[ Contents | Search | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Ken St. Louis
Date: 09 Oct 2006
Time: 09:24:05 -0500
Remote Name: 157.182.15.42
Hi Megan, Thanks for the questions. Let's see if I can address them. I don't claim to be an expert in the evolution of "person first" terminology, but my understanding is that is grew out of special education. That being said, the original motivation probably harkens back to the APPROPRIATE(!) use of more sensitive language as related to racial differences. Of course, most of us want to be sensitive, and to the extent that our language will foster that, we should attend to the words we use. Nevertheless, language use takes on a life of its own. When we "force" the use of terms before previous terms have acquired pejorative connotations (e.g., "idiot" [which when coined was simply a descriptive term]), we are simply creating a situation where people are forced to try to keep up with the most recent fads. This is not being sensitive in my opinion but being a bit silly. Next, you ask, "How can we as future SLP’s generally ensure that we are using the professional “politically-correct” form while being sensitive to the needs of the client?" I'd ask you to reread my paper and my reply to Laura. I don't think we should worry about that. This is precisely the problem. Use "stutterer," "person who stutters," etc. when each one sounds and seems the best for the sentence you are using. In so doing, maybe we can undo some of the artificial barriers that this issue has created. Be sensitive but be yourself. Ken