political correctness: "retard"

use of the word “retard” has been a longstanding debate for at least 10 years. i have been pretty ambilavent about the argument, but today is the march 2 movement to pledge to not use the word. and since it is the lead story on the oregon dhs website, i get to think about it again.

i never use the word, but that’s mostly because i normally don’t speak negatively about other people. i wouldn’t be anymore inclined to refer to someone as “stupid” or an “idiot.” if someone merits such titles, i hardly find it worth my time to even think about them much less give them the courtesy of attention.

my first college degree was in lingusitics and i spent three years teaching english in the ultra “polite” country of Japan. consequently, i comtemplated endlessly about grammar and appropriate speech. my second degree being in communication disorders, i have spent a good amount of time working with people who have disabilities and trying to correct speech processes. needless to say, i have been bored to sleep over such debates of politically correct word usage.

the focus of this debate is that the word apparently makes fun of certain people with genetic or developmental disorders. this is said to be the case even when the person being called “retard(ed)” does not have such a disability. purely speaking, “retard” means to stunt growth. so if i refer to someone as “retarded,” i am saying that their growth has been stunted. that carries no implication to any other person except the target of the comment, especially since people born with disabilities have been referred to as something other than “retarded,” such as developmentally disabled, for many years. the word fell out of use as an official label for people with disabilities mostly because it was being used in negative contexts. people leading this debate probably don’t want to hear it, but if the word is taken out of the contextual use for people with disabilities, then it is up for grabs for other contexts and the argument doesn’t really apply.

further consideration should be given to natural language changes and that cultures cannot be guided into any one particular direction. cultures develop on their own accord and, quite often, completely the opposite of what is advised by people in control. if you tell someone to do one thing, more often than not they will do the opposite. it seems pretty futile for me to tell someone they can’t say “retard” when i know that will make them more likely to say it if only because they know it gets under my skin.

if, as suggested, people take the word retard directly from the disabled population and map that onto someone they want to laugh at, then they will do that no matter what word is used for the disabled population. so, when language has changed to the point that “retard” is not relevant to the disabled population, then the pesty person that wants to berate someone through comparison, would simply insult other people by calling them “developmentally disabled” or whatever other term is in current use.

to me, prescribing word usage is completely in vain. more worthwhile would be a holistic effort toward what these r-word people are trying to do, which is to raise awareness about misrepresented populations overall. then, people can have greater knowledge and sensitivity. that way they can better make comparisons to know who they may be implicating in an insult. the need is to put the focus on shifting to an entirely different mindset and public education. merely stopping people from saying one word will not accomplish that.

in accordance with the march 2 campaign, i can “pledge” to not use the word, but that isn’t really asking me anything. on the same token, i won’t really advocate what others should say or do either. (in fact it is kind of ironic that, in this field, we are consistently supposed to provide for personal choice, to let other people speak and think for themselves.) while i don’t support use of the “r-word,” i think the argument is silly. people that prescribe what words should be spoken in what context are not a whole lot better off than people who laugh at other people. they both are wasting their time, because honestly there are much more important things to think about and goals to work toward.

i understand the feel good nature of this campaign and sorry to be a devil’s advocate for a seemingly good cause, but the reality of the situation is that this movement will do nothing to change the dynamics of how the public at large sees and treats disabled and misrepresented people.