The Taboo of Disability: Do You Use Words Like 'Retarded'?

Mongol, retarded, mentally retarded, blind, deaf, disabled, lame, helpless... these are just some of the words that society uses to talk about individuals with physical or mental disabilities, often as insults to demean others. These derogatory terms and approaches are mixed with humiliation and the suppression of the 'other' or, at best, accompanied by misplaced pity and sympathy. Why does society adopt such an approach towards mental and physical disabilities? Where does the stigma of disability, which sometimes leads families to hide their disabled members, come from? If you have occasionally used these words or perhaps have heard them, please listen to this week's taboo. Elham Yousufian, a law graduate and disability rights activist, along with Mehrdad Darvishpour, a sociologist, are our guests discussing this taboo. Let's start this week's program with Mr. Darvishpour. Mr. Darvishpour, as a sociologist, why does society not behave normally towards disabilities, especially those related to the mind and individuals with special needs? This behavior is often either pity, surprise, humiliation, or a gaze of disbelief, or it is the disempowerment of this group of citizens or even the stigma that society places on them. Where does this come from? Mehrdad Darvishpour: This humiliating and, at best, pitying attitude is a manifestation of a superior view towards the disadvantaged, almost prevalent in all areas of social inequality. The majority ethnic group's attitude towards minority ethnic groups is like this. Those with good financial resources and upper classes treat lower classes similarly. Men treat women and heterosexuals treat homosexuals the same way, and those in middle age treat the elderly or youth in the same manner. You used the term disability; I would like to use the term ability-seeking, which carries less negative connotation and more positive associations. Society's attitude towards ability-seekers is not separate from this rule. Those who are supposedly fully mentally, physically, and psychologically healthy treat ability-seekers either with humiliation or, at best, with pity or deny them. What underlies this humiliating or at best pitying behavior is actually the 'otherness' of ability-seekers. Since ability-seekers do not conform to the community's conventional standards, a kind of distancing occurs, and this distancing attempts to marginalize that group as one that is different from society. The exaggeration or stigmatization of vulnerable groups is one of the distancing mechanisms. While today, in sociology, concepts like ability-seeking are relative. For example, in the past, if someone had a mental issue, they were labeled as insane and sent to asylums, but today, as part of an inclusive policy, instead of exclusion and isolation, efforts are made to close asylums and integrate this group as part of the diverse human community. For instance, in a country like Sweden, you see that they try to create the best conditions for ability-seekers to be seen in the streets, participate in politics, and have suitable employment and educational allocations. Meanwhile, in many countries, ability-seekers, especially those with mental disabilities, are referred to as so-called mentally disabled. Very well. Ms. Yousufian, you heard Mr. Darvishpour's comments. He suggested using the term ability-seeking instead of disability, which could itself be an independent discussion, and if you have any thoughts on this, it would be good to hear. His emphasis was on otherness. As someone who is both a member of this group of citizens and someone who works for the rights of the disabled community—or as Mr. Darvishpour puts it, ability-seekers—what is your perspective? Why does such an atmosphere exist, and where does this taboo and stigma come from? Elham Yousufian: The main point may be that individuals with disabilities should be accepted as part of human diversity. This is why disability rights activists oppose terms that aim to change individuals with disabilities. The reason I do not use the term ability-seeking relates to this. Ability-seeking consists of two parts: ability plus seeking. It implies that someone with a disability or limitation wants to gain ability. However, this does not necessarily reflect the lives of individuals with disabilities and our approach to life. I was born blind and lack the ability to see. If you describe me as an ability-seeker, it means I want to be able to see or do something else. However, I have no issue with my current condition. Many individuals with disabilities live in similar conditions. I would like to refer to a definition of disability from the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which was adopted by the United Nations in 2006 and to which the Iranian government has also joined. This definition considers disability to be the result of an interaction between the existence of impairment or deficiency in a person's body, mind, or psyche and the barriers that exist in society. These barriers can be attitudinal, social perspectives, physical and environmental barriers, or legal barriers. These prevent the individual from enjoying civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights equally with other citizens. Therefore, disability is not just a physical, mental, or psychological impairment; it is the result of barriers that society places in front of individuals with these deficiencies or impairments. If these barriers did not exist, the inequality of rights could largely be eliminated. This definition of disability allows us to see it as a dynamic or evolving concept. For example, I always give this example to my friends: I, who now live in America, have much less disability than I did when I lived in Iran. My level of vision has not changed, and my other physical characteristics have not changed either. What has changed are the environmental barriers. When we use terms like ability-seeking, we place the burden on the individual with a disability to seek ability. Now some friends also use the term ability-finding, which means to find one's ability and adapt oneself to society. However, there is a concept that we have a series of physical, sensory, psychological, or mental differences, and we live our lives accordingly. If social, legal, and attitudinal barriers are removed, we can enjoy all the rights that all citizens have equally, and there is no reason for us to want to change ourselves. We are part of human diversity, and imagine if all humans had the same physical, sensory, and psychological characteristics, we might not have witnessed many of the human achievements as we do today. Mr. Darvishpour, you may want to make a brief comment about the terminology, but before that, I want to ask you about the language we knowingly or unknowingly use. People use it, and perhaps they have no intention, and awareness of it can be a sudden shock or a slap in the face for the speaker of these words. For example, we say, 'Are you blind?' or use words like mongol, retarded, backward, etc., as insults. Darvishpour: Or disabled! Yes... these words carry the stigma that is placed. How important is this language, Mr. Darvishpour? Darvishpour: First, let me explain the term ability-seeking. First of all, this term is not my invention. Linguists in Iran coined this term to remove the negative connotation of disability. Perhaps this term is not very precise. I know, for example, in Swedish, when we talk about this issue, we refer to the diversity of individuals' abilities; physical and mental diversity. In referring to the concept of diversity, there is a kind of neutralization. Regarding words that create negative connotations, whether in dealing with homosexuals, women, children, the elderly, or groups that differ in mental or physical abilities from what is considered the norm and standard in society, it is very important to be careful to adopt a neutral approach. Because, as you said, when someone calls a person blind or, for example, says disabled, they are trying to use a kind of humiliation and exaggeration to separate and assert power and humiliation over that individual. Historically, if we look at it, everyone should ask themselves a question: Why were fascist groups in Germany not only focused on eradicating Jews or non-whites and non-Aryans? They had the same view regarding homosexuals and ability-seekers. In the ideology of social Darwinism, the key point is that the perfect human is the standard of progress and contributes the most to advancement; therefore, all those with limited abilities are seen as obstacles to human progress and are considered burdens on society. This extremely crude, harsh, and inhumane view led to individuals with different mental or physical abilities being seen as burdens or social parasites, resulting in extremely humiliating, hateful, and inhumane treatment towards them. I, as someone who is not considered to have mental or physical deficiencies, am recognized as the norm, and that other is defined based on me. This relationship is an unequal power relationship. Ms. Yousufian, Mr. Darvishpour provided explanations. I want to know what explanation you can provide, especially since you have experience in this area or perhaps have more examples to add to our discussion about the stigma that society places on individuals with disabilities. Yousufian: Well, for example, in our educational system, there is no point or educational section about who individuals with disabilities are or what Braille is or what sign language is or who individuals with mental disabilities are. There is no teaching about how individuals act and live and how to teach children that not all people are supposed to be alike. For example, I saw recently that Barbie has produced a series of dolls with disabilities. Even on wheelchairs, to explain to children that yes, there may be a child who cannot walk. On the other hand, we see that our media not only does not educate but also reproduces this. For example, in our movies, we see that the villain character ends up in a wheelchair or ends up in a mental hospital to show that if you are not a good person, your end will be disability. Blind or deaf in our literature symbolizes someone who does not know, who does not understand. Recently, there was a discussion on Twitter where someone made a political and social criticism and said that apparently there are some blind and deaf representatives in the parliament! I told him that dear friend, blindness and deafness do not necessarily imply not knowing or understanding. You cannot use these words to explain this issue. I want to specifically ask you, why do individuals with mental disabilities face more stigma, suffer more harm, and experience more humiliation... I mean, mental disability is essentially more taboo than other types of disability. Yousufian: In the case of individuals with mental disabilities, I think the first reason is their inability to express themselves, and the second reason is that educating these individuals requires more expertise. Even in our country, we see that individuals with visual and hearing disabilities study in regular schools, but children with mental disabilities are only accepted in what are called special schools. Therefore, a longer path must be taken. Even among disability rights activists, individuals with mental disabilities are marginalized. Darvishpour: It is worth mentioning that a recent study in America showed that citizens with mental disabilities have significantly higher rates of sexual assault and abuse compared to other groups. I want to relate this topic to gender and ask you, who have done extensive studies in gender, whether gender can also exacerbate the marginalization or oppression of someone who, for example, has Down syndrome or mental disability? Darvishpour: Certainly, this is the case. In fact, if we pay attention to intersectionality theory, it emphasizes that unequal power relations are not only multiple but can also affect each other, sometimes exacerbating vulnerability and sometimes, conversely, intersecting and improving individuals' situations.