A Rose is a Rose ...Or is It?

By Raymond D. Cohen

Semantics are important. The words we use, given their context, reflect the regard in which we hold other people. Hence the offence taken, outside of a familiar context, with words like cripple and gimp, handicapped and disabled. I think it is right to confront and correct those who use language to belittle, intimidate and repress others – but where should we draw the line? Perhaps the line of tolerance should be drawn before the place where abusive "labels" are offered with malicious intent.

I believe the goal of constructive confrontation must be to teach the wisdom of a non-divisive stance; to demonstrate the fact that, labels aside, there is a common humanness which we all possess – regardless of exterior trappings. So, at what point does this stance become self-defeating and, in fact serve to further divide, as opposed to unite?

I was deeply saddened (and maybe a little angered) while reading the Globe and Mail (January 18th, 1989) article: "Sensitive Language Issue Causes Strife Between Agencies for the Disabled."

The issue was the Ontario March of Dimes wording in their fund-raising theme: "Open You Eyes to the Ability in Disabled Adults." The slogan was clearly meant to be a euphemism for encouraging, among everybody, awareness of the range of potential among disabled individuals. Sadly, however, not everybody saw it that way (whoops). Some went so far s to think that this slogan was insensitive to the views (whoops) of some organizations for the visually impaired, and did not see (whoops) the true intent of the message.

It seems ironic to me that a group of people who have truly experienced fragmentation and social isolation should set about creating disparity within a community which must pull together. The Canadian Paraplegic Association, for example, to the best of my knowledge, has never objected to the organizational name of the "March" of Dimes, if you hear what I’m trying to say (whoops). As far as I can see (whoops) a little more pulling together and less destructive over-sensitivity would be a step in the right direction (whoops). At any rate, there is none amongst us who could hope to deal with this concern in a single-handed fashion (whoops). Unless we, as a national (if not global) community stand prepared (whoops) to accept that the entire English language is not about to contort itself around the language sensitivities of a number of separate special interest groups, this is an issue which is likely to leave us stumped for some time to come (whoops).

Let’s get real and accept that euphemisms and metaphors, unless obviously hostile or malicious, are simply euphemisms and metaphors – a means to express a range of actions, views and intentions which are true across both able-bodied and physically challenged individuals and groups.

I hope that I have not, with this column, overstepped my bounds (whoops!) – and by the way, I am not anti-semantic...

Raymond D, Cohen
Editor