Language around Addiction

[buymeaclue]

Hi, folks. I've been thinking very hard for a while about whether and where to say this, but -- can I please put in a request for reconsideration of the language around substance use and misuse in this thread? Most especially of the word "addict?" I know this is super-common language, but it's also stigmatizing. Current best practice is to center language on the person rather than on their behaviors. So we would say, "person who [insert behavior here]" or "person with [ditto]" rather than "addict." There are lots of good resources on the subject online for anyone who is interested.

I hesitated to post directly in the thread because I don't want to add to your suffering, alone1, and because I know that using stigmatizing language is not the intent of anyone posting in the thread. I ultimately decided that it was best to own my request and to make the post here where it can be seen by everyone who might find its content relevant/useful. I'll go ahead and report my own post immediately so the mods can intervene if they feel otherwise.

I am so sorry you're having a hard time, alone1, and I admire your attempts to navigate everything that you have on your plate; I hope it all gets easier for you very soon.

[boutet]

Mod note:

This comment has been moved from a different thread. It is a valid concern to bring up, but it was off-topic and derailing in the thread where it was made.

buymeaclue, I have moved this comment to a new thread in Administrivia. This is the appropriate place to open a discussion with the AdMod team about a rule change. We are now discussing this and we will get back to you as soon as we can. Thank you for your patience.

Mod note end.

[SorchaRei]

((Please note that I am posting here as a user, not as a moderator.))

In many specific disability communities, there are disagreements about person-first language. I am personally acquainted with activists on the ASD spectrum who are adamantly in favor of person-first language and I also know two such activists who just as adamantly prefer to call themselves "austistic people". So I am not inclined to accept the idea that person-first is always best and should be enforced here as a rule.

Sometimes, which type of language is useful varies by context. I myself have disabilities, and I use both kinds of language. With people who are seeing me as disabled-and-nothing-else, I use person-first language because they need to be reminded that I am more than just my disability. In dealing with bureaucrats and gatekeepers, I tend to called myself "disabled" or "a disabled person", because in that situation, I need them to focus on my disability and their responsibility to provide legally mandated accommodations.

My general sense is that when people are talking about themselves, they should be granted the freedom to choose person-first or issue-first language, and anyone who "corrects" them should be told to back off. Additionally, follow-up posters should follow the lead of someone in the way they refer to themself.

I have made these points in the moderators' discussion, but because I have such strong feelings about this issue, I am going to let the rest of the moderation team make the final decision about what to do here.

((Again, I am posting as Sorcha-the-community-member, not Sorcha-the-moderator.))

[Knitting Cat Lady]

Person first language is a rather thorny issue.

I'm autistic. I prefer autistic person to person with autism.

Because being autistic is an intrinsic part of me, that shaped who I am from the very beginning.

The phrasing 'person with autism' separates the autism from me and, frankly, codes it as something negative.

Sure, not being autistic would make life easier. But I wouldn't be me without it.

The blind community and the death community reject person first language.

The autism community is divided about it.

Best practice: Ask how people want to be referred to and follow their lead. Trying to correct them and tell them about the proper use of language is patronizing as hell.


There is no right or wrong way to talk about health and disability issues. Including addiction.

Just like pronouns use what the people directly affected ask you to use.

[DropTable~DropsMic]

In addition to the disability context around person-first language, there is a culture in talking about addiction--at least in 12-step/Alcoholics Anonymous circles, which is what I'm most familiar--of labeling oneself an addict. A big part of this is trying to shape the person's thinking from "this is something I do" (which means I can just decide to drink less next time, right?) to "this is a part of my identity and I have to structure my life around it." I don't have any specific resources on this but in my personal experience a lot of people in that paradigm talk about addiction as something they have to manage for the rest of their lives, like any other chronic condition, rather than something that will get better and they can stop thinking about it.

It's also worth noting that a lot of people have been forced, by the law or family or medical need, into institutions that base their language and paradigms on the 12-step model, so they may use that language regardless of whether they personally subscribe to the ideas behind it.

That said, I think there is a place for person-first language in, for example, trying to combat the dehumanization of people suffering from addiction. There's a huge difference between, for example, a newspaper deciding whether to talk about "homeless addicts" versus "people struggling with addiction who have lost their homes"--and an individual talking about their experiences in a context where it's a given that they and their loved ones will be treated like human beings.