the language of liberation

I attended the disability research forum at sheffield hallam today. As it seems is usual I had some thoughts that didn't quite fit with the discussion theme so I wanted to put these into words through my blog...

There are lots of parallels between the disability rights movement and other minority groups liberation campaigns. For example, within the LGBT movement the split between the biological and the social construction of gender and sexuality has been made to help understand their position, in the same way, the disability rights movement split impairment and disability with the medical and social model.

The thing that struck me today is that unlike the three liberation campaigns we were discussing today (autistic, LGBT and Deaf peoples liberation) the disabled peoples movement is missing something.

Within the autistic liberation movement (or as I learnt today the neurodiverse movement) they have reconstructed the language around autism completely and reframed it to neurodiverse/neurotypical to differentiate between the two groups that have been constructed.

Within the LGBT movement once again they have reframed the term gay and lesbian to become more positive and the term LGBT is now typically used as a stronger and more powerful liberation group by such organisations as the NUS etc.

Within the deaf community there is a big difference between being Deaf and deaf. Although within english this isnt a distinctive difference, within sign language it is, so it makes more sense in that context. However, this distinction is made to differentiate between  those people who feel more along the lines of wanting to be cured of their deafness, and wanting to fit in with society, and then those who feel that being Deaf is a cultural minority and it is the responsibility of wider society to fit in to their world and learn to sign with them. It is a very similar link to the medical and social model debate.

So, why is this done? Well, by completely changing the language of the argument means that the people changing it become in control. Not only that it stops the confusion that still exists around which 'disability' people actually mean. It makes a clear distinction and definition of difference. As in, we are now working in a different framework and have adjusted our language accordingly. It can create a feeling of community and cohesion amongst those who identify within the new language and a new identity.

Although the disability rights movement has attempted to change the meaning of the word disability by splitting it off from the medical impairment, by not coupling this with a completely new way of defining and describing this change has left people feeling confused and a weird situation where you have to actually define what you mean by disability when you say it. I'm not sure what the answer is, but by looking at the other movements today made me think that perhaps it is this that is lacking from the disability rights movement and that it is something that should be considered?