First of all, I did not make a typo. A lot of people, I'm sure, are thinking I meant "first person" instead of "person first," but they are, in fact, two different things. First person speech is a speech pattern we use every day in our writing and in our speech.
"I am ok," is a statement in the first person.
In writing, this is referred to as "first-person narrative" and is commonly used when the writer wants to include him/herself as part of the story. "As I walked out the front door, I felt a sudden chill in the air. This was odd, considering it is a balmy 95°F where I live," is an example of first-person narrative.
However, what I'm talking about here is "person first" language. This is a manner of speaking (mainly in the areas of psychology) where a person HAS a condition or a disorder without actually being the disorder. Sound confusing? This will make it a little easier to follow:
John is an alcoholic.
John is a person with alcoholism.
Which one of the two statements sounds better? Most people see John and are like, "Yep, he's an alcoholic." This is not person first speech. This is the typical manner of speech that is used by everyone because it is shorter, simpler, and let's face it easier to say.
However, saying the second one has the same meaning, but it sounds more sympathetic. You now recognize that John is a person who just happens to have alcoholism. This is person first language. You are acknowledging that John is a person who just happens to have a problem with alcohol.
Why is this important?
Simply put, acknowledging that John is, in fact, a person who just happens to have a problem tends to lend itself to more sympathetic responses. People working in the mental health field use this type of language to help bring value to the person with the condition. They feel they are worth more than just having the condition.
People who look at someone as an alcoholic tend to devalue that person as a human being and attach to them a label that will scrutinize that person for life. John in the example would think of himself as nothing but an alcoholic with no ability to rise above that label. He will drink himself to death because he'll think he can not rise above that. And everyone else in society, does the same thing. They'll look at John and think, "He will be nothing more than an alcoholic." "Alcoholics do nothing but drink their lives away and pick fights."
But the truth is, alcoholism is an actual medical disorder and as such, it is recognized as a condition that a person just happens to have. That person still has value as a human being first, and having the condition second.
Makes sense right?
Now, is person first language preferred in all cases?
No.
For instance, a lot of people who have autism consider their autism as something that makes them unique. Therefore, a lot of autistic people prefer to think of themselves as autistic. This is one of those things where I am kind of on fence about.
See, a person who accepts their condition and the uniqueness that comes with it, also finds acceptance in the flaws that come with it. They find acceptance in the anxiety, the social difficulties, the sensory processing issues, etc that come with it. They fully embrace the good aspects, and accept the bad aspects as part of the condition. However, if there is support and therapy that can help mitigate some of the bad aspects, wouldn't it seem fitting to want to see yourself as a person with autism and then accept the autistic label after the difficult traits have been lessened?
As society tends to still judge a person on their limitations, I feel it would be good to still refer to people in full acceptance of their condition in the person first language. Society tends to look at people with autism as "disabled" or "handicapped" when the opposite is true in a lot of cases. People devalue the worth of someone by labeling them as anything other than a person. By saying something like
I am a person with autism.You show employers, psychologists, and society as a whole that you are a person first with a lot of applicable skills to do the job at hand. You have a personality beyond that of a label. You are a unique individual who just so happens to be autistic. You may have difficulties with social interactions, loud crowded groups, eye contact, etc, but you are more than just that. You are you. You are unique. So, there are definitely reasons to stick with person first speech.
And this type of speech is widely becoming the standard. It is becoming the preferred standard in the mental health community, and I would not be surprised to see it take off everywhere else as well. It is something that I can see the benefits of. We are more than what our labels say we are, and person first language is the perfect way to show the world that.
What are your thoughts? Do you agree or do you disagree? Will you start using person first speech in your day to day communications? Let me know in the comments on social media or even here. Thanks for reading!!
