In order to shatter stereotypes and to embrace diversity and inclusion, it is pertinent to see eye to eye, stand shoulder to shoulder and level the playing field for persons with disabilities. It becomes imperative to acknowledge their right to be seen as normal and respected for who they are, as individuals, rather than solely defined by their disabilities or venerated as children of God.
SWARNA LATHA R
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet" - this popular adage from William Shakespeare's play "Romeo and Juliet" implies that the essence of something or someone remains unchanged regardless of the name they are given. When Juliet expresses this wisdom, drawing upon the metaphorical significance of names to allude the feud between families, Romeo responds with a romantic declaration, "Call me but love and I will be new baptized." Paradoxically, readers are left disillusioned as the unfolding of scenes deviates from the anticipated climax. Similar to the forbidden love depicted in Shakespeare's tragedy, the power vested in names and labels hold considerable significance and implications in the context of persons with disability[1]. Regrettably, the profound influence of language on the disability discourse, policy-making, and advocacy to challenge societal perceptions and foster inclusivity is often disregarded.
Encoded ableism
Pejorative and ableist language manifests itself in various forms, permeating our linguistic landscape through the vehicle of jokes, metaphors, idioms and euphemisms that seek to either exalt or vilify disability. The inadvertent incorporation of words such as 'crazy', 'idiot', 'insane', 'lame', 'dumb', 'spaz', 'weird', 'psychopath', 'sociopath' into everyday conversations or the insensitive utilization of idiomatic expressions like 'to turn a blind eye', 'fall on deaf ears' can inadvertently be perceived as expressions steeped in ableism. Metaphorical allusions to disability, such as 'I am absolutely nuts', 'You are acting like a psycho', 'She is emotionally crippled', 'He is socially handicapped', albeit employed with genuine intentions to underscore the gravity and severity of the situation, inadvertently perpetuate stigma and foster unfavorable associations surrounding disability.
The specter of disability as deficiency, due to social and cultural conditioning, further marginalizes persons with disabilities. The aggrandizement of compassion in hollow catchphrases such as 'Pity the poor disabled', 'Aid for the hapless invalids', 'Voice for the voiceless' serves no purposes but strips away the humanity of those living with disabilities. The pernicious confluence of offensive moral beliefs and ingrained karmic philosophies intertwines with the portrayal of disability as malevolence and villainy, spanning from the rich tapestry of Indian mythology,[2] to the contemporary realm of Indian cinema. Notably, the illustrious works of Shakespeare deftly entwine physical deformity and moral blemishes, while also delving into the depressing intricacies of mental health and cognitive differences.[3] The repercussions of these portrayals in shaping societal views on disability is staggering, however, the historical underpinnings cannot be over-looked.
The illusion of euphemisms
In a same vein, the utilization of expressions such as 'differently-abled', 'divinely-abled', 'specially-abled' or terms like 'special' and 'different' are euphemisms that need to bite the dust and do no ground-on change. The in-group versus out-group dichotomy does not empower persons with disabilities, instead leads to social exclusion and isolation.[4] More often than not, disability is sensationalized or mystified with emotions which hinders a more nuanced understanding of disability as a social and political issue and barriers to inclusion as a legal issue. Condescending attempts to ameliorate or patronize disability not only obfuscate the acerbic realities and tribulations that persons with disabilities encounter but also belittle their arduous struggles. Evasion of straight-forwardness in addressing disability fosters the perpetuation of prejudice and negative stereotyping surrounding disabilities.
An unhealthy tendency to romanticize disability undermines the efforts to promote inclusivity and equality for persons with disability.[5]Divinization of disability places persons with disabilities on a pedestal or exoticisms of their experiences, treating them as objects of fascination rather than recognizing their inherent human dignity and rights. This can lead to the perpetuation of the 'inspiration-porn' narratives that extol persons with disabilities as paragons overcoming insurmountable odds, thus reinforcing able-bodied superiority and maintaining a hierarchical power dynamic. Such a lexicon rooted in patronizing disability, shifts the focus towards exceptionalism rather than addressing the systemic barriers they encounter.
Superficial empowerment or empty symbolism?
Months after the 'Mann ki Bhaat' announcement by Prime Minister Narendra Modi wherein the substitution of term 'Viklang' with 'Divyang' was proposed,[6] the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities came to be known as 'Divyangjan' Sashaktikaran Vibhag[7] in Hindi. Nevertheless, this decision evoked widespread discontent within the ranks of disability rights advocates. They vociferously contended that the term 'Divyang' epitomizes a regressive and patronising[8] outlook as it signifies disability as a divine bestowment. Despite the noble motive to employ non-offensive and politically correct language as a means to abate the stigmatization and discrimination faced by persons with disabilities, the chosen linguistic approach remains profoundly flawed. The United Nations' Committee on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD Committee) also expressed its concerns, denoting the term 'Divyangjan' as controversial and akin to derogatory terminologies like 'mentally ill'.[9]
The United Nations, the UNCRPD Committee and other UN bodies have strictly adhered to 'person-first language' and this principle encapsulated within the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, underpins the significance of an inclusive lexicon devoid of disparaging connotations. As per the United Nations disability inclusive communication guidelines,[10] usage of an inclusive language free from pejoratives is a key tool to combat ableism. An activist before the Madras High Court sought the expunction of all derogatory terminologies, including 'Divyang', 'mental retardation' off the official records and narratives, however, it stood denied of the remedies.[11] The Court was seemingly oblivious of the Supreme Court's earnest hope that the paradigm-shifting conversation about the rights and status of the disabled resonated in the language used to address them.[12] The clarion call resonating from the disability rights movement unequivocally echoes 'Nothing about us, without us'[13] underscores the imperative of inclusion of persons with disabilities in the process of determination of terminologies.
In a progressive society of shattered walls, the disability ceiling remains unscathed, solidifying its reign as the most impenetrable barrier. To walk a fine line, a small step would be a linguistically sensitive approach that empowers, rather than patronizes persons with disabilities. It is crucial for dismantling discrimination, disabling ableism and promoting equality. In order to shatter stereotypes and to embrace diversity and inclusion, it is pertinent to see eye to eye, stand shoulder to shoulder and level the playing field for persons with disabilities. It becomes imperative to acknowledge their right to be seen as normal and respected for who they are, as individuals, rather than solely defined by their disabilities or venerated as children of God. What it ultimately boils down to is developing a sense of disability awareness and practicing disability etiquettes. By adopting this mindset, we can challenge the societal outlooks, enabling the taming of the shrew of 'ableism' that resides within our collective consciousness.
SWARNA LATHA R is a doctoral candidate at the South Asian University, New Delhi.
[1] Jaeger, P.T., Padron, R., Cork, S.J., S. & Tchangalova, N. (2022). Naming Disability and why it matters. Including Disability, 2022(2), 1-3. Retrieved from https://ojs.scholarsportal.info/ontariotechu/index.php/id/article/view/202/113 [2] Jha, M. (2016, Oct 31) Indian mythology has a problem with disability. The Wire. Retrieved from https://thewire.in/rights/indian-mythology-problem-disability [3] Wilson, J.R. (2017). The Trouble with Disability in Shakespeare Studies. Retrieved from https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jeffreywilson/files/jeffrey_r._wilson_22the_trouble_with_disability_in_shakespeare_studies22_2017.pdf [4] Babik, I., & Gardner, E.S. (2021). Factors Affecting the Perception of Disability: A Developmental Perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 702166. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.702166. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8255380/ [5] Garland- Thomson, R. (2002). Integrating Disability, Transforming Feminist Theory. NWSA Journal, 14(3), 1-32. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/4316922 [6] YourStory.(2016, May). Modi's announcement: Govt renames disability dept. Yourstory. Retrieved from https://yourstory.com/2016/05/modis-announcement-govt-renames-disability-dept [7]GOI.(2022,April). Incorporation of the word 'Divyang' in Hindi and English Names of the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities [PDF document]. Press Information Bureau. Retrieved from https://static.pib.gov.in/WriteReadData/specificdocs/documents/2022/apr/doc20224737501.pdf [8] The Wire. (2016, March 1) Use of 'divyang' is regressive and patronising, say persons with disabilities. The Wire. Retrieved from https://thewire.in/rights/use-of-divyang-is-regressive-and-patronising-say-persons-with-disabilities [9] The Hindu. (2019, September 25).'Divyangjan' is a controversial word similar to 'mentally ill', says U.N. Body. Retrieved from https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/divyangjan-is-a-controversial-word-similar-to-mentally-ill-says-un-body/article29508027.ece [10] United Nations Department of Global Communications. (March 2022). United Nations Disability-Inclusive Communications Guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/un_disability-inclusive_communication_guidelines.pdf [11] Karpagam, M., & Dhawan, P.(2021, June 22). I pleaded to junk 'divyang' from Govt records but Madras HC quashed it, ignoring SC verdicts. ThePrint. Retrieved from https://theprint.in/opinion/i-pleaded-to-junk-divyang-from-govt-records-but-madras-hc-quashed-it-ignoring-sc-verdicts/681973/ [12] Vikash Kumar v. UPSC &ors , SLP(C) No. 1882 of 2021. Retrieved from https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/19177/19177_2019_36_1503_26115_Judgement_11-Feb-2021.pdf [13] Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.(2012). UN leads the way on disability rights. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/en/stories/2012/09/un-leads-way-disability-rights
Comments