0 
0 By Jody Elford
This morning, I was enjoying the uncharacteristically hot weather England is presently benefiting from as I breakfasted out on my decking. I perused some material online about the use of language in the mental health blogging community. Having always been irreverent in my writing style when it comes to blogging, it rose an important question for me. Just how important is it, to consider the language we use when we write about mental health and mental illness? To me it’s all a question of intention and context. I challenge the notion that it is inherently wrong to use any word or terminology. And I suggest it is the soul behind the piece of writing in question that truly matters.
Labelling
Back in 2012, the BBC came under fire for their use of the term “schizophrenic”. In his letter to the BBC, a writer suggested that using terminology such as “a schizophrenic man” contributes to unhelpful rhetoric. That it plays an important role in the oppression and marginalisation of those experiencing mental illness. He asserted that by championing change in this area, particularly in the mass media, we as a community can facilitate change in public perception. And move towards empowering people.
“A person is not the sum total of the symptoms … ‘Schizophrenia’ has unfortunately frequently come to be seen as a negative term that refers to certain clusters of symptoms of mental ill[ness] … labelling somebody as ‘schizophrenic’ can mean that an individual immediately has to deal with many misconceptions.”
(Read the article here)
A diagnosis not a label
This sentiment is an admirable one and I am all for anything that moves us away from stigma and towards the education and empowerment of the masses. I do, however, reject the idea that a word like “schizophrenia” is simply a label. It is a complex diagnosis, not a label.
I also feel that he speaks for all of us, without due consideration to the importance of individuality in experience. And without considering how the reclamation of certain language devices might serve to give the mental health blogging community an important string to their bow. Let us not undervalue the use of satire and irony in tackling gravely serious subject material. Let us not underestimate the important role labels and identifiers can play in owning a situation or disorder. I’ve babbled before about the empowering role labels can play:
“The words someone chooses to describe themselves and identify themselves to the world is important to them, and a lot of power lies there. There’s a reason so many of us refer to ourselves as ‘queer’ – it’s a reclamation of our power. Empowering ourselves with labels implies a sense of control over one’s identity and direction in the world.”
MentalBabble Feb 2018 – “Holy Nutbar, Batman! A care plan!”
Not offensive
I get the feeling, although perhaps I’m wrong, that I form part of a minority here. There’s lots of material out there to suggest that the community is sick and tired of some of the language that’s bandied about. Particularly in the media.
Indeed, Time To Change suggest that terminology such as “mad“, “nutter“, “a schizophrenic” and “the sufferer“, are all apt to cause offence and work against the whole notion of enlightenment and empowerment.
I reject the notion that any stand-alone word or phrase is offensive. Instead I assert that the message being conveyed is of more importance. I do not agree that the usage of particular words, and avoidance of others, is likely to play any remarkable role in our aim to reduce stigma.
Wasting energy on wrong things
With the rhetoric surrounding physical disability, there are portions of the community that abhor the use of “wheelchair user” or “wheelchair bound”. They prefer to be referred to as “person that uses a wheelchair”. I truly do understand the thinking behind this subtle nuance of language. And I would respect anybody’s right to identify with their physical condition however they choose. But I cannot help but feel we’re sort of wasting energy on the wrong thing here.
I totally get how someone who depends on equipment such as a wheelchair to live, might find that the use of “confined to a wheelchair” grates on them. Especially if the use of said equipment is elective, or a key aspect of their independence and empowerment. Indeed, a person who, without their wheelchair, would be totally unable to ambulate doesn’t seem “confined” to it at all. Rather the wheelchair they use affords them the liberty and dignity that many of us take for granted. That is quite the opposite, isn’t it?
In a similar vein, there are countless people who find it jarring to be referred to as “mentally ill”. Or “an obsessive-compulsive/depressive/schizophrenic”. Indeed, even within the relatively small community of 1in4, there is some dissonance in the way members feel about the terminology and language used. Even amongst bloggers themselves.
Why does language matter?
Language and linguistic devices cannot be understated in terms of their importance. The dialogue surrounding us plays a key role in the ways in which we own and have autonomy over our world and our identity.
Take the LGBTQ community. It has a long and proud history of reclaiming words and phrases intended to cause harm, to facilitate empowerment and defiance. Yet the very same linguistic combat rages on. It has ever been, and remains still, a facet of LGBTQ culture to use as armour the injurious devices of the media and groups that would oppress us. To reclaim slurs and slights against us to equip ourselves with a tough skin of humour, irony, rebellion and defiance.
Mental health is no different
I fail to see how mental illness and mental health is any different. Physical disability, sexuality, race and ethnicity, human rights and physical and mental illness are all experiences that we share. That we have always shared. What harm is there in applying the very same notion of reclamation to the misleading and damaging rhetoric that exists in our community?
[Speaking about the naming of the 1984 Pits and Perverts benefit concert in Camden:] “…originally thought to derive from a newspaper headline it now seems more likely that it was merely a parody of tabloid representations of lesbians and gay men. As with the word ‘queer’, perverts has become another word that was originally meant to injure but has been used instead as a symbol of defiance and unity in the face of Margaret Thatcher’s powerful Press baron friends. Essentially the notion that the use of particular words or phrases can be damaging and perpetuate unhelpful culture is a valid one.”
– Colin Clews, “1984. ‘Pits and Perverts’ Benefit Concert” – May 2013
It’s all very personal. You’re the one in control.
1in4 UK Book Store:
[amazon_link asins='1977009336' template='ProductGrid' store='iam1in4-20' marketplace='US' link_id='ffcb5f04-1297-11e8-8b2c-c721ea9703cc']
Wry humour and irony…
Handling issues like mental illness with wry humour, silliness and irony is not inherently offensive or oppressive.
A colleague asked me why I had been signed off sick for three months, and subject to a phased return to full-time work. I flatly informed him that I had “gone a bit mad” and was not safe to be at work. This made him laugh. But it also made the truth accessible, approachable and not so scary or unreasonable to talk about.
Ultimately the beauty of language and labelling is that you – and only you – get to embrace labels and terms that you find empowering. Maybe like me, you find it useful to identify behaviour as “typically borderline”. Or state that your “OCD is acting up” and such like. Then you should have the power and autonomy to do so without fear of reproach.
Do we need to use politically correct language?
Using politically correct language, sterilised of any hot buzz phrases or potentially oppressive labels seems unnecessary with peers.
Indeed, in discussion with my peers, the use of colloquial language and terms such as “psycho”, “batshit” and “bonkers” facilitates empathy through common experience. It also removes the sting from discussing such painful concepts. The intention of this kind of language use is benign, constructive and facilitates dialogue that might otherwise be avoided, like broccoli on a pizza. Not just that, but can we also acknowledge just how long-winded it would be for peers to communicate in politically correct, technically accurate ways? I couldn’t be bothered, to be honest.
It’s the media
What seems to be more the issue at hand is the use of labels and unhelpful rhetoric in the media. We are all unique in our experiences and all have different views with regard to how we wish to be perceived. This is where the cognitive dissonance comes from. This is where that lexical combat I mentioned earlier tends to take place. Tension is derived from each of us having different expectations of, and reactions to, the way we are represented.
Should the mass media take more care?
In short? Yes. Tabloids should not inaccurately utilise words and phrases that have very particular meanings with intention of grabbing, shocking or entertaining their readers. Television programmes should strive to undertake full and extensive research into topics such as mental illness. And they should ensure depictions of particular conditions or problems are accurate, relatable and approached with empathy. The news should at all times strive for unbiased, factual and well-informed reports based on extensive research and reliable sources.
With tabloids having an average reading age of seven to ten, one study showed that consuming tabloid news is worse for your vocabulary than not reading newspapers at all. And generally with a deeply loyal far-right-wing readership, the tabloid press has ever been guilty of the misrepresentation and sensationalisation of subjects such as mental illness.
Unjust rather than offensive
This is a bigger issue than whether it’s more appropriate to say “a person diagnosed with schizophrenia” versus “a schizophrenic“. There are, speaking quite frankly, bigger fish to fry than that. For example nitpicking over how a healthcare professional handles your illness, linguistically. Or taking offence at bloggers (myself included) throwing around colloquialisms to make their material digestible and relatable. This is not what is going to move us forward.
My view is that the use of irreverent labels, ironic stereotyping and flatly refusing to pander to the easily and senselessly offended is right. However I do acknowledge that the handling of mental health topics in the mass media is a concern.
I disagree that these tasteless lexical choices and sensational misuse of language are offensive. I feel simply that they are unjust, unhelpful and unnecessary. The mass media quite simply shouldn’t be allowed to splash grossly twisted representations of mental illness and associated topics across their pages. It is the role of the news, for example, to examine and present facts. Not, in my opinion, to take information and twist it into a foul, abhorrent scare-mongering tactic.
Is it accurate, relevant and needed?
We return here to the question of intention and context. It is a question of whether information presented is accurate, relevant, informative and needed.
Is it important that a police-officer that shot some school children, happens to be schizophrenic? Of course it is. We’d be foolish and dishonest to suggest it isn’t. To omit that information from the report would be a failure on the journalist’s part. The real question at hand is – does the headline “Psycho-cop slaughters schoolchildren!” accurately and helpfully represent the real focus of the piece? I guarantee the answer to that question is no. It is misrepresentative and misleading on numerous levels. And it is that kind of misinformation and the inspiration of fear that perpetuates stigma. It’s a headline that implores people to grab their pitchforks. And more deeply engrains the idea that illnesses like schizophrenia make people inherently dangerous.
Is it offensive to say that you’re “a schizophrenic”, “a depressive” or “being borderline”? I find my diagnosis empowering and useful. And it is not anybody’s right to claim that I am perpetuating stigma for using it in ways I find helpful and empowering to myself and others. And while providing informative material.
It’s up to you
The short answer is that it’s really up to you. How you claim and put stock into labels about your illness and your world is up to you. Whereas it’s important to acknowledge that others might have strong objections to the way you use language, and that they’re also entitled to their own representation, I do feel it’s important not to get too tangled up in semantics. More productively, I feel we should be turning our unified attention to the way we are more broadly represented outside of our own community.
In conclusion, I’m not sure I agree with the original letter to the BBC claiming that the use of the term “schizophrenic” is offensive and stigmatises people. I see the value of putting a human being ahead of their diagnosis. But I think the notion of rejecting labels all together is unhelpful, petty and a misdirection of our focus.
Reproduced with permission, originally posted on mentalbabble
UNITED STATES
UNITED KINGDOM
