|
PREJUDICE, LABELS,
AND GOOD INTENTIONS: LANGUAGE AS A TOOL OF EXCLUSION
By Ronald A. Cottone
A man who uses a
wheel chair called a church and asked if he could attend. "Oh
yes, we're handicapped accessible," he was told. He said his
wheel chair was 31" wide and was assured there would be no
problem. When he arrived, however, the door into the sanctuary
was only 30" wide. Fortunately the church had a smaller wheel
chair. He transferred into it and was able to enter the
sanctuary. The church thought it was providing equal access. How
did the use of language contribute to the church's mistake?
A woman
responding to a call to ministry left a leadership position in
business management and enrolled in seminary. After graduation,
she began looking for opportunities to serve in local churches
but without success. When she sought feedback, she was told they
were looking for more leadership potential. Knowing her work
experience qualified her as a leader, she began to wonder if she
was being judged as lacking in leadership potential because of
her gender.
In Luke 14, Jesus
teaches about hospitality. In verse 13 he says, "When you give a
feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame."
Then he goes on to illustrate his point with the parable of the
great banquet (v. 15-24) in which the one giving the feast
instructs his servants to "bring back the poor, the crippled,
the blind, and the lame." In other words, true hospitality will
bless those who cannot return the favor (v. 14). But how do most
translations of this chapter contribute to the social
stratification that keeps certain groups of people separate and
disenfranchised?
These opening
stories are examples of how people of faith use language in ways
that create conditions of justice or injustice for others and
how they can facilitate or inhibit full participation in the
life of the faith community. We will explore them further
throughout this article.
Language, Power, and
Justice
Language is a
powerful tool. It facilitates social interaction. It also
creates barriers and glass ceilings. People in positions of
privilege use language that supports their privilege, often
without thinking about it. For example, when I was growing up, I
heard men use the word man or men in a universal
sense to mean all people, instead of using the word person
or human. But the reality I saw was that men
occupied the positions of power and privilege in society. The
way they used language perpetuated the privilege they enjoyed
and reinforced the power structure that ensured that privilege,
regardless of how universally they meant to include women in the
word men.
What does language
have to do with justice? In Micah 6:8, we are required to "do
justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God." As people of
faith, we are called upon to do the right thing, to treat others
with compassion, and to maintain a modest attitude. Doing the
right thing not only refers to action but also to speech (James
3:1-9). The way we use language can create just or unjust
conditions for those to whom we speak. Privileges that power
groups take for granted and never have to think about are often
denied to others by the way the power group uses language. The
use of language in a society is a justice issue whenever anyone
marginalized is inhibited or excluded from participation in the
power groups’ privileges. Using careless or insensitive
constructions of speech can exclude others from opportunities
for full participation in community life and promotes unfair and
untrue stereotypes. Once our speech pre-judges our attitude, it
is easy to keep others at arm's length, even when our intentions
are charitable and well-meaning. This article will explore how
language, specifically as it relates to disability and gender,
is a justice issue, and how to promote justice
practically through careful, intentional speech.
Able-ism and Sexism
If we care about
justice, and Scripture demands that we do, then by necessity we
must care about injustice in contexts such as the systemic
prejudice of both sexism and able-ism (discrimination against
those with disabilities). We are all included in the way power
is used to include or exclude on the basis of ability and
gender.
Sexism was one of
the first isms that I personally began to examine and
deconstruct. I started my investigation my first semester of
graduate school in religion at Baylor University in the summer
of 1971. What I learned from this study transferred to other
kinds of institutional and systemic prejudice such as class-ism
and racism. It was over 30 years later that I began to apply
what I had learned to able-ism and the issue of disability. What
I have discovered is that all the systemic prejudices share a
common strategy of using power to exclude a target group, but
they are not all exactly parallel to one another in the way they
exclude groups. Because these systemic prejudices are not
completely parallel, we cannot apply the same critique across
the board to all of them. In this article, some of the justice
issues that apply to disability also apply to gender but in a
different way. For example, instead of saying, “All disabled
people are welcome to worship,” we use person-first language
that states “All people with disabilities are welcome to
worship,” because it is more just to emphasize the person
than the disability. But because able-ism and sexism are not
completely parallel issues, it may not always be helpful or
logical to request that, “all people” should be
substituted for, “all men and women.”
Nouns and Labels
One of the most
powerful tools in any language is the noun. Nouns name things.
In a certain sense, naming gives control over the thing named.
Aware of this power of naming, the Hebrews shied away from naming God out of
respect for God's holiness and nature. The Hebrews certainly had
names for God that emphasized a certain aspect of God's
nature, such as El Shaddai, which suggests God's abundant
and nurturing care. But they were reluctant to use a noun to
name God's self.
Recall the story of
the Burning Bush in which Moses asks God, "Who shall I say has
sent me?" A common translation of YHWH is
the King James rendition, "Tell them I Am has sent you."
However, given what we know about ancient Hebrew, a more
accurate translation might be, "Tell them I Will Cause What I
Choose has sent you." God gives Moses a verb, not a noun, as
the answer to Moses' question. God wills and
creates the way to express God's self. God cannot be controlled. In
addition, creative expression is not gender-specific but can be
expressed and experienced by anyone. The One who sends is the
One who actively and willfully creates.
Sound theology
informs our use of language. Instead of resorting to labels, we
are to respect one another's creative gifts and inherent worth.
Of course, we all have proper names that we use to identify and
honor one another. But using a noun, more specifically a label,
to identify persons can dishonor and prevent them from
expressing their creative energy, their “image of God.” The
blind man. The crippled woman. The deaf woman. The mentally ill
man. Being blind, crippled, deaf, mentally ill, man, or woman
has nothing to do with the creative energy these people have or
their will to express it. For example, "Pat suggested that
the group review its accomplishments to date and clarify its
purpose and goals before deciding on a strategy for membership
growth.” From this description do we know if Pat is a man or
woman? Young or old? A person of color? Depressed with bi-polar
disorder? We cannot answer any of these questions. Does it
matter? We might infer that Pat is a careful planner who looks
for strengths on which to build strategies. Pat's creative
leadership might not be taken seriously had we labeled her a
pregnant 17-year-old Korean adoptee. When we label others, we
reduce them to our insufficient perceptions and judgments, which
prevents us from welcoming their creative input and receiving
them as peers.
Here are examples of
stereotyping that prejudges our expectations:
-
Women are
overly emotional so they don't have good leadership
potential, especially in a crisis situation.
-
The mentally
ill cannot be trusted in social situations so they don't
make good public speakers.
-
Girls aren't
good at math so they should not be encouraged to become
engineers.
-
Dyslexics
can't keep words in proper order so they should not be
allowed to read Scripture during worship.
We will never know
the creative potential of these people if they are barred from
participation. We will never know with what creative voice God
has gifted them unless we stop using a label to make a value
judgment about their worth.
The name God gave
Moses, YHWH, is an invitation to expect creative action
that we can neither control nor predict. Proclaiming we are made
in the image of God is saying our creative ability is best
expressed when it is not reduced to a label. How willing are we
to invite the creativity of others when we use a label like
handicap? We lower our expectations and openness to others
when we think of them and talk about them with language that
labels them first and foremost as their disability. "The
disabled are always welcome in our congregation!" Are they
really welcome when we refer to them as if their essence and
primary identity is their disability? This mindset, when
expressed through language, may work to limit our expectations
of their creative potential. "People with disabilities are
always welcome in our congregation," is better language.
"People are always welcome in our congregation" is best when
the issue is disability. When the issue is gender, however, it
may be important to say explicitly, “Women are welcome to
stand for election as moderator of the congregation,” or
“Men are encouraged to help serve the soup supper on Maundy
Thursday evening.” In the disability context, person first
language is just, while in a gender context, explicit reference
to men and women may be more just. For both
issues, context and intention need to be carefully examined in
order to determine the most just word choices. For further
examples and helpful hints, please see the charts below.
To illustrate this
point, try saying, "The blind in our congregation are always
welcome to read Scripture for worship." If by reading we
mean verbalizing the printed words of Scripture from the Bible,
then it is obvious that a person who is blind cannot read to the
congregation in this manner. When we think of people who are
blind as the blind, we immediately assume reading
requires sight, and thus we eliminate the blind from
tasks that require sight. However, if we say "Volunteers in
our congregation are always welcome to read the scripture text
for worship," and a volunteer steps forward who is blind,
then it's the quality of being a volunteer that is important.
Once we have accepted the willingness of the volunteer, it
becomes a mere accommodation to have the text put into Braille
or put into any form that the volunteer can use to read it to
the congregation.
Each of us has
creative gifts to offer our communities of faith. Yet when we
use labels that limit people, the label prejudges our
expectations of others, and we do not invite them to use their
God-given creative abilities. This kind of pejorative labeling
even occurs in biblical translation. In Luke's parable of the
great banquet, translators usually describe each of the invited
guests with a noun that links their identity with their
disability. The translation is not those who cannot walk
but instead the lame as if being lame is the only
characteristic these people possess. If we claim to be made in
the image of God, then we are persons first and the conditions
we live with are simply aspects of the way we live, not our
total identity. A more accurate, respectful,
and inclusive way to translate the poor, the crippled, the
blind, and the lame would be those unable to repay the
cost of the meal, those with injured limbs, those who do not
see, and those who cannot walk. Though this translation uses
more words, it retains the humanity of each invited guest and
does not reduce who they are to their disabilities. It teaches
our minds to see these guests as Jesus did—as people first who
live with conditions that are challenging but not dehumanizing.
Understanding
Terminology
To better understand
how this thinking works, it is helpful to examine the nuances of
terminology as it relates to disability and gender.
Conclusion
The opening story of
this article ends with the question, How did the use of
language contribute to the church's mistake? The church used
an oxymoron, handicapped accessible, to reassure the
caller that he would be able to use his wheel chair in the
church building. I hear this phrase used quite commonly by
churchgoers in a well-meaning way. But again, it perpetuates the
kind of thinking that does not acknowledge the creative
potential in each person. Instead, it puts responsibility for
lack of access on the person with the disability instead of on
the barrier that prevents access.
Handicapped accessible labels the person as having the
barrier when, in reality, it is the building that is
handicapped, because the building has the barrier that does not
accommodate the disability. Handicapped accessible
thinking says it is the man's fault that his wheel chair is 31
inches wide, not the church's responsibility to maintain door
widths at standard ADA (Americans with Disability Act)
dimensions.
Women also
experience this shift. Institutions like the church close doors
of opportunity to women by using gender as a rationale to
discourage them from leadership. Women are often assumed
responsible for lacking leadership potential simply because they
are women. This circular logic blames the woman for being a
woman. The institution is free to move on without including
women in its leadership because it has shifted the
responsibility for lacking leadership ability away from its
policy of exclusion onto womanhood itself. This sleight of
hand is a justice issue for the church, because it overlooks
God's non-gender specific, creative energy, active in the gifts
of women.
Human beings use
language to conceptualize relations among people and to define
power relationships that identify who is included and who is
not. Christians are called to love others as God loves, which
means we must examine our language use to ensure we are not
setting up our thinking to exclude others from full
participation in the community of faith because of ability or
gender. We know that our mental, emotional and spiritual health
is positively enhanced when we experience the nurture and sense
of belonging that a welcoming faith community provides. For
many, the path to salvation begins with a welcoming word of
invitation, acceptance, and affirmation. May the language we use
be a tool of inclusion that compels all who hunger and thirst to
feast at God's great banquet.
|
