Return-Path: <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f0TIle920284; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:47:41 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:47:41 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <3A757617.6D3F5293@unc.edu>
Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov
Reply-To: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov
Originator: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov
Sender: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: Dani Moore <dani@unc.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:376] Re: seeking appropriate terminology
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
Status: O
Content-Length: 3085
Lines: 63
Hello, Kate and others,
To the extent possible, I try and use terminology that's preferred by
members of the group I'm describing. If I'm not sure what their
preferences are, I try to engage in dialogue about names and labels with
them. I'm sure you and many others in our field do the same.
I'm reminded of previous work experience in which even groups that
vehemently opposed one another politically still tried to use the names
that members of a group prefer, such as "pro-life" and "pro-choice."
When speakers and writers choose instead to use "pro-abortion" or
"anti-choice," they often do so consciously to inflame or motivate
others to action. My feeling is that this discourages dialogue and does
not honor a diversity of opinions within a difficult and controversial
debate. I also recall earlier discussions on this and other NIFL lists
about calling our program participants "learners," "students," and so
on. In different programs, participants have different preferences.
There is no one answer, and these answers also will shift over time as
we all undergo changes in our awareness of issues.
Perhaps I do this to be "politically correct" (a way of behaving I
embrace) or simply because I think it's respectful. I try to accept
responsibility for the terms I use, and agree with the perspective that
there is power in naming, so I endeavor to share this power with other
people, especially those whose lives are affected by it. It's not a hard
and fast rule about stigma or "people-first-naming" for me.
Have people on the list had opportunities to ask people with
disabilities, people participating in literacy programs, and left-handed
people what terms they prefer? I would be interested to hear their responses.
Best to all,
Dani Moore
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
Dani Moore dani@unc.edu 919.962.1542
Training and Technical Assistance Coordinator
Student Coalition for Action in Literacy Education (SCALE)
http://www.readwriteact.org/
"Kate Gladstone & Andrew S. Haber" wrote:
>
> Kathleen, writing at great length, does not address my question or the
> reason I asked it.
>
> I asked my question simply to ascertain whether the "politically correct"
> terminology of referring to people as "people with _____[noun]_______"
> rather than as "_______[adjective]_______ people" applies only to people in
> situations societally stigmatized, or also to people in situations *not*
> societally stigmatized. Answering "no" seems to mean using different
> grammatical/verbal forms for "stigmatized" and "non-stigmatized"
> people/situations: this, of course, in itself constitutes stigmatization.
>
> Yours for better letters,
> Kate Gladstone - Handwriting Repair
> kate@global2000.net, kate@WriteMe.com
> http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair
> 325 South Manning Boulevard
> Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA
> telephone 518/482-6763
> AND REMEMBER ...
> you can order books through my site! (Amazon.com link - I
> get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:33:02 EST