As I’ve mentioned previously, I am currently taking a class on special education. It’s an introductory course, and I already have background in a lot of the topics because of my psychology and art therapy courses. This makes the class rather easy but still informative (in the specifics of educational laws and functioning). The professor has years of experience in the field of special education, teaching children in public schools and education students in universities. She seems fairly knowledgeable on the subjects we discuss and doesn’t generally make mistakes. Until today.
Now, I’m certainly not saying that people aren’t allowed to make mistakes or misspeak. However, basic understanding of the proper use of terms one is using to teach is, I think, a fairly reasonable expectation.
Today, our lecture was about emotional and behavioral disorders (also known by many other terms, but that’s the gist of it). When we got to the definition part, which was quite early in the short class, the professor began talking about the federal definition and other definitions of various organizations and such. Well, the federal definition, apparently, includes an exclusion for social maladjustment, such as “conduct disorder–aggressive, disorderly, antisocial behavior.” Besides that wording and punctuation being a bit odd, the professor’s explanation did not properly address it. Maybe I’m misinterpreting the statement, but it seems to me that, especially with that combination of words (conduct disorder, aggressive, etc.), the antisocial behavior mentioned is just that–antisocial behavior. My professor, however, seems to think that antisocial behavior means social awkwardness and avoidance. Although this is a popular interpretation of the word antisocial, it is an actual disorder, with a specific set of antisocial characteristics and behaviors. It is my understanding that, when discussing diagnostic things, one should use the correct diagnostic definitions. In this case, antisocial behavior is obviously behavior that is against society, not simply unsocial. My professor did not address any of the other words in the exception of the category. It bothers me that people don’t understand things like this and perpetuate such misunderstandings in their teaching.
This wasn’t a major incident, but it did remind me of another post I’m working on, so I thought I’d talk about that topic now, too. That topic, which this particular professor seems to enjoy emphasizing, is person-first language. Basically, person-first language means that, when describing someone, you should put the person or humanizing adjective before a disability or disorder. For instance, instead of saying something like “The autistic boy went to McDonald’s,” you would say “The boy who is autistic went to McDonald’s.” The purpose of this is to emphasize the human aspect and deemphasize the label, reducing negative connotations and focusing on commonalities. This seems fine and dandy, but I’m not convinced. First of all, from a purely linguistic point of view, the wording is, well, off, and seems to emphasize that there is a difference. In our language and culture, we generally say things like “the blonde girl,” “the good lawyer,” “the fat man,” “the distracted child,” while person-first language makes us think about this and, only for specific cases, makes us change the wording. It is less common and more cumbersome to say “the girl who has blonde hair,” “the lawyer who is good,” “the man who is fat,” “the child who is distracted,” and people just don’t do it. Moreover, it’s not suggested by person-first language. At what point do we draw a line in rewording our descriptions? Is “The German boy who has autism” better than “The German boy is autistic” (is versus has is another issue altogether) or “The boy who is German has autism” or “The boy with autism is German” or “The autistic boy is German” or any other combination of those words? I think it depends on what one is trying to say, but I don’t believe any of those is inherently dehumanizing. Should we say “The young male person of German heritage exhibits behaviors commonly associated with the set of symptoms known as autism”? This rewording, to me, while well-intentioned, actually puts unneeded emphasis on the condition being discussed.
In addition, some communities, such as the Deaf community, do not approve of this type of language. Deaf people, according to literature, would rather be called “Deaf people” than be called “people who are deaf” because they have a culture, a community, a language all their own, and it’s not dehumanizing to identify them as being a part of that. In fact, it is empowering in many cases.
I’m not suggesting that every possible wording is okay in every circumstance, but I do think that the wordings we use should fit what we are trying to say. There are also differences between saying “The depressed girl” and “The girl with depression” and “The girl who is depressed” and “The girl who has depression” but I don’t think one is inherently wrong or dehumanizing. What can be dehumanizing is how people use the words. “That guy is sooo bipolar,” for example, puts the person first but is still demeaning, while saying “The bipolar man shared his lunch” is not.