Title and Author(s):

Simi Linton, “Reassigning Meaning”, second chapter of Claiming Disability.

Summary:

In this reading, Linton provides a theoretical framework that re-centers disability within the discussion on health and society, while considering other intersectional factors of race, gender, and sexual orientation as belonging on an axis with points of privilege. First, Linton introduces the audience to many of the terms typically used to discuss disability⁠—ableism, special, abnormality, overcome, person with disability⁠—going as far as to deconstruct that dis- into its “semantic consequences” (31) of diminutive separation. Through naming oppressive language (i.e. “dying of AIDS”), describing the conflict (the implication that those with AIDS are incapable of living active lives), and providing a helpful alternative (i.e. “living with AIDS”), Linton demystifies the myriad of options for describing disability, recommending the terms disabled and nondisabled among them (27). At the center of Linton’s framework is the idea that the nondisabled position is not the “universal, neutral position from which disabled people deviate” (32), but simply possible outcomes of human variation.

Quotations: 

“This new language conveys different meanings, and, significantly, the shifts serve as metacommunications about the social, political, intellectual, and ideological transformations that have taken place” (9).

“When disabled people are able to pass for nondisabled, and do, the emotional toll it takes is enormous” (20).

“Saying that someone is suffering from a condition implies that there is a perpetual state of suffering, uninterrupted by pleasurable moments or satisfactions. Afflicted carries similar presumptions” (26).

Reflections:

More than anything else from this text, I am grateful to have a layman’s-terms toolkit for discussing disability as the quarter draws on. There is so much power in language, and as Linton points out, language itself is a driver and a shaper of conversation. Knowing exactly why certain colloquial terms have been intentionally abandoned by disability advocates, and which alternatives are preferable, makes me more comfortable in charting the waters ahead.

However, I was pretty confused by some of the language in this reading, specifically about nondisabled perspectives. Linton wrote “The nondisabled stance, like the white stance, is veiled” on page fourteen. What exactly does this mean? That the “nondisabled stance” is an undertheorized stance? What is a “white stance”, anyhow? At first, some of Linton’s phrasing might seem inflammatory, but that in itself helped me to generate thought as I worked to dispute whatever I disagreed with at first. Another example: Linton described the nondisabled on page 32 as “a category of people whose power and cultural capital keep them at the center”. This ordering of words makes it seem as though the nondisabled could wield this “power” as a tool to force their way into higher positions in society. However, I believe what Linton means to say is that the absence of ableist oppression among the nondisabled—whether that may be incurred medical bills, workplace discrimination, an increased difficulty in accessing resources, or imposed stigma—allow the nondisabled to come to the “center” of the discussion on disability, through the osmotic pressures of privilege in society. 

It’s clear from this reading that Linton is as deeply critical of the linguistic structures enforcing ableism as our popular slang, which to me is refreshing, as it adds a layer of depth. Linton argues that only through the use of humanizing, accurate, and warranted language towards disability may academic discussions on ability and society be facilitated respectfully and appropriately. Personally, I couldn’t agree more.