Early Twentieth Century
Back		Next

Early Twentieth Century

Disability Definitions

Until we reached twentieth century history, we stayed away from using the term "disability" to describe the characteristic that identifies individuals whose atypical activity is due to long-term or permanent medical conditions. The use of the term "disability" is relatively new and remains vague. Before disability was used to describe a group of people with permanent medical-diagnostic classifications that affected their daily activity in atypical ways, words such as cripple, blind, deaf, handicapped and so forth were often articulated. In an effort to create a publicly respectful and politically correct language to refer to the undesirable atypical activity resulting from medical explanations, the term disability is now most widely used and supported particularly by non-disabled individuals.

As we have indicated in module III on Activity Legitimacy Theory, we view disability not as a medical, social or economic condition, but as a judgment regarding the extent to which explanation for atypical activity fits the criteria for disability determination of those who are sitting in judgment. We therefore reflect that definition throughout this module. We also draw your attention to some other issues regarding language.

Currently, there is significant disagreement about language that identifies people with disabilities. "Person first" language has been espoused by numerous provider groups as well as by some individuals who identify themselves as having a disability. Thus, the term "person with a disability" is suggested in order to place personhood before the condition in person first vernacular.

We do not subscribe to person first language for a number of reasons. First, we note that person first language is used primarily when a descriptor is undesirable. For example, we do not refer to "people with intelligence." Second, the structure of person first language implies that the disability is located within an individual. Because we suggest that disability is a value placed on explanations of human activity, its location may be both within and outside of the individual who is determined to be disabled. Finally, as Heumann (1993) suggests, person first language in many cases is euphemistic and thus serves to fragment and divert the disability political agenda into less challenging debates about language. We therefore use various terms when referring to people and groups with disability status to reflect the pluralism of our approach to defining disability. We now move on to our discussion of contemporary history.