I have always believed that terminology can have a huge impact on the way we treat others but it also reflects our knowledge (or lack of it) in a particular field. This becomes even more evident when we tackle vulnerable sectors such as the area which I have most at heart and work very sensitively for: the disability sector.

I believe that, by using or misusing certain terms – in some cases we use ‘titles’ and ‘labels’ only because we, as society, have political issues and a certain language accommodates those in power – we can do more harm to and also put limitations on people notwithstanding their abilities and capabilities.

A good portion of society might ask: but what is in a word?

Using such terms as cripple, handicapped, disabled, physically challenged or a person with disability, just to mention some titles and labels that non-disabled people give to the mentioned minority group, would not really make a big difference, would it? It doesn’t really matter what term is used, does it? That is how society usually argues.

The same argument might well lead us to call all flowers using the same term: flower. Why bother speaking of a rose, an orchid, an hortensia... After all, is not a rose by any other name still a rose?

According to anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski, the way we speak and articulate is moulded in the culture we belong to. He also argues that our language is our culture and how we use it reflects on our society.

We tend to dismiss, segregate and judge those that we (as a society) perceive to be different, disabled or whichever label society taught us to use.

Allow me to delve into how the disability discourse evolved during the past decades. Or is it simply a matter of society giving us the impression that ithas evolved?

The term invalid indicates that one is ‘not valid’ and, by not being ‘valid’, one is ‘not acceptable because one is not able to do anything.

Handicap invokes an image of a person on a street corner with ‘a cap in hand’ begging for donations and charity. Thus, by using the word handicapped we are projecting the image of charity-seeking people with a disability.

Such labels are humiliating because whereas more positive terms focus on the ability of a person, these expressions highlight one’s inabilities and what makes one different from the rest rather than concentrating on the individual, what that person can do and how s/he can fit into society.

Labels lead us to create stereotypes and put people in pigeonholes and, in many occasions, give a false indication of one s identity.

Individuals resort to labels to devise symbols (the disabled, the homeless, single parents...).

It is essential to put the person before the disability/impairment

Until recent times, the prevailing model of disability was the medical model, meaning the person with disability was considered as problematic. This often led people to use such language as wheelchair-bound, housebound, having special needs, requires help, cannot walk or hear, handicapped and so forth.

This sort of terminology leads us to focus on the impairment rather than directly on the person and his/her needs. It also puts a person with disability in a situation whereby s/he has to be dependent on others and would be unable to cope in an independent manner.

It also evokes feelings of compassion and fear (of not knowing how to approach a given situation, how to communicate etc).

Such negative labelling of people with disability is the product of the oppressive societal system we still live in today.

Across the globe, in the 1980s people with disability felt the need to standup and insisted that ‘disability’ is asocial product, meaning it is society itself that creates the disability. This led to a swing from the medical model and the social model.

The social model of disability links the use of language to disempowerment. The type of language used by people in power and those lacking knowledge on this specific field could be a way to control, dominate or discriminate against people with disability who feel the need to develop further and give an energetic identity to the so called ‘disability sector’.

They want to show that ‘we’ can be self-advocates and autonomous. This has led to self-advocacy movements for people with disability being set up. As a result, the language used in relation to disability started to change. But what happened in Malta?

Unfortunately, we still hear/use inappropriate discourse when we refer to persons with disability in Society and this is 2015 not 1980.

We started arguing that, hey, we are not ‘the disabled’, we are not ‘disabled people’ or, even worse, ‘invalid or handicapped’ but we are ‘people with a disability’.

It is essential to put the person before the disability/impairment. Inappropriate discourse can make some feel ostracised (unaccepted) and give the impression that the person is unable to function, is invalid...

Terminology empowers, it gives dignity and gives rights to people. It allows people to be seen as people with their own uniqueness rather than be seen as the mysterious component of a segregated group.

This and other issues are on my personal agenda and also on my team’s agenda (Breaking Limits Malta). We strive to give a voice ourselves and to others who, for a variety of reasons, hold back from confronting society.

Society is in total confusion about which language should be used when referring to people with disability. Society does not want to offend this newly-empowered group of people but it does not know how to address the situation.

We are still a bit distant from accepting people with disabilities as being equal within our society. The verbal communication we use and the way we choose to pronounce ourselves can both empower and disempower others and, eventually, can lead to equality or inequality.

Take sports, we speak of Olympians and Paralympians. Are such athletes considered in the same way, say in terms of determination and commitment?

Is such a distinction really necessary? Does it reinforce the idea of negative stereotypes? We have to constantly make an effort to empower others withour words.

During a conversation, what we say has to be motivating and empowering. If one is unsure of which language would be suitable one should keep three simple guidelines in mind:

1 Give priority to people not to their disability/impairment.

2 People with disability have different preferences when it comes to terminology; a positive term would motivate a person. To make it simpler and not fall into unwanted traps, avoid old-fashioned titles and labels.

3 If you are unsure how to address a person, just use their names.

If we, as a society, were to think in term of this ability rather than of disability we would be able to focus on a person’s ability rather than disability.

Think about it: what’s in a word? Does terminology make a difference?

Noel Aquilina is CEO of Breaking Limits Malta.