Community Focus – Mind your language

Steve Mannix advocates putting dignity and respect at the heart of our dilemmas about the language of disability.

It?s a New Year and it?s three months since the introduction of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) (Part 3). So what?s happened? Has the sky fallen in? Has life as we know it ended? No, it hasn?t. On one hand the Act has brought new facilities and services, and has made existing work accessible. On the other it has sparked debate and, depressingly, re-ignited some age-old prejudices?

We all know that creating access and equality for disabled and deaf people isn?t just about ramps, lifts and loops. Many of us worried that the Act would strike fear into the hearts of arts managers across the land and result in flurry of badly thought through initiatives. To a large extent this hasn?t happened, though at a major arts conference in the autumn I was asked by one delegate why ?they? needed so much ?expensive stuff?! Physical alterations are only one part of the story. There are so many other issues to address. And one that comes up regularly in the feedback is language. This is also one of the areas that readers of this column often mention.

So what do people ask? Should I use ?disabled? or ?person with a disability?? Should I say ?handicapped?? Is ?deaf and dumb? ok? The answer is simple ? think logically and most importantly ask disabled people. But don?t be surprised if you get conflicting feedback ? disabled and deaf people are as diverse in their views and politics as anyone else. However, there is in many senses a bottom line. Disabled and deaf people (and their impairment-specific groups) have fought for the right to determine how society describes them for decades. Like anyone else it is about dignity and respect. If I were deaf I would be inside for GBH if I had to endure hearing people describing me day after day as being ?deaf and dumb?!

So when I?m asked, ?Why not use handicapped??, I ask people to stop and think for a second, where does that phrase come form? Hand-in-cap. What does that make you think of? Begging? Fancy being described as a beggar for the rest of your life? Or look at it another way: in sports, to give yourself a handicap is to deliberately place yourself at a disadvantage. And what about common associations? The word handicapped for many people makes them think of a person that does basket weaving in a day-centre. Sadly still not far from the truth in some instances ? believe me!

Here?s another chestnut. Should I say ?disabled toilet?, ?accessible toilet? or ?adapted toilet?? Well, first of all I know of no partially sighted toilet in the country! (get it?). In this instance the term accessible is probably best, as it can include older people or parents and carers with a pushchair and kids! Adapted could be used, but this sounds very clinical: as a rule of thumb you should avoid medical terminology when using the social model of disability. Many people have commented to me that the press use the word ?handicapped?, and if they don?t get it right, why should we?. When did you believe everything in the press? Offensive terminology takes decades if not generations to change.

At Shape, we?ve recently re-branded the organisation, and the discussions about language, image and the accessibility of our logo and general communication were lengthy and, at times, heated. What we learned, which is a lesson all arts managers should take heed of, is that you can?t be all things to all people. What you can do is to go through a process of consultation, check how you are using language in your print, on your website and what your staff are actually saying when they meet people or answer that all important box office call. I promise you it will throw up some interesting results.

Those of us working in the disability arts sector enjoyed the parties to celebrate the DDA. There is a true sense of celebration and moving forward, equality now seems a step closer. The introduction of the Act gives us the chance to address the larger and more ingrained issues of prejudice. And ironically, these are often the simplest things like language or image.