Great post. I am curious what you all think of the concept of "ableist language," especially since the arguments for why we shouldn't use phrases like "fell on deaf ears" or "that's crazy" sound so much like the attitudes Freddie describes.
One guide says: "Ableist language is any word or phrase that devalues people who have a disability.…
Great post. I am curious what you all think of the concept of "ableist language," especially since the arguments for why we shouldn't use phrases like "fell on deaf ears" or "that's crazy" sound so much like the attitudes Freddie describes.
One guide says: "Ableist language is any word or phrase that devalues people who have a disability. Though often inadvertent, ableist language suggests that people with disabilities are abnormal."
Another complains that ableist language gives words like "deaf" a "negative connotation."
I have often thought that the concept of ableist language is part of this movement to deny that disabilities are undesirable. But at the same time, I would never use the word "retarded" as an insult -- so I must agree, on some level, for at least some words.
I think there's a legitimate conflict between ease/utility/clarity and giving offense. There's probably no simple, universal rule and I'm skeptical of any attempts to propose one.
I had a student last year chew me out for using a text from the 19th century that used "retarded." I had to explain to them that for centuries, the word simply meant "slowed down" or "delayed," and "mental retardation" was a clear term with a pretty clear use that most people could understand. That didn't prevent it from becoming a slur. Getting rid of it was definitely a net-positive, but the horde of euphemisms that emerged to cover it, like "mentally handicapped" or "intellectually disabled," are definitely less precise, require more explanation, and are more likely to be misinterpreted.
I just don't see the point of 'getting rid of slurs'. People will just use the new euphemisms as slurs – and they do. What are we gaining exactly? Is 'running on the euphemism treadmill' an effective demonstration of support for the relevant disabled people? Is it even possibly _better_ than, you know, actual support? I remain extremely skeptical that this is anything more than misguided.
> Another complains that ableist language gives words like "deaf" a "negative connotation."
'The deaf' seem like the most glaring ... 'problematic' (?) kinda-counter-example to this post. (I basically agree with the normative claims in the post.) AFAIK, they kinda _are_ a 'real community'.
I think it would be better for people _to_ use 'retarded'. Once you've noticed the 'euphemism treadmill', how could you not want to get off it?
If we refuse to get off of the euphemism treadmill, then we should expect a never-ending cycle of choosing a new euphemism, trying to police casual language usage of that term, and eventually giving up (e.g. when children pick up on that the current euphemism makes a _great_ insult), and then starting the cycle over. I just can't escape my extreme skepticism that this does anything at all. Surely everyone involved knows it's really bullshit?
That it is morally bad to denigrate someone for a disability for which they're not culpable (or even then) just seems like an independent fact from what words people use to put each other down. Running on the euphemism treadmill seems so nakedly performative and yet another example of 'magical word thinking'.
Counterpoint: OCD and autistic are pretty specific diagnoses, but have caught on as informal adjectives for supposedly-related personality types. At that point, it's an issue of morals, not vocabulary: a decent person shouldn't say she's "kinda OCD about my calendar." I also like specificity, but it's not perfect.
I think there's a difference between phrases that incorporate the literal meaning of the word (in "deaf ears" the word deaf is used to mean "can't hear") and using a disability word to mean "bad" (e.g. "That's so lame" or "That's retarded.")
In that case, a replacement wouldn't be a "euphemism" because people weren't thinking of the actual meanings in the first place.
It just seems inevitable that people, out of cruelty or even attempted humor, will use the same words for real disabilities to describe people without them.
It's also inevitable that the meaning of words will become whatever the relevant community of language users understands them to mean. Because of that, it's not clear that there _are_ any "actual meanings in the first place". Language is inescapably social – there are no meanings independent of particular people in particular contexts.
I would not have predicted that anyone is upset by "That's so lame.". I understand the logic now that you've pointed it out, but I just don't think it's of any utility to follow that logic to its inevitable conclusion. I'm not sure even 'bad' would survive!
I don't think what I wrote has anything to do with "pomo", but I can understand why you or others might think that. I think "pomo" is making a much stronger claim, e.g. that _reality_ is itself social; not just language.
But you're, sadly, probably right about the futility of encouraging people to jump off the euphemism treadmill!
I think it might still be possible to 'jump off' the euphemism treadmill even while accepting that language changes. It sure seems like the euphemism treadmill is the consequence of deliberate 'prescriptivist' changes; not 'organic' change like slang.
I also think there's a kind of 'art' in, e.g. 'tracking prototypes', that prevents "the relational nature and inherent uncertainty of language" from _perfectly_ unmooring one from _any_ connection to an underlying reality. In practice, even 'pomo fanatics' are probably almost entirely 'practical' and unremarkable when using language outside of academic or 'intellectual' circles.
You raise a good point; I myself will say, "That's nuts", but wouldn't say "That's retarded." I guess that's my hypocrisy.
Looking through the link you provided, I sometimes find it difficult to tell the meaningful difference between the Good Speech and the Bad Speech. It's pretty evident (to me, anyway) that you shouldn't call anyone a mongoloid, but what's the distinction between "She receives special education services" and "She's in special ed"? This hyper-focus on language can get tiresome. Here's a story about such hyper-focus.
Some time ago, I joined a Facebook group entitled, "White Nonsense Roundup", whose purpose was to help users whose status updates are filled with people spouting racist nonsense. I thought, "Hey, this seems good" and joined. Hoo, boy.
I'd page through the group discussions, and began to see that the place was really just a home for performative wokeness, where users fought over topics like who-threw-the-first-brick-at-Stonewall. (Answer: NOT a black trans woman.) Anyway, there was one gigantic row when someone had the temerity to say that Martin Luther King, Jr. had "given his life" for the cause of civil rights. Like velociraptors, the wokescolds homed in, charged, and tore this person to shreds before you could say, "Clever girl."
"MLK did not 'give his life'--he was murdered! Murdered!" was the kind of comment I saw, and most were way less polite than that. I took the original statement to be a kind of rhetorical flourish, but apparently it was a society-destroying, diversity-crushing act of the most foul racism. That's when I left the group.
So while I think there is importance to be attached to language, I think sometimes we let the tail wag the dog.
I tutored foreign students in a variety of subjects in college. Have you ever tried to explain to a non-native speaker why "person of color" is acceptable versus "colored persons" which is verboten? It's especially ironic that I was trying to explain the difference to actual racial minorities (at least in the US) who were baffled by the "difference".
At some point I had to stop and wonder if the whole point wasn't a shibboleth to indicate who was and who wasn't in the club.
Think of it as a class and status marker. Especially as keeping up with the ever-changing demands of political correctness requires leisure time and the desire to be part of the in-crowd.
At the onset of the 'people of color' use in 2007/8, it was abundantly clear that enforcement of word choice was a power move, and was being used to differentiate between those who would fall in line and those who would not.
It's a little gratifying to see people picking up on this in a broader way now, if still frustrating because those 15 years were...suboptimal.
That's exactly what it is - virtue signaling. The elites have always used language (and other behavioral markers) as a gate or code - to keep out the riff raff. I would venture that much of the focus at elite schools is to teach people how to speak and act so that they will be perceived as a member of the UMC or wealthy. The rules of etiquette and propriety also work in this fashion.
My own experience as an autodidact buttresses this argument. I am very well read but grew up blue collar so I didn't hear certain words pronounced correctly and often pronounce them incorrectly in polite company. The looks on people's faces is instructive. I have outed myself as “not one of them” and you can literally feel their energy shift upon this discovery.
Another gate is school name dropping. I was in a gathering of women in tech and we were instructed to make a connection with those around us by revealing what school we went to. The looks on the faces of of my small group was quite humorous when they dropped names like Brown and Sarah Lawrence and I said I had 2 AA degrees from community colleges. They were so embarrassed that they didn't know what to say. It was quite funny.
The whole culture war over language is about signaling what tribe you belong to so they can assess your “worth” and treat you accordingly. It's a form of dehumanization as old as the hills used by the powerful to keep their little club sacrosanct.
Having the views and attitudes of a member of the "right" class is critical, especially for someone seeking entry into that class. Paul Fussell writes extensively on this.
BTW, this is also why things like "free museum entry" often are a disguised subsidy to the educated classes.
My barn cat relatives don't go to museums, and it's not because they can't sneak in. It's because knowing Manet from Monet is not important to them.
I find using the kind of language that gets labeled as "abelist "is a crutch that rarely helps a person's writing. It tends to be vague and emotional and often a poor fit for the situation. To take an example from downthread (sorry Slaw):
"I'm just going to say it: I think deaf parents who refuse to get their children cochlear implants are insane and borderline child abusers."
Obviously Slaw doesn't think they are actually out of touch with consensus reality, but what is meant to be put across by 'insane' here? A stupidity-and-wrongness slurry plus strong censure? To my mind, the point of the word is mainly to be a vehicle for that negative judgment, and it adds little beyond that; replacing "insane" with "bad" wouldn't substantively change the message. Consider alternatives:
-I think deaf parents who refuse to get their children cochlear implants are borderline child abusers.
or
-I think deaf parents who refuse to get their children cochlear implants are incredibly selfish and borderline child abusers.
I think either of these is stronger than the original, and the second (example of the kind of you think you might say instead) is both stronger and more informative.
Rarely do I stumble on one of these terms used well. The reason that using this kind of language can be damaging is not at all unrelated to its poor suitability to good writing, but a lot of people are already making the former point.
Throughout this entire discussion, at all times keep in mind that none of this emphasis on consciousness raising or language changes how the pie is sliced.
From that perspective, it's a distraction and an energy suck.
I don't think it's nearly as important as some, but I do think it's part and parcel of gaining acceptance within society. Changes in language are both a symptom and a cause of shifting attitudes, and shifting attitudes have material implications, both political and personal. I also happen to think that reducing the degree to which some members of society feel like irredeemable pieces of garbage because of factors outside of their control is a worthy political goal itself.
The distraction argument proves too much--isn't this whole discussion a distraction from solving our truly existential problems? Neither of us is having this conversation because we think it is the most socially worthy use of our time.
We probably agree on what ought to be prioritized, but I don't think these language discussions should be verboten.
(Or as roundly mocked for the sake of pseudoedgelordy counter-signaling, "guys I said said lame I guess I'm ableist now, haha" like wow, very clever and brave. But I digress.)
We all know test cases that suggest some kind of limit or standard for what's OK to say. "Retarded" and "crippled" feel uncomfortable (even though I'm fine appropriating the first colloquially to disparage something unrelated to disability, like a terrible policy). But I think often what makes language "ableist" is nothing related to the disability or offending word at all, but rather the failure to consider that the language you use *might* bother them used that particular way. That is, a process question of relational sensitivity rather than a content issue.
I don't think the point of calling out ableist language is (or should be) either to defend the normalcy of disability or deny that they are undesirable. For me the point is to keep people epistemically humble, by not letting them blithely assume that just because the word seems fine to them it's fine to everyone. But this is often taken to excess, and policing of language doesn't help anybody. Especially because I think true ableism tends to be more about the act and the attitude than the word, with the word at worst being a reflection of the act.
As someone with a 21-year-old sister who has some pretty severe special needs, what I think so much of the online "ableist language" community misses is that my sister doesn't need someone to stop saying "that's lame" but rather to actually acknowledge her existence and say hello/be her friend. So many people try to use perfect language, but, as Freddie has pointed out in different essays, never actually do anything to tangibly help those in need. They avoid people with disabilities while championing themselves as the greatest advocates of the disabled.
I think I can understand why people would be afraid to interact with people like your sister – it sure _seems_ fraught if you're aware of everything you 'can't say'! It's extra sad to think that what people _do_ try to do 'to help' might make _actually_ helping harder.
I've always been sad that lots of people seem to have trouble talking with _children_ generally. They're just (more or less) ignorant people! But I've found that almost all of them appreciate plain, honest, sincere, and direct speech.
Great post. I am curious what you all think of the concept of "ableist language," especially since the arguments for why we shouldn't use phrases like "fell on deaf ears" or "that's crazy" sound so much like the attitudes Freddie describes.
One guide says: "Ableist language is any word or phrase that devalues people who have a disability. Though often inadvertent, ableist language suggests that people with disabilities are abnormal."
Another complains that ableist language gives words like "deaf" a "negative connotation."
I have often thought that the concept of ableist language is part of this movement to deny that disabilities are undesirable. But at the same time, I would never use the word "retarded" as an insult -- so I must agree, on some level, for at least some words.
Explanation with examples: http://deareverybody.hollandbloorview.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/DearEverybodyTipsonAbleistLanguage2018-19.pdf
I think there's a legitimate conflict between ease/utility/clarity and giving offense. There's probably no simple, universal rule and I'm skeptical of any attempts to propose one.
I had a student last year chew me out for using a text from the 19th century that used "retarded." I had to explain to them that for centuries, the word simply meant "slowed down" or "delayed," and "mental retardation" was a clear term with a pretty clear use that most people could understand. That didn't prevent it from becoming a slur. Getting rid of it was definitely a net-positive, but the horde of euphemisms that emerged to cover it, like "mentally handicapped" or "intellectually disabled," are definitely less precise, require more explanation, and are more likely to be misinterpreted.
I just don't see the point of 'getting rid of slurs'. People will just use the new euphemisms as slurs – and they do. What are we gaining exactly? Is 'running on the euphemism treadmill' an effective demonstration of support for the relevant disabled people? Is it even possibly _better_ than, you know, actual support? I remain extremely skeptical that this is anything more than misguided.
> Another complains that ableist language gives words like "deaf" a "negative connotation."
'The deaf' seem like the most glaring ... 'problematic' (?) kinda-counter-example to this post. (I basically agree with the normative claims in the post.) AFAIK, they kinda _are_ a 'real community'.
I think it would be better for people _to_ use 'retarded'. Once you've noticed the 'euphemism treadmill', how could you not want to get off it?
If we refuse to get off of the euphemism treadmill, then we should expect a never-ending cycle of choosing a new euphemism, trying to police casual language usage of that term, and eventually giving up (e.g. when children pick up on that the current euphemism makes a _great_ insult), and then starting the cycle over. I just can't escape my extreme skepticism that this does anything at all. Surely everyone involved knows it's really bullshit?
That it is morally bad to denigrate someone for a disability for which they're not culpable (or even then) just seems like an independent fact from what words people use to put each other down. Running on the euphemism treadmill seems so nakedly performative and yet another example of 'magical word thinking'.
Counterpoint: OCD and autistic are pretty specific diagnoses, but have caught on as informal adjectives for supposedly-related personality types. At that point, it's an issue of morals, not vocabulary: a decent person shouldn't say she's "kinda OCD about my calendar." I also like specificity, but it's not perfect.
I think there's a difference between phrases that incorporate the literal meaning of the word (in "deaf ears" the word deaf is used to mean "can't hear") and using a disability word to mean "bad" (e.g. "That's so lame" or "That's retarded.")
In that case, a replacement wouldn't be a "euphemism" because people weren't thinking of the actual meanings in the first place.
But disability _is_ bad!
It just seems inevitable that people, out of cruelty or even attempted humor, will use the same words for real disabilities to describe people without them.
It's also inevitable that the meaning of words will become whatever the relevant community of language users understands them to mean. Because of that, it's not clear that there _are_ any "actual meanings in the first place". Language is inescapably social – there are no meanings independent of particular people in particular contexts.
I would not have predicted that anyone is upset by "That's so lame.". I understand the logic now that you've pointed it out, but I just don't think it's of any utility to follow that logic to its inevitable conclusion. I'm not sure even 'bad' would survive!
I don't think what I wrote has anything to do with "pomo", but I can understand why you or others might think that. I think "pomo" is making a much stronger claim, e.g. that _reality_ is itself social; not just language.
But you're, sadly, probably right about the futility of encouraging people to jump off the euphemism treadmill!
Those are good points!
I think it might still be possible to 'jump off' the euphemism treadmill even while accepting that language changes. It sure seems like the euphemism treadmill is the consequence of deliberate 'prescriptivist' changes; not 'organic' change like slang.
I also think there's a kind of 'art' in, e.g. 'tracking prototypes', that prevents "the relational nature and inherent uncertainty of language" from _perfectly_ unmooring one from _any_ connection to an underlying reality. In practice, even 'pomo fanatics' are probably almost entirely 'practical' and unremarkable when using language outside of academic or 'intellectual' circles.
You raise a good point; I myself will say, "That's nuts", but wouldn't say "That's retarded." I guess that's my hypocrisy.
Looking through the link you provided, I sometimes find it difficult to tell the meaningful difference between the Good Speech and the Bad Speech. It's pretty evident (to me, anyway) that you shouldn't call anyone a mongoloid, but what's the distinction between "She receives special education services" and "She's in special ed"? This hyper-focus on language can get tiresome. Here's a story about such hyper-focus.
Some time ago, I joined a Facebook group entitled, "White Nonsense Roundup", whose purpose was to help users whose status updates are filled with people spouting racist nonsense. I thought, "Hey, this seems good" and joined. Hoo, boy.
I'd page through the group discussions, and began to see that the place was really just a home for performative wokeness, where users fought over topics like who-threw-the-first-brick-at-Stonewall. (Answer: NOT a black trans woman.) Anyway, there was one gigantic row when someone had the temerity to say that Martin Luther King, Jr. had "given his life" for the cause of civil rights. Like velociraptors, the wokescolds homed in, charged, and tore this person to shreds before you could say, "Clever girl."
"MLK did not 'give his life'--he was murdered! Murdered!" was the kind of comment I saw, and most were way less polite than that. I took the original statement to be a kind of rhetorical flourish, but apparently it was a society-destroying, diversity-crushing act of the most foul racism. That's when I left the group.
So while I think there is importance to be attached to language, I think sometimes we let the tail wag the dog.
I tutored foreign students in a variety of subjects in college. Have you ever tried to explain to a non-native speaker why "person of color" is acceptable versus "colored persons" which is verboten? It's especially ironic that I was trying to explain the difference to actual racial minorities (at least in the US) who were baffled by the "difference".
At some point I had to stop and wonder if the whole point wasn't a shibboleth to indicate who was and who wasn't in the club.
Think of it as a class and status marker. Especially as keeping up with the ever-changing demands of political correctness requires leisure time and the desire to be part of the in-crowd.
At the onset of the 'people of color' use in 2007/8, it was abundantly clear that enforcement of word choice was a power move, and was being used to differentiate between those who would fall in line and those who would not.
It's a little gratifying to see people picking up on this in a broader way now, if still frustrating because those 15 years were...suboptimal.
That's exactly what it is - virtue signaling. The elites have always used language (and other behavioral markers) as a gate or code - to keep out the riff raff. I would venture that much of the focus at elite schools is to teach people how to speak and act so that they will be perceived as a member of the UMC or wealthy. The rules of etiquette and propriety also work in this fashion.
My own experience as an autodidact buttresses this argument. I am very well read but grew up blue collar so I didn't hear certain words pronounced correctly and often pronounce them incorrectly in polite company. The looks on people's faces is instructive. I have outed myself as “not one of them” and you can literally feel their energy shift upon this discovery.
Another gate is school name dropping. I was in a gathering of women in tech and we were instructed to make a connection with those around us by revealing what school we went to. The looks on the faces of of my small group was quite humorous when they dropped names like Brown and Sarah Lawrence and I said I had 2 AA degrees from community colleges. They were so embarrassed that they didn't know what to say. It was quite funny.
The whole culture war over language is about signaling what tribe you belong to so they can assess your “worth” and treat you accordingly. It's a form of dehumanization as old as the hills used by the powerful to keep their little club sacrosanct.
Having the views and attitudes of a member of the "right" class is critical, especially for someone seeking entry into that class. Paul Fussell writes extensively on this.
BTW, this is also why things like "free museum entry" often are a disguised subsidy to the educated classes.
My barn cat relatives don't go to museums, and it's not because they can't sneak in. It's because knowing Manet from Monet is not important to them.
I find using the kind of language that gets labeled as "abelist "is a crutch that rarely helps a person's writing. It tends to be vague and emotional and often a poor fit for the situation. To take an example from downthread (sorry Slaw):
"I'm just going to say it: I think deaf parents who refuse to get their children cochlear implants are insane and borderline child abusers."
Obviously Slaw doesn't think they are actually out of touch with consensus reality, but what is meant to be put across by 'insane' here? A stupidity-and-wrongness slurry plus strong censure? To my mind, the point of the word is mainly to be a vehicle for that negative judgment, and it adds little beyond that; replacing "insane" with "bad" wouldn't substantively change the message. Consider alternatives:
-I think deaf parents who refuse to get their children cochlear implants are borderline child abusers.
or
-I think deaf parents who refuse to get their children cochlear implants are incredibly selfish and borderline child abusers.
I think either of these is stronger than the original, and the second (example of the kind of you think you might say instead) is both stronger and more informative.
Rarely do I stumble on one of these terms used well. The reason that using this kind of language can be damaging is not at all unrelated to its poor suitability to good writing, but a lot of people are already making the former point.
Throughout this entire discussion, at all times keep in mind that none of this emphasis on consciousness raising or language changes how the pie is sliced.
From that perspective, it's a distraction and an energy suck.
I don't think it's nearly as important as some, but I do think it's part and parcel of gaining acceptance within society. Changes in language are both a symptom and a cause of shifting attitudes, and shifting attitudes have material implications, both political and personal. I also happen to think that reducing the degree to which some members of society feel like irredeemable pieces of garbage because of factors outside of their control is a worthy political goal itself.
The distraction argument proves too much--isn't this whole discussion a distraction from solving our truly existential problems? Neither of us is having this conversation because we think it is the most socially worthy use of our time.
We probably agree on what ought to be prioritized, but I don't think these language discussions should be verboten.
(Or as roundly mocked for the sake of pseudoedgelordy counter-signaling, "guys I said said lame I guess I'm ableist now, haha" like wow, very clever and brave. But I digress.)
We all know test cases that suggest some kind of limit or standard for what's OK to say. "Retarded" and "crippled" feel uncomfortable (even though I'm fine appropriating the first colloquially to disparage something unrelated to disability, like a terrible policy). But I think often what makes language "ableist" is nothing related to the disability or offending word at all, but rather the failure to consider that the language you use *might* bother them used that particular way. That is, a process question of relational sensitivity rather than a content issue.
I don't think the point of calling out ableist language is (or should be) either to defend the normalcy of disability or deny that they are undesirable. For me the point is to keep people epistemically humble, by not letting them blithely assume that just because the word seems fine to them it's fine to everyone. But this is often taken to excess, and policing of language doesn't help anybody. Especially because I think true ableism tends to be more about the act and the attitude than the word, with the word at worst being a reflection of the act.
As someone with a 21-year-old sister who has some pretty severe special needs, what I think so much of the online "ableist language" community misses is that my sister doesn't need someone to stop saying "that's lame" but rather to actually acknowledge her existence and say hello/be her friend. So many people try to use perfect language, but, as Freddie has pointed out in different essays, never actually do anything to tangibly help those in need. They avoid people with disabilities while championing themselves as the greatest advocates of the disabled.
But isn't that really the definition of wokeism? Behavior and language that makes the actor/speaker feel good, without doing any good?
Agreed!
Virtue signaling is a hell of a lot easier (and earns you more cachet, certainly among The People That Matter) than actual feline decency.
I think I can understand why people would be afraid to interact with people like your sister – it sure _seems_ fraught if you're aware of everything you 'can't say'! It's extra sad to think that what people _do_ try to do 'to help' might make _actually_ helping harder.
I've always been sad that lots of people seem to have trouble talking with _children_ generally. They're just (more or less) ignorant people! But I've found that almost all of them appreciate plain, honest, sincere, and direct speech.