The Power of Names: What did you call me?
The names that are used by people to describe one another are very powerful things. Compare:
- Abdul Hassan, seeking refuge from torture and persecution
- Abdul Hassan, the bogus asylum seeker sponging off the taxpayer
…to see what I mean.
Now I don’t know an Abdul Hassan, and I’m not trying to make a point about asylum seekers one way or the other. I am, however trying to make a point about language.
Does the use of the name ‘Abdul’ conjure up a different impression than does the name ‘Jack’? Of course it does.
Being Jack In The 80s
What you might not realise is that the name ‘Jack’ itself has changed somewhat. I’m 32. I’m called Jack. When I was a child, no-one else was called Jack. It wasn’t a name that came pre-printed on mugs, on pens, on those things you stuck to your bedroom door. The only people called Jack in the 1980s were people who had it as a nickname.
Oh, and me.
I had an argument with a supply teacher once who told me – in front of the rest of the class – that I’d filled a form in incorrectly. When I asked why, she told that I hadn’t used my proper name, I’d written ‘Jack’.
“Ah”, she said. “But you’re not called Jack, are you?”
“Erm… yes”, I said.
“But you weren’t Christened Jack, were you?”
“Well, no.”
So, publicly in front of the rest of the class she tells me to put that name I was Christened on the form. Satisfied she’s won that one, she turns away, only to turn back when she realised I hadn’t sat down again.
“What’s the matter now?”
“Miss, I wasn’t Christened. Should I just leave it blank, then? Or will Jack do, since that’s the name on my birth certificate…?”
Okay, I wouldn’t normally have been so stroppy and argumentative in front of a teacher. But then that was the only time in my life I’ve encountered a teacher who after speaking to me for five minutes has decided that she knows what my name is better than I do.
But that just goes to illustrate how unusual the name was when I was growing up: to some people it was inconceivable that Jack could be my real name.
Now, Jack is the most common boys name in the UK so no-one would bat an eyelid, but when I was born, my grandmother was unhappy about the name, and wanted me to be called Jonathon instead, because “nobody is called Jack”.
But it meant that I was memorable: seemingly everyone in the school knew me, and would say hello to me when they passed me in the street, whereas I only knew the names of about four other people, and even then there was no guarantee I’d get to go with the right faces. Okay, on my side it was down to being bad with names, but I certainly think having an unusual name has its advantages: you get more noticed.
And probably one of my kids will encounter pretty much the same thing: my older child has a Welsh name which he’s going to find fairly unusual. I think it’s a nice name: I hope that as he grows up he’ll identify with it and it will help him grow into that certain individuality that comes with an unusual name.
I’m not going to mention the name here, but if you take a peek in my Gallery you’ll spot it quickly enough.
Giving Offence vs “Political Correctness Gone Mad!”
But as well as ordinary everyday names, there are other names we’re surrounded by: names that describe us. Some relate to our home life: father, husband. Some relate to our work: butcher, baker, candlestick maker. These are all fairly value-neutral.
However, there are a lot of terms, for example in the areas of ethnicity and disability that are highly charged and anything but value-neutral.
It’s interesting to see how in presumably much the same way that (particularly American) black youth use the word ‘Nigga’ (note the different spelling in order to differentiate it from the version with connotations of slavery and inferiority), quite a lot of disabled people use similar words in reference to one another ’spaz’, ‘crip’ ‘blinky’ and so on in reference to their disability.
Again, similarly to the use of ‘Nigga’, from the outside looking in, you’d wonder how they would react to someone from outside the disability community using those terms, even if they were attempting to use them in a more friendly way.
And of course, someone from outside the disability community seeing the word ’spaz’ being used in a light-hearted manner then that person might not realise the hurt and offence that they would cause calling someone a ‘windowlicker’ or a ‘mong’.
As an aside, when I’m discussing offensive and abusive terms, there’s always the question: should I use the term at all? I’d say yes.
Many people will find the term ‘windowlicker’ as offensive as ‘nigger’, but I don’t have the option of saying “the ‘W’ word” as many other people won’t know the word I mean. So I have decided to explicitly use the words where I feel the context warrants it. That is not to say that I approve of, or condone, the use of such terms. I don’t.
So, the question is, if the disability community find some terms offensive, should they be using them at all?
I have no bloody idea, so I’m moving straight on…
In order to express yourself sensibly and considerately you’ve got to tread a very fine line between the twin paths of political uber-correctness on the one hand and plain offensive nastiness on the other hand.
Or at least, that’s what a lot of folk seem to think. In practice - and I’ve noticed this particularly with disability - people tend not to take offence as long as you’ve had a reasonable stab at it.
Come to think of it, it’s not that fine a line, really. If someone is blind, refer to them as blind. Or vision impaired, at a push. Robin Christopherson would prefer it if you could avoid referring to him as ‘visually challenged’ as he thinks it makes him sound rather ugly.
They are more likely to get offended if you start apologising after saying phrases like “see you later”.
It’s slightly more difficult for us non-disabled folk when we’re not exactly sure of the correct term to use. For example, people with Down’s syndrome were termed ‘mongoloid’ for a long time. Some adults unfortunately still believe that this is the correct term. Don’t punish them for thinking that, just gently explain that we don’t use that term now.
Or what about someone that you think might have slight-to-moderate learning difficulties, but you’re not really sure? When trying to describe them to someone else, it’s an obvious point to bring up, because it differentiates them from others, but the ‘differentiation’ is a tricky game to play even when you know the correct terminology. When you don’t, it’s a minefield.
But everyone accepts people make mistakes and on the whole aren’t trying to be hurtful. You don’t have to watch what you say too much: anything value-neutral (”blind”, “black”, “speech impediment”, “learning difficulties”) isn’t likely to cause too much offense.
But I would advise avoiding the use of value-charged language — ’spaz’ and so on — unless you are absolutely sure that you’re using it in an appropriate context, and that you know how the person you are speaking to will take it. If there is any doubt whatsoever, don’t use it. Similarly, if you’re carrying out something in a professional context, it’s not a professional thing to say, so you shouldn’t use that sort of language at all in that context.
Given that the disabled community have various names for themselves (frequently based on the disability), they decided to come up with some names for non-disabled people. It was actually my blogroll pal The Goldfish, who was guest-blogging on the BBC Ouch! site and asked what are we going to call them?
After various suggestions: normies, normate, TABs (temporarily able bodied), non-disabled and so on, I felt I had to stick my oar in and point out that if non-disabled people are expected to use politically correct language to refer to disabled people, I feel that disabled people should have to use the same politically correct language to refer to us.
I’d therefore like to announce that you should consider me to be disability-challenged; indeed I’m unable to demonstrate any level of disability at all.
Oh, and contrary to the rumours, I’m not actually available for adoption as the little poster boy for the “help save the disability challenged” campaign. I simply couldn’t cut a deal with Lady Bracknell’s Editor regarding back-payment of pocket money.
And after all that, then there’s religion.
Faith: A Question of Interpretation?
Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist. All fairly value-neutral to me.
But then you get ‘liberal’, ‘hardline’, ‘fundamentalist’, ‘conservative’. Liberal tends to imply more ‘wishy-washy’: more concerned with getting on with others and being politically correct than adhering to the strict interpretation of the faith; the others tend to imply the opposite.
Or what about the ‘Brights’? This is a term used by an atheistic movement. I don’t see what’s wrong with ‘atheism’ or ‘humanism’. I object to the term ‘brights’ as it uses loaded language. It implies that anyone who agrees with them is bright and anyone who disagrees is dull or dark.
To me it says:
Ho ho ho, we think we’re all jolly nice and clever. Certainly smarter than the rest of you idiots who don’t believe the same as us, and we’ve got the right to be just a bit smug about it.My translation of ‘The Brights’
To my mind, if you can’t win your argument without using that kind of loaded language, you need a better argument. That’s not to say all atheist groups are the same — any more than it would be to say that all 32 year olds are called ‘Jack’. Either would be a gross generalisation from a small group.
But back to the liberal/hardline thing.
One of the — to my mind anyway — misleading things about this is the implication that someone taking a ‘hardline’ or a ‘fundamentalist’ stance is therefore closer to the true meaning of that religion than someone else. Take Christianity for example: I feel that understanding, compassion and tolerance are the guiding principles, and that’s my interpretation of Christianity.
Someone else might suggest that loving God and stoning homosexuals are the most important bits. I’d be described as a liberal; they’d be described as a hardliner. Assuming Jesus to have been an actual historical figure, and that he actually was able to pop up now and explain precisely what he meant, he’d be able to say whether my interpretation was correct or the other bloke’s was.
As he isn’t able to (or chooses not to!) do so, who is to say which interpretation is more ‘correct’? I’m supporting what I believe to be the spirit of the law; the other bloke is standing up for the letter of the law (and presumably what he believes the spirit of the law is). Only the person who was setting the laws could tell us what they had meant.
Remember then, next time you’re thinking about ‘fundamentalist Muslims’ or ‘conservative Christians’ that they aren’t necessarily better or ‘truer’ Muslims or Christians than those who take a more liberal stance. They interpret their religious texts differently. Who is to say which is the correct interpretation?
Back To Me, Me, Me: Who Says Blogging Is About Vanity?
Me, I’m sceptical about lots of stuff, but open minded with it. This is generally because there’s lots of stuff I’d like to believe, but because I know I’d like to believe it, I’ll take some convincing. I’m sceptical but not closed minded; open minded without being credulous. I’m also comfortable with my interpretation of the Christian ethos (irrespective of any beliefs in divinity or otherwise). I’m also a firm believer in using an evidential and rigorously tested scientific method.
Oh, and I’m called Jack.
So, that’s me then. I’m a disability-challenged sceptical quasi-Christian agnostic scientist called Jack.
PS Given the sceptical agnostic bit, if anyone called ‘Jesus’ happens to comment on here explaining which of my hypotheticals was correct, I’ll require a little convincing before I believe who you are, ok?
Hello. I am 
Hi
I just had to respond to two major errors in one paragraph.
“Or what about the ‘Brights’? This is a term used by an atheistic movement. I don’t see what’s wrong with ‘atheism’ or ‘humanism’. I object to the term ‘brights’ as it uses loaded language. It implies that anyone who agrees with them is bright and anyone who disagrees is dull or dark.”
First, the Brights are not (and never have been) an atheist organization. You can find on the website an essay by the co-directors that speak directly to that error. The title of the essay is: “The Brights’ Net is a Constituency of Brights…Period.”
http://www.the-brights.net/vision/essays/futrell_geisert_period.html
The second error is the canard of bright/dim.
From day one, the word Bright has referred to the Enlightenment, a time when reason and science offered a hope for humanity to move toward a better world. Never have the Brights claimed superior intelligence to supers. “Bright†refers to a worldview, not to the intelligence of individuals who hold that worldview.
Sincerely
Paul Geisert
Co-director of The Brights’ Net
Paul,
apologies if I got the ‘atheism’ bit wrong. However, irrespective of that, the term ‘bright’ is still loaded, value-charged language. Indeed, the term ‘the Enlightenment’, while used to refer to a historic period, is still an example of loaded language.
I didn’t wish to imply that the Brights think they are better than others (although it’s likely that some do, just as some non-Brights would) but that that is the impression that the name gives.
Also, I have read that article before, and I can’t honestly say how the quote:
can be seen as anything other than atheistic. If you don’t believe in any supernatural or mystical elements, then I don’t understand how you could claim to be either theists or agnostics: to me, you’re making a statement of disbelief, and that is atheism.
I appreciate you mention this area in the article, but I don’t find the answers you give their satisfactory: sorry!
I did love “disability-challenged” and I’m sure I’ll get to use it.
Trouble with some of these terms and me is that I think I probably read too many books, and I tend to think of liberal in the purely classical sense, as in the wish to maximise political freedom. Which can be either right-wing or left-wing - economic liberalism almost always being right-wing in fact; pay as little tax as possible, completely free markets as opposed to fair trade and so on.
So I’m particularly baffled when people talk about, I don’t know, bans on the Union Flag or St. George’s Cross and blame “liberal lefties”. A liberal would never argue to ban anything unless it definitely infringed upon another person’s freedoms.
I think liberalism is really the only viable approach when it comes to religion; otherwise, whatever your faith or lack thereof, you’re going to have to attempt to force the conversion of others to your particular viewpoint. Which doesn’t work and gets extremely messy every time someone tries.
And I am suspicious of some atheists on this stuff; it’s natural for people to think they’ve got it right, but it’s pretty unimaginative to think that everyone else is stupid or somehow emotionally inadequate. Faith is a lot like love - I think my beloved is the best looking man on the planet, but if I needed everyone else to agree with me, I’d be in trouble (the fools!).
Is calling anyone an outsider acceptable when they ask for an opportunity? Is it racist remark?
I dunno. There’s not really enough context there to draw any conclusions from.
In what way was the person seen to be ‘an outsider’ (could it be personality, rather than ethnicity)?
What sort of ‘opportunity’ do you mean? Do you mean in a job interview? Do you mean somone who’s just turned up and asked for a job? Or do you mean something else?