Person-First Language: To Use or Not to Use?

I commented on a Facebook thread last night concerning the question of whether it was better to use the term “blind person” or “person who is blind”. I am both a blind person (or a person who is blind, if you prefer the term) and an academic writer. In the latter case, “a writer who is academic” would not only be a silly way to express such a thing but it would alter the meaning of the phrase. I, myself, am many things besides academic; but my writing is academic–or at least some of it is.

This type of thought process prompted me to think a lot about why we bother so much about disability language. Does it matter how we use it? “Blind person” and “person who is blind” essentially mean the same thing; but the idea behind using people-first language is that putting the person word first emphasizes the person and causes the listener to de-focus on the disability.

I am a language professor. As a matter of fact, I teach a language which has different word order from English. It makes its points toward the ends of sentences. Often, that “who” or “which” phrase is used for emphasis. So I have a little different perspective on “people-first” language. To me, it doesn’t really change much. In some situations, it may even draw the emphasis toward the disability:

Do you know Sarah, the Hebrew professor who is blind?

Everything rolls along well until “who is blind” gets thrown into the sentence. It hits the listener like a bolt of lightning. “What? I didn’t even know a blind person could learn Hebrew, let alone teach it!!! How does she DO THAT???????”

<p style="text-align: justify;"
Do you know Sarah, the blind Hebrew professor?

This is only slightly better. The listener may or may not miss the word “blind,” as the real climax of the sentence is “Hebrew professor”. The point of the sentence is to distinguish me from other Hebrew professors; or perhaps to emphasize my accomplishments as a blind person. And this leads me to my reason for posting.

Why are we using the term at all? If it is to identify a person as distinct from their sighted counterparts, this is a practice that should be carefully considered. My opinion is not at all humble here. This should only be done for extremely good reasons, e.g. to discuss educational needs or other necessary matters. It should never be done in an effort to easily identify a person in a social group, as one might do by pointing out the girl in the red shirt whose name you do not know. If you don’t know the blind person’s name, then use a piece of their clothing to identify them as you would do if they were sighted. There is simply no need to call attention to the disability, with or without person-first language. In general, people who are blind want and need to be taken off the inspirational pedestal. I understand that sighted people find some of the things we do awe-inspiring because the concept of living without sight is so fear-inspiring. But many of us think quite strongly that blindness would be less fear-inspiring if our accomplishments were brought into the realm of normal and if we were treated as people who were capable of working, caring for ourselves, and achieving the same goals and dreams. This begins with times we choose to use disability terminology.

If discussing the disability is necessary, my opinion is that all the person-first language in the world is unnecessary. Truthfully, it is a matter of semantics that we have not resolved enough to matter. When I accommodate the needs of students with disabilities in my courses, it is not the students I am accommodating. It is the needs related to their disabilities. In that respect, person-first language is better. However, using adjectival descriptions does not destroy the meaning of an academic work concerning the needs of people with disabilities. In my own writing, I often include a disclaimer that says something to the effect that I begin with person-first language but do not use it consistently due to the need for flow in my content. “If you need a braille document for a student with blindness, contact the office for students with disabilitie,” just does not flow correctly.

One final matter concerns the distinction between “blind” and “visually impaired”. I often do not make this distinction when writing general documents; but I find there are situations when it matters. If I am writing or speaking and need the listener to understand that a person may have or be using some sight, I will use the term “visually impaired”. If I need them to understand that a task is beyond a person’s visual capabilities, I will intentionally use the term “blind.” This is not a method without problems. I sometimes have to clarify what I mean; but it seems to work reasonably well.

About Sarah Blake LaRose

Sarah Blake LaRose teaches Biblical Hebrew and Greek at Anderson University School of Theology and Christian Ministry in Anderson, Indiana. She is one of three blind academic scholars who received the Jacob Bolotin Award from the National Federation of the Blind in 2016 in recognition of innovative work in the field of access to biblical language texts and tools for people who are blind. In addition to her work as a professor, she provides braille transcription services specializing in ancient languages. Her research interests concern the intersection of disability, poverty, and biblical studies.

About Sarah Blake LaRose

Sarah Blake LaRose teaches Biblical Hebrew and Greek at Anderson University School of Theology and Christian Ministry in Anderson, Indiana. She is one of three blind academic scholars who received the Jacob Bolotin Award from the National Federation of the Blind in 2016 in recognition of innovative work in the field of access to biblical language texts and tools for people who are blind. In addition to her work as a professor, she provides braille transcription services specializing in ancient languages. Her research interests concern the intersection of disability, poverty, and biblical studies.

One comment:

  1. Well said. Our society labels non-dominate races and ethnic groups in a similar manner. Removing unnecessary labels might begin to break down false barriers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *