The photographer and the dying junkie

I'd like to see the research supporting that "Hey, you should stop doing drugs, unless you want to be called a junkie!" is an effective treatment approach.

http://1smootshort.blogspot.com

I've read it and refer to it frequently. I've cited it in the book I'm writing. Good stuff.

I definitely don't think we should ignore drug use or water it down. I don't believe that I ignore drug use, or any of the other ills of society, while I'm discussing them frankly at work every day. I also am a huge advocate of accuracy in describing people and events, just as it seems you are. We don't know that this person was addicted; the story didn't even identify him, let alone ask for statements from people who might have done a diagnostic evaluation for him. If he were an addict, I still think that it's a lot more respectful to refer to him as a man with a heroin addiction. "Junkie" is just not a respectful term. I don't think many of us use the term to describe a spouse or a sibling or a friend. We might dislike their substance abuse, particularly if it's active, but I don't think most of us refer to our loved ones using a slur, and I don't think this person's loved ones would appreciate it.

Regarding slurs, slurs referring to addiction are considered slurs in the disability community. They are discussed frequently in publications about avoiding ableist language. It seems exactly the same to me to call the clients of the substance abuse program upstairs from me "junkies" as it would be for me to call my clients "tards" or "gimps" or "psychos."

http://1smootshort.blogspot.com

...are largely loony. I'm absolutely with you there.

But we've talked about political correctness. I'm not PC. For exactly the reasons you pointed out, like the idea of avoiding saying that something or someone is B/black. I do believe though in being descriptive whenever possible. FWIW, I take issue just as frequently with writing I receive that's written in "proper" professional terminology. I get referrals all the time that make blanket statements about someone's behavior or thoughts, don't tell me what they're basing it on (individual's report, other's report, their impressions based on X), and don't give me any examples. It's not helpful. It's actually less helpful than assessing an individual who is sent without paperwork.

I also find that inaccurate language is inherently disrespectful to the person, because it labels the whole person based on what might not be characteristic. Someone might have been a bad fit for a particular classroom and/or been targeted by other kids, and then they go around with paperwork saying generically they're hyperactive or antisocial. They at least deserve the accuracy of a paper trail that says that a particular teacher described them as hyperactive (not that teachers are licensed to diagnose people, but that's another issue...).

It's actually really disturbing how MUCH people in healthcare will accept random blanket statements without attribution. I mean, if I found that my personnel file at work had a piece of paper, not signed by anyone or dated, saying I had poor leadership skills and didn't show up to work on time, I'd demand to know what on earth was going on. Yet people receiving healthcare often have stuff following them around that's just as poorly documented. And a lot of providers don't question this. WTF?

http://1smootshort.blogspot.com

It is interesting that only the headline directly refers to the men as junkies; the other two junkie references are more abstract, referring to the idea of heroin users at large.

I think the issue here is that there journalistic language and language used in conversation should absolutely be different. Right or wrong, in a casual conversation in one’s home it is his or her prerogative to use pejorative words like junkie, ‘tard, fag, spic, etc. However, one professional code of journalism is to be objective. We can make all the assumptions we want, but the article did not present any information indicating this man used heroin before the day of the photos. We also do not know the circumstances of how he became addicted or how long and how hard he may or may not have struggled to kick this hobbit. It is only through the loaded language of the article that we have a picture of this man as a junkie, when perhaps he was a man earnestly seeking recovery. The fact is we don’t know. Maybe the man is a junkie, but it’s not the journalist’s job to tell us that. The journalist should only lay out the known facts of the man’s addiction (or lack of) and allow the reader to apply his or her own label, right or wrong.

Also, on the topic of negative terms like “black ball, black cat, man in black, black Monday, black sheep” – the professor may be looney, and it may not be some big conspiracy designed to oppress black people, but it is entirely wrong to dismiss how this type of language effects peoples perception of the world around them. What little I know about the Sapir Whorf hypothesis shows scientifically that the way we form our ideas is very closely tied to the way we perceive the words in our language.

It is at the very least interesting to contemplate. Make a list of all the bad things in our culture that are symbolically associated with the word/color/idea of ‘black’ (see above) and then make a list of all the things symbolically associated with white (the white light at the end of the tunnel, the good guy dressed in white, the White House, the ivory tower, angels are usually dressed in white). Then consider that Caucasians are called whites and African Americans are called blacks. Again, I am not saying there is some sort of grand design behind all this, but our culture is constantly reminded through art, literature, and mass media that white = good and black = bad. If these associations are formed at a very young age then it will shape the way a person sees the world. I am not on a campaign to change the way we speak and write, but I do think it is interesting and something to be aware of in the course of discussion and reading.

And if our local newspaper the Herald constantly uses loaded language, it shapes the way Bostonians view their world. I wish they would give us more credit for our intelligence, give us the facts, and let us decide how we see it, not how the editors see it.

(Sorry for the long post.)