Did you know that over one fifth of the United States population has an impairment that leads to a disability? Given this, social workers are bound to engage in practice with disabled people across many service sectors – a reality which leads to the need for disability competence – and that includes competence around language choices. Whether you are working in child welfare, employee assistance programs, criminal justice or end-of-life care, you will need some guidance on how to approach your work with disabled people in a respectful manner. Here are two helpful things you need to know to be a better social worker in partnership with disabled people.
First, it is always ideal to look to your professional association for guidance. In the case of practice with the disability community, the National Association of Social Workers has a disability policy statement, but they choose not to use the term “disabled” in a major change to their Code of Ethics (CoE). While the CoE is the guide post in our profession, and in setting out standards for practice, it doesn’t do so well on language use around disability. The names a series of diversity factors, including, for example, race, ethnicity and national origin. Until the most recent revision of the CoE however, NASW notes that “disability was the only diversity factor that was not framed in a positive light.” To “rectify” this, the current version of the CoE replaces the term “disability” with “ability” in order to present what they think of as a more strength-based framework that can counteract dominant society norms that belie the capacities of disabled people. Specifically, the CoE states that social workers should “obtain education and seek to understand the nature of social diversity and oppression” with respect to people with varying abilities. This is likely a turn off to people that embrace identity-first language (i.e. disabled people vs. people with disabilities). As a disabled person myself, I agree. What’s wrong with disability? There’s even a hashtag campaign out there called #SayTheWord in order to move people towards an embrace of the term. While we are talking about what is and is not offensive to disabled people, check out these words that are considered outdated and offensive, akin to “differently abled,” “handicapped,” or “special needs.” Also check out, for example, Lydia X. Z. Brown’s glossary of ableist phrases.
Second, it is also always a best practice to learn more about the language preferences from our clients’ cultural communities. Lately, not a day goes by on my Twitter feed when I don’t see commentary from disabled people about their preferences for either person-first language or identity-first language. Check out the #identityfirst hashtag, for example. For many years, social workers were encouraged to use person-first language as a way of showing respect, as opposed to labeling someone as “a schizophrenic,” or “autistic,” for example, both of which were felt to have negative connotations at the time. Proponents of identity-first language have reclaimed such terms by embracing their disability identity first. For example, a well-known disability rights leader prefers to be called Autistic, and another advocate prefers to be referred to as mad (signifying mental illness). For social workers new to practice with disabled people, an ideal approach could involve using approaches interchangeably until it is clear what type of language is preferred by the client in question. Remember, language is a key component to client engagement, and, therefore, language is power.
Regardless of whether you are identifying populations with varying abilities in identity-first language use, or honoring your clients’ wishes for person-first or identity-first language, the most important thing is to see people for who they are, not for the stereotypes or assumptions that often precede them.