 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
REVOLUTIONARY COMMON SENSE LIBRARY
|
Questioning Conventional Wisdom
Is It
"Just Semantics"?
Revolutionary Common Sense by Kathie Snow
www.disabilityisnatural.com
“Oh, it’s just semantics,” is a commonly-heard response when people disagree on language, concepts, or ideas. When this phrase is spoken, the speaker isn’t simply sharing an opinion. When coupled with a dismissive wave of the hand, “it’s just semantics” is a weapon used to shred the value and the validity of another person’s words.
First, a short example. Awhile back, I received an Email from a friend
in Texas—Paige
Williams—about a new category that would be added to an Internet auction
site. Paige had written to people who were in charge of this site, expressing
her concern about the name of the category: “Special Needs.” She
was hoping they would consider a different name because “special needs” reinforces
stereotypical perceptions and generates pity.
I also wrote to express my concerns, and suggested some alternatives to
the “special
needs” term. The response I received included, “It’s just
semantics,” as well as anger and derision that so much attention was
given to “labels.”
As a side note, William Henderson, the principal of an inclusive elementary
school, wrote the following in a magazine article (Equity and Choice, Vol. 9, No. 2, Winter 1993): “Simply categorizing children as ‘special
needs’ causes some educators to focus on deficits and view [children
with disabilities] as essentially incapable.”
At a conference a few years ago, a presenter discussed a possible change
in the “mental retardation” descriptor. A parent angrily interjected, “My
35-year-old daughter is retarded. Changing the word won’t change that—call
a spade a spade!” His unspoken message seemed to be, “It’s
just semantics!”
Semantics has been given a bad rap. Some people seem to use the word
to imply, “What
difference does it make which word we use?” And I find that very interesting.
If the Internet auction staff and the father didn’t think words matter,
then why did they care if others want to use different words? They protest
too much—obviously, words do matter, or they would have agreed to others’ requests!
Webster’s New American Dictionary defines “semantics” as “the
study of meanings in language.” Perhaps we should help others learn this
definition, so the next time we’re faced with, “It’s just
semantics,” we can reply, “You mean it is about the meaning of
a word?”
Language—and the meaning of words—is critically important. There
are a variety of helpful books on the subject; two of my favorites are Wendell
Johnson’s People in Quandaries: The Semantics of
Personal Adjustment and Living with Change:
The Semantics of Coping. Both of these were out of
print when I discovered them in 2002; I found used copies via on-line book
searches. During a recent visit to www.generalsemantics.org, I was delighted
to learn that People in Quandaries has recently been reprinted!
Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines general
semantics as: “a
doctrine and educational discipline intended to improve habits of response
of human beings to their environment and one another, especially by training
in the more critical use of words and other symbols.” This is a great
definition, but it doesn’t begin to describe the power of general semantics.
I’ve always had a fascination with words, and when my baby son was diagnosed
with cerebral palsy in 1987, a general fascination became specific to disability-related
words and perceptions. When I wrote the first “People First Language” article
in 1991, I didn’t know I was using general semantics: critically examining
language and its effects on our thinking.
|
Here’s one enlightening passage from People in Quandaries: “. .
. anyone would be hard put to define the normal child, or the normal adult.
Authors who attempt to do so tend to end up stating their definitions in negative
terms; that is, they tend to define the normal in terms of the absence of various
abnormalities. You are normal if only you are not abnormal. But by the time
abnormality is defined, you are left with the disturbing suspicion that there
is no one, including yourself, from whom abnormality is entirely absent.”
Johnson was way ahead of his time—People in Quandaries was originally
published in 1946. And while his books are not specifically about people with
disabilities, Johnson’s critical thinking exposes the myths we’ve
created around people with disabilities or differences. At the time his books
were written, People First Language wasn’t on the radar screen, so some
of the descriptors he used aren’t what we would use today. But Johnson’s
respect for all people is tangible. Moreover, he was, in today’s vernacular,
a person with a disability: he had a stutter, which led him to become a speech
pathologist and then a clinical psychologist. In another passage, Johnson writes, “In
a sense, there are no ‘crazy’ people—there are only ‘crazy’ ways
of behaving. And we all behave in those ways more or less.” I really
like this man.
General semantics asks us to examine the words we use,
the words others use, and how we behave, based on what
we think words mean. A thoughtful consideration of the
two passages from Johnson can lead to a mind-expanding
experience in how we think and speak about people with
disabilities. Speaking more precisely can be one of the
outcomes.
Using Johnson’s examples, what do “normal” and “crazy” mean?
Going back to where we started, what does “special needs” mean?
And what does “retarded” mean? Think about other words we use about
people with disabilities and ponder their meanings.
Now let’s go further. Johnson asks us to question the value of the word “is,” or
more accurately, all the forms of “to be:” is, was, are, will be,
and so forth. He describes a person saying, “The wall is blue,” and
points out that this is not a fact, but an opinion. For you could see the same
wall and say, “It’s turquoise.” That’s your opinion
of the color you see. By speaking more precisely, one would say, “The
wall looks blue, to me.” Johnson adds that the world would be a better
place (fewer disagreements, fewer wars, etc.) if we all spoke in ways that
clearly distinguished opinion from fact.
This concept enables
us to understand how the lives of people with disabilities can be ruined
by words when we treat opinions as facts. I’ve seldom,
if ever, heard a therapist or doctor issue a prognosis which included the phrase, “in
my opinion,” as in, “This person needs therapy, in my opinion.” What
might happen if this scenario occurred? A parent might have the courage to
respond, “Well, in my opinion, my child doesn’t need therapy.”
I’ve seldom, if ever, heard an educator, voc-rehab counselor, or other
professional include “to me,” when making an official decision,
as in, “To me, the most appropriate placement for Bob is the sheltered
workshop.” If this occurred, Bob and/or a family member might decide
to respond, “Well, to us, the most appropriate placement is in the community.” Information
which is stated as an opinion opens the door to dialogue, negotiation, and
parity among the players which, in turn, could lead to the death of paternalism
and the rampant “us/them” mentality of the service system.
In too many circumstances, people are giving
only an opinion, but they—and
we—see it as Truth with a capital T. At that point, attitudes are formed
and actions are taken based on this opinion—an “Untruth.” Johnson
writes, “. . . a fact, as an observation, is a personal affair, to be
trusted as such and not as a universal truth.” Before we accept the pronouncements
of gatekeepers and others who have power, perhaps we should inquire, “Is
that a fact or an opinion?”
Are semantics important? You bet they are.
The words we use and the meanings we attach
to words create attitudes, drive social policies
and laws, influence our feelings, direct
our decisions, affect people’s daily lives, and
more. It’s time to recognize the power of language, and to change the
way we think and speak. In the process, people with disabilities will be freed
from the terrible bondage of words.
©2003-06 Kathie Snow, www.disabilityisnatural.com. Permission is granted for non-commercial use of this article: you may print this web page and photocopy it to share with others. Click here to download the PDF handout version of the article. As a courtesy, please tell me (kathie@disabilityisnatural.com) how/when you use it. Do not violate copyright laws: request permission before reprinting or republishing in newsletters, on websites, or in other media
[A New Way of Thinking]
[The Disability is Natural Book and Video]
[About Us]
[People First Language]
[The Disability is Natural Store]
[Revolutionary Common Sense Articles]
[Presentations/Exhibits]
[Rave Reviews]
[Newsletter Library ]
[Contact Us]
[Home]
Disability is Natural
BraveHeart Press
Toll-free: 1-866-948-2222
1-719-687-0735
Fax: 1-719-687-8114
P. O. Box 7245
Woodland Park, CO 80863
Copyright © 2001 - 2008 by BraveHeart Press
 |
 |
 |
|
||
 |
|
 |
|
||
Our words reflect the way we think, so let's get rid of descriptors like "handicapped, physically disabled, mentally retarded, learning disabled" and other words that focus on the condition instead of the person. People First Language promotes dignity and respect for all!
Web search engine marketing by PageCafe Web Design and Marketing