Disability is Not a Bad Word: Why ‘Unique Abilities’ Isn’t as Nice as it Sounds
Friday, December 08, 2023
Disability Rights Florida Blog
There is little doubt that language plays an important role in our society. As Dan Jurafsky, a Stanford University linguist puts it, “discovering what’s universal about languages can help us understand the core of our humanity.” This is a heavy but important reminder of the ways our words can either bring us together or divide us.
Contending with and experiencing the ostracizing power of language and its uses first-hand are concepts with which many in varied marginalized communities -- including disability communities -- are well acquainted. There is often a feeling of unease among people outside of the disability community when it comes to naming disability for what it is. Perhaps this is due to a lack of familiarity with the meaning of the word “disability.” Contrary to popular belief, the prefix “dis” does not denote something negative but refers to “another way of being.” This lack of familiarity can certainly be understood as a substantial contributing factor fueling the proliferation of disability euphemisms such as “special needs," "handicapable," and "unique abilities."
However, while no preference is universal, the disability community at large rejects these euphemisms--which many regard as extremely harmful--in favor of the word disabled and other self-chosen identifiers. For many, using the words disabled and disability, and even more colloquial terms such as crip, mad, or cyborg are a purposeful language choice designed to reclaim the power and strength behind an identity that many outside the community see as derogatory, but which people with disabilities themselves openly and authentically celebrate.
Recent movements such as #CripTheVote and #SayTheWord are two of the many disability-led initiatives that exemplify such a reclamation. Some individuals also prefer person-first language (“person with a disability”), while others will use both person and identity-first language interchangeably. Regardless of an individual’s personal choice on how to identify, the reclamation movement emphasizes celebration of disabled autonomy. How a person and larger community define themselves should never be open to debate amongst those outside the community; nor should others’ comfort level dictate the perpetuation and use of euphemisms in areas of public service or concern.
There is a certain level of cognitive dissonance that euphemisms allow the human brain to employ. Typically, modern society views any deviation from the perceived norm as problematic and lesser. However, that is an unconscious and uncomfortable thought for most of us. Thus, if needs are seen as “unique” or “special,’ it puts just enough of a positive spin to relieve much of the unconscious discomfort. But it also creates a situation in which it is easy for those not part of the disability (or any other) community to view the needs and human rights of others as separate from those of humanity as a whole. When that happens, our rights and needs as humans become points of political calculation and public debate rather than simply the autonomy and dignity that should be extended to every person.
Members of the disability community preferring disability-affirming language is not a new phenomenon. In fact, it is a large part of the reason that laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) contain these specific terms. These laws expelled outdated and harmful language, such as the R word, and put disabled and disability in place to usher in a new era of disability rights and respect. The case for using the term ‘disability’ isn’t and shouldn’t be seen as merely a matter of preference. The words we use have the capability to shape society, laws, and inclusion, and therefore deserve careful consideration.
Members of the disability community experience very real barriers, oppression, and discrimination daily. That fact cannot and should not be swept under the rug of comforting euphemisms. To lessen and tokenize the lived experiences of disabled people in this way is not the kindness that it may seem. Rather, the continued and growing use of terms such as “special needs” and “unique abilities” into society should be seen as actively oppressing the voices of the disability community to uphold the status quo belief that those with disabilities are inherently” less than.” By using terminology which labels disability as “special” and “unique,” society is perpetuating the idea that an entire group of humans’ needs and way of existing in the world do not deserve to be seen as equally valid or worthy of a place at the table for discussion of their own livelihood.
Furthermore, “disabled,” “disability,” and related terms have been utilized, both in law and public discourse, for decades. These terms, while not always universally defined, are familiar; and familiarity plays an important role in the ease and uniformity with which services are provided and accessed. Someone searching for needed services and support has a high chance of finding at least a few resources which they can use by conducting their search with the term “disability.” The same cannot be said for euphemisms, which are by nature, open to interpretation. And setting a precedent of interpretation, whether in simple conversation or through legislative means, leaves the door open for discrimination in a way that is not only unconscionable but has vast and serious social and policy-related consequences.
While it is true that those with disabilities may meet some of their needs in ways that differ from the societal standard, the needs themselves are fundamentally the same as any human and should be treated as such. The language preferences of all marginalized communities should be respected, and the disability community has made its preference clear: Disability is not derogatory.
Laura-Lee Minutello is one of Disability Rights Florida's Public Policy Analysts, and a person with Cerebral Palsy. Laura holds a B.S. in Psychology from the University of Central Florida (UCF), and is working toward a Master's of Nonprofit Management, also from UCF.
Leave Us Your Comments
Please do not leave requests for assistance in the comments. Blog comments are not monitored by intake staff and your request may not be seen. Visit our Online Intake Page to request our services.
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Comments