As someone who does a lot of writing about criminal legal issues, I’ve often struggled to determine what kind of rhetoric I should use when describing people who have been caught up in the system. I had read many textbooks and newspapers that mentioned “convicts” and “felons,” and this language always felt harsh and unforgiving to me. While these terms might have spoken to the truth of someone’s legal situation, they also reduced those individuals to that single identity. The more I have learned about the criminal justice system from my studies at Vanderbilt and the more that I have engaged with community advocates, some of whom personally experienced incarceration in the past, the more I have learned about the importance of this consideration.
I have found a partial answer in the use of person-centered language. The University of Minnesota’s Center for Practice Transformation, which considers person-centered language as an important clinical tool for mental health providers, gives a good overview of this topic. They describe person-centered language in its simplest terms as “language that puts people first.” This core idea is centered around the reality that there is much more to people than their mental illness, disability, addiction, or incarceration. Our emphasis should be on the person, rather than their situation. This language can help break down subconscious stigmatization or degradation.
My most immediate connection to person-centered language has been through the lens of incarceration. For example, I have learned from some of our community advocates that there is a group of individuals in Tennessee that have chosen to identify as “insiders” as a way to fight against the systematic language of the state of “inmate” or “prisoner.” Other terms that I have learned are “person experiencing incarceration” or “person who was formerly incarcerated.”
Of course, there might be some individuals who are incarcerated that find this language overly burdensome and ridiculous. I do not want to speak overarchingly for a group of people. I also realize that using this language might not make sense in all settings, especially in certain legal settings where concision is key. My main purpose in writing this is not to say that this is the language that should absolutely be used in all settings. Rather, I would encourage all of us to be conscious about the language we are using and how it can empower or degrade others. I encourage you to think about how language has the possibility to ignore certain realities of an individual’s situation.
Most importantly, if you are unsure about your language, then perhaps you should ask. For example, when I wrote social media posts or event descriptions for the Vanderbilt Prison Project, I would ask for a second opinion. If I was writing a description profiling an organization, I tried to use the same language they preferred to use.
I would also recommend, when you are in a position to respectfully do so, to ask someone how they prefer to describe themselves. One criticism people have with person-centered language is that it doesn’t actually put the person first if we use language that the individual we are speaking with does not personally identify with. For example, Alex Kapitan on the blog the Radical Copy Editor points out that if someone identifies as blind and autistic, it’s not actually helpful to tell them that they are a “person with autism spectrum disorder and blindness.” If you are hesitant about this aspect of person-centered language, I would encourage you to read Kapitan’s blog post “On ‘Person-First Language’: It’s Time to Actually Put the Person First.” Kapitan speaks further on considerations we should all have when using this kind of language.
Language is important because it has the power to transmit differing descriptions of reality, which can have lasting ripple effects. Even if our language isn’t always perfect, it’s better to be thoughtful than negligent.
I have spoken to some degree about my experience with person-centered language as relates to insiders. However, this kind of language has implications far outside the realm of mass incarceration. It’s important in writing and talking about mental illness, substance use problems, intellectual and physical disabilities, and more. For example, Mental Health America recommends using terminology like “people with mental health conditions” as opposed to “the mentally ill,” “crazies,” or “psychos,” and “a person living with Schizophrenia” as opposed to calling someone a “Schizophrenic.” Kathy Snow with Disability is Natural recommends using language like “people with disabilities” as opposed to “the handicapped” or “the disabled,” or saying that someone “has a physical disability” as opposed to calling that person a “cripple” or “crippled.” These are just a few examples. However, I would argue that we all have opportunities to use more thoughtful, person-centered language in our own lives, if we take the time to look for them.
- How Can Human-Centered Design Lead to Greater Social Impact? - January 27, 2021
- How is Transformative Justice Different from Restorative Justice? - December 30, 2020
- Expungement and Sealing: What Are They and Why Should States Expand These Forms of Record Relief? - November 13, 2020