Naming Names
There have been some twists since my last post.
I should say that I believe unequivocally that people with disabilities should determine how they are identified and referred to in social and political discourse. This aspect of empowerment is an undeniable thread in our civil rights history, and groups long denied a voice have seized on nomenclature to demonstrate their self-determination. Words are powerful. Names are talismans.
That there is debate on this issue within communities seeking to define their social and political identities is natural. As these identities evolve, names can change. And in our social and political discourse, we should make every effort not only to respect but to understand the rationale behind these changes.
My beef is not with this aspect of humane discourse on the road to social justice, it is with the ungenerous attitude with which well-meaning ignorance is often met along that road. Yes, I understand that the innocent use of a name that has gained currency as socially acceptable but which has become offensive to the community it's being used to identify can become a flashpoint to highlight current prejudices, but when approached as a teachable moment it can actually lead to understanding and progress as well. Nobody should end up feeling humiliated in this discourse if all parties are earnestly and honestly listening to one another.
After my conversation with the snide woman who objected to "Special Needs" but refused to discuss alternatives I got back to the fellows in the civil engineering program who designed our ADA-compliant plot and were looking for Parks & Rec's approval for their sign, and told them to hold off until the end of the week, while I spoke to some folks in the community about some short, snappy alternatives.
Well, of course, the reaction I got from them was something less than enthusiastic as well. The word "appeasement" came up, if that tells you anything. The gardener who spearheaded the project mutinied, went right over my head to Historic Parks, and reported back that Parks was "fine with 'Special Needs'." (Which had never really been the issue.)
But all this had the strange effect of transforming me as suddenly as Saul to Paul on the road to Damascus into a passionate advocate of People First Language. I spent almost the entire day reading up on it and discussing it with an acquaintance with quadriplegia — see that awesome People First action? — whom I felt I could have a frank conversation about the issue with.
And it was enlightening, although I still don't have a name for the goddam garden. But we're working on it. Together. Which is really the point of the whole exercise, innit?
How about just "Wheelchair Accessible Garden?" I suppose people with other disabilities not involving wheelchairs might use it sometimes, but it is rather obviously designed with wheelchairs in mind. Obviously this has no Pizzazz. "Fabulous Wheelchair Garden?" (Where we grow wheelchairs?)
Reply to this
So it sounds like you are making headway in finding a good name. I remember as a teen volunteering for the Special Olympics. At the time the name didn't mean much to me. Now I realize it was to offset the negative sounding word retarded.
Names are powerful. I was annoyed by the use of the term queer in a post on another blog. A person identifying him or herself as straight used the term. When I was a kid it was a derogatory term. In my ears it continues to be though I take it in stride when used by a Gay person. But it still bothers me. But then other derogatory terms, though used by the people against whom the term was used to abuse their predecessors, bother me as well. That variation of the Spanish word for black, as well as queer, or words against a person's sex, etc. to me still are powerful and hurtful.
How about naming the garden after a famous Bostonian who was in some way handicapped or in some other way without the full use of faculties? Were there any Bostonians who were involved in passing the ADA? One of those folks could be honored by naming the garden after him or her. It might even lead to outside funding for maintaining that plot.
Reply to this
Hmm...well, I know this issue is circumvented in architectural circles by referring to "Universal Design," not least as it points out that any of us may, temporarily or permanently, as a result of accident, illness, or simple age, become unable to navigate all environments without mechanical or like assists. So, something like the "Universal Access Garden" might sound a little too much like you're appealing to the Thetans or to the jerk who steals stuff from people's plots, but that might be the way to go - or, actually, how about the "Barrier Free Garden" - describe the garden, not the user, since you'll always be in the wrong with SOMEone when you try to describe the user, whereas the garden is always there/is what 'tis.
Just sayin'...
And, yeah, snotty folks don't help, do they? How about a sub-sign "humor-challenged need not participate."
Reply to this
If my board agrees, we'll go to the membership, and then the floodgates will truly burst open!
Reply to this
Ouf...better you than me, pal - and I suppose you asked for it, right?! Keep up the good fight!
Reply to this
Yeah, I swim with the sharks, brutha.
Reply to this
Beats sleepin' with the fishes (esp. in the Muddy River where they probably have multiple heads...)
Reply to this