#SayTheWord: On Disability, Language, and the Mechanics of Social Change
:upscale()/2021/03/05/980/n/44344577/7dd136fa6042b1640c9f80.85673437_.jpg)
I have never known an editor who exclusively writes standards to be even mildly progressive. In my experience, standards editors in legacy media tend to be so married to process, and formality, and precedent, that they are some of finest, most loyal champions against change. They are the arbiters of the status quo, of the myths that function as tools of white supremacy in newsrooms, among so many other ills. The ones who insist their staffs belong in silence in their public lives when it comes to Black lives, and the election, and the Jan. 6 insurrection, and so on. Traditionalists, through and through.
How can we root out ableism in media when it's as widely ignored as it is, for one, but also so pervasive in the language we use?
What inspires me, by contrast, is what happens when you abolish systems that do harm and institute ones that do active good in their place. That potential alone is enough to fuel me in writing new, equity-driven standards at POPSUGAR, where I also write about social justice and the common good. The question that's on my mind this week is: how can we root out ableism in media when it's as widely ignored as it is, for one, but also so pervasive in the language we use?
Take the person-first versus identity-first language debate surrounding #SayTheWord. Introducing a person before attributing a given identifier to them (people with disabilities) is referred to as using person-first language. Introducing a person after attributing an identifier to them (disabled people) is referred to as using identity-first language. Which is correct as it pertains to disability?
:upscale()/2021/03/05/981/n/44344577/26617eea53e0f09c_pexels-anna-shvets-3732697.jpg)
It's a question that isn't asked enough, but when it is, it usually yields conservative responses. For starters, what's correct in the newsroom is using language that aligns with how a subject self-identifies, and that's a grace that's rarely given to disabled people to begin with. Really, nondisabled people have no place in deciding for disabled people how they should relate to their own disabilities, one way or another. But past singular subjects, many guidelines about this question resist complexity for the sake of reducing liability.
It's easier for editors to advise against identity-first and for person-first definitively than it is to acknowledge the nuance and leave any room for error, but it's not an open-and-shut case. Person-first language is rooted in a tradition of self-advocacy that's important, especially as it pertains to disability rights in the US from the '60s onward. Many elders use person-first language in a spirit of care, which isn't to be ignored, either. Person-first language signals a shift in movements for social justice that tends to be born out of material need (not everyone can disclose their disability safely, for example).
But just as the person-first language of colorblindness or "not seeing race" leaves us without the ability to talk critically about racism, it's widely accepted today that person-first language like "see the person, not the disability" effectively erases the language necessary to deconstruct ableism.
Journalistically speaking, person-first language tends to make identity an afterthought, literally. Disability advocates I've spoken to wince at the thought of only being referenced with person-first, citing that it denies their dignity and autonomy as a proud community of self-advocates with a rich culture: not unconnected people who happen to be disabled. That's why the pivot to clear, liberatory, identity-first language around disability (and beyond) is a victory that's vital for us to observe.
Disabled people have value beyond their proximity to ability.
Disabled people have value beyond their proximity to ability. Black people have value beyond their proximity to whiteness. Queer people have value beyond how closely they can reproduce straight relationships, and so on. That's the truth that identity-first language underlines, and as long as the media denies disabled people the grace to self-identify as they choose and be affirmed in our newsrooms accordingly, we are standing in the way of making social equity a reality.
Marie Soledad served as a sensitivity reader on this story.