Label Jars, Not People!
by Judy McCann-Beranger, M.A., CCFE
Not long ago, I bought my husband a thought-provoking T-shirt in support of the local Council for the Disabled. Deep blue in colour with a picture of a large jar and bright yellow lettering, it read 'Label Jars - Not People'. The message struck a nerve in me that has been sensitive for many years: how quickly we are to 'label' our fellow human beings, who, in some fashion, do not fit into the norm.
Labels are commonly applied to a myriad of individuals, family situations and life experiences. For example, there are many labels used to describe families experiencing the separation of a couple, that are, at worst offensive, and at best, certainly not life-giving. Terms such as natural family, normal family, intact family, broken home, the 'ex', custody, access and visitation are not at all helpful to those living through the experience and are destined to create further problems. 'Living with' my mother or father for the weekend conveys a far more positive psychological message of 'belonging' than does 'visitation' with the 'non-custodial' parent. It is disconcerting that the courts' concern to protect the rights of children to financial support and 'access' does not, in language, enhance their rights to grow and be nurtured psychologically.
We are becoming more sensitized than any other generation to be aware of the effect negative labels can have on individuals, families, and communities - whether consciously or unconsciously. In these enlightened times, if a term can be expressed in a less harmful way, then we must strive to do so.
In ignorance, we often put negative labels on people without realizing the impact, until someone speaks out about how these labels affected them. I remember well a lesson I was taught by a grade twelve student a few years back whose father had been 'awarded full custody' of him. His parents had been divorced for several years but continued to argue over his request to spend more time with his mother, the 'non-custodial' parent. This young man had been privy to several stormy exchanges between his parents concerning his 'custody and visitation' patterns with them. During his high school years he listened to his parents argue about who had 'custody' of him and how much 'visitation' he should have with the other parent. One day he came into my office to vent of his frustrations. He told me how he wished that everyone would realize that he did not do anything wrong. 'I am not a prisoner so I don't need to be in custody and I don't want to have visitation with my mother anymore, I just want to live with her sometimes.' Clearly our judicial system should use different terms to describe children of parents who have separated or divorced than it uses to describe prisoners in jail.
The age-old phenomena of kids and teens challenging their parents, schools and other authority figures is often blamed on the fact that they may be from a 'broken' home. Such a belief is simply not borne out in fact, or, as Dr. Atilla Turgay, a renowned child psychiatrist maintains, that over half of all teenagers will present a major challenge to parents regardless of their particular family type. Using terms like 'broken' and 'intact' become part of a greater problem. Many families report that the real 'brokenness' happened before the separation, when things appeared 'intact' as far as the public was concerned. For these families, well-being or true 'intactness' came only when they were living in a healthier family unit as a single parent family.
As a community of concerned and committed family educators, let us do our part be reflecting on our own use of labels; challenging our colleagues to rethink theirs; and educating the community at every opportunity to replace negative labels and terminology with terms that are respectful and non-judgmental.
|
This article was published by Family Service Canada. |
|
|