In the short time that she has has been blogging, Kaz has created a vigorous debate over politically correct language. I’ve no wish to revisit the ground covered in her discussion, rather, I’d like to take a different approach. I want to concentrate on what political correctness does to the language and its natural flow.
The example used in the discussion is that of blindness, so let’s run with that. The politically correct approach designed to avoid causing offense is that we put the person first. This means that “a blind person” now becomes “a person who is blind”. The logic being the person comes first, the disability comes second – it does not detract from the person. Okay, fine. I can see that. I also see that it is condescending, but we’ll leave that as it has already been discussed elsewhere.
Now let’s apply George Orwell’s writing tips. “A person who is blind” is a clumsy verbose statement. “A blind person” is less verbose. Let’s go one further – why are we mentioning the blindness at all? Is it relevant? Our erstwhile Home Secretary, David Blunkett is blind. Does this disability affect his role as a government minister? No. Do we refer to him as David Blunkett who is blind? Of course not. We refer to him by his title – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions or his name. His blindness is irrelevant so the words become unnecessary. Using the Orwell rule number 3 we can cut out unnecessary words from our “blind person” statement. It becomes; “A person.” Nuff said, I think.
Great post. I agree completely.
True!
Discriminating but covered a polite clothing is hypocritical.
I think I’ll have to agree to disagree with you on this one, in relation to the comment I posted on Kaz’s blog. As you said, no point in covering the same ground twice.
Me 🙂
”'{Longrider replies} The interesting thing here, is that I work in a similar field to you – I train adults for a living. As a consequence, I have to be aware of equal opportunities and the latest legislation and guidance in this area. I find it frustrating and awkward – being a bit of a pedant when it comes to language. Adopting the Orwell approach works – why mention the disability at all if it just isn’t relevant? Certainly it overcomes the irritation and difficulty caused by evermore guidance on how to avoid offence that I wasn’t causing in the first instance.”’
I agree that there are situations in which it is not necessary to mention a person’s disability if it is not pertinenent to a conversation. After all, the “people first” principle advocates that people with a disability are exactly that – people, the same as you and I.
However, in some cases it is necessary to use a politcally correct “label”, as it is the only way for people who have a disability to achieve equity. For example, in the NSW school system, if a student does not have a “label” stating what kind of disability they have, they are not entitled to any kind of extra assistance. Without this assistance, how will they receive equitable treatment through the hands of the school system? It’s an unfortunate but true state of affairs here.
I guess that in the end, it’s up to the judgement of the person in the particular situation they find themselves as to whether or not the principle of “people first” can be appropriately applied.
Me 🙂
”'{Longrider replies} The more I learn about how things work in other societies the more amazed I become. The idea that someone has to be labelled horrifies me. It is appalling that they have to be labelled in order to receive the basics necessary for them to be treated equally. As a professional assessor I must consider the candidate’s access to fair assessment. This means that I take the candidate’s situation on an individual basis – I ask them if there is anything I need to be aware of that may hinder their access to fair assessment and am guided by their response. I avoid labels.”’
”’Being somewhat creative as well as wilful, I find ways around the labelling that the politically correct would have us use. Indeed, I tend to look upon it as a challenge to manage inoffensive language that is economic, correctly phrased yet avoids the verbose statements we are supposed to employ.”’
I agree with you regarding the issue of labelling regarding funding. The situation in our school system in relation to this is absolutely appalling.
Unfortunately, they are very strict and as a result, if I want to get my pupils the assistance that by law they are entitled to I have to say, plainly and simply, that they are a person who has a learning disability ie Autism. As a result, I’m unable to be too creative in this regard.
The system should be changed, but can only be done so with substantial pressure. Unfortunately, many colleagues don’t see this as an issue of importance … they just accept the inevitable. At the moment, I guess by falling in with them that’s what I am doing as well …
Me
”'{Longrider replies} Sometimes, until a critical mass of dissent is under way you have no option but to work within the system. I do, too – it’s just that I appear to have more flexibility at my disposal. I also make my derision of the system known.”’