George is responsible for training and formation at l’Arche. His talk reminded me of the Wolfensberger teaching and article on the gifts of mentally retarded people. George shared stories of personal encounters early in his adult life in which he received the gift of a “simple but profound lesson, the realization of how much we need each other as human beings.”
He told several stories which illustrated the surprising power that can flow from interpersonal identification, of stepping into the shoes of another person, to see them as like ourselves in the essential ways and to want the ‘good things of life’ for them.
Particularly with societally devalued people who are living in heightened vulnerability, George spoke about how genuine relationships require the decision of not seeing or treating the other in the devalued role of object; and giving up the power over, and control of, which the role of object brings. We might fruitfully reflect on what gets in the way of us crafting such genuine relationships with societally devalued people, especially in relationships of service; and what can help foster and enrich such relationships.
I appreciate the comments, but don’t we devalue people when we use labels like ‘MR’ people verses person with disabilities?
Thank you for the comment. I am glad you are reading and engaging with the material and ideas shared on the blog.
I may be reading between the lines a bit, but if I understand correctly, you are recommending that we eliminate the use of the term ‘mental retardation’ altogether. Something I have found it beneficial to reflect on is whether there any occasions where it is necessary to be concretely specific in regards to a particular impairment, as opposed to the more general mention of an entire category of conditions for example. I have concluded after serious thought from the level of my principles, and rooted in my experiences, that yes, there are occasions where this is necessary.
So far, no suitable alternative for mental retardation is available for those occasions if specificity is required. Developmental disability for example is broad and not specific enough, i.e., it can include head injury if acquired before a certain age. Intellectual impairment is quite broad and can be acquired in many different ways, besides at birth. Intellectually disability can include senile dementia, and so on. Our spoken and written language is imperfect, and we must often settle for compromises.
In the article which I mentioned in my blog post, Dr. Wolfensberger was referring specifically to the gifts which mentally retarded people can offer us. Certainly other societally devalued groups have gifts as well, but here he was speaking about one particular group.
We also try to write our blog for a generic and international audience, not just for human service workers. For the general public, many of our human service terms are not understood, and can obfuscate important realities that bear discussing. Again, this may be a compromise, but it is a compromise which I have found can further communication.
Ultimately of course, language is just one of the ways that social valuation and social devaluation can be expressed. At least from an Social Role Valorization (SRV) and PASSING perspective, however, language is not the major way. It is often the most apparent and can most quickly reflect what is in our unconscious minds, hearts, memories and expectations. It can also be something we can change fairly quickly if we want to.
Other aspects identified in SRV, such as which social roles a person has, where people spend time, what they are doing, who they spend the majority of their time with, and so on, have a much greater long-term impact on the social status of societally devalued people and on people’s access to the ‘good things of life’ which most people expect and enjoy.
Language use also raises questions deeper than SRV, e.g., around our values.
Some other sources of information on language from an SRV perspective, I can suggest attendance at SRV and PASSING workshops, the monograph on SRV authored by Wolfensberger, and a monograph by Wolfensberger on language.
By the way, the reference was to an actual article by Wolfensberger, which is reviewed here:
http://www.socialrolevalorization.com/articles/lemay/review-of-common-assets.pdf
For me, George’s talk was on of the highlights of the SRV conference. He spoke with such wisdom, compassion and humility. My attention was held for the whole 40 mins (and not a powerpont slide to be seen!)
Is a transcipt of his talk available and if so how can I obtain one?
In response to Rita’s comment – I personally feel more comfortable using ‘people first’ language. While mental retardation is not a term commonly used in Australia I would say “A person with mental retardation” rather than “a mentally retarded person”. I wonder if this was what Rita was alluding too rather than the use of mental retardation as a term?
regards,
Suellen W
Dear Suellen,
George did give an important talk, including about forgiveness and being forgiven, worthy of much reflection. I do not know of any transcript but if I find one, I will post about it.
I can appreciate your point about ‘people first’ language, though all language has its limits of course. Over time, whatever language we use about societally devalued people will likely become problematic. I try my best to take into account what Social Role Valorization teaches about imagery and language, plus heightened vulnerability and devaluation. Of course, many language issues and usages go beyond what SRV can teach us. I think that ‘people first’ language for example falls into the above categories: it is not necessarily derived from SRV and seems based on ideas beyond SRV so to speak.
Consciousness about our language is certainly a good thing and I think that SRV can help us keep language use in perspective, particularly in light of the range of image and competency dynamics which SRV incorporates.
Thanks for the comments,
Marc
best,
Marc
Hello Marc, Rita, and Suellen,
I agree that consciousness about language is important. I read a great article by Wolf that put some perspective around the issue for me. It’s called “Needed or at Least Wanted: Sanity in the Language Wars” (Wolfensberger, 2002). I couldn’t work out how to attach it to my comment, but I’m sure Marc would have it somewhere?
Cheers,
Juliette
P.S. George’s talk was a highlight for me too 🙂
The article that Juliette mentioned is well worth reading. It was published at
http://www.aaiddjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1352/0047-6765%282002%29040%3C0075%3ANOALWS%3E2.0.CO%3B2