Respectful and appropriate disability language in communication acknowledges dignity and celebrates the diversity of persons with disabilities.
THIS is an open letter to all media practitioners, especially editors, members of Parliament (MPs) and State Assemblies (ADUNs), and Ministers. We thank those of you who have demonstrated support of persons with disabilities.
With Malaysia’s aspiration to be a developed nation, it is time to consider the use of inappropriate language for referring to persons with disabilities and disability-related matters. How do we use terminology that shapes behaviour, to break barriers and exclusion, and not reinforce them?
Respectful and appropriate disability language in communication acknowledges dignity and celebrates the diversity of persons with disabilities.
It does not reinforce negative stereotyping and derogatory labels that connote pity and lesser value. Each time that respectful and appropriate language is used is a blow to discrimination on the basis of disability.
Respectful and appropriate disability language also recognises that disability is not the defining characteristic of a person, but rather one aspect of individual identity and experience.
We would like to share some general principles of respectful/appropriate disability language and hope that this will translate into better media reporting and comments/statements made by Ministers, MPs and ADUNs.
First, it is important to respect the preferences and choices of persons with disabilities regarding how to be referred to. When in doubt, just ask the person with a disability.
Second, please avoid euphemisms or terms that are patronising, offensive or inaccurate. For example, do not use terms such as ‘special needs’, ‘differently abled’, ‘handicapped’, or ‘mentally retarded’.
These terms imply that disability is something to be ashamed of, to be hidden or avoided. It reinforces the medical model that views disability as an ‘anomaly’ to be medically ‘fixed’, and persons with disabilities as ‘damaged’ and ‘incomplete’.
Instead, acknowledge the centrality of the person and use clear and respectful terms, such as ‘disability’, ‘accessibility’, ‘accommodation’, or ‘inclusion’.
One common incorrect reference to the non-disabled population is ‘normal’ or ‘healthy’. This reinforces the wrong view that persons with disabilities (the OKU community) are somehow ‘abnormal’ or ‘unhealthy’.
It is best to use ‘non-disabled’ in place of ‘normal’ or ‘healthy’. And use ‘neurotypical’ instead of ‘of sound mind’.
Third, avoid terms that underscore a ‘victim’ attitude towards disability, such as ‘suffering from’, ‘afflicted with’, ‘confined to’, or ‘incapacitated by’. These terms perpetrate outdated views that disability is a burden, a tragedy and a source of pity. Instead, use neutral or positive terms, such as ‘living with’, /experiencing’ or ‘has’.
Some persons may prefer identity-first language, such as ‘Autistic person’ or ‘Deaf person’, rather than person-first language, e.g., ‘person with autism’.
Language is constantly evolving. The change happens as disabled persons change, as do community understanding of our relationships, rights, place in society and aspirations for the future.
The key is to remain respectful of each other, as we work towards ensuring that everyone’s place in society is enabled and we grow as an inclusive society. Using respectful and appropriate language empowers the individual and the community.
It is time that we as a nation change our use of demeaning terminology, to respect persons with disabilities. Let’s remember this: disability does not limit a person; it is the inaccessible environment that stops progress. And, our choice of language shapes that environment.
* Dato’ Dr Amar-Singh HSS, person with dyslexia, child-disability activist, National Early Childhood Intervention Council (NECIC) advisor; The OKU Rights Matter Project member
Dr Amar-Singh is one of 88 signatories who signed this letter.