From: "Toby Bartels" <toby+wikipedia(a)math.ucr.edu>
Alex756 wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
>>Alex756 wrote:
...
If these groups, whatever they are (you mentioned NAMI)
think that they can stop us from being marginalised by
using new terminology, then they are badly mistaken.
This is a good point, but perhaps they can get a few points for
trying.
...
I don't appreciate it when organisations (much
less organisations
that claim to represent my interests) try to change words,
My father was a "service provider," otherwise known as a
psychologist, and he was very distressed when these terms
came in. He told me that he felt that these groups were trying
to create voices for individuals who were not even represented
and did not necessarily agree with the points set forth by these
groups lobbying for social change, however the administrators
of the agency he worked for actually wrote memos to all the
"service providers" about using the correct terminology. They
were forbidden to call their clients by any other term than
consumers! Most of my father's clients were very confused by
the terminology and could not understand what the problem
was as the term "client" did not seem pejorative to them at all.
I'll keep NAMI's opinion in mind; and I hope that you'll keep in mind
/my/ opinion, the opinion of somebody that doesn't want to be referred to
except by terms that literally (or figuratively) actually mean
something that actually applies to me.
I agree with you, actually, and I think that we have demonstrated a problem
that may exist with any so-called official naming policy or a politically
sensitive approach that makes sure that no one is ever allowed to use
a name that someone else might have a problem with. Those who might
yell the loudest and say they represent a group may only represent
a small part of that group. They might even call their decision
making consensus decisionmaking, and it may be so in that group,
but the group in the context of a larger community may be mistaken
about who they represent and what their "policies" are meant to
accomplish. It might be better to have fewer policies and more
dialogue.
Agencies, institutions and groups get "captured" all the time
by forces that may appear to be democratic and egalitarian
in origin, but then turn to represent small minorities that have
some specific agenda. It is important to keep the process of dialogue
open and flexible and to keep any procedures to a minimum
(bet you never thought you would here that from a lawyer)
so that an institution can continue to respond to its developing
community, otherwise it will likely become irrelevant in some
manner (even though it may continue to exist long after it
has become locked into particular behaviour patterns).
Alex756