Disability Rhetoric

“CRIP” by Victoria Ann Lewis, Keywords from Disability Studies (pg. 46-48), Adams, Rachel, et al. 2015

Summary:

This section of the book “Keywords from Disability Studies”, goes over the history and use of the colloquial term, “Crip”. Crip, in the words of Victoria Ann Rice – the author of this section – “is the shortened, informal form of the word “Cripple”.” (Pg. 46). The term has it’s origins in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century as an identifier or slang term, especially for collegiate sports in the 1920’s.

During the civil rights movement, the term is comendered by the disability civil rights movement in the 1970’s. Most likely influenced by the Women’s Rights and Civil Rights Movements of the 50’s and 60’s. According to Victoria Ann Lewis, the term “functions as an alternative to both the old-fashioned and rejected “handicapped person” and the new, more formal terms “disabled person” or “person with a disability,” both of which gained official status as the preferred terms for standard usage in the mid-1980s.” (Pg. 46).

It was interesting to read this; I did not realize that “handicapped person” was an offensive or rejected term. At risk of being offensive and insensitive, I’ll continue my argument: handicapped does not face the same stigmatism or vitriol as words such as “The N-word” for black people (which wasn’t originally intended to be offensive when in use in the 19th century – merely a descriptor – but has rightly become the subject of offense and vitriol.) I’m beginning to wonder if we should view the word “handicapped” in the same way we view the N-word, because I still used the word Handicapped fairly often (though it’s often to describe a physical disability rather than a mental one: I rarely call someone with mental disabilities “a cripple”, (and I tend to read old books and have many archaic or eccentric views on the world; I’m not saying it’s right – It is what it is – I digress.).).

It’s always interesting to read about how groups tend to adopt the names that where used to humiliate them, the textual example being the word “queer” for the LGBT community (Ah, the good old days, when it was just “LGBT”) or like in the early Christian movement, the word Christian was used to describe people who followed “the way”, and how Christian’s used to be called “Atheists” because they only followed one God (I always found that rather amusing). Many groups like to commandeer offensive names as a form of self-deprecating humor, (the song “Jesus Freak” from DC Talk comes to mind, or the way non-christians will often call themselves “heathens” in front of their Christian friends).

I’m not exactly sure how words like “cripping” or “cripped” are supposed to be used. I’ve never used them before, and I doubt I will have much occasion to use them in future, but things change. If someone where to explain what exactly they mean by these verbs, then I may gladly adopt the term in the same way I’ve adopted adulting (though, to be fair, I don’t like that term either and rarely use it. What can I say, I’m an old fashioned kid). Part of me just asks “why use these terms at all?”, which is partially answered in the paper in the following quote: “[…] the power of claiming either “crip” or “cripple” comes from the “seminented history of its prior usage,” and the capacity of both words to injure.” which sounds slightly masochistic to me, but there’s some form of sense to it.

The article pulls a lot of comparisons between the LGBT community and the disabled community. Both having their terms and titles that have stereotyped and that they wish to “redefine” as some kind of power statement. But how much power can you have by controlling the language. After all, if you redefine what a word means, it probably won’t be long before a new word comes around to take it’s former station, or perhaps the word or phrase will default to it’s prior definition. How much power do we individual people have over people when it is the public who really defines what they mean and who determines their usefulness?

CONCLUSIONS

The article describing the history and use of this term was an interesting read, although I do think that I was left with more questions than answers. Crip is an odd word, to be frank; the people who use that word are a unique group. I’ve never heard of this word before this class, and I think it’s unlikely that I will ever use it much in conversation outside of this course. But, if the person to use this word (as an identifier, or a descriptor, or in verb tense) desire to use it, and if it does no harm to the person using it or being described by the term (and I’m not one to care for personal feelings very much, except in a general form of respect to everyone.), then I see no harm in the use of such a flowery euphemism.