are some people who belong to that place, does that mean I own them?
It might be simpler to kill two birds with one mineral-American and call felons the “differently-righted”.
You’re right about the terminology for felons or former felons, but your comparison to the language for disabilities misses a couple of important points. First, felons by definition did something society decided was wrong. Second, they chose to do those things. If they don’t like the terminology, so what? But a person with a developmental disability didn’t do anything wrong, and he didn’t choose to have his disability. Nonetheless, society perennially takes the terminology used to describe persons with disabilities and makes them pejorative (witness any number of mouth breathers calling anything they don’t like “retarded”). The preference of people who didn’t choose to have disabilities and whose disabilities aren’t “wrong” to avoid labels that have become pejorative isn’t comparable to whatever might be the concern of those who committed crimes of their own volition.
This misguided focus is why language has been rendered a nullity. Of course the disabled didn’t do anything wrong, but that has nothing to do with the utility of words, whether it’s a felon or the developmentally disabled. So some asshole uses “retarded” as a pejorative, and that means we should substitute language that is utterly meaningless to save their feelings at the expense of any semblance of viable communication? Great plan.
Have you met Lenny Bruce?
The alternative is to grow up and focus on substance instead of all the sad tears shed in the adoration of feelz.
Scott:
Maybe two or three times a day, you point out that some commenter has failed to actually read what you wrote. But you’ve done it here. Re-read my comment. I didn’t suggest substituting language that is “utterly meaningless.” (Perhaps you assumed I would suggest using “differently abled.” I wouldn’t.) Is “intellectual disability” any less precise than “mental retardation”? Of course not. Moreover, if your goal is precision in language, my approach is better. If every mouth breather uses “retarded” to mean anything they think is stupid or silly, the word “retarded” becomes less precise. Same with “idiot,” “moron” and all the rest. And a preference not to be called by a pejorative is hardly evidence of a need to grow up, Lenny Bruce or no.
I expect better of you than this:
Mental retardation has a definitive medical meaning, an IQ below 70 (forgetting standard deviation, for the moment). Intellectual disability means absolutely nothing. Explain that it’s close enough to a defendant who will be executed despite his IQ, because he may have an intellectual disability but that won’t save him from death.
In the realm of disabilities, differences matter. Is the “intellectually disabiled” person dyslexic, discalculic, austistic (maybe aspy, maybe not), and we can keep going (this is why I included the blind guy story as part of the post, by the way). Words created to shield feelings work because they’re meaningless words. Water down the meaning of words enough and no one will feel sad. No one will ever have a clue what anyone is talking about, but don’t feelings matter most?
Now you’re coming closer to the point of this post. At one time, “idiot” was considered the kindly word. Today, it’s offensive. Words are neither good nor bad; they’re just words. Pejorative is how people use and/or perceive words; don’t blame the word for its perception. Watering down words to the point where no one’s feelings can ever be hurt by obfuscating meaning, adding bunches of empty words around them, is absurd. The academic fetish with feelings at the expense of substance is rendering words meaningless. Yes, it’s irrefutable evidence of the need to grow up. It’s just that children don’t get it.
Whatever “nice” label you dream up will be co-opted by people to hurl insults.
IOW, Scott understood what you wrote. You, however, completely missed his point becuse you’re intellectully disabled.
Really, Patrick? Your response to something you don’t like is to throw a juvenile insult at me and misspell it?
Spelling is what people point to when they just got skewered.
Obviously I’m kinda slow on the whole readn, riten, rithmatic thing*, but did you just admit that your shiny new politically-correct term works just as well as the old mean, insensitive one for juvenile insults?
* Or maybe it’s just not being able to see very well on my blurry tablet. Nah, that’s just an excuse.
You spelled thing wrong. It doesn’t have a star on the end. Hah!
You’re right. I’m never sure where to put the star. Hey, you’re smart about these things — maybe you can tell me why people like this poem. “frisk” doesn’t rhyme with “star” and I just don’t get it:
I don’t get it either. People just don’t use stars properly anymore.
Scott:
I’m glad you hold me to a high standard, although I’m sad you think I failed to meet it. Look at the DSM V. It defines “intellectual disability” in precisely the same way former editions defined “mental retardation.” Indeed, it includes IQ among the considerations. Thus, to the people who actually deal with these things, “intellectual disability” hardly means nothing; it’s carefully, clinically defined. This might be a good time for you to acknowledge that you made a mistake. (See how I did that without insulting your intelligence by suggesting that you’re a child?)
It’s interesting (and ironic) that you turn to the DSM V, given that it’s been universally criticized for doing exactly what I note, whitewashing medical language to appeal to the progressive feelz. From the announcement of changes in the DSM V:
Which was swiftly ripped to shreds by the US National Library of Medicine, NIH:
The words are neither synonymous nor co-terminus, and pretending otherwise does not make it so. To add to the irony, go back to the earlier DSMs, before intellectuals bought their first copy of “I’m Okay, You’re Okay,” and compare the definition of mental retardation with this. DSM V is a deep dive into reinventing jargon in the age of feelz.
And if my child reference hurt your feelings, you can chose to either say “sticks and stone” to yourself or hide in a puppy room. Guess which one a child would do? Maybe this is a good time to give some thought to why hurt feelz and undue sensitivity is so high on your list of priorities?
When a word or phrase refers to an unfortunate characteristic of some humans it inevitably becomes perjorative, replace it with a kinder expression that is not yet perjorative and that in a short time becomes perjorative and children start using it to bully other children in the schoolyard.
They’re two sides of the same coin, the ones who use a word as a pejorative, and the ones who are offended by the word. It’s really got nothing to do with the word, which is just a delivery mechanism.
The term “mentally disabled” covers the gamut of potential infirmities. In the DSM-V, they’ve tried to pretend it means the same as mentally retarded, which it doesn’t and never has. It’s like asking a brain surgeon to operate on the thingy in the guy’s head.
Institutional memory is going to make people very sad.
Which is, in itself, probably also a diagnosable mental illness in the DSM-V.
I’m pretty sure it’s covered in the latest WISC, and treatable with medicinal marijuana.
It’s the thingy in that person’s head, you insensitive clod.
The last time I needed a neuro-psych report, I went to a great doc, who did all the right tests, got all the right results, then wrote it up with a conclusion that was meaningless gibberish. And of course, the only part the judge and prosecutor read is the conclusion. So I went back to him and asked, “what are you trying to do to me?” He replied, “meet the DSM-V, where words mean nothing anymore.” I made him redo it using real words, but only because I was more concerned about my clients going to prison than having hurt feelings.
Maybe the louts will start shouting drunken insults like “Felon!”.
I need to invest (waste?) more time on the interwebs. I had to go to Google twice for this post and related comments: FTFY and the funny * poem. The day has been fulfilling as I’ve learned something new. Thank you.
When we can’t dazzle you with brilliance, we baffle you with asterisks.
“…and the differently abled will nod their heads in agreement.”
What if their different ability is the lack of a head, you cis-gendered wealth-enabled pro-cranial shitlord?
Pro-cranial? No one’s ever called me that before.
Does this mean that members of the social justice community must stop calling people with whom they disagree racists, sexists, homophobes, transphobes, or other objectifying nouns that define the miscreants by the worst statements or beliefs of their lives?
Don’t be ridiculous. Those are facts.