In the last blog, we explored People First Language (PFL) that places the person before the disability. One of the basic tenets of PFL is that disability is not what a person is; it is something a person has. In other words, PFL highlights the value and worth of a person whose disability is only incidental. In doing so, PFL provides an empowering counter narrative to negative, reductive and disempowering stereotypes about persons with disability.
However, with people with lived experience of disability that shapes their disability activism are not entirely comfortable with People First Language and its emphasis on the person above the disability. Why are they opposed to PFL terminology that enshrines the choice, equality, dignity and respect of persons with disability?
For example,
- She is a person with autism (People First Language)
- She is an autistic person (Identity First Language)
As most of us are aware, autism is an example of neurodiversity and is a neurological, developmental; condition. A lifelong challenging disability, autism, however, does not harm or kill on its own. In addition, and equally important, it is a critical and core component of the person’s identity that influences, impacts and shapes the ways in which the autistic person engages with the world. In other words, advocates of this approach known as Identity First Language (IFL) understand and value that a diagnosis (autism in this case), trait or difference is an inherent, inseparable part of a person’s identity.
It is important to note that both advocate of PFL and IFL emphasise and value the worth of the person. The former does it by placing the person before the disability. The latter, however, affirms the worth and value of an autistic person by recognizing their primary identity as an autistic person.
Thus, IFL, in contrast to PFL, places the person’s disability as an identifier. A central tenet of IFL is that disabilities like autism are fundamental, lifelong and all-pervasive aspect of one’s identity. Therefore, it cannot be minimized by placing the person before the disability.
The question of how we define ourselves and others is complex and complicated. It is interesting to see how those with a lived experience of disability and professionals and caregivers engage with PFL and IFL.
“Generally, it’s the people themselves who prefer to be called ‘autistic people’ and caregivers and professionals who prefer ‘people with autism,’” says Laura Dudley, an assistant clinical professor at Northeastern University, with more than 20 years of experience in developing and implementing programmes for children with autism and related disabilities.
In the 1980s, People First Language emerged as a counter narrative to the dehumanizing terminology used to refer to persons with physical challenges (“lame”, “crippled”, “handicapped”) and those with mental health conditions)” Retard,” “moron”, “psycho” “nuts” “weirdo”). PFL thus rose as an informed alternative to such dehumanizing vocabulary.
However, people with neurodiversity, visual and auditory challenges have not been as adversely impacted by dehumanizing language as some of the other strands of disability such as mental health conditions and physical challenges. In such instances, PFL is a means of recalling and rewriting the narrative by the affected persons themselves. Who desire to be seen as persons with the sane human rights like anyone else.
Lydia Brown, an autistic person, says, “The preference for identity-first language in the autistic, blind, and deaf communities is born of “saying, ‘You need to respect and honour our identities, there’s nothing wrong with us.’ We’re proud to be autistic, proud to be deaf or blind.”
Both PFL and IFL have their values and usage. Whether one uses PFL or IFL is situational and context-dependent. Some people prefer PFL; whole others prefer IFL. When in doubt, please ask which of the two alternatives is sensitive and respectful of the needs and concerns of the affected person(s). And as always, it is the prerogative of the person with disability to decide. It is imperative that others uphold and respect their choice.
Every Friday, watch this space to read Dr. Nandini Murali discuss different facets of a topic in a four-part series over a month. Offering a 360-degree view, she takes readers into the different dimensions through anecdotes, backing them with data.
