Early childhood development and educational foundations

Disabilities

Interviews with four individuals confirmed my hypothesis that there are a diversity of opinions and responses to disability issues. Of the four people interviewed, two had a close friend of family member who was physically or developmentally disabled. Their attitudes and responses to interview questions ironically did not seem to differ appreciably from the other two interview subjects. Three of the interview subjects did use the phrase "special needs" when describing children with disabilities. When confronted with Snow's (2007) proposition that "special needs is a loaded descriptor that has done nothing to improve perceptions and everything to reinforce negative images," the interview participants seemed surprised. Especially the two without close friends and family members who are disabled stated, "Well isn't that what we are supposed to say?" Or "I thought that was what we were supposed to call them; well, whatever." Language used to speak of disabilities can be a divisive issue.

When asked what it means to have a disability, one person responded that his mother has multiple sclerosis (MS). The disability "has a great impact on how my mother lives her life, in terms of how she goes about her daily routine," the person stated. Having a disability means she has to "being creative" in terms of finding alternative ways of doing things. He finally stated, "Look, we all have something. Some people have social anxiety and they cannot stand being at parties or meeting new people. Others have diabetes and have to give themselves a shot every single day. We don't call those people "disabled," but their conditions affect their lives. My mom is no different."

Another person without a disabled person close to them responded by saying, "Being disabled means you have something wrong with your body and cannot do things like normal people." When asked what "normal people" meant, the person said, "Someone without a disability." I laughed and pointed out their circular reasoning, but the person could not come up with a better response.

Responses like those highlighted the need to understand the essence of person-first language; or people-first language. People-first language starts with the basic fact that everyone is a human being: a person. Their condition does not define their identity any more than eye color, hair color, or the language that I speak. It is perfectly find to use a descriptor every now and then. For example, if I am talking about my Mexican neighbor, I will mention my Mexican neighbor. This clears up for my friend whether I am referring to my Polish neighbor or my Mexican neighbor. As Snow (n.d.) points out, someone who has cancer is not "cancerous." They are a person who happens to have cancer (and will hopefully be healed soon).

Two questions I chose to ask each interview subject were: If you had a disability, how would you like for people to refer to you? How do you think your life would change if you had a disability? To the first question, responses varied quite a bit. Two people said, "I would like for people to refer to me as (their name)." The response raised the discussion about person-first language. If everyone wants to be known as (their name), then why do people feel compelled to include a disability as part of the identity of any human being? To the second question, three people stated that their lives would be "more difficult" with a disability. They cited teasing, stigma, and pity as social concerns: echoing what Snow (2007; n.d.) states about language and disability. One person noted that their life might not change appreciably at all; it was the man whose mother has MS. He stated, "Life is difficult no matter what. A disability does not necessarily make life any more difficult than it is. It is all about our attitude and how strong we are on the inside."

Differences in the responses were due mainly to the exposure to disability issues. The person with the most well-developed responses was the one whose mother has lived with MS. Learning about "politically correct" ways of speaking does not necessarily prepare people for sensitive or respectful conversations about disability. Experience is the main thing that matters.

It was relatively easy for people to discuss the topic of conversation at first, but when I challenged some of the responses, the people got defensive. I believe questions related to disability perceptions cut to the core of who people are; the process exposes lingering ignorance when they would like to be perceived as all-knowing. There is an underlying sense of discomfort when speaking about disabilities, as if people need to speak differently with guarded voices. I believe that a lack of exposure to persons with disabilities has created problems related to communication.