The manuscript I was working on said, "a man experiencing homelessness" rather than "a homeless man," and it was used several times, which seemed not only repetitive but awkward.
Since then, I've asked the following questions on social media: Is this a new less-offensive (?) way to say it? Have I missed something in the sensitivity training?
Yes, I was told over and over:
>I think it's an effort to not define a person only by a circumstance that is not within their control.
>The phrase is a less derogatory description as well as unhoused. There is a move to change the label. I looked it up after I saw references in articles awhile back.
>My friends in the nonprofit sector tend to use "unhoused" instead. (Several said this.)
>Lately in Portland some use the term "houseless."
>It's part of the initiative to describe people's experiences rather than labeling the person. We are making sure to talk about enslaved people rather than "slaves" in our historical tours. Once you think about it, it's hard to go back.
>It is called people-first language. So: a person with a disability, a person on the autism spectrum, a person of color, a person experiencing homelessness, and so on.
A friend of mine who works in the social work field told me the homeless themselves don't seem to care nearly as much about this as those of us writing papers or editing books—so this revised labeling is purely for those of us who are comfortably typing away in their upstairs offices, like me. "As a person who did not have 'a roof and a door' for six years," another friend reminded me,* "the label of homeless versus unhoused means nothing. There is a humanitarian crisis in America due to the fact we are experiencing a deficit of 60 million homes. And half of those without shelter are seniors."
Agreed. We have a problem, one that different communities solve in different ways, some better than others. And yet there is good reason to adjust our verbiage, another friend told me:
I'm familiar with this from working with organizations that serve those in that situation. The wording here is not just a virtue-signaling nuance of political correctness, as it may seem to many. While it's good, in general, to avoid identifying someone with a situation or experience that lessens their individual value beyond it, for organizations who increasingly work to equip people to move beyond homelessness, this language choice reinforces the notion that homelessness can be temporary, and empowers each person they serve to find their identity beyond it.
Wow, yes. It's a way to keep humans human in our eyes and not group them by a characteristic. The way some people call people who are here illegally, illegals. Or people who live with disabilities, cripples. Similarly humans dealing with addiction, alcoholism, and mental illness become: a person experiencing addiction, a person experiencing alcoholism, a person experiencing mental illness. That is—it's the situation, not the person.
I should say I've never intended to be insensitive, inhumane, unkind. Three years ago I wrote this article using the outdated language, but my intentions were good. And honestly? I think good intentions go a long way. But I will be paying better attention to how I express them.
*She began long-term pet sitting, living in the homes while people were on vacations. The pandemic ruined this plan, but she has continued to manage.
No comments:
Post a Comment